this seems to have as much to do with embracing open source as allowing free downloads of WMP does, i.e. nothing, it's just another MS program they want you to use on their OS.
Re:I see nothing wrong with it
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
history of invading neighbours? that makes America safe then.
whereas the USA has a history of invading or installing dictatorships anywhere in the world it pleases to.
Re:I see nothing wrong with it
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
what makes you think China wants to put weapons in space?
are you retarded? yes. here's why: a monopoly isn't about having the most users, it's about control. linux can't be a monopoly because no-one owns it or controls it in the way MS controls Windows. users have the choice, and the idea of this choice is built into the GPL such that it cannot be removed.
monopolies are capable of being very good, for example they can make things standardised and there's no waste caused by repeating what's already been done. monopolies are ONLY bad when they act in such a way to remove a user's choice, otherwise survival of the fittest still applies.
1929 was not just another "down". it was a heart attack. America was saved by grafting socialist ideas such as unemployment benefit and government-sponsored jobs ("boondoggling").
I am covered by the (free at point-of-use) National Health Service.
my grandparents are dead. my dad is retired and has a work pension, state pension, disability allowance, income support, plus other things such as winter fuel allowance as and when required.
this is one of those situations where the answer is in the question: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
>Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've been able to come up with.
no it's not, the best system that we've been able to come up with is a mixed economy in which there exists elements from capitalism (private ownership of means of production) and elements of socialism (social security, free education/health care)
I can't imagine a situation where access to journals would actually be beneficial and management wouldn't pay, except if the managers are retards in which case they will either be fired or the company will die. problem solved.
I don't think access to papers will do anything to help people to understand. the stuff in journals is probably way too hard if you aren't properly trained.
what the public needs is New Scientist/Scientific American and popular science books such as those by (I think) Graham Greene and Paul Davies.
there are costs associated with publishing (journal or electronic) and I far prefer subscriptions (usually covered by institution anyway) to anything else I can think of (bringing advertising into it would be absolutely appalling). so I don't think:
"making access to original scientific research easier for everyone is only a good thing"
is at all true. imo the important thing is easy, quality access for researchers. access to the public should only be pursued so long as it doesn't affect researcher access.
could you explain WHY they need to do some "popularizing"?
no offense, but who cares about people like you? if you're interested, then pay.
wouldn't a similar argument be "I know some people who think films are good, but they can't be bothered paying for the cinema. They need to make them free." ?
indeed, but I think spam email is a simpler problem.
as you say the website spam is of the form whatever-you-want-we-claim to-have-it.html, but email spam is always of the form what-we-want-to-shove-down-your-throat-whether-you -want-it-or-not.html
it's harder to trick people with email spam because unless you hack people's accounts and disguise your message as being from a friend then you can't disguise yourself as what people want.
also 99.9% of spam is viagra or porn or mortgage related. I wish they'd implement a filter that had a box to click saying: [] I am not interested in any sex or financial products or if I am I won't deal with them using this email address anyway. Mod anything that looks like this -9999 probable-spam points.
Slashdot Mirror
*****SPOILER*****
Reason: Please use less whitespace.
Reason: Please use less whitespace.
Reason: Please use less whitespace.
Reason: Please use less whitespace.
Reason: Please use less whitespace.
Reason: Please use less whitespace.
Reason: Please use less whitespace.
Reason: Please use less whitespace.
it was all a dream
is real 10 available to the public? nothing about the real web page or download file indicate version number...
well obviously stabbed in the back.
unless the attack MUST kill you, in which case being shot would be quicker.
no, the Earth is a sphere, but we can easily make spherical wheels
it's like Microsoft saw the wheel and thought "we gotta get us some of that!"
you got pi to fit into a double! whoa! ;-)
it's source code to a freaking Windows installer?
this seems to have as much to do with embracing open source as allowing free downloads of WMP does, i.e. nothing, it's just another MS program they want you to use on their OS.
history of invading neighbours? that makes America safe then.
whereas the USA has a history of invading or installing dictatorships anywhere in the world it pleases to.
what makes you think China wants to put weapons in space?
oh yes- racism.
but it's not "outer space", it's "near-Earth space".
anyway, since when does America's word mean anything?
are you retarded? yes. here's why: a monopoly isn't about having the most users, it's about control. linux can't be a monopoly because no-one owns it or controls it in the way MS controls Windows. users have the choice, and the idea of this choice is built into the GPL such that it cannot be removed.
monopolies are capable of being very good, for example they can make things standardised and there's no waste caused by repeating what's already been done. monopolies are ONLY bad when they act in such a way to remove a user's choice, otherwise survival of the fittest still applies.
yes but when the official project purpose IS to copy the "look and feel", then MS doesn't have to prove their intent, which is the hardest part.
if MS can take down "Lindows", they can definitely take down "XPde Professional".
some of the icons are so similar that it looks like they've changed maybe one or two pixels at most.
>The amazing thing is, its plural and singular at the same time...
amazing? got sheep?
dump Yeardley and spread her paycheck around. she's only doing one voice and it's Lisa, who is incredibly annoying.
1929 was not just another "down". it was a heart attack. America was saved by grafting socialist ideas such as unemployment benefit and government-sponsored jobs ("boondoggling").
I am covered by the (free at point-of-use) National Health Service.
my grandparents are dead. my dad is retired and has a work pension, state pension, disability allowance, income support, plus other things such as winter fuel allowance as and when required.
capitalism doesn't work. capitalism collapsed in 1929.
>even in Communist Russia, there was always money
that's because Russia wasn't communist.
this is one of those situations where the answer is in the question: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
>Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've been able to come up with.
no it's not, the best system that we've been able to come up with is a mixed economy in which there exists elements from capitalism (private ownership of means of production) and elements of socialism (social security, free education/health care)
I can't imagine a situation where access to journals would actually be beneficial and management wouldn't pay, except if the managers are retards in which case they will either be fired or the company will die. problem solved.
>If someone says "hey look over there" and that thing is gone, you're still screwed.
not at all. that's where THEIR camera comes in useful.
I don't think access to papers will do anything to help people to understand. the stuff in journals is probably way too hard if you aren't properly trained.
what the public needs is New Scientist/Scientific American and popular science books such as those by (I think) Graham Greene and Paul Davies.
there are costs associated with publishing (journal or electronic) and I far prefer subscriptions (usually covered by institution anyway) to anything else I can think of (bringing advertising into it would be absolutely appalling). so I don't think:
"making access to original scientific research easier for everyone is only a good thing"
is at all true. imo the important thing is easy, quality access for researchers. access to the public should only be pursued so long as it doesn't affect researcher access.
could you explain WHY they need to do some "popularizing"?
no offense, but who cares about people like you? if you're interested, then pay.
wouldn't a similar argument be "I know some people who think films are good, but they can't be bothered paying for the cinema. They need to make them free." ?
please, stop the lameness.
indeed, but I think spam email is a simpler problem.
u -want-it-or-not.html
as you say the website spam is of the form whatever-you-want-we-claim to-have-it.html, but email spam is always of the form what-we-want-to-shove-down-your-throat-whether-yo
it's harder to trick people with email spam because unless you hack people's accounts and disguise your message as being from a friend then you can't disguise yourself as what people want.
also 99.9% of spam is viagra or porn or mortgage related. I wish they'd implement a filter that had a box to click saying:
[] I am not interested in any sex or financial products or if I am I won't deal with them using this email address anyway. Mod anything that looks like this -9999 probable-spam points.