Like OPEC, all it takes is for one ftp-master to buck the cartel. And then the whole political edifice comes crashing down, with nothing to stop the free distribution of free software...
For example, if ninety-nine ftp-masters don't want to distribute FDL documentation, but one does, that one gets to trump the others.
Because most (but not all) environmentalist solutions involve the application of government force: "pass a law and arrest people who don't follow it." A typical example is "let's ban Hummers!" This violates the freedoms of the people who build, sell, buy and drive Hummers. Perhaps you don't care about them, or that the price is necessary, but it is an example of environmentalists wanting to curtail liberty.
Of course, environmentalists are hardly alone in this regard. You're just the ones apropos to this topic...
Are you so completely stupid that you completely missed the PP point?
Yes, I got the PP point. Let me paraphrase it for you: "If you don't make a movie for money, then you're a hypocrite for not letting people pirate it."
Hundreds, maybe even thousands, of movies have been made for reasons other than money. Yet it is only Mel Gibson who is being criticized for making a movie for non-monetary motives but still requiring people to pay to see it.
Is Mr. Moore going to extend his offer to Roger and Bowling? To his books? If not, perhaps he's just as much a "hypocrite" as Gibson.
Wow! People claiming Mel Gibson is a hypocrite for not allowing pirated copies of his movie, as if it were routine for directors and producers to give away their movies.
There's another reason to download movies: because it's "forbidden fruit". A friend of mine is into that scene. He tries to give me CDs of pirated movies. He presses a cheap pirate of Spiderman into my hands, saying "here watch this and you won't have to go to theater". Of course, it's a cheap ass 320x200 rip from a handheld video camera in a Hong Kong theater. He is personally insulted when I refuse the movie.
"Don't like Spiderman? I can understand that. Here, I've got hundreds of others. What do you want? Lord of the Rings? Shrek? Here's one of the Matrix that's pretty good, and it even has English subtitles..."
How about you open your eyes, you dirty Bush fan-boy?
And now the truth comes out. This isn't about Moore, it's about Bush. If you don't beleive Michael Moore then you must be one of those Evil Republicans who voted for George "Funny Texan Accent" Bush. How horrible of you!
This is about football team mentality. Pick a team and root for them no matter what. Everything George Bush does is Evil. If he helps an old lady across the street it is Evil. Remember, he was reading stories to children on 9/11! And of course everything Michael Moore says is the God's Gospel Truth! He has never lied once. If he says Bush and Osama were roommates in college, it is the truth!
To attack Michael Moore is to attack every decent hardworking liberal in the nation! To attack George Bush is to strike a blow for liberty!
...and no I don't support Bush, my vote will be cast for Michael Badnarik
It doesn't matter. If you're not on the liberal, you must be an evil Republican. After all, from their perspective there can only be liberals and conservatives. To them a Green is just a Democrat that's gone astray like naughty children. And in a way they're right, because the only differences between those two parties is degree and not ideology. So of course they consider Libertarians to be merely a caucus of the Republican Party.
Of course, if someone can refute Moore like they've done to Ken Brown, then I would have no problem with changing my opinion.
Really? Then go read Unfairenheit 9/11 and Truth About Bowling for Columbine. Of course, they won't change your opinion, because it's my understanding the Moore fans believe only what they want to believe.
I am a bit squeamish so before I watch your video link, is that Iraq torture video the one committed by Americans or by Saddam?
By Saddam, of course! The Americans did not commit torture in Iraq. Do not confuse "abuse" with "torture". Putting underwear on the heads of prisoners, or leashes around their necks, is not torture. It is instead abuse.
That is not to say abuse should be tolerated. It should not be, and those responsible need to be punished. But it is still a far cry from torture. Just because the US media has the vocabulary of a three year old doesn't mean you have to as well. Get a dictionary and look up the words "abuse" and "torture".
But this movie definitely deserves its Golden Palm.
Don't you mean the "Rosie Palm" award instead? After all, this movie is about mental masturbation. The only reason people see this movie is to validate their own politics. If you hate Bush/Moore going into the movie, you will still hate Bush/Moore coming out.
The purpose of choice in Linux distributions is simply to provide choice. It's not there to make things easier. Of course, it doesn't make it that much more difficult. People who consider choices a terribly difficult thing to deal with shouldn't be using software anyway.
"It's asking me where I want to save my file. I can't handle this level of personal control! Aaaargh!"
the point is that you can have four terminals while using a single computer as the host...
To ask the question yet again, so what? The only thing different with this is that you have bus connections instead of network connections, allowing dumber terminals than normal. But really, so what?
X terminals never caught on in the PC world, but there's no reason someone couldn't start manufacturing $100 i486-based X terminals. Absent that, just go grab any "obsolete" PC and slap Linux/BSD on it and you have an instant X terminal.
While an X terminal isn't going to let you play DoomQuakeVII at the highest possible FPS, but people who pinch pennies hard enough to need this kind of a solution aren't going to be playing games on their hardware anyway.
That is their country and their internal dispute, and no other country has the right to intervene.
Except that it is NOT an internal dispute. China had a revolution and got split into two nations, PRC and ROC. They are both legitimate nations. There is a border between them.
You post is a good enough example, so I'll pick on it. Nothing personal...
The question asked in the summary was "Is 'incredibly heavily used' an overstatement by Gosling"? Individual anecdotes do not demonstrate that Java is incredibly heavily used, merely that it is used. All of you telling Brian to go fsck himself for his heresy should go look up the words "incredibly" and "heavily".
I guess I'm not in the industry then. The only Java I use at work in the industry is this cheesy time logging program they make me use. Of course, I'm an embedded systems programmer, so I might not be in the same industry as you...
Open Source java projects are rare. While the language might indeed be highly used in the Open Source community, sharing of finished products isn't.
Yes, I know there are some open Java projects out there, so don't bother listing them for me. My point is that for every open Java project there are several hundred using C or C++. Out of 250 package installed, the only Java application I have on my current desktop system is the JDK...
My point was, if all the time, energy, and money that has been spent on finding more oil reserves had been spent on finding other/better energy sources, we might now be driving cars (even larger ones) that perform just as well or better as what we've got now and are much less harmful toward the environment.
So are you advocating a world dictator to force people to only direct their research towards areas that you personally approve? I bet you're also one of those people that wants to ban KDE (or GNOME) in the interest of a unified Linux desktop.
If you're wondering why not everyone in the world has signed up with the environmentalist movement, consider that it's because the typical environmentalist solution is the elimination of freedom.
so the government will have to keep a cloe eye on how it is used
Correction: WE will have to keep a close eye on it! Putting the government in charge of this is like putting a four year old in charge of guarding the cookie jar.
While I certainly don't have to remind Slashdotters not to trust Bush, it's a sad situation that I do have to remind them NOT to trust Kerry either.
You don't need written documentation, you need to grab the source code for a WM that has this before the patent filing. If the judge still turns his nose up at a CVS tree, then scrounge up a pre-2000 Linux or BSD CDROM.
I have to agree here. Linux is becoming more and more a "desktop" operating system.
You're making the same mistake the author is. You're assuming that an OS can be defined by its superficial appearance. Mac OSX is a desktop operating system. Does that make it identical to Windows? Of course not!
Slashdot Mirror
You have silenced me with your inspiring arguments. I am humbled in your presence...
Like OPEC, all it takes is for one ftp-master to buck the cartel. And then the whole political edifice comes crashing down, with nothing to stop the free distribution of free software...
For example, if ninety-nine ftp-masters don't want to distribute FDL documentation, but one does, that one gets to trump the others.
How so?
Because most (but not all) environmentalist solutions involve the application of government force: "pass a law and arrest people who don't follow it." A typical example is "let's ban Hummers!" This violates the freedoms of the people who build, sell, buy and drive Hummers. Perhaps you don't care about them, or that the price is necessary, but it is an example of environmentalists wanting to curtail liberty.
Of course, environmentalists are hardly alone in this regard. You're just the ones apropos to this topic...
Are you so completely stupid that you completely missed the PP point?
Yes, I got the PP point. Let me paraphrase it for you: "If you don't make a movie for money, then you're a hypocrite for not letting people pirate it."
Hundreds, maybe even thousands, of movies have been made for reasons other than money. Yet it is only Mel Gibson who is being criticized for making a movie for non-monetary motives but still requiring people to pay to see it.
Is Mr. Moore going to extend his offer to Roger and Bowling? To his books? If not, perhaps he's just as much a "hypocrite" as Gibson.
Wow! People claiming Mel Gibson is a hypocrite for not allowing pirated copies of his movie, as if it were routine for directors and producers to give away their movies.
There's another reason to download movies: because it's "forbidden fruit". A friend of mine is into that scene. He tries to give me CDs of pirated movies. He presses a cheap pirate of Spiderman into my hands, saying "here watch this and you won't have to go to theater". Of course, it's a cheap ass 320x200 rip from a handheld video camera in a Hong Kong theater. He is personally insulted when I refuse the movie.
"Don't like Spiderman? I can understand that. Here, I've got hundreds of others. What do you want? Lord of the Rings? Shrek? Here's one of the Matrix that's pretty good, and it even has English subtitles..."
How about you open your eyes, you dirty Bush fan-boy?
And now the truth comes out. This isn't about Moore, it's about Bush. If you don't beleive Michael Moore then you must be one of those Evil Republicans who voted for George "Funny Texan Accent" Bush. How horrible of you!
This is about football team mentality. Pick a team and root for them no matter what. Everything George Bush does is Evil. If he helps an old lady across the street it is Evil. Remember, he was reading stories to children on 9/11! And of course everything Michael Moore says is the God's Gospel Truth! He has never lied once. If he says Bush and Osama were roommates in college, it is the truth!
To attack Michael Moore is to attack every decent hardworking liberal in the nation! To attack George Bush is to strike a blow for liberty!
...and no I don't support Bush, my vote will be cast for Michael Badnarik
It doesn't matter. If you're not on the liberal, you must be an evil Republican. After all, from their perspective there can only be liberals and conservatives. To them a Green is just a Democrat that's gone astray like naughty children. And in a way they're right, because the only differences between those two parties is degree and not ideology. So of course they consider Libertarians to be merely a caucus of the Republican Party.
Of course, if someone can refute Moore like they've done to Ken Brown, then I would have no problem with changing my opinion.
Really? Then go read Unfairenheit 9/11 and Truth About Bowling for Columbine. Of course, they won't change your opinion, because it's my understanding the Moore fans believe only what they want to believe.
I am a bit squeamish so before I watch your video link, is that Iraq torture video the one committed by Americans or by Saddam?
By Saddam, of course! The Americans did not commit torture in Iraq. Do not confuse "abuse" with "torture". Putting underwear on the heads of prisoners, or leashes around their necks, is not torture. It is instead abuse.
That is not to say abuse should be tolerated. It should not be, and those responsible need to be punished. But it is still a far cry from torture. Just because the US media has the vocabulary of a three year old doesn't mean you have to as well. Get a dictionary and look up the words "abuse" and "torture".
But this movie definitely deserves its Golden Palm.
Don't you mean the "Rosie Palm" award instead? After all, this movie is about mental masturbation. The only reason people see this movie is to validate their own politics. If you hate Bush/Moore going into the movie, you will still hate Bush/Moore coming out.
The purpose of choice in Linux distributions is simply to provide choice. It's not there to make things easier. Of course, it doesn't make it that much more difficult. People who consider choices a terribly difficult thing to deal with shouldn't be using software anyway.
"It's asking me where I want to save my file. I can't handle this level of personal control! Aaaargh!"
the point is that you can have four terminals while using a single computer as the host...
To ask the question yet again, so what? The only thing different with this is that you have bus connections instead of network connections, allowing dumber terminals than normal. But really, so what?
X terminals never caught on in the PC world, but there's no reason someone couldn't start manufacturing $100 i486-based X terminals. Absent that, just go grab any "obsolete" PC and slap Linux/BSD on it and you have an instant X terminal.
While an X terminal isn't going to let you play DoomQuakeVII at the highest possible FPS, but people who pinch pennies hard enough to need this kind of a solution aren't going to be playing games on their hardware anyway.
Considering how we're all supposed to be moving to web based interfaces...
After twenty five years of computing, I'm starting to get real tired of people telling me what I am supposed to do.
That is their country and their internal dispute, and no other country has the right to intervene.
Except that it is NOT an internal dispute. China had a revolution and got split into two nations, PRC and ROC. They are both legitimate nations. There is a border between them.
You post is a good enough example, so I'll pick on it. Nothing personal...
The question asked in the summary was "Is 'incredibly heavily used' an overstatement by Gosling"? Individual anecdotes do not demonstrate that Java is incredibly heavily used, merely that it is used. All of you telling Brian to go fsck himself for his heresy should go look up the words "incredibly" and "heavily".
I guess I'm not in the industry then. The only Java I use at work in the industry is this cheesy time logging program they make me use. Of course, I'm an embedded systems programmer, so I might not be in the same industry as you...
Free Software == Open source, but
Open source != Free Software
Except that every Open Source license is also a Free Software license...
Open Source java projects are rare. While the language might indeed be highly used in the Open Source community, sharing of finished products isn't.
Yes, I know there are some open Java projects out there, so don't bother listing them for me. My point is that for every open Java project there are several hundred using C or C++. Out of 250 package installed, the only Java application I have on my current desktop system is the JDK...
They don't *want* to be liberated, and I think the fact that China's still so undemocratic rather shows this.
"Nosirree, my slaves don't want to be free. The fact that they haven't freed themselves shows this. No need for emancipation..."
Open source != Free Software.
For all intents and purposes, they are equivalent. The only differences are in the politics of the people on each "side" of the issue.
My point was, if all the time, energy, and money that has been spent on finding more oil reserves had been spent on finding other/better energy sources, we might now be driving cars (even larger ones) that perform just as well or better as what we've got now and are much less harmful toward the environment.
So are you advocating a world dictator to force people to only direct their research towards areas that you personally approve? I bet you're also one of those people that wants to ban KDE (or GNOME) in the interest of a unified Linux desktop.
If you're wondering why not everyone in the world has signed up with the environmentalist movement, consider that it's because the typical environmentalist solution is the elimination of freedom.
so the government will have to keep a cloe eye on how it is used
Correction: WE will have to keep a close eye on it! Putting the government in charge of this is like putting a four year old in charge of guarding the cookie jar.
While I certainly don't have to remind Slashdotters not to trust Bush, it's a sad situation that I do have to remind them NOT to trust Kerry either.
You don't need written documentation, you need to grab the source code for a WM that has this before the patent filing. If the judge still turns his nose up at a CVS tree, then scrounge up a pre-2000 Linux or BSD CDROM.
I have to agree here. Linux is becoming more and more a "desktop" operating system.
You're making the same mistake the author is. You're assuming that an OS can be defined by its superficial appearance. Mac OSX is a desktop operating system. Does that make it identical to Windows? Of course not!
BSD is a server OS
Then why am I using it as a desktop?