You know, Microsoft didn't invent this multi-touch stuff, and neither did Apple. Its been around as research projects for years. So why is the MS version such a big deal?
Software!
See, the real hard part about all this is the fact that you need to come up with a completely new set of UI conventions and implement a completely new set of applications in order to make it a useable product. Until now with MS, nobody's done that.
From the article, this MPX thing seems to consist of nothing more than a modified X server, running "normal" (i.e., designed for a single cursor) applications. Therefore, it is not nearly as impressive as the MS Surface.
The same thing (taking the "hard" route, getting not-so-great grades) is happening to me too. One thing I hope will be helpful is doing undergrad research and cultivating good relationships with professors. The admissions departement should be willing to overlook my GPA if I have a prof or two clamoring for me to [continue to] do research with them.
One option if you can make the time for the investment is to add either a minor, double-major or emphasis in a non-technology field, especially if you're looking at the IT path.
A double-major in a different technical field works too -- I managed to end up double-majoring in CS and civil engineering (mostly by accident/inertia -- I only really intended to have one major, but I couldn't make up my mind between them!), and although I'm not out of school yet it seems to be working out really well. I think the key is to pick computing and just about anything else (because computing can enhance every field in some way), and fill the niche. The weirder the combination, the less competition you'll have!
You were trying to contrast it with the GPLv2. In other words, you were implying that the GPLv2 did not include the "and still be able to use it" bit. This is not true; the GPLv2 does include that, implicitly.
OK, let's try this another way. If the FSF did intend something different than what is expressed in the language* of the GPL 2, then why didn't they write that into the GPL 2?
Oh come on, are you really asking that? The answer should be rather obvious. It's because they didn't think of it at the time, because the technology to enable the situation (namely, DRM) hadn't been invented yet! RMS may be reasonably good at predicting the future (see The Right to Read), but he's not that good.
If situations arise where the GPL 2 doesn't express the intent of the FSF, then you can no longer talk about some "spirit" being inherent in the GPL 2.
The "spirit" is inherent in the FSF, and is expressed through its writings -- not just the GPL, but also the GNU Manifesto, The Right to Read, and all the other writings on gnu.org. The fact that the "spirit" was imperfectly expressed in the particular document with legal weight (i.e., the GPLv2), although supremely unfortunate, does not diminish the existence of that "spirit" (or, to use a less loaded word, intent).
I'm sorry to see that you must resort to attacks instead of addressing the issue.
I'm not "attacking" you, I'm merely pointing out that you're trying to persuade through duplicitous, rather than logical, means.
Gigabyte N680SLI-DQ6 - A Mother Of A Motherboard : At last! A motherboard with three full-length PCI Express x16 slots! Except it only has two.
Bzzt! Wrong! It does have three full-length (i.e., physically x16) slots. It's just that one of them is electrically x8. So it is full-length, and you can plug an x16 card into it, but it's just slower than the other two slots.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not trying to defend the incompetent editors. But if you're going to complain about other people not getting their facts straight, you damn well ought to get them straight yourself!
2) When you have been using it for only a month, you should keep your mouth shut.
Sorry, that should have been "all summer semester," so it's more like three months.
3) Everything you mention is either poorly informed or an opinion. For example:
Who the fuck do you think you are, to tell me my own actual experience is poorly informed or an opinion?!
Yet, most experts that have done actual tests agree Vista with Glass/Aero enabled only consumes 1-3% more battery than XP. So explain again how much Aero sucks your battery?
It's the summer semester, so I have lectures 70 minutes long. If my computer is fully-charged when class starts, and Aero Glass is turned off, but with WiFi enabled and the display at 100% brightness, I can get through the lecture without getting any power warnings. If, on the other hand, Aero Glass is turned on (and the other settings are the same), Windows tends to hibernate due to lack of battery life just before class ends. So, it may only be a 5% difference (I do think it's more than 3%), but it's the difference between getting through a lecture or not, which is really fucking significant!
Utilizing the GPU for fairly infrequent operations like Aero demands is LESS DEMANDING on a GPU than continually having to redraw application screens using 2D without a composer.
Yeah, that's what I thought before too. But it doesn't seem to be the case with my GMA950.
However, if you are telling the truth of your experience, then you have some serious issue and should check with the MFR, as your results are not typical.
Well, I would do that, except it worked significantly better in XP and Kubuntu...
But I do like it, and I do want to use it! The problem is that I can't use it because it sucks too damn much battery power! It doesn't count as a "feature" when you can't fucking use it, now does it?!
2) Missing or shitting drivers: I have not noticed, nor do I know anyone who has noticed, Vista not supporting hardware that XP supported. Shitty drivers, well, this is a more reasonable concern, but it applies in my experience only to graphics, and then only to people for whom a 5-10% drop in performance (until nVidia get their ass in gear) is a "shitty problem". It's *vastly* better than Linux in this regard.
First of all, the computer in question is a Lenovo Thinkpad X60. It worked perfectly in Windows XP. It even works perfectly in Kubuntu Feisty (although I never tried the fingerprint reader)! But in Vista the (Intel, not nVidia!) video driver has a bug where the resolution switches from 1400x1050 to 1024x768 and back every time I log in after waking the computer from sleep (which makes the system unusable for about 10 seconds while it switches), the hardware volume buttons don't work (which means I can't avoid blaring a loud sound when I wake up my computer in class, if I forgot to mute it during the previous session), and the tablet screen rotation sensor doesn't work (so I have to manually change the screen orientation every time I switch to tablet mode).
3) UAC: You're doing it wrong. I have not seen a UAC prompt that wasn't because I launched an app that required admin priviledges for weeks. Sure, when you're setting up the system, you get them a lot - much like in Linux, where you prefix half the first weeks commands with "sudo". After that, if you're seeing it more than once or twice a week, you need to seriously look at what kinds of software you're running that constantly need "root" access.
That's not what I said! What I'm complaining about is that I tend to get two (slightly different) pop-ups per action! For example, I try to run an installer. First, I get a pop up saying "The publisher could not be verified. Are you sure you want to run this software?" So I click "Run." Then I get another pop up from UAC telling me it can't identify the software, and to cancel or allow. This is what's stupid -- I already answered exactly the same damn question!
And so what if I might need to do things that require root access more often than most people? You do realize that even simple things like changing the display resolution (see the bug I mentioned above) require it, right? Needing root access often is a valid usage pattern, and I wouldn't be complaining if it would only ask me once per task (like OS X does, by the way) instead of multiple times. Of course, something like sudo with its time-out would be even better, but you can't really expect Microsoft to be that clever.
So, in summary: I installed Vista on here for exactly two reasons: the fancy graphics and better handwriting recognition. I can't actually use the fancy graphics unless I want to lug my AC adapter around all the time, so that's moot. The handwriting recongition is better, but not better enough to compensate for the frustration of not having my hardware work properly. UAC and DRM make the whole thing a net negative. Period. And that's not FUD, that's my real experience!
Ideally, I'd run Kubuntu on here. Unfortunately, Linux doesn't have any workable equivalent to the Tablet Input Panel, Windows Journal, or OneNote, so I can't. Therefore, XP's getting reloaded as soon as I have a chance.
In modern western societies, laws are not based on morality. They're based on the protection of rights, which themselves are a virtue of one's existence.
No, good laws are based on the protection of rights. Bad laws are often based on morality, e.g. ones prohibiting sex in positions other than the missionary position, etc. Laws as a whole tend to be based on protecting rights, morality, and a whole host of other concerns.
Why are the good points about Vista never mentioned on Slashdot?
Because there aren't any. Seriously. I've been using Vista (Business) all summer; I should know. Yes, it has fancy GPU-accelerated graphics. But they don't do me any good because they suck my battery life (it's the difference between lasting through a lecture worth of note-taking in OneNote, or not). Yes, it has better support for Tablet PCs... but only ever so slightly better. Other than that, the only differences I notice between it and XP are all negative: shitty or missing drivers, annoying bugs, infuriating UAC (if it asked me to confirm an action once, it'd be okay. But it often asks me twice: once by the app, and once by the OS). It's so bad that -- even though Tablet PC users should have the most improved experience in Vista of any group -- I'm switching either back to XP or to Ubuntu once the semester is over.
No, I'm not talking about the intent of the FSF here at all. I'm talking about actual things. The two licenses are very different.
No, you do talk about the intent of the FSF. Specifically, you imply that the intent of the FSF with GPLv2 matched the letter of it, in order to lend weight to your argument that v2 and v3 of the license are different in intent. In fact, the intent of the GPLv2 did not match the letter of it, but that same intent does match the GPLv3 (at least, to the best of the FSF's lawyers' ability). This can be proven by reading the rationale given in the various articles on gnu.org.
Besides, it'd be stupid to claim you're only arguing that v2 and v3 differ in letter; everybody knows that. You can tell just by running them through diff, for crying out loud! So, if one assumes you're not stupid, then it logically follows that you're arguing about intent.
Furthermore, proof that you're arguing over intent (or, equivalently, "spirit") is in your own statements. For example:
If you believe that Linus is against the GPL or (even worse) against "the spirit of the GPL", you're swallowing a load of bullshit.
So, in summary:
You have an opinion on the merits of the intent of the FSF, which you are trying to advocate. (This, by itself, would be fine.)
You are conflating the intent and letter of the licenses, apparently intentionally.
You are using the resulting ambiguity to unfairly disparage other people's arguments concerning the FSF's actual intent and further your own.
In other words, you're being disingenuous and annoying. Moreover, the tactic isn't working. So stop it already!
In a world increasingly reliant on software for everything from communication to banking to voting, you know what... it is! Or if it isn't, it soon will be.
Here's a thought experiment for you: could the Matrix exist as a means of control if it were built on GPLv3 software?
Extending a software license to limit hardware manufacturers is ridiculous.
Please explain how the GPLv3 limits hardware manufacturers!
I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. Moreover, it can't! Hardware manufacturers are still free to put whatever chips they want -- including ones that enable Treacherous Computing -- in their products that use GPLv3 software. All they have to do is disclose the key to the end-user, and even then only if the hardware actually uses the key to limit what software was allowed to run on the device.
that Bitkeeper was only a problem if you are mainly concerned with "Freedom".
No, Bitkeeper was a problem because it had the possibility of becoming costly to use, which eventually came true. From a purely practical perspective, you can't be requiring volunteers to incur costs just for the "privilage" of contributing their work for free! This situation, and myriad others like it, are real, practical risks with proprietary software, which decrease its utility compared to Free Software regardless of your particular ideology.
Wrong:= alternative actions other than the one defined as "right"
It may not be a definition you agree with, but it is a valid one. Besides, combined with a "big picture" understanding of your role in society and appreciation of concept of the Golden Rule (which, although described in the Bible, is not itself a religious concept), the decisions that result are nearly indistinguishable from those derived from religious indoctrination.
Some users should not be free to design hardware if their designs limit the very small amount of people that want to repurpose or modify the hardware.
Nice strawman there. But what you refuse to acknowledge is that disallowing DRM -- and the GPLv3 doesn't even do that -- does not limit the hardware designers in any way! DRM, by its nature, is an artificial restriction. Prohibiting an artificial restriction is not itself a restriction, because the designers are still free to enable whatever functionality they want. Or, said another way, there is nothing can accomplish with GPL-violating DRM that it can't accomplish without.
It's not about injecting morals, it's about FREEDOM FOR SOFTWARE.
No, it's about freedom for USERS of software. A small difference, yet it's the crux of the argument. "Freedom for software" describes the BSD license better than it does the GPL, and would allow things like TiVo.
However, I never thought Tivo was all that evil. You *could* after all, take their code and use it on your own hardware.
Not if "your own hardware" happened to be a TiVo! And that's the problem.
Remember the origin of the GPL: RMS was disallowed from fixing his existing printer. Not some other model of printer that he could have bought to replace it, and not a driver-compatible copy of it he could have built himself, but the existing printer that he already owned. After that bad experience, he created the GPL with the goal that users would never again be held hostage by the manufacturer of their equipment, unable to fix the hardware that they already owned.
Now, back then, the issue was simply not having the source code, so that's what the GPL addressed. Now the issue is also DRM. But that's no difference; the overall goal -- allowing the user to fix his own existing hardware -- hasn't changed!
Now do you see why TiVo's actions were considered to be a problem?
...it is more about DRM and stuff like that than what was the case with GPL 2.
Not really. The GPLv3 merely states that which the GPLv2 left implicit (and thus legally unenforcable); namely, that the user is supposed to be able to actually use the modified code on his device.
...the GPLv3 "ensures that any software you use under it, you can obtain the source code for and you can modify and still be able to use it". That's the whole point.
No, the whole point is that the GPLv2 tried to say that too, but didn't manage to do so in a legally-rigorous enough way.
TiVo is legally within the framework of the GPL 2. Fine. But you talk about it as if the GPL 3 was some kind of 180-degree change in the intention of the FSF, which isn't true. If you read things like the GNU Manifesto -- the documents that detail the intent behind the GPL (all versions) -- you'll see that the FSFs goal is, and always was, to empower the user. By that standard, the aspects of the GPL 2 that allowed TiVo to do what it did were indeed flaws, and what TiVo did was indeed am end-run! And, indeed, the GPL 3 does no more and no less than fix the bug to eliminate the loophole. Do you understand now?
Slashdot Mirror
You know, Microsoft didn't invent this multi-touch stuff, and neither did Apple. Its been around as research projects for years. So why is the MS version such a big deal?
Software!
See, the real hard part about all this is the fact that you need to come up with a completely new set of UI conventions and implement a completely new set of applications in order to make it a useable product. Until now with MS, nobody's done that.
From the article, this MPX thing seems to consist of nothing more than a modified X server, running "normal" (i.e., designed for a single cursor) applications. Therefore, it is not nearly as impressive as the MS Surface.
The same thing (taking the "hard" route, getting not-so-great grades) is happening to me too. One thing I hope will be helpful is doing undergrad research and cultivating good relationships with professors. The admissions departement should be willing to overlook my GPA if I have a prof or two clamoring for me to [continue to] do research with them.
A double-major in a different technical field works too -- I managed to end up double-majoring in CS and civil engineering (mostly by accident/inertia -- I only really intended to have one major, but I couldn't make up my mind between them!), and although I'm not out of school yet it seems to be working out really well. I think the key is to pick computing and just about anything else (because computing can enhance every field in some way), and fill the niche. The weirder the combination, the less competition you'll have!
You were trying to contrast it with the GPLv2. In other words, you were implying that the GPLv2 did not include the "and still be able to use it" bit. This is not true; the GPLv2 does include that, implicitly.
Oh come on, are you really asking that? The answer should be rather obvious. It's because they didn't think of it at the time, because the technology to enable the situation (namely, DRM) hadn't been invented yet! RMS may be reasonably good at predicting the future (see The Right to Read), but he's not that good.
The "spirit" is inherent in the FSF, and is expressed through its writings -- not just the GPL, but also the GNU Manifesto, The Right to Read, and all the other writings on gnu.org. The fact that the "spirit" was imperfectly expressed in the particular document with legal weight (i.e., the GPLv2), although supremely unfortunate, does not diminish the existence of that "spirit" (or, to use a less loaded word, intent).
I'm not "attacking" you, I'm merely pointing out that you're trying to persuade through duplicitous, rather than logical, means.
Bzzt! Wrong! It does have three full-length (i.e., physically x16) slots. It's just that one of them is electrically x8. So it is full-length, and you can plug an x16 card into it, but it's just slower than the other two slots.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not trying to defend the incompetent editors. But if you're going to complain about other people not getting their facts straight, you damn well ought to get them straight yourself!
Sorry, that should have been "all summer semester," so it's more like three months.
Who the fuck do you think you are, to tell me my own actual experience is poorly informed or an opinion?!
It's the summer semester, so I have lectures 70 minutes long. If my computer is fully-charged when class starts, and Aero Glass is turned off, but with WiFi enabled and the display at 100% brightness, I can get through the lecture without getting any power warnings. If, on the other hand, Aero Glass is turned on (and the other settings are the same), Windows tends to hibernate due to lack of battery life just before class ends. So, it may only be a 5% difference (I do think it's more than 3%), but it's the difference between getting through a lecture or not, which is really fucking significant!
Yeah, that's what I thought before too. But it doesn't seem to be the case with my GMA950.
Well, I would do that, except it worked significantly better in XP and Kubuntu...
But I do like it, and I do want to use it! The problem is that I can't use it because it sucks too damn much battery power! It doesn't count as a "feature" when you can't fucking use it, now does it?!
First of all, the computer in question is a Lenovo Thinkpad X60. It worked perfectly in Windows XP. It even works perfectly in Kubuntu Feisty (although I never tried the fingerprint reader)! But in Vista the (Intel, not nVidia!) video driver has a bug where the resolution switches from 1400x1050 to 1024x768 and back every time I log in after waking the computer from sleep (which makes the system unusable for about 10 seconds while it switches), the hardware volume buttons don't work (which means I can't avoid blaring a loud sound when I wake up my computer in class, if I forgot to mute it during the previous session), and the tablet screen rotation sensor doesn't work (so I have to manually change the screen orientation every time I switch to tablet mode).
That's not what I said! What I'm complaining about is that I tend to get two (slightly different) pop-ups per action! For example, I try to run an installer. First, I get a pop up saying "The publisher could not be verified. Are you sure you want to run this software?" So I click "Run." Then I get another pop up from UAC telling me it can't identify the software, and to cancel or allow. This is what's stupid -- I already answered exactly the same damn question!
And so what if I might need to do things that require root access more often than most people? You do realize that even simple things like changing the display resolution (see the bug I mentioned above) require it, right? Needing root access often is a valid usage pattern, and I wouldn't be complaining if it would only ask me once per task (like OS X does, by the way) instead of multiple times. Of course, something like sudo with its time-out would be even better, but you can't really expect Microsoft to be that clever.
So, in summary: I installed Vista on here for exactly two reasons: the fancy graphics and better handwriting recognition. I can't actually use the fancy graphics unless I want to lug my AC adapter around all the time, so that's moot. The handwriting recongition is better, but not better enough to compensate for the frustration of not having my hardware work properly. UAC and DRM make the whole thing a net negative. Period. And that's not FUD, that's my real experience!
Ideally, I'd run Kubuntu on here. Unfortunately, Linux doesn't have any workable equivalent to the Tablet Input Panel, Windows Journal, or OneNote, so I can't. Therefore, XP's getting reloaded as soon as I have a chance.
No, good laws are based on the protection of rights. Bad laws are often based on morality, e.g. ones prohibiting sex in positions other than the missionary position, etc. Laws as a whole tend to be based on protecting rights, morality, and a whole host of other concerns.
Because there aren't any. Seriously. I've been using Vista (Business) all summer; I should know. Yes, it has fancy GPU-accelerated graphics. But they don't do me any good because they suck my battery life (it's the difference between lasting through a lecture worth of note-taking in OneNote, or not). Yes, it has better support for Tablet PCs... but only ever so slightly better. Other than that, the only differences I notice between it and XP are all negative: shitty or missing drivers, annoying bugs, infuriating UAC (if it asked me to confirm an action once, it'd be okay. But it often asks me twice: once by the app, and once by the OS). It's so bad that -- even though Tablet PC users should have the most improved experience in Vista of any group -- I'm switching either back to XP or to Ubuntu once the semester is over.
No, you do talk about the intent of the FSF. Specifically, you imply that the intent of the FSF with GPLv2 matched the letter of it, in order to lend weight to your argument that v2 and v3 of the license are different in intent. In fact, the intent of the GPLv2 did not match the letter of it, but that same intent does match the GPLv3 (at least, to the best of the FSF's lawyers' ability). This can be proven by reading the rationale given in the various articles on gnu.org.
Besides, it'd be stupid to claim you're only arguing that v2 and v3 differ in letter; everybody knows that. You can tell just by running them through diff, for crying out loud! So, if one assumes you're not stupid, then it logically follows that you're arguing about intent.
Furthermore, proof that you're arguing over intent (or, equivalently, "spirit") is in your own statements. For example:
So, in summary:
In other words, you're being disingenuous and annoying. Moreover, the tactic isn't working. So stop it already!
In a world increasingly reliant on software for everything from communication to banking to voting, you know what... it is! Or if it isn't, it soon will be.
Here's a thought experiment for you: could the Matrix exist as a means of control if it were built on GPLv3 software?
Thanks; you just made me a new sig!
(However, if you want to use it instead, I'll be happy to put back my old one: "DRM 'manages access' in the same way that jail 'manages freedom.'")
Please explain how the GPLv3 limits hardware manufacturers!
I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. Moreover, it can't! Hardware manufacturers are still free to put whatever chips they want -- including ones that enable Treacherous Computing -- in their products that use GPLv3 software. All they have to do is disclose the key to the end-user, and even then only if the hardware actually uses the key to limit what software was allowed to run on the device.
No, Bitkeeper was a problem because it had the possibility of becoming costly to use, which eventually came true. From a purely practical perspective, you can't be requiring volunteers to incur costs just for the "privilage" of contributing their work for free! This situation, and myriad others like it, are real, practical risks with proprietary software, which decrease its utility compared to Free Software regardless of your particular ideology.
It may not be a definition you agree with, but it is a valid one. Besides, combined with a "big picture" understanding of your role in society and appreciation of concept of the Golden Rule (which, although described in the Bible, is not itself a religious concept), the decisions that result are nearly indistinguishable from those derived from religious indoctrination.
Go ask a lawyer to explain "perjury" to you, because you obviously have no fucking clue what your rights are (or more to the point, aren't).
Nice strawman there. But what you refuse to acknowledge is that disallowing DRM -- and the GPLv3 doesn't even do that -- does not limit the hardware designers in any way! DRM, by its nature, is an artificial restriction. Prohibiting an artificial restriction is not itself a restriction, because the designers are still free to enable whatever functionality they want. Or, said another way, there is nothing can accomplish with GPL-violating DRM that it can't accomplish without.
No, it's about freedom for USERS of software. A small difference, yet it's the crux of the argument. "Freedom for software" describes the BSD license better than it does the GPL, and would allow things like TiVo.
Not if "your own hardware" happened to be a TiVo! And that's the problem.
Remember the origin of the GPL: RMS was disallowed from fixing his existing printer. Not some other model of printer that he could have bought to replace it, and not a driver-compatible copy of it he could have built himself, but the existing printer that he already owned. After that bad experience, he created the GPL with the goal that users would never again be held hostage by the manufacturer of their equipment, unable to fix the hardware that they already owned.
Now, back then, the issue was simply not having the source code, so that's what the GPL addressed. Now the issue is also DRM. But that's no difference; the overall goal -- allowing the user to fix his own existing hardware -- hasn't changed!
Now do you see why TiVo's actions were considered to be a problem?
Not really. The GPLv3 merely states that which the GPLv2 left implicit (and thus legally unenforcable); namely, that the user is supposed to be able to actually use the modified code on his device.
That's because Apple isn't on a "quest to defeat [Microsoft]!"
No, the whole point is that the GPLv2 tried to say that too, but didn't manage to do so in a legally-rigorous enough way.
TiVo is legally within the framework of the GPL 2. Fine. But you talk about it as if the GPL 3 was some kind of 180-degree change in the intention of the FSF, which isn't true. If you read things like the GNU Manifesto -- the documents that detail the intent behind the GPL (all versions) -- you'll see that the FSFs goal is, and always was, to empower the user. By that standard, the aspects of the GPL 2 that allowed TiVo to do what it did were indeed flaws, and what TiVo did was indeed am end-run! And, indeed, the GPL 3 does no more and no less than fix the bug to eliminate the loophole. Do you understand now?