Re:This is one of those things that make you think
on
TV Set Doubles as a Mirror
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why not? I think this is a great idea . . . people are going want this because when you turn it off, it actually becomes a part of the room's decor. Instead of just taking up space on the wall, it looks good and enhances the room, such that you wouldn't even know a TV was there.
I'm sure it's not that important to an average Joe, but think about the people who can afford these screens. They're probably willing to spend some money on the appearance of their home. And when it does become affordable, I think people will like having a wall mirror more than they will a giant black rectangle. Personally, I'm kind of excited. It seems very sci-fi and futuristic: a giant mirror suddenly displays an image. Very cool.
I think I speak for a lot of us when I say, "shut the fuck up." It's posts like the above which I see far too much of in/. Some nerds have no sense of humor whatsoever.
He told me about it a while ago, and swore me to secrecy about what they were doing. He hated working for the company, but he was going through a tough time and he needed the job. He eventually found a better programming job elsewhere and moved on.
I think the first question people ask is, "how could someone do something like this?" Well, the short answer is that the people running the company just flat-out didn't care. They wanted to make money and they found the most insiduous way to do it, with no weight on their consciouses. Personally, I think it's pretty sick.
. . . that in the realm of technology and computing, our government's patent system is in shambles.
Patents were meant to encourage and protect businesses, and now they've become so ridiculous and strict that they will end up hindering and harming business. This can't go on or else we're going to end up shooting ourselves in the foot someday, and it's going to be in a very, very bad way.
I don't see what's so "unfair" about IBM being competitive. They want to push Linux to replace Unix; SCO would be a loser, yes, but it's completely fair as far as business goes. Everyone has to act in their self-interests, and so far as they don't step out of the bounds of law, there's nothing wrong with that.
Secondly, you're portraying SCO as the victim here. They've created an inferior product, it hasn't been selling well, and they've in a bad situation now. After SCO has lost value, they've gone on the offensive in an effort to save themselves. I don't feel a need to keep IBM from "getting away" with anything.
He's not an idiot unless MS can prove that the "Soft" part of the domain name implies a connection to the Microsoft corporation. There are plenty of companies out there with the "-soft" suffix. This domain is meant to parody Microsoft specifically, obviously, but it's also his own personal name so he may be able to get away with it.
Yeah, but you can always set it up for her, just like you usually have to set the VCR up for her. Then she can (usually) figure out how to put in tapes and play them herself.
And besides, my mom aside, I would like something like this just for the convenience factor. I mean sure, I could do it all myself, but it would take absolutely ages and I would have to do a lot of reading to learn how. I think this distro's a great idea because it provides a good starting point for anyone.
Yeesh, who the hell pushed your button? And what makes you think that this form of trolling is better than trolling against the game?
It didn't cross your mind that people simply don't like the game, did it? That they are against the game not because they hate things that are violent, but because they hate things that are stupid or boring?
If you like the game, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But don't spew nonsensical and irrelevant crap over people who don't like it.
The good news: It's for Linux.
The bad news: It's Postal 2.
It kinda sucks that we get so enthusiastic over a game simply because we CAN play it, even if it sucks. That goes to show that Linux games are lacking a bit of variety.
Still, I'm happy to hear this news. Even if it's not the best of games, it's DEFINITELY a step in the right direction . . . and I want to commend the individuals responsible for even having Linux users in mind.
Hopefully this will encourage even more game developers to follow suit . . . so far, NWN, UT2003, and now this are a good start.
I like this idea, and from a product-line standpoint, it's a good one. After the Athlon XP line started, I sort of missed the situation with the Thunderbird/Duron, where there was always a low-priced alternative for budget systems.
Perhaps now they will create a sort of "64-bit Duron," a lower-priced and less-powerful version of the Athlon 64. This way, in the future, if I want to create a bargain version of a AMD64 computer for a family member or friend, or buy one, there is a cheaper processor available for such a system.
I sort of missed having that alternative available; this creates a bit of processor nostalgia for me:p
Well, of course, the question as to whether the trade-off is worth the cost is up to the individual company. It's my opinion, however, that in most cases where the software is meant to do more than a simple, menial task, it's beneficial to have a more "personal" aspect to the coding process.
I submitted the wristwatch argument for illustrative purposes only, and I didn't intend for it to be an all-inclusive metaphor. Feel free to point out your own exceptions if you must.
True, the "hand-crafted" product is always going to be more expensive, or else there wouldn't be anyone outsourcing in the first place. In instances when the software does not require a supremely high-quality product, perhaps it isn't as big of a deal for them to outsource.
I feel that problems will arise for companies which DO have complex software, software which requires highly-competent and knowledgable people for development. If the managers of any such company decide that programming really isn't that important or difficult, and decide to outsource it, they will probably find out that it wasn't nearly worth it.
Some may think this is the best way to do things at their company, but it's essentially turning their coding process into a factory job.
Look at it this way: would you rather have the wristwatch that is hand crafted to perfection, works better, and will last forever, or would you rather buy the watch that came off of the assembly line, always loses time, and will break on you in a year or two?
By leaving the coding process to people outside of the company and its interests, and thereby making the whole process more mechanical than creative, they are essentially assuring themselves the lowest-quality product. It's unfortunate if they think that's the best way to go, but in my opinion they will eventually get what they paid for, so to speak.
Surrendering rights
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
By the common view of what a copyright should be and provide, yes, perhaps open-source developers are surrendering rights. However, the copyright law that allows people to keep their source code proprietary and sell it is the same law that allows people to DISALLOW proprietary use of their code as well.
The GPL states that the licensed code may not be used unless the source code of that in which it is used is released. Acceptance of the license means that the person using the code is legally obligated, by copyright law, to release that source code. The real question should be whether or not it is legal, under copyright law, not only to deny the right to spread something freely, but also to deny the right to spread something for profit.
By my personal opinion, a copyright is a copyright, and the holder of said copyright should be able to put whatever stipulations on the license that he or she pleases. However, I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea on what the actual legality of such an idea is.
I think that the more important fact is that even though this is the true crux of the problem, Mr. McBride is trying to obfuscate it in things like his letter, trying to portray the entire open-source community as somehow being inherently against U.S. copyright law. If you're going to put up that argument, Mr. McBride, first you'll have to show us that the GPL's unique use of copyright law is, in fact, not legal.
Does anyone else think this site is a little weird?
"PGA or Pin Grid Array can be separated into two parts: the first being Pin, which in this case is the small metal pins we see coming from the bottom of the processor and the other is the Grid Array."
Well bless my stars! Who knew?!
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? I think this is a great idea . . . people are going want this because when you turn it off, it actually becomes a part of the room's decor. Instead of just taking up space on the wall, it looks good and enhances the room, such that you wouldn't even know a TV was there.
I'm sure it's not that important to an average Joe, but think about the people who can afford these screens. They're probably willing to spend some money on the appearance of their home. And when it does become affordable, I think people will like having a wall mirror more than they will a giant black rectangle. Personally, I'm kind of excited. It seems very sci-fi and futuristic: a giant mirror suddenly displays an image. Very cool.
I think I speak for a lot of us when I say, "shut the fuck up." It's posts like the above which I see far too much of in /. Some nerds have no sense of humor whatsoever.
He told me about it a while ago, and swore me to secrecy about what they were doing. He hated working for the company, but he was going through a tough time and he needed the job. He eventually found a better programming job elsewhere and moved on.
I think the first question people ask is, "how could someone do something like this?" Well, the short answer is that the people running the company just flat-out didn't care. They wanted to make money and they found the most insiduous way to do it, with no weight on their consciouses. Personally, I think it's pretty sick.
. . . that in the realm of technology and computing, our government's patent system is in shambles.
Patents were meant to encourage and protect businesses, and now they've become so ridiculous and strict that they will end up hindering and harming business. This can't go on or else we're going to end up shooting ourselves in the foot someday, and it's going to be in a very, very bad way.
It isn't. I doubt they would resolve 'web.mit.edu' to an IP address on their dorm network.
I don't see what's so "unfair" about IBM being competitive. They want to push Linux to replace Unix; SCO would be a loser, yes, but it's completely fair as far as business goes. Everyone has to act in their self-interests, and so far as they don't step out of the bounds of law, there's nothing wrong with that.
Secondly, you're portraying SCO as the victim here. They've created an inferior product, it hasn't been selling well, and they've in a bad situation now. After SCO has lost value, they've gone on the offensive in an effort to save themselves. I don't feel a need to keep IBM from "getting away" with anything.
He's not an idiot unless MS can prove that the "Soft" part of the domain name implies a connection to the Microsoft corporation. There are plenty of companies out there with the "-soft" suffix. This domain is meant to parody Microsoft specifically, obviously, but it's also his own personal name so he may be able to get away with it.
good show chap
As long as I can play Half Life 2 on it, you've got a deal!
. . . and how convenient that it brings you revenue whenever someone clicks on it. You're an idiot, someone found the site in the VERY FIRST POST.
Yeah, but you can always set it up for her, just like you usually have to set the VCR up for her. Then she can (usually) figure out how to put in tapes and play them herself.
And besides, my mom aside, I would like something like this just for the convenience factor. I mean sure, I could do it all myself, but it would take absolutely ages and I would have to do a lot of reading to learn how. I think this distro's a great idea because it provides a good starting point for anyone.
How did the police find the pictures?
Hmm . . . it's also unlawful to use government property to surf porn sites at work, you know . . . :p
Yeesh, who the hell pushed your button? And what makes you think that this form of trolling is better than trolling against the game?
It didn't cross your mind that people simply don't like the game, did it? That they are against the game not because they hate things that are violent, but because they hate things that are stupid or boring?
If you like the game, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But don't spew nonsensical and irrelevant crap over people who don't like it.
The good news: It's for Linux.
The bad news: It's Postal 2.
It kinda sucks that we get so enthusiastic over a game simply because we CAN play it, even if it sucks. That goes to show that Linux games are lacking a bit of variety.
Still, I'm happy to hear this news. Even if it's not the best of games, it's DEFINITELY a step in the right direction . . . and I want to commend the individuals responsible for even having Linux users in mind.
Hopefully this will encourage even more game developers to follow suit . . . so far, NWN, UT2003, and now this are a good start.
I like this idea, and from a product-line standpoint, it's a good one. After the Athlon XP line started, I sort of missed the situation with the Thunderbird/Duron, where there was always a low-priced alternative for budget systems.
Perhaps now they will create a sort of "64-bit Duron," a lower-priced and less-powerful version of the Athlon 64. This way, in the future, if I want to create a bargain version of a AMD64 computer for a family member or friend, or buy one, there is a cheaper processor available for such a system.
I sort of missed having that alternative available; this creates a bit of processor nostalgia for me :p
Well, of course, the question as to whether the trade-off is worth the cost is up to the individual company. It's my opinion, however, that in most cases where the software is meant to do more than a simple, menial task, it's beneficial to have a more "personal" aspect to the coding process.
I submitted the wristwatch argument for illustrative purposes only, and I didn't intend for it to be an all-inclusive metaphor. Feel free to point out your own exceptions if you must.
True, the "hand-crafted" product is always going to be more expensive, or else there wouldn't be anyone outsourcing in the first place. In instances when the software does not require a supremely high-quality product, perhaps it isn't as big of a deal for them to outsource.
I feel that problems will arise for companies which DO have complex software, software which requires highly-competent and knowledgable people for development. If the managers of any such company decide that programming really isn't that important or difficult, and decide to outsource it, they will probably find out that it wasn't nearly worth it.
Some may think this is the best way to do things at their company, but it's essentially turning their coding process into a factory job.
Look at it this way: would you rather have the wristwatch that is hand crafted to perfection, works better, and will last forever, or would you rather buy the watch that came off of the assembly line, always loses time, and will break on you in a year or two?
By leaving the coding process to people outside of the company and its interests, and thereby making the whole process more mechanical than creative, they are essentially assuring themselves the lowest-quality product. It's unfortunate if they think that's the best way to go, but in my opinion they will eventually get what they paid for, so to speak.
By the common view of what a copyright should be and provide, yes, perhaps open-source developers are surrendering rights. However, the copyright law that allows people to keep their source code proprietary and sell it is the same law that allows people to DISALLOW proprietary use of their code as well.
The GPL states that the licensed code may not be used unless the source code of that in which it is used is released. Acceptance of the license means that the person using the code is legally obligated, by copyright law, to release that source code. The real question should be whether or not it is legal, under copyright law, not only to deny the right to spread something freely, but also to deny the right to spread something for profit.
By my personal opinion, a copyright is a copyright, and the holder of said copyright should be able to put whatever stipulations on the license that he or she pleases. However, I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea on what the actual legality of such an idea is.
I think that the more important fact is that even though this is the true crux of the problem, Mr. McBride is trying to obfuscate it in things like his letter, trying to portray the entire open-source community as somehow being inherently against U.S. copyright law. If you're going to put up that argument, Mr. McBride, first you'll have to show us that the GPL's unique use of copyright law is, in fact, not legal.
Does anyone else think this site is a little weird? "PGA or Pin Grid Array can be separated into two parts: the first being Pin, which in this case is the small metal pins we see coming from the bottom of the processor and the other is the Grid Array." Well bless my stars! Who knew?!