Sure it's not a guarantee that one will turn into a genocidal mad man, but accepting the premise that some people don't deserve to be treated humanely makes it a significantly shorter trip.
Sure, ask Neville Chamberlain about that one. Or should we ask the homicidal mad man who had already invaded other countries whom Chamberlain treated humanely in his search for appeasement? Or ask the 11 million that departed after Chamberlain was proved a fool. Oh I'm sorry, they can't. By treating (sorry I mean appeasing) a tyrant humanely and civilly he allowed the tyrant to turn into, or better put, to express his genocidal feelings (I hear you types like to express things as feelings). Guess they still sum up your lame assed stupid fucking theory. You see it isn't a matter of not treating everyone humanely that puts you on the road to becoming a genocidal maniac, it is a matter of not treating the ones who don't deserve it inhumanely.
Yeah, if IIRC I read somewhere that most people cannot take in more than 50 or 60 minutes worth of new information at one sitting without a 5 or 10 minute break or preferably longer on any given subject. If you do, the stuff that comes after progressively 'sticks less'. You get some of it but not as much as if you had a break. And not as much if you took a break to the next day. Works for me. Plus in order to really learn it, you need to take that one hour's reading and apply it by writing some of the code you just read about.
Now I have to defend this one. This is exactly the stuff Rove used to specialize in. So how does the truth make it a troll? Karl Rove was Bush's strategist when they came up with their "Clean Air Plan" and their "Healthy Forest Plan." The first rolled back much of the Clean Air Act and the second allowed for logging on government/national Parks. So when is pointing out that a technique that the parent observes Google using was also used by Bush's former strategest a troll? Or does the truth hurt mf?
Use cute and soft names and marketing. Hey, it's AdChoices, so there's clearly choices for advertisers!
Carl Rove used that technique a lot. IIRC one that stands out was one of GW Bush's assaults on the EPA that they gave a warm fuzzy name to. Something like 'green environment policy'. That name is probably way off, but it is the idea. And then they say it over and over in the media until the (generally lazy) public believes it, even though they were doing the harmful opposite.
Risks sure, but you still haven't recognized that risks have at least two factors to take into consideration: probability and impact. Low probability low impact I can see handling it on a case by case basis. Low probability and high impact in terms of human beings being killed cleaning up the mess? I'd say you prepare for it pretty damned fully up front. There is no reason for people to die or get cancer because some board member of a company determined that it didn't happen enough. And nuclear accidents are recognized risks that the nuclear industry takes into account. Otherwise they wouldn't spend a millions to build containment domes over the reactors. I would bet that those huge reinforced buildings cost tens of millions of dollars to build and are built precisely in case of what you mistakenly call low risks. If they were low risk (i.e. low probability low impact) they wouldn't spend millions to build them. And we can see what happened when someone used your definition of risk: Chernobyl. It didn't have a containment dome. That is why the radiation was so wide spread. And what about the tens of millions spent on emergency backup generators and pumps and all the other systems... in one plant. It costs billions of dollars to build a nuclear generating facility. A lot of that is on safety systems because the believe a low probability event has a high enough impact that they will spend probably 9 figures to mitigate or prevent any possible accident. In the construction of one facility they dwarf the funding that could provide the kinds of robots we are talking about by orders of magnitude. No you can't protect against everything, but you do protect and plan for things with high impact. And besides, robots like these could be used for hazardous jobs in day to day operations as well. It is win win.
You are forgetting that there are different rules in different jurisdictions. What might work in your state/country might not work in others. That also has to be considered.
The internet is irrelevant to the conversation. It is just a conduit to making something public. It is the "making public" and "who owns what data" parts that are important. All the internet does is make the dissemination easier and possibly wider spread. What is germane is "who owns what data when you connect to a company's systems," and "what rights do people have with respect to their own devices connected to a company's systems?"
The decisions with respect to rules and/or law that will eventually come out of this will be around for many, many years. What we know as the 'internet' now could evolve into something completely different, but where the same rules and laws apply. At best, the internet brought the issue to the forefront because of the number of cases where this now applies. To say this is a problem with the internet is akin to politicians saying that the only solution to energy wasting light bulbs is to use fluorescent light; when in reality they should have just capped the wattage that light bulbs can use and allow manufacturers to use whatever technology that achieves it in an "environmentally friendly" way (unlike mercury laden fluorescent bulbs).
I mean isn't this one of the things layers in GIS meant for: describing characteristics for points and areas on a map? Simplifying this but after you have done that, doesn't it just come down to some sort of switch or if statements. If so, it sounds like the patent is just too general. Or not? It sounds ridiculous if you ask me though.
What the hell are you talking about? I don't see any rationalization but more a statement of pretty much universally understood Japanese behaviour. And I will say it is pretty much universally understood that America does help a lot (more than any other country) with money and manpower when natural and some man made disasters hit other countries. But I am not sure if that help comes anywhere close to the manpower and money they spend screwing other countries up with their interventional (overt and covert) foreign policies. Or whether it even comes close to making up for it either.
With nuclear accidents being extremely rare there is no point in designing robots specifically for them. Those models would most likely become obsolete without ever being used.
So you've factored in 'possibility'. What about 'impact'. So are you saying that nuclear accidents are so rare that it is OK to kill off or severely impact or shorten the lives of dozens or more people whenever it does happen? That's a pretty stupid notion if you ask me.
And what is it about ionizing radiation that changes so much that will make a robot capable of general mechanical work in a radioactive environment obsolete? The only major thing(s) that will change is likely to be the controllers/software. And why couldn't a hardened robot be useful in other scenarios like rescue? I can't see why building a robot with two or more arms capable of using tools, carrying buckets up stairs, or people in rescue work, or doing general building maintenance, etc. is not a useful endeavor. The function is not likely to change, it is how well it does it and how well it can function autonomously (not necessarily the same thing). Especially if you can make the functional arms or arm ends modular to replace tools as they improve, and not the whole robot.
I think the focus on cute 'take care of me' robot puppies and human mimicking 'care robots' is important precisely because of the coolness factor. People are willing to fund stuff that looks cool and can help people, or is simply cool. That helps drive research and improvements. But they need to start making autonomous Awesom-o's do more than be cute, or put on human expressions. They need to start focusing more on function than on form.
saw your link... read it on a mobile first time so missed... yeah like I thought.... antarctica. It doesn't get that flippin' cold anywhere else, even in Canada.
The coldest I ever had to work it was around 18 years ago, it was -48C on the thermometer outside our control room. The cold had affected a couple of our systems and our techs were dealing with them. Then we found out a feed mechanism on the roof our plant froze up due to a failure of a compressed air dryer. It wouldn't have been an issue on warmish days, but it was so cold it caused the moisture in the compressed air that normally would have been removed to condense in a control valve stopping an important operation. I actually ran the smelter from the control room. But, since all the techs were busy and I was essentially a SME on literally half the systems in the plant, I turned the place over to tech, and suited up like a spaceman, and climbed up the catwalks around 140 or 150 feet in the air... outside. Like I said, it was -48C without the wind. And there was wind too. It took me around a half hour to switch out a six way solenoid activated valve.
Now here is the crux: what does a Canadian really do at -40C. He freezes his fucking bag off. Yeah we don't freak out, and dress for it, and essentially deal with it (usually without too much complaint.. it doesn't help and no one would listen to you if you did anyway), but really, it's fucking cold. Of course people brag about being tough, but really I have found that people who visit the tropics in the winter don't complain about it either.:) There are some things that do resonate with what you say though. IF there is no wind at 40 below... IF and only IF there is no wind what-so-fucking-ever, AND if you are working hard, you can actually make do with a light jacket. In fact IF you are working hard, it might be advised to wear a light jacket only. You will get overheated otherwise (overheating in sub zero cold is bad because once you stop what you are doing, any sweat that has soaked your clothes will freeze.. then you get hypothermia and die). I know, I've done that too. Chopping wood at a cabin at night at 40 below C on the thermometer with no wind. That goes for anyone. BUT, if there is even a 1km/hr wind, you would be frozen freakin solid if you dressed like that. This is why the 'feels like x degrees' windchill is such a load of shit designed by people in warmer climates so they can brag about how much cold they have experienced. Anyway in general, Canadians in really cold areas don't bitch about it because it is pointless. Better just to find things you can do and dress for it. Otherwise you WILL experience cabin fever after a while. Regardless of any mythbusters episodes, cabin fever is real.
About that wind chill. In Winnipeg/Manitoba they used to broadcast the wind chill in terms of watt/m2 of extra heat lost from a body due to wind. It was on a logarithmic scale. 1200 was minimal don't worry about it. 1800 means a little nip on the nose or ears if you were out for a half hour to an hour with no hat. 2100 was hazardous, stay in. 2200 is insane. I remember a day when it was 30 below and with the wind, on the bullshit wind chill scale they said it felt like -40. The wind was around 8 km/hr. Remember I said you can work with a light jacket at -40 if there is no wind? You've probably figured with a wind even at 'only' 30 below C that it wouldn't be a good idea to wear a light jacket. Well on the other wind chill scale the value was 2450 W/m2. I had never seen it that high before. I remember the incident because weather Canada had just announced they were getting rid of the useful wind chill scale. The 'feels like' scale is actually dangerous if you ask me. So when they were broadcasting both, the comparison as to useful information delivered was mind boggling. Just remember the 'feels like' scale is horse shit. And dangerous when it really matters. The only saving grace is that normally the colder it gets, the less wind there is. But not always.
Cold is cold. The colder the dryer the air. The dryer the air the more efficient the insulation in good winter clothing works. If you have to live in the cold you deal with it and find ways to enjoy things.
Obviously you don't have much experience at 50 below zero (and no, I don't count the 'with the windchill' bullshit... try working at 50 below BEFORE factoring in the wind). Even metal parts break a lot easier if they aren't purpose built for the cold. So experience going down a hill at anything above zero Celsius does not prove anything about suitability at the temperatures she is going to encounter. I have worked in Manitoba with equipment designed and built in the southern half of the U.S. that was supposed to be suitable for arctic winters. I guess a lot of people down there don't get it. We had to do a bunch of modifications after we received the equipment (a gas analyzer shed) so that it wouldn't freeze up and quit. And Antarctica can make the arctic look like a trip to Cancun (ok a little hyperbole, but it is way harsher down south).
lol Translation: I went to the store and bought some apples and oranges.
In Boston it's consonants. Specifically the R. Take the R's out and put them where they don't belong. Try the famous: I parked my car in Harvard Garden without pronouncing the R's. Then you can sound like a Bostonian. Throw in the name Melissa at the beginning. Hey Melissa, I parked... Except it would be Hey Melisser, I packed my cah....
Now I will duck as Bostonians throw rotten fruit at me.
Time for some legitimate competition for Apache, it's been a long time. A bit of competition, which they haven't had much of could help them too. I am curious if it is easier to configure than Apache, and how well does it integrate with a JEE containers for serving the static content?
But what a fucking name though.:) I found out it's supposed to be pronounced engine-x. Until I found out I called it enjinx. Reminds me of that movie 'That Thing You Do' where the band called themselves the Oneders at the beginning and everyone called them the 'oh-nigh-ders' or 'oh-need-ders'. Then they got a manager and he forced them to change it to the Wonders because it didn't look garbled. So I say, why not just call it EngineX. It still sounds cool and doesn't have that annoying 'I'm trying to look cool' thing going at the same time. Regardless, sounds like a good product.
The only thing that makes me dubious is that they're based in Russia, I hope Putin and his boys don't have a back door into it. But America is starting to look no better than Russia these days in terms of a government that actually cares about the people. Have you checked out the NDAA that Obama signed this week? It lets the American military arrest civilians inside America (heck Fox news AND democrat supporters are all screaming bloody murder about this one). So on second thought I think I'll give this jinx thing a try.
But what do you do then when Ubuntu has the same problem?"
If there was enough demand I think you would find 'filter by license' already there. But I don't think it needs to be there cluttering up already limited screen space (on my Android phone) when it is only demanded by a very, very small group of dogmatics.
Personally I don't give a shit if an app is open source or not. If I am installing an application, it is for a purpose. Whether it is open source or not is moot. And I am certain that I am in the majority here. If the app does the job, then I use it, if it doesn't I don't. If an open source app is good enough to use, then it will be used. That is a far better filter than dogma. Having open source apps survive on merit will ultimately make the open source world stronger. And most of the world doesn't care about how the tool is licensed anyway, they too only care if it does the job (and I don't blame them). And you won't change that so give up trying. I think if the open source world focused more on that than the 'only open source is good, use it because it is open' dogma, eventually you might see a real 'Linux on the desktop' breakthrough.
It is understandable that Ubuntu doesn't support this. Their slogan is, 'it just works' or something like that. They support proprietary drivers, etc. because most of the users want their apps to just work. Most Linux users whether on Ubuntu or not probably also download the proprietary drivers if they aren't already installed. Why, because if they are necessary to make their system work the way they want it to, then that is what they will use. If a lot of the open source movement focused on satisfying the user and their needs instead of themselves and Stallman, then more people would use it. I generally support open source but I can't stand a lot of its pigheadedness.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, ask Neville Chamberlain about that one. Or should we ask the homicidal mad man who had already invaded other countries whom Chamberlain treated humanely in his search for appeasement? Or ask the 11 million that departed after Chamberlain was proved a fool. Oh I'm sorry, they can't. By treating (sorry I mean appeasing) a tyrant humanely and civilly he allowed the tyrant to turn into, or better put, to express his genocidal feelings (I hear you types like to express things as feelings). Guess they still sum up your lame assed stupid fucking theory. You see it isn't a matter of not treating everyone humanely that puts you on the road to becoming a genocidal maniac, it is a matter of not treating the ones who don't deserve it inhumanely.
That last part sounds like one of the few benefits.
Yeah, if IIRC I read somewhere that most people cannot take in more than 50 or 60 minutes worth of new information at one sitting without a 5 or 10 minute break or preferably longer on any given subject. If you do, the stuff that comes after progressively 'sticks less'. You get some of it but not as much as if you had a break. And not as much if you took a break to the next day. Works for me. Plus in order to really learn it, you need to take that one hour's reading and apply it by writing some of the code you just read about.
So really, who says programmers can't design enjoyably readable books?!
Uhhhhh... No. Oil requires that there was zooplankton and algae a long time ago. Coal was formed from vegetation. Here are some pictures for you.
Nope. There's no indigenous tribes to exploit.
How the fuck did you go from beating off to the draft?! I think I found a cognitive decliner.!
Now I have to defend this one. This is exactly the stuff Rove used to specialize in. So how does the truth make it a troll? Karl Rove was Bush's strategist when they came up with their "Clean Air Plan" and their "Healthy Forest Plan." The first rolled back much of the Clean Air Act and the second allowed for logging on government/national Parks. So when is pointing out that a technique that the parent observes Google using was also used by Bush's former strategest a troll? Or does the truth hurt mf?
Carl Rove used that technique a lot. IIRC one that stands out was one of GW Bush's assaults on the EPA that they gave a warm fuzzy name to. Something like 'green environment policy'. That name is probably way off, but it is the idea. And then they say it over and over in the media until the (generally lazy) public believes it, even though they were doing the harmful opposite.
They just need to do a few Brazil to France test flights.
Risks sure, but you still haven't recognized that risks have at least two factors to take into consideration: probability and impact. Low probability low impact I can see handling it on a case by case basis. Low probability and high impact in terms of human beings being killed cleaning up the mess? I'd say you prepare for it pretty damned fully up front. There is no reason for people to die or get cancer because some board member of a company determined that it didn't happen enough. And nuclear accidents are recognized risks that the nuclear industry takes into account. Otherwise they wouldn't spend a millions to build containment domes over the reactors. I would bet that those huge reinforced buildings cost tens of millions of dollars to build and are built precisely in case of what you mistakenly call low risks. If they were low risk (i.e. low probability low impact) they wouldn't spend millions to build them. And we can see what happened when someone used your definition of risk: Chernobyl. It didn't have a containment dome. That is why the radiation was so wide spread. And what about the tens of millions spent on emergency backup generators and pumps and all the other systems... in one plant. It costs billions of dollars to build a nuclear generating facility. A lot of that is on safety systems because the believe a low probability event has a high enough impact that they will spend probably 9 figures to mitigate or prevent any possible accident. In the construction of one facility they dwarf the funding that could provide the kinds of robots we are talking about by orders of magnitude. No you can't protect against everything, but you do protect and plan for things with high impact. And besides, robots like these could be used for hazardous jobs in day to day operations as well. It is win win.
You are forgetting that there are different rules in different jurisdictions. What might work in your state/country might not work in others. That also has to be considered.
The internet is irrelevant to the conversation. It is just a conduit to making something public. It is the "making public" and "who owns what data" parts that are important. All the internet does is make the dissemination easier and possibly wider spread. What is germane is "who owns what data when you connect to a company's systems," and "what rights do people have with respect to their own devices connected to a company's systems?"
The decisions with respect to rules and/or law that will eventually come out of this will be around for many, many years. What we know as the 'internet' now could evolve into something completely different, but where the same rules and laws apply. At best, the internet brought the issue to the forefront because of the number of cases where this now applies. To say this is a problem with the internet is akin to politicians saying that the only solution to energy wasting light bulbs is to use fluorescent light; when in reality they should have just capped the wattage that light bulbs can use and allow manufacturers to use whatever technology that achieves it in an "environmentally friendly" way (unlike mercury laden fluorescent bulbs).
I mean isn't this one of the things layers in GIS meant for: describing characteristics for points and areas on a map? Simplifying this but after you have done that, doesn't it just come down to some sort of switch or if statements. If so, it sounds like the patent is just too general. Or not? It sounds ridiculous if you ask me though.
What the hell are you talking about? I don't see any rationalization but more a statement of pretty much universally understood Japanese behaviour. And I will say it is pretty much universally understood that America does help a lot (more than any other country) with money and manpower when natural and some man made disasters hit other countries. But I am not sure if that help comes anywhere close to the manpower and money they spend screwing other countries up with their interventional (overt and covert) foreign policies. Or whether it even comes close to making up for it either.
So you've factored in 'possibility'. What about 'impact'. So are you saying that nuclear accidents are so rare that it is OK to kill off or severely impact or shorten the lives of dozens or more people whenever it does happen? That's a pretty stupid notion if you ask me.
And what is it about ionizing radiation that changes so much that will make a robot capable of general mechanical work in a radioactive environment obsolete? The only major thing(s) that will change is likely to be the controllers/software. And why couldn't a hardened robot be useful in other scenarios like rescue? I can't see why building a robot with two or more arms capable of using tools, carrying buckets up stairs, or people in rescue work, or doing general building maintenance, etc. is not a useful endeavor. The function is not likely to change, it is how well it does it and how well it can function autonomously (not necessarily the same thing). Especially if you can make the functional arms or arm ends modular to replace tools as they improve, and not the whole robot.
I think the focus on cute 'take care of me' robot puppies and human mimicking 'care robots' is important precisely because of the coolness factor. People are willing to fund stuff that looks cool and can help people, or is simply cool. That helps drive research and improvements. But they need to start making autonomous Awesom-o's do more than be cute, or put on human expressions. They need to start focusing more on function than on form.
saw your link... read it on a mobile first time so missed... yeah like I thought.... antarctica. It doesn't get that flippin' cold anywhere else, even in Canada.
You must be down south. Real down south.
The coldest I ever had to work it was around 18 years ago, it was -48C on the thermometer outside our control room. The cold had affected a couple of our systems and our techs were dealing with them. Then we found out a feed mechanism on the roof our plant froze up due to a failure of a compressed air dryer. It wouldn't have been an issue on warmish days, but it was so cold it caused the moisture in the compressed air that normally would have been removed to condense in a control valve stopping an important operation. I actually ran the smelter from the control room. But, since all the techs were busy and I was essentially a SME on literally half the systems in the plant, I turned the place over to tech, and suited up like a spaceman, and climbed up the catwalks around 140 or 150 feet in the air... outside. Like I said, it was -48C without the wind. And there was wind too. It took me around a half hour to switch out a six way solenoid activated valve.
Now here is the crux: what does a Canadian really do at -40C. He freezes his fucking bag off. Yeah we don't freak out, and dress for it, and essentially deal with it (usually without too much complaint.. it doesn't help and no one would listen to you if you did anyway), but really, it's fucking cold. Of course people brag about being tough, but really I have found that people who visit the tropics in the winter don't complain about it either. :) There are some things that do resonate with what you say though. IF there is no wind at 40 below... IF and only IF there is no wind what-so-fucking-ever, AND if you are working hard, you can actually make do with a light jacket. In fact IF you are working hard, it might be advised to wear a light jacket only. You will get overheated otherwise (overheating in sub zero cold is bad because once you stop what you are doing, any sweat that has soaked your clothes will freeze.. then you get hypothermia and die). I know, I've done that too. Chopping wood at a cabin at night at 40 below C on the thermometer with no wind. That goes for anyone. BUT, if there is even a 1km/hr wind, you would be frozen freakin solid if you dressed like that. This is why the 'feels like x degrees' windchill is such a load of shit designed by people in warmer climates so they can brag about how much cold they have experienced. Anyway in general, Canadians in really cold areas don't bitch about it because it is pointless. Better just to find things you can do and dress for it. Otherwise you WILL experience cabin fever after a while. Regardless of any mythbusters episodes, cabin fever is real.
About that wind chill. In Winnipeg/Manitoba they used to broadcast the wind chill in terms of watt/m2 of extra heat lost from a body due to wind. It was on a logarithmic scale. 1200 was minimal don't worry about it. 1800 means a little nip on the nose or ears if you were out for a half hour to an hour with no hat. 2100 was hazardous, stay in. 2200 is insane. I remember a day when it was 30 below and with the wind, on the bullshit wind chill scale they said it felt like -40. The wind was around 8 km/hr. Remember I said you can work with a light jacket at -40 if there is no wind? You've probably figured with a wind even at 'only' 30 below C that it wouldn't be a good idea to wear a light jacket. Well on the other wind chill scale the value was 2450 W/m2. I had never seen it that high before. I remember the incident because weather Canada had just announced they were getting rid of the useful wind chill scale. The 'feels like' scale is actually dangerous if you ask me. So when they were broadcasting both, the comparison as to useful information delivered was mind boggling. Just remember the 'feels like' scale is horse shit. And dangerous when it really matters. The only saving grace is that normally the colder it gets, the less wind there is. But not always.
Cold is cold. The colder the dryer the air. The dryer the air the more efficient the insulation in good winter clothing works. If you have to live in the cold you deal with it and find ways to enjoy things.
Obviously you don't have much experience at 50 below zero (and no, I don't count the 'with the windchill' bullshit... try working at 50 below BEFORE factoring in the wind). Even metal parts break a lot easier if they aren't purpose built for the cold. So experience going down a hill at anything above zero Celsius does not prove anything about suitability at the temperatures she is going to encounter. I have worked in Manitoba with equipment designed and built in the southern half of the U.S. that was supposed to be suitable for arctic winters. I guess a lot of people down there don't get it. We had to do a bunch of modifications after we received the equipment (a gas analyzer shed) so that it wouldn't freeze up and quit. And Antarctica can make the arctic look like a trip to Cancun (ok a little hyperbole, but it is way harsher down south).
I have to admit, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?
lol Translation: I went to the store and bought some apples and oranges.
In Boston it's consonants. Specifically the R. Take the R's out and put them where they don't belong. Try the famous: I parked my car in Harvard Garden without pronouncing the R's. Then you can sound like a Bostonian. Throw in the name Melissa at the beginning. Hey Melissa, I parked... Except it would be Hey Melisser, I packed my cah....
Now I will duck as Bostonians throw rotten fruit at me.
Time for some legitimate competition for Apache, it's been a long time. A bit of competition, which they haven't had much of could help them too. I am curious if it is easier to configure than Apache, and how well does it integrate with a JEE containers for serving the static content?
But what a fucking name though. :) I found out it's supposed to be pronounced engine-x. Until I found out I called it enjinx. Reminds me of that movie 'That Thing You Do' where the band called themselves the Oneders at the beginning and everyone called them the 'oh-nigh-ders' or 'oh-need-ders'. Then they got a manager and he forced them to change it to the Wonders because it didn't look garbled. So I say, why not just call it EngineX. It still sounds cool and doesn't have that annoying 'I'm trying to look cool' thing going at the same time. Regardless, sounds like a good product.
The only thing that makes me dubious is that they're based in Russia, I hope Putin and his boys don't have a back door into it. But America is starting to look no better than Russia these days in terms of a government that actually cares about the people. Have you checked out the NDAA that Obama signed this week? It lets the American military arrest civilians inside America (heck Fox news AND democrat supporters are all screaming bloody murder about this one). So on second thought I think I'll give this jinx thing a try.
If there was enough demand I think you would find 'filter by license' already there. But I don't think it needs to be there cluttering up already limited screen space (on my Android phone) when it is only demanded by a very, very small group of dogmatics.
Personally I don't give a shit if an app is open source or not. If I am installing an application, it is for a purpose. Whether it is open source or not is moot. And I am certain that I am in the majority here. If the app does the job, then I use it, if it doesn't I don't. If an open source app is good enough to use, then it will be used. That is a far better filter than dogma. Having open source apps survive on merit will ultimately make the open source world stronger. And most of the world doesn't care about how the tool is licensed anyway, they too only care if it does the job (and I don't blame them). And you won't change that so give up trying. I think if the open source world focused more on that than the 'only open source is good, use it because it is open' dogma, eventually you might see a real 'Linux on the desktop' breakthrough.
It is understandable that Ubuntu doesn't support this. Their slogan is, 'it just works' or something like that. They support proprietary drivers, etc. because most of the users want their apps to just work. Most Linux users whether on Ubuntu or not probably also download the proprietary drivers if they aren't already installed. Why, because if they are necessary to make their system work the way they want it to, then that is what they will use. If a lot of the open source movement focused on satisfying the user and their needs instead of themselves and Stallman, then more people would use it. I generally support open source but I can't stand a lot of its pigheadedness.
Yep, the new National Defence Authorization Act should be good for this (in a manner of speaking).