That tends to become more of a problem after the stupid people reach adulthood, which is why they should be given the chance to off themselves as children.
All the new processors from AMD and Intel (and IBM, for that matter) are 64-bit. Therefore, if you get a new PC, you have no choice but to get a 64-bit processor in it. And since they're all backwards-compatible to 32-bit, there's no downside.
The only relevant issue here is whether you want to run 64-bit or 32-bit software on it.
The only thing that upsets me about Windows including antivirus (or anti-malware-in-general) tools is that Microsoft ought to be spending its time fixing the damn underlying problems instead of selling band-aids at extra cost. I mean, Microsoft inflicted the wound in the first place!
Okay, so there was a reason to make RPM back in 1994. But is there still a reason to keep it now? If not, then it should be retired just like all the other software that was good at the time but has been surpassed.
I mean, you don't still use TWM and NCSA Mosaic, do you? Well, then why would you use RPM either?
So are you saying that it should be illegal for any artist to earn any money ever?
How the Hell did you manage to imagine I said that? Quit the LSD, buddy!
The original post said copyright shouldn't exist. You replied, questioning how people could make a living out of creating art -- a statement which implies that having the ability to a living out of creating art is somehow necessary. I was just pointing out that it's not actually necessary, which is not the same thing as saying that it should be prohibited!
Or do you think all "full-time professional artists" are subsidised by the government?
What else did you think copyright was?! It is, in fact, a kind of subsidy because it makes it economically feasable to make a living out of creating art whereas it otherwise might not be.
All I suggest is removing the subisdy, and if the person can still make a living without creating real (i.e., physical) economic wealth, more power to him.
So it would seem unjust for a writer, say, to be unable to earn any money simply because their works can be easily copied so that no-one has to pay them to enjoy their work.
The real world isn't fair. Deal with it!
(In other words, the solution to that "problem" is for the writer to do something else to make money instead. If that results in less writing, so be it.)
Frankly, that's bullshit. Managing filesystems is one of the core responsibilities of an OS, and that includes creating and using disk image files. This is not analogous to a user application (such as a media player or web browser) at all.
The point we all fail to comprehend is that RH finally recognizes the fall of RPM. And does it in the most remarkable way by saying: We will make it better! Thus it makes all comments against RPM stupid, because they dont care about now, they care about the future.
On the contrary, it makes RedHat stupid, because the reasonable thing to do would be to take the good package management system that already exists -- namely, dpkg and apt -- and just ditch RPM in favor of it!
dependencies should not be mandatory for the user (especially a root one)
What good would that do? If you don't have the dependencies the program isn't going to work, and letting you install the package anyway won't change that!
By the way, apt and Portage come a Hell of a lot closer to your "ideal package system" than RPM does. Maybe you should switch to a less brain-dead distro.
If you want something user friendly to use at the command line, use yum, apt-rpm, yast, or whatever other high level tool floats your boat.
If you're going to be using apt anyway, what's the point? Why not just give the damn thing up and start using dpkg? Is it not-invented-here syndrome at Red Hat, or pure stupidity, or what?
And knowing that this would just keep on continuing because Microsoft is basically too damn lazy and too damn incompetent to just Make It Work.
That's true, but the more important reason it'll just keep on continuing is that Microsoft hunts down and kills any potential competition using illegal business tactics. If there were competition, we wouldn't continue to be forced to use the crappy software. If Microsoft obeyed standards, there could be competition.
They decided of their own volition to make filters to allow Office 2k7 to save in ODF, etc.
That's not true. They are doing that only because of pressure from Massachusetts, Belgium, etc. In fact, I'll bet they're not even really planning to make it, or planning to make it half-assed. It's really just a ploy to FUD people into buying another hit of MS Office.
And Bill Gates personally went for a guy who didn't believe in charity to starting one of the largest charity organizations in the world. Between his personal contributions, fundraising, and the Buffet donation, it probably is the largest in the world right now.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft.
Microsoft is less evil today that what it used to be.
No, Microsoft is up to exactly the same old tricks as it always was: FUDing ODF by claiming that OpenXML is actually open when it's not (and interfering with Massachusetts' political process!), cutting off products for Mac OS (first the ability to play Windows Media files, then Virtual PC, and now Office VBA) because Apple has become a threat, FUDing about patent issues in Linux, etc.
They give IE away for free to Mac users as well
Oh! Thanks for reminding me -- that's another thing they dropped. FYI, the last version of IE for the Mac was 5.5.
Microsoft is now systematically trying to bury Apple like it did with all its other competitors: cut off the ability to view IE-only websites, play DRM'd and/or VC1-codec Windows Media files, read Office documents containing VB macros, and run Windows (note: Virtual PC was canceled before Boot Camp, Parallels, or VMWare for Mac OS were announced). And I'm not even going to mention how MS is using the Zune as a tool to turn the RIAA against Apple...
Microsoft is just as evil now as it ever was -- maybe even more so, since the DoJ gave it carte blanche to ignore the law by failing to enforce any meaningful punishment.
(just not my mom - freecell's clone apparently is worse)
You need to have her try some other freecell clones, then. I don't know about freecell in particular, but KPatience's implementation of Klondike solitaire is a Hell of a lot better than Microsoft's: better animations and the ability to automatically move cards to the suit stacks (that's a biggie -- with Windows Solitaire you end up lining up all the cards in alternating-color stacks, and then have to double-click all 52 cards to move them up and get the game to finish). I would assume that KPatience's freecell is better too.
There might be a few guys who really hate Microsft, but most of us are just sick of having to use their crap.
I must be one of those guys, then: in my opinion, the quality of Microsoft's products is the least of the problems. It's the unethical business practices and unceasing hostility to users actually controlling their property that I can't stand.
I'll believe that when Steamboat Willie becomes Public Domain, and does so without any protest from Disney -- not before.
Similarly, I'll believe Microsoft has changed if and only if Ballmer gets fired, Microsoft stops trying to subvert open standards and abandons its proprietary ones, and stops spreading FUD against Linux.
You know, it's really too bad Slashcode won't let us just go ahead and open the "Post Comment" page and write our comment, but just not let us hit submit until the story goes live.
And why is AMD considered a competitor, while IBM and Motorola are not? Because Windows (and all the software that runs on Windows*) only supports AMD's chips!
*This is where the "but NT ran on PPC!" argument fails.
You're saying if the FBI (Secret Service?) finds a box full of counterfeit money in your basement, they should have to wait until you actually try to use it before they're allowed to do something about it? And you're serious about this?
Yep. Who's to say I wasn't going to use it for an art project or something (like a 'dollar-mâché' bust of President Bush, for example)?
Copyright merely gives an incentive to create new material.
It also seeks to establish a base of material for others to build upon, which works a lot better when the "source code" (i.e., the preferred form for modification, which includes things like Photoshop files for artwork in addition to computer code) is available.
It could be beneficial if it was, but publishers need not disclose source code for a program that fell out of copyright
There was a time when, in order to obtain copyright protection, an author had to specifically apply for it and send a copy of the work to the Library of Congress. I think we should return to that method, but additionally require that the "source code" be submitted to the LoC, to be made available when the copyright expires.
Slashdot Mirror
That tends to become more of a problem after the stupid people reach adulthood, which is why they should be given the chance to off themselves as children.
All the new processors from AMD and Intel (and IBM, for that matter) are 64-bit. Therefore, if you get a new PC, you have no choice but to get a 64-bit processor in it. And since they're all backwards-compatible to 32-bit, there's no downside.
The only relevant issue here is whether you want to run 64-bit or 32-bit software on it.
The only thing that upsets me about Windows including antivirus (or anti-malware-in-general) tools is that Microsoft ought to be spending its time fixing the damn underlying problems instead of selling band-aids at extra cost. I mean, Microsoft inflicted the wound in the first place!
Okay, so there was a reason to make RPM back in 1994. But is there still a reason to keep it now? If not, then it should be retired just like all the other software that was good at the time but has been surpassed.
I mean, you don't still use TWM and NCSA Mosaic, do you? Well, then why would you use RPM either?
How the Hell did you manage to imagine I said that? Quit the LSD, buddy!
The original post said copyright shouldn't exist. You replied, questioning how people could make a living out of creating art -- a statement which implies that having the ability to a living out of creating art is somehow necessary. I was just pointing out that it's not actually necessary, which is not the same thing as saying that it should be prohibited!
What else did you think copyright was?! It is, in fact, a kind of subsidy because it makes it economically feasable to make a living out of creating art whereas it otherwise might not be.
All I suggest is removing the subisdy, and if the person can still make a living without creating real (i.e., physical) economic wealth, more power to him.
The real world isn't fair. Deal with it!
(In other words, the solution to that "problem" is for the writer to do something else to make money instead. If that results in less writing, so be it.)
Frankly, that's bullshit. Managing filesystems is one of the core responsibilities of an OS, and that includes creating and using disk image files. This is not analogous to a user application (such as a media player or web browser) at all.
On the contrary, it makes RedHat stupid, because the reasonable thing to do would be to take the good package management system that already exists -- namely, dpkg and apt -- and just ditch RPM in favor of it!
What good would that do? If you don't have the dependencies the program isn't going to work, and letting you install the package anyway won't change that!
By the way, apt and Portage come a Hell of a lot closer to your "ideal package system" than RPM does. Maybe you should switch to a less brain-dead distro.
If you're going to be using apt anyway, what's the point? Why not just give the damn thing up and start using dpkg? Is it not-invented-here syndrome at Red Hat, or pure stupidity, or what?
That's true, but the more important reason it'll just keep on continuing is that Microsoft hunts down and kills any potential competition using illegal business tactics. If there were competition, we wouldn't continue to be forced to use the crappy software. If Microsoft obeyed standards, there could be competition.
That's not true. They are doing that only because of pressure from Massachusetts, Belgium, etc. In fact, I'll bet they're not even really planning to make it, or planning to make it half-assed. It's really just a ploy to FUD people into buying another hit of MS Office.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft.
No, Microsoft is up to exactly the same old tricks as it always was: FUDing ODF by claiming that OpenXML is actually open when it's not (and interfering with Massachusetts' political process!), cutting off products for Mac OS (first the ability to play Windows Media files, then Virtual PC, and now Office VBA) because Apple has become a threat, FUDing about patent issues in Linux, etc.
Oh! Thanks for reminding me -- that's another thing they dropped. FYI, the last version of IE for the Mac was 5.5.
Microsoft is now systematically trying to bury Apple like it did with all its other competitors: cut off the ability to view IE-only websites, play DRM'd and/or VC1-codec Windows Media files, read Office documents containing VB macros, and run Windows (note: Virtual PC was canceled before Boot Camp, Parallels, or VMWare for Mac OS were announced). And I'm not even going to mention how MS is using the Zune as a tool to turn the RIAA against Apple...
Microsoft is just as evil now as it ever was -- maybe even more so, since the DoJ gave it carte blanche to ignore the law by failing to enforce any meaningful punishment.
And now you understand "fanbois!"
What are you, stupid? Producing anything with poor quality at high prices always sucks, regardless of the circumstances!
...is a loss of productivity that has probably cost the world's economy hundreds of billions of dollars over the past decade. That's real money!
You need to have her try some other freecell clones, then. I don't know about freecell in particular, but KPatience's implementation of Klondike solitaire is a Hell of a lot better than Microsoft's: better animations and the ability to automatically move cards to the suit stacks (that's a biggie -- with Windows Solitaire you end up lining up all the cards in alternating-color stacks, and then have to double-click all 52 cards to move them up and get the game to finish). I would assume that KPatience's freecell is better too.
Not at all! The hardware manufacturer can simply submit driver source code for inclusion before releasing the device.
Yeah, or just like how Mac OS X targets people who want to use computers but don't know or care how they work.
Oh, wait -- OS X does include disk image and network-sniffing utilities! And a functional command-line, for that matter!
If OS X can do it, Microsoft has no excuse not to.
Yes, I agree that Disney and Microsoft are not likely to cease being evil.
I must be one of those guys, then: in my opinion, the quality of Microsoft's products is the least of the problems. It's the unethical business practices and unceasing hostility to users actually controlling their property that I can't stand.
I'll believe that when Steamboat Willie becomes Public Domain, and does so without any protest from Disney -- not before.
Similarly, I'll believe Microsoft has changed if and only if Ballmer gets fired, Microsoft stops trying to subvert open standards and abandons its proprietary ones, and stops spreading FUD against Linux.
You know, it's really too bad Slashcode won't let us just go ahead and open the "Post Comment" page and write our comment, but just not let us hit submit until the story goes live.
And why is AMD considered a competitor, while IBM and Motorola are not? Because Windows (and all the software that runs on Windows*) only supports AMD's chips!
*This is where the "but NT ran on PPC!" argument fails.
The funny thing is, anybody could go splice together "Everybody Loves Hypnotoad" themselves right now by just running the existing footage in a loop!
"Professor! Lava! HOT!"
Yep. Who's to say I wasn't going to use it for an art project or something (like a 'dollar-mâché' bust of President Bush, for example)?
It also seeks to establish a base of material for others to build upon, which works a lot better when the "source code" (i.e., the preferred form for modification, which includes things like Photoshop files for artwork in addition to computer code) is available.
There was a time when, in order to obtain copyright protection, an author had to specifically apply for it and send a copy of the work to the Library of Congress. I think we should return to that method, but additionally require that the "source code" be submitted to the LoC, to be made available when the copyright expires.