1. Microsoft is ridiculed and taken to court for being monopolistic (many times over) and in effect, allowing them to make crap everyone has to use. 2. Microsoft bashes Linux security. 3. Microsoft proclaims it's new dedication to security. 4. Microsoft creates a web based API platform. 5. This platform is easy to implement in Linux. 6. Microsoft programs can run in Linux and any other OS. 7. OS's become a shell for running Microsoft's new, "much more secure" web based platform. 8. Hey, you can run any operating system and Microsoft will still be the center of the software universe.
I think the problem here is that it's difficult to give short comments the correct tone to be interpreted correctly. Maybe next time I should append to the beginning of the comment "TheRain laughs in prethought,", or "TheRain proclaims quite seriously without knowing what the hell is going on,". Then people would know if I was being an idiot or making a joke.
Or maybe I should just pre-moderate myself...:) "Warning, the following comment is Score: 5, Funny"
what's even more ironic is the fact that I added "I mean I've known people who are infactuated with Linux but...." just to make the point of the joke clearer to those who would not pick up on it.
I feel a bit stupid even replying to this comment... but for the benefit of this person and others like this person... consider that this is less than the cost of most GBA games. Now consider that many GBA games are not very fun to play without it. I've had my GBA since they came out and it has seen much less use than it would have if it came with an internally lit screen. In light of that (no pun intended) buying this, for me, would increase the fun value of my GBA quite a bit and I think this MOD is worth every penny. In fact I could see myself paying $50 for it and not looking back.
Sounds like some cellular company feels threatened by the thought of small wireless networks springing up all over the place. It seems to me that there is no real advantage to having cellular capability built into the processor than having the card except that it would cause people to choose it over wireless networking. Having it in a card provides the same functionality.
Reference books on any technology (library, language, OS) are great. I could read through an entire reference without getting tired. Reference books with tutorials are even better.
Reading through technical information attempting to be a novel or something is painful. It's too difficult to see the seperation of topics and associate them.
Books by experts are good too. I'm much more apt to want to read through a book I know is by a knowledgable person (like Bjarne Stroustrup) than like a "In 21 days" book written by some dedicated author. Even though they are usually more difficult to understand, I will want to read through it and work to understand it more... and I know I will gain more from it.
If some meteor hits the earth, and Linux really does become the desktop of ubiquity, something will be lost.
The geek qualities of linux will never be lost as long as there are alternative distributions. As long as someone wants Linux to be a geek toy- it will be. use Debian.
"If you don't like the way Linus does things, there are other operating systems out there that might be more your style. BeOS, FreeBSD, AtheOS, etc."
But there are a billion third party additions and applications that make up what linux is to the user. Linux is the central OS for Free Software and Open Source software. Linus may have started it, but there is so much built on it by others... why should he have the sole decision? If there really is a problem and the viability of Linux for use by the general population is threatened by it, I say a code fork would not be a bad thing if it came down to it. I think that most would like to avoid it, but it could be the best if there is a problem that threatens Linux's future. Creating a system like CVS only suited for the large-scale application of the Linux kernel may offer a solution without resorting to a code fork.
That's true, and that makes sense. However, consider Microsoft making another version of Windows. Sure, now we have another Windows we can use.... but there are factors other than the availability of a new product or piece of software that affect the amount of "choice" we really have. Microsoft affects user's choice by brute force. It's not just Microsoft though... it's a common practice in the software industry. So who's to say whether this Lindows company will provide us more "choice"? In the end, they are. Also consider that Microsoft can easily break Lindows compatibility with later versions of Office and what not. They have the upper hand in that battle (bar the U.S. government's hand in the matter). I'm not saying this will not be a good thing.... just stating some thoughts, and I welcome your thoughts/counterthoughts.
when I compile your comment I get the following errors:
Line 3; undertermined character constant
Line 8; I_realize_Napster_is_not_equivalent_to_Fair_Use.h: no such file
You see OOP is not a solution to an engineering problem- it is a solution to a people problem. It helps people to see and design solutions more efficiently. People have trouble seeing a link between the technical and the practical problem at hand. OOP helps people bridge the gap in their mind so that they can model a solution to a problem in a more understandable "natural" way. You could argue that this is a cop out.... that people should overcome the blocks in their mind between the technical and abstract to the practical, physical problem... but the truth is, people have limitations..... companies have deadlines... and not many people are intelligent enough to overcome these boundaries without significant cost.
why is this flamebait? all this person is saying is that object orientation could make the code easier to manage and, thus, help to reduce redundancy. it's a good statement, modularize your code and it becomes more reusable... and therefore less redundant. who cares if he likes java over perl and CGI.
"I am not optimistic, however. Those who get it (e.g., you) are pathetically apolitical. You're proud of your apathy. You're disgusted with people who try to persuade politicians. So am I. But while you do nothing, the future of creativity and innovation is sold in DC - typically to the highest, and most disgusting bidder."
he caused me to think and want to alter my behavior! DRAT!
I think you've got my analogy switched around. KaZaa is the one soliciting "hiring" a user base. The user base are the hit men.... KaZaa has made an environment for trading music and they know that it will be used for illegal purposes. They also know that they will have more users if they can transfer music illegally.. that's what these people want to do. How many people do you know using software like this for legal legitimate purposes? If you're like me and you lived on a college campus for a period of time, you can see the ratio.
"Unlike Napster, I don't recall any memos showing up from KaZaa saying anything like "We're having trouble making money -- lets market our service to pirates a little more"."
The concept of the software is inherantly marketed towards pirating. The fact that Napster wanted to market to pirates even more doesn't mean they weren't already marketing to pirates, much less that KaZaa has not been marketing to them all along.
"And, normally, the law punishes the guilty (copyright violators) and upholds the rights of the innocent (the people building the infrastructure who never broke the law doing it)."
except that, in this case, these people aren't building roads and sidewalks with the intent of making transportation easier... they are purposefully enabling users to engage in illegal activity. while the software has legal uses... more people will use it for illegal file transfer, and the company knows this. that was their intent. if you hired a hit man to kill your spouse who had lots of money that was willed to you... you would be doing something illegal. even though the end product you wanted was money and not a dead spouse. you knew the spouse would die. in the same way, users are paid with illegal files to transfer illegal files to gain the company a user base..... which is an oppurtunity for them. Then they tell autorities it's not their fault, it's the user base... and the majority of the user base rallies in their favor. does that sound stupid enough for you?
"It's a piece of code that you write to go do something bad, and now the availability of those sort of things is very widespread. People have computers in their homes, connected to DSL and cable modems, so the cost of the ability to do damage is down.
I see! Maybe this is where Microsoft's idea that security is made by the ignorance of the public comes from. So they want to suppress the knowledge of security holes in order to make their software "more secure". But the larger issue (obviously) is that the people want to know. We want to know about and understand these holes so we can learn from them. The only people who are afraid of letting this knowledge out are those who fear they couldn't understand it so other "bad" people would have the upper hand... and companies who want to hide and control all advanced knowledge of their products in order to maintain lower costs to them.
I think it's just smart public relations. They make it look like they are afraid of Linux taking their user base and they seem less monopolistic. Microsoft has nothing to fear from other companies... the only real threat is public opinion.
that's all I can say. there is something very wrong with this. the fact that it's being dealt with so harshly and so suddenly. it seems to be a trend in america recently.
That's sort of an off-topic comparison... but at the same time I dissagree. People chose to vote for the man when they (most likely) knew what he had done. In that case, I think it was the people's choice that was at fault...not the law. But all in all, this is off topic because Microsoft does not get to choose it's own destiny... it gets to propose settlements which can be turned down or changed.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Microsoft is ridiculed and taken to court for being monopolistic (many times over) and in effect, allowing them to make crap everyone has to use.
2. Microsoft bashes Linux security.
3. Microsoft proclaims it's new dedication to security.
4. Microsoft creates a web based API platform.
5. This platform is easy to implement in Linux.
6. Microsoft programs can run in Linux and any other OS.
7. OS's become a shell for running Microsoft's new, "much more secure" web based platform.
8. Hey, you can run any operating system and Microsoft will still be the center of the software universe.
Great, so how long untill I get an anti-matter engine in my car? I'd like one gram of hydrogen and one gram of anti-hydrogen please! Fill 're up!
I think the problem here is that it's difficult to give short comments the correct tone to be interpreted correctly. Maybe next time I should append to the beginning of the comment "TheRain laughs in prethought,", or "TheRain proclaims quite seriously without knowing what the hell is going on,". Then people would know if I was being an idiot or making a joke.
:)
Or maybe I should just pre-moderate myself...
"Warning, the following comment is Score: 5, Funny"
what's even more ironic is the fact that I added
"I mean I've known people who are infactuated with Linux but...."
just to make the point of the joke clearer to those who would not pick up on it.
I put a big condom over mine!
... and then what do you use it for?
I mean I've known people who are infactuated with Linux but....
I feel a bit stupid even replying to this comment... but for the benefit of this person and others like this person... consider that this is less than the cost of most GBA games. Now consider that many GBA games are not very fun to play without it. I've had my GBA since they came out and it has seen much less use than it would have if it came with an internally lit screen. In light of that (no pun intended) buying this, for me, would increase the fun value of my GBA quite a bit and I think this MOD is worth every penny. In fact I could see myself paying $50 for it and not looking back.
Sounds like some cellular company feels threatened by the thought of small wireless networks springing up all over the place. It seems to me that there is no real advantage to having cellular capability built into the processor than having the card except that it would cause people to choose it over wireless networking. Having it in a card provides the same functionality.
If the service is cheap, though, why not?
Reference books on any technology (library, language, OS) are great. I could read through an entire reference without getting tired. Reference books with tutorials are even better.
Reading through technical information attempting to be a novel or something is painful. It's too difficult to see the seperation of topics and associate them.
Books by experts are good too. I'm much more apt to want to read through a book I know is by a knowledgable person (like Bjarne Stroustrup) than like a "In 21 days" book written by some dedicated author. Even though they are usually more difficult to understand, I will want to read through it and work to understand it more... and I know I will gain more from it.
That's kind of bordering on trollness...
If some meteor hits the earth, and Linux really does become the desktop of ubiquity, something will be lost.
The geek qualities of linux will never be lost as long as there are alternative distributions. As long as someone wants Linux to be a geek toy- it will be. use Debian.
Besides making everyone seem like James Bond, a ring-phone would give new meaning to the phrase 'Talk to the hand.'"
that was a really lame joke. I'm sorry I repeated it.
thank you.
"If you don't like the way Linus does things, there are other operating systems out there that might be more your style. BeOS, FreeBSD, AtheOS, etc."
But there are a billion third party additions and applications that make up what linux is to the user. Linux is the central OS for Free Software and Open Source software. Linus may have started it, but there is so much built on it by others... why should he have the sole decision? If there really is a problem and the viability of Linux for use by the general population is threatened by it, I say a code fork would not be a bad thing if it came down to it. I think that most would like to avoid it, but it could be the best if there is a problem that threatens Linux's future. Creating a system like CVS only suited for the large-scale application of the Linux kernel may offer a solution without resorting to a code fork.
I don't think many U.S. companies do that anymore. maybe in the early/mid 90's they did.
"More choice is always better than less."
That's true, and that makes sense. However, consider Microsoft making another version of Windows. Sure, now we have another Windows we can use.... but there are factors other than the availability of a new product or piece of software that affect the amount of "choice" we really have. Microsoft affects user's choice by brute force. It's not just Microsoft though... it's a common practice in the software industry. So who's to say whether this Lindows company will provide us more "choice"? In the end, they are. Also consider that Microsoft can easily break Lindows compatibility with later versions of Office and what not. They have the upper hand in that battle (bar the U.S. government's hand in the matter). I'm not saying this will not be a good thing.... just stating some thoughts, and I welcome your thoughts/counterthoughts.
when I compile your comment I get the following errors:: no such file
Line 3; undertermined character constant
Line 8; I_realize_Napster_is_not_equivalent_to_Fair_Use.h
can you help me?
You see OOP is not a solution to an engineering problem- it is a solution to a people problem. It helps people to see and design solutions more efficiently. People have trouble seeing a link between the technical and the practical problem at hand. OOP helps people bridge the gap in their mind so that they can model a solution to a problem in a more understandable "natural" way. You could argue that this is a cop out.... that people should overcome the blocks in their mind between the technical and abstract to the practical, physical problem... but the truth is, people have limitations..... companies have deadlines... and not many people are intelligent enough to overcome these boundaries without significant cost.
why is this flamebait? all this person is saying is that object orientation could make the code easier to manage and, thus, help to reduce redundancy. it's a good statement, modularize your code and it becomes more reusable... and therefore less redundant. who cares if he likes java over perl and CGI.
"I am not optimistic, however. Those who get it (e.g., you) are pathetically apolitical. You're proud of your apathy. You're disgusted with people who try to persuade politicians. So am I. But while you do nothing, the future of creativity and innovation is sold in DC - typically to the highest, and most disgusting bidder."
he caused me to think and want to alter my behavior! DRAT!
:)
I think you've got my analogy switched around. KaZaa is the one soliciting "hiring" a user base. The user base are the hit men.... KaZaa has made an environment for trading music and they know that it will be used for illegal purposes. They also know that they will have more users if they can transfer music illegally.. that's what these people want to do. How many people do you know using software like this for legal legitimate purposes? If you're like me and you lived on a college campus for a period of time, you can see the ratio.
"Unlike Napster, I don't recall any memos showing up from KaZaa saying anything like "We're having trouble making money -- lets market our service to pirates a little more"."
The concept of the software is inherantly marketed towards pirating. The fact that Napster wanted to market to pirates even more doesn't mean they weren't already marketing to pirates, much less that KaZaa has not been marketing to them all along.
"And, normally, the law punishes the guilty (copyright violators) and upholds the rights of the innocent (the people building the infrastructure who never broke the law doing it)."
except that, in this case, these people aren't building roads and sidewalks with the intent of making transportation easier... they are purposefully enabling users to engage in illegal activity. while the software has legal uses... more people will use it for illegal file transfer, and the company knows this. that was their intent. if you hired a hit man to kill your spouse who had lots of money that was willed to you... you would be doing something illegal. even though the end product you wanted was money and not a dead spouse. you knew the spouse would die. in the same way, users are paid with illegal files to transfer illegal files to gain the company a user base..... which is an oppurtunity for them. Then they tell autorities it's not their fault, it's the user base... and the majority of the user base rallies in their favor. does that sound stupid enough for you?
"It's a piece of code that you write to go do something bad, and now the availability of those sort of things is very widespread. People have computers in their homes, connected to DSL and cable modems, so the cost of the ability to do damage is down.
I see! Maybe this is where Microsoft's idea that security is made by the ignorance of the public comes from. So they want to suppress the knowledge of security holes in order to make their software "more secure". But the larger issue (obviously) is that the people want to know. We want to know about and understand these holes so we can learn from them. The only people who are afraid of letting this knowledge out are those who fear they couldn't understand it so other "bad" people would have the upper hand... and companies who want to hide and control all advanced knowledge of their products in order to maintain lower costs to them.
I think it's just smart public relations. They make it look like they are afraid of Linux taking their user base and they seem less monopolistic. Microsoft has nothing to fear from other companies... the only real threat is public opinion.
that's all I can say. there is something very wrong with this. the fact that it's being dealt with so harshly and so suddenly. it seems to be a trend in america recently.
That's sort of an off-topic comparison... but at the same time I dissagree. People chose to vote for the man when they (most likely) knew what he had done. In that case, I think it was the people's choice that was at fault...not the law. But all in all, this is off topic because Microsoft does not get to choose it's own destiny... it gets to propose settlements which can be turned down or changed.
mod parent up plz...
it is to people who think it is.