"Windows may run fine out of the box - assuming you're satisfied with the rather basic set of software Windows includes"
OS X may run fine out of the box - assuming you're satisfied with the rather basic set of software OS X includes.
When I bought a Powermac, the first time it powered on it failed to configure its networking before attempting to contact Apple for my personal information. It proceeded to lock hard and require a power cycle. No manufacturer can lay claim to a flawless out-of-box user experience, not even Apple.
Yes, PCs are frequently bundled with a bunch of crap. In my experience the bundled software has never gotten in my way though I always take a few minutes and remove it. I would agree that the typical initial mac experience is better than the comparable PC one but, like most all other mac advertising claims, is way overblown. Frankly I think the inevitable, mysterious degradation of PC performance is a far worse problem than how they work out of the box.
"Let me explain this to you : Apple stuff is made by and for creative people. And creative people don't wear neckties, glasses and other boring stuff that makes you look like the average clerk or this PC-guy."
As if you're qualified to make such statements, Mr AC.
Let me explain this to you: Apple stuff is made by engineers at a very large corporation. As to how they dress---not any different than many other computer and software companies. Additionally, Apple stuff is made for anyone who will buy them and Apple won't refuse a sale to you even if you wear a suit and tie. Apple has no monopoly on any given type of user and creative people wear all sorts of clothes.
"Of course it's different when they go see their lawyers to sue you for violating their priceless intellectual property (that's why they're creative after all)."
Yes, of course. People choose creative activities so they can "sue you".
Creative professionals use all sorts of tools depending on what they do. When you run Photoshop there's little difference between a mac and PC except that the mac is much slower (a universal binary and an Intel processor will finally fix that). Apple hasn't always targeted creative types---they simply grew into that market.
Companies like Dell don't do environmental friendless (or anything else for that matter) out of the goodness of their hearts. They don't have hearts. Neither does Apple.
Dell and others do what they do because their customers require it. Big business and government are much different to sell to than the home user, and that most likely explains why Dell actually DOES more regarding being green while Apple just says they do. Dell needs it while Apple only needs to brag about it in order to reinforce the elistist attitude of their home/small business customer base. There are customers that actually require environmental friendliness.
Unlike macs, pc's are actually sold into businesses where they are replaced on a set schedule that's dictated by economics. In the real world there's no room for such an irrational attachment to a piece of electronics as you apparently have. Machines serve out their usefulness and get discarded. How's the web browser on your IIe?
"Greenpeace "researchers" admit to giving Apple low scores because..."
Admit? You mean "recognize". Your choice of words gives away your prejudice.
"Apple is an especially secretive company."
Yes, of course this explains why Apple fails to release data of this sort. Apple has everything to gain by publishing information on their environmental correctness, assuming that they are so.
"As an environmentally concerned consumer, Greenpeace's ranking of Apple does affect my desire to purchase hardware from the company in spite of obvious flaws in their review system."
What would? You must mean "do to" rather than "in spite of".
There is no reason to believe Greenpeace desires to single out Apple for poor environmental performance and certainly no reason to produce misleading documentation to that fact. Environmental friendliness is something that any company would gladly document. Apple is the one here producing misleading environmental documentation and they're getting called on it.
I find it interesting that people readily accept the notion that Pentium M is a derivative of the PIII while Core 2 is somehow distinct from Core or Pentium M. The Pentium M was developed years after the PIII, was specifically developed for portables, was created by an entirely different design team, used the bus of the P4 and had significant architectural differences when compared to PIII. The Core 2, meanwhile, is an immediate follow-on of Core, just as Core was a follow-on of Pentium M, is architecturally similar and even shares a pinout with Core in the case of Merom. To claim that Core 2 is the first "Core architecture" product is arbitrary and more absurd than claiming that Pentium M is a new version of PIII, yet that seems to be what's floated around here. Each processor is a new design effort that benefits from designs that came before it. Naming is simply marketing BS.
"How many of you have ever had non-stop continuous hassle free wireless experiences?"
I have a Sonos network which uses dedicated WiFi for similar uses and it is absolutely continuous and hassle free. It works flawlessly. Depending on how MS implements their WiFi I can easily see it working well. I can also see it working poorly.
"You never even gave an example for this strong-arming."
I did. It's the GPLv3.
"Of course it takes it away, that's the whole point of DRM! You can't run modified code. That you think there is no such thing as the freedom of its users is telling."
GPL'ed software has no inherent right to dictate what hardware does as it cannot define terms of use for products unrelated to it. All the GPL can do is grant rights regrading what it licenses. That you think it can is telling.
"Please tell about the terrible deeds of the FSF."
I never even suggested that they committed terrible deeds. Surely you can argue better than to put words in my mouth.
"_That's strong-arming! You're being ridiculous. You you have any rights to RMS showing up?"
Of course I don't. I wouldn't even see RMS if he did show up (unlike RMS, I don't have an allergy to showers) but that's beside the point. RMS is a crybaby when he doesn't get his way and he uses juvenile tactics to influence others. He's successfully gotten users groups to change their names using just this tactic. I don't really care if you refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
"Again, that's not true. I debunked it already and yet you repeat the same lie."
You've debunked nothing and it's no lie. If I release code under the GPL using the "or later" clause, then RMS can release a new version of the GPL that I object to and I cannot prevent my work from being used under that later license. It is an undeniable fact and it's the reason that some, such as Linus, have chosen not to use his language.
"I meant stupid not because of any properties of the name Linux because what is commonly called Linux is actually GNU. Linux chose his name for _the _kernel _he _started _to _write. Linux of course was not a GNU project. But RMS doesn not want to call Linux the kernel GNU/Linux. What he wants is to call the GNU system with the Linux kernel GNU/Linux. Debian is called "Debian GNU/Linux" by Debian. The others are called RedHat and Suse actually."
Who cares what RMS wants except RMS? Each distribution can choose the name of their product as they see fit.
There is only a GNU system in RMS's mind. What there is, in fact, is GPL'ed source code for a large variety of software that can be used to make up a Unix-like system. It's not the only open source software of it's kind BTW. The GPL license allows me to integrate the licensed software into a larger system as I choose provided I meet the terms of the GPL. Those terms do NOT include recognizing RMS's right to pick the name of my project or referring to my use of the "GNU system". There is no defensible claim whatsoever to RMS's position that "GNU/" should be prepended to Linux. If RMS wants to do his own distribution and call it the "GNU system" he is free to do so.
"Yeah, that was trolling because RMS never demanded that Linux be called anything other than "Linux.""
Only the most hardened RMS apologist can read this shameless, self-promoting propoganda and believe that he isn't "demanding" anything. RMS knows he's wrong so he sugarcoats it.
RMS claims that Linus, through Linux, modified the GNU system by providing an alternative kernel when that is clearly untrue. There was no kernel for the "GNU system". The problem is that RMS can't stand the heat of his own free software kitchen. His "GNU system" code got used in an alternative unix-like system and it didn't get named after him. Boo Hoo.
"Your original claim was "he wants to strongarm hardware manufacturers into removing all DRM from their hardware." Now you say he wants control over his own stuff."
No, I said that's the leverage used to strongarm the manufacturers.
"The influence would be: if you use my code you can't take away the freedom of its users by locking it up by DRM"
The GPL grants specific rights to users for code that it specifically licenses. It cannot grant freedoms to users outside of the code licensed. DRM doesn't change the freedom of GPL'ed code, it only effects the hardware it exists in. In other words, there's no such thing as "the freedom of its users".
"In contrast, "content providers" (your term for the media conglomerates) take away their users' rights and money."
What? Surely you don't mean that. If you don't like their terms then don't use their product. Isn't that the answer to anyone who objects to the GPL?
"Can't you see the difference?"
No, I don't. Each uses copyright law to influence hardware. One does it for financial profit and the other does it to obtain greater contributions to a code base that he can freely use. That is another form of profit and there is no difference.
"This is an example for how he "actively strongarms other developers into his licensing view"? Tell me, please, how he "recruits". Does he have an army that will drag developers out of their homes? You must be delirious."
Recruiting does not involve taking by force. The FSF absolutely recruits. You apparently are ignorant of what the FSF does.
"That's a lie or ignorance of the GPL. Go read the license and the "v2 or later" clause. It gives the _recipient of the software the right to choose. If you write software and license it under "GPLv2 or later" and I receive the software from somewhere, then _I can choose if I want to license it under v2 or v3, whatever I prefer."
That is no lie. I used the word "encouraged" not forced. The "or later" allows for the software to have its license modified at RMS's whim. Authors don't have to choose it but they are encouraged to do so. Fortunately Linus is wise to that.
"You know, this is getting tedious."
Then don't play. Where is it found in the GPL that authors retain the right to name your product when you incorporate their code? Since when does the use of GNU developed software require anyone to add GNU to their name. Nowhere of course. Since RMS knows he has no legal OR moral leg to stand on he resorted to more underhanded tactics. No distribution is required to name their product Linux, much less GNU/Linux. You are simply an apologist.
"He _says that he'd like it for specific reasons (look it up at gnu.org). You have a really low threshold for feeling strongarmed, how do you cope socially?"
And that must be why he refuses appearances whenever his preferred name isn't used. I cope socially quite well. You?
"He has contributed by tiny things like giving birth to the idea of a completely free reimplementation of Unix (while BSD was tangled in lawsuits), the GNU system, which was more or less complete (for the time) except a kernel."
This was never a discussion of RMS's contributions and arguing them serves no purpose here.
"Calling it Linux is catchy but kinda stupid. Nevertheless the name will stay."
The same could be said for GNU---catchy but kinda stupid. Linus chose his name. Linux was not a GNU project. Neither is Red Hat, Debian, SUSE, etc.
"However calling it GNU/Linux sometimes is necessary so that trolls like you can't spread the lie that GNU did "not contribute" to the development of the body of free software as it stands today."
I never said any such thing. I said that RMS did not contribute to Linux and had no legal claim to its name nor any claim to the naming of any distribution that was not his.
It's interesting that you've resorted to multiple insults and have accused me of spreading multiple lies simply because I don't agr
Over the lifetime of HD-DVD and BluRay, devices that can record off of HDMI are possible and even likely to be offered. The same was said for DVDs when they were first introduced (that MPEG compression was too hard to do in real time to make home DVD recorders a practicality). The data streams themselves are not too challenging to process (as evidenced by devices that do so today) and realtime video compression at those data rates is readily achievable. It's only a matter of cost and I want one.
If you mean 1080 vs 720 then perhaps that's true. If you mean HD vs NTSC then perhaps you need to move closer than 40 feet away or get equipment that actually works. Barring that, your eyes are hopeless.
"Not true. Only if they run GPLv3-licensed code on the hardware. They are free to write their own stuff, then they don't have to deal with GPLv3."
Only because he overlooked it in previous versions of the GPL. As content owners would say "You're free to watch your own stuff". Both RMS and MPAA are using the same leverage to accomplish the same goals. "Do as I say or don't use my stuff".
"I don't believe that."
Can't see why not. Content providers are attempting to influence the computing platform for their own interests. RMS is attempting to influence the computing platform for his own interests. There is no difference.
"Examples please?"
Stallman recruits developers and projects to GNU and then dictates development and licensing terms. He runs an entire organization for that purpose after all. Stallman evangelizes the GPL and periodically updates it to reflect his beliefs. He encourages developers to license code under the current GPL with a clause that allows transfer to a newer version so that he's free to modify licensing of existing code authored by other programmers. He co-opts existing language (open source, freedom) to imply meaning that otherwise doesn't exist. He strongarms people into recognizing that he has naming rights to projects for which he doesn't contribute (gnu/linux).
What I said isn't controversial; it's RMS's explicit goal. You do realize that that's what the FSF is for, right?
There is control, there is speed, and then there is the speed limit. While speed and control are related, the speed limit is not. Get it? The government can change speed limits all they want and the control of my car is unaffected.
As for your example in a neighborhood, it's not control that is the problem, it's visibility. Visibility is the issue with stopping distances as well.
No speed is a safe speed when a kid jumps out in front of your car. The only answer to that case is to not drive.
They aren't blasted for being obsure. That point is made only when advocates of alternatives claim that lack of publicized problems is proof that those systems are more secure. There is nothing wrong with obscurity except for the false confidence that it potentially provides.
If only we set speed limits to 0 everywhere. Then everyone who drove would be infinitely lacking control over their vehicles. What an unsafe world we would live in then.
He needs to say what he intends to say. If it's so obvious what he really meant then perhaps there was no need to say it at all.
Regarding the "natural speed limit", that is generally a function of visibility more than it is vehicle capability. In your example, it is probably true that the vehicle itself limits speeds, but most roads have hazards that you can easily outdrive without pushing your car's limits. For example, Formula 1 races are set on city streets and therefore provide ample evidence that a car *could* go 150+ mph in those areas. No way they would be doing that if grandma were backing out onto the course from your driveway.
Finally, there is only a loose correlation between "natural speed limits" and posted ones. Drivers, except the most inexperienced ones, have a natural feel for what speeds are safely supported by conditions. Speed limits are generally set much lower than that (at least in the US). One can only conclude that exceeding the posted limit by a modest amount is unlikely to ever result in a compromise in vehicle handling. That is what the original poster *intended* to say IMO and it's simply incorrect. Cars, over the years, have made great improvements in handling safety and roads have generally improved. Sadly, speed limits have not gone up as a result (freeways excluded).
Clearly he is, but his original post mentioned nothing of reaction time. That's simply another absurd error he made in defending his senseless position.
Speed limits have no bearing on the control you have of your vehicle. On the contrary, your ability to control your vehicle may be what determines the speed limit. In practice it does not. Most speed limits are set arbitrarily low to encourage a sufficient proportion of speeding. Ignoring that obvious bit of corruption, visibility and overall conditions generally determine what the maximum safe speed really is, not what the ultimate performance of the average vehicle can deliver. Exceeding the speed limit by 10 or 15 mph (the original poster's example) is, in fact, expected in the US since it's well established that limits are intentionally set low by that amount. As a result, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that such a speed jeopardizes the driver's ability to control the vehicle.
In an ideal world, traffic laws would be just and speed limits appropriately set. There would be 100% compliance and essentially no collisions except for mechanical failures. 100% compliance would mean no traffic tickets and the result would be insufficient revenues and lost ability to judge the performance of traffic officers. In the real world, traffic cops are measured by their ability to meet quotas and local governments are partially and sometimes totally funded by traffic ticket revenues. Cops are poorly educated and poorly paid but pursue their careers because of the power trip it affords them. Traffic laws are not at all uniformly enforced since most fail to generate revuenue.
It is well known that when speed limits are set reasonably there is near total compliance and when they are totally unreasonable they are largely ignored. Limits are set somewhere in between so that there is only partial compliance and officers are afforded discretion. That's how speed limits work. They have essentially nothing to do with how much control you have over your car.
Near where I lived, a large blvd was opened to through traffic and the local residents were extremely mad about it. In order to placate them, speed limits were set to 35 mph even though 45 would have been expected (and 55 was easily supported by visibility). Traffic was horribly slow and every day, at the same spot, there was an assembly line of traffic tickets being handed out by the same group of police. After about 6 months of this the speed limits were raised, the cops disappeared, and congestion improved. Apparently they stopped the wrong guy or the judge had seen enough. Sadly, this is the norm for our society, not the exception. Anyone who thinks speed limits are set scientifically is a fool.
There is a certain amount of work that needs to get done regardless of how much disposable income the average guy has, so one could argue that sucha move would inherently reduce unemployment. I don't believe it's a given, therefore, that reducing the amount of work will "increase unemployment dramatically and reduce overall wages" as you say. It's true that such a move might have a great impact on which businesses thrive and which do not. No doubt the overall productivity of the economy would suffer but that's not a direct measure of happiness.
Counteracting that is the possibility that people are happier because they work less hard. It's very complex.
You value your leisure time and others value other things. People often lose sight of what is important to them once they get caught up in their careers.
While I agree with you mostly, I think people who obtain wealth don't come to think of it as easy. They say that to ease their guilt. In reality they believe that they've come into money because they are better than the everyday guy.
It's good that you keep a healthy perspective on work and leisure. We'd all be better off if more did that.
Yes I have, "jackass". What does the speed limit have to do with reaction time? Does lowering the speed limit raise reaction time?
I'll remind you again, this is what you posted:
"In fact, even driving 10-15mph over the speed limit greatly decreases control one has over their vehicle."
It is a fact that higher speeds limit what a car is capable of doing, but speed limits have nothing to do with that. Reaction times are a constant and do not affect the amount of control a driver has over his vehicle. I can't help it if you aren't able to commumicate effectively, but what you said is nonsense.
"...reaction time, decreased when you increase speed, is a contributing factor in accidents. Reaction time is a fact."
Sorry, another ignorant statement from you. Reaction times remain relatively constant and do not decrease with increasing speed. If only they would.
"...n fact speed was often a contributing factor in those types of accidents due to decreased reaction time."
Also ridiculously incorrect. Reaction time is constant. Learn your terms.
Speed is always a contributing factor in accidents. If everyone was going 0 mph there would be no accidents. That point is inarguable and that's why police and insurance companies love it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Windows may run fine out of the box - assuming you're satisfied with the rather basic set of software Windows includes"
OS X may run fine out of the box - assuming you're satisfied with the rather basic set of software OS X includes.
When I bought a Powermac, the first time it powered on it failed to configure its networking before attempting to contact Apple for my personal information. It proceeded to lock hard and require a power cycle. No manufacturer can lay claim to a flawless out-of-box user experience, not even Apple.
Yes, PCs are frequently bundled with a bunch of crap. In my experience the bundled software has never gotten in my way though I always take a few minutes and remove it. I would agree that the typical initial mac experience is better than the comparable PC one but, like most all other mac advertising claims, is way overblown. Frankly I think the inevitable, mysterious degradation of PC performance is a far worse problem than how they work out of the box.
"Let me explain this to you : Apple stuff is made by and for creative people. And creative people don't wear neckties, glasses and other boring stuff that makes you look like the average clerk or this PC-guy."
As if you're qualified to make such statements, Mr AC.
Let me explain this to you: Apple stuff is made by engineers at a very large corporation. As to how they dress---not any different than many other computer and software companies. Additionally, Apple stuff is made for anyone who will buy them and Apple won't refuse a sale to you even if you wear a suit and tie. Apple has no monopoly on any given type of user and creative people wear all sorts of clothes.
"Of course it's different when they go see their lawyers to sue you for violating their priceless intellectual property (that's why they're creative after all)."
Yes, of course. People choose creative activities so they can "sue you".
Creative professionals use all sorts of tools depending on what they do. When you run Photoshop there's little difference between a mac and PC except that the mac is much slower (a universal binary and an Intel processor will finally fix that). Apple hasn't always targeted creative types---they simply grew into that market.
Apple is no different than Dell in that regard. Nice try.
Read the ratings and you'll realize that what you claim is beside the point.
Companies like Dell don't do environmental friendless (or anything else for that matter) out of the goodness of their hearts. They don't have hearts. Neither does Apple.
Dell and others do what they do because their customers require it. Big business and government are much different to sell to than the home user, and that most likely explains why Dell actually DOES more regarding being green while Apple just says they do. Dell needs it while Apple only needs to brag about it in order to reinforce the elistist attitude of their home/small business customer base. There are customers that actually require environmental friendliness.
Unlike macs, pc's are actually sold into businesses where they are replaced on a set schedule that's dictated by economics. In the real world there's no room for such an irrational attachment to a piece of electronics as you apparently have. Machines serve out their usefulness and get discarded. How's the web browser on your IIe?
Sorry, "due to" not "do to".
"As it stands, their report is very misleading."
In what way is the report misleading?
"Greenpeace "researchers" admit to giving Apple low scores because..."
Admit? You mean "recognize". Your choice of words gives away your prejudice.
"Apple is an especially secretive company."
Yes, of course this explains why Apple fails to release data of this sort. Apple has everything to gain by publishing information on their environmental correctness, assuming that they are so.
"As an environmentally concerned consumer, Greenpeace's ranking of Apple does affect my desire to purchase hardware from the company in spite of obvious flaws in their review system."
What would? You must mean "do to" rather than "in spite of".
There is no reason to believe Greenpeace desires to single out Apple for poor environmental performance and certainly no reason to produce misleading documentation to that fact. Environmental friendliness is something that any company would gladly document. Apple is the one here producing misleading environmental documentation and they're getting called on it.
I find it interesting that people readily accept the notion that Pentium M is a derivative of the PIII while Core 2 is somehow distinct from Core or Pentium M. The Pentium M was developed years after the PIII, was specifically developed for portables, was created by an entirely different design team, used the bus of the P4 and had significant architectural differences when compared to PIII. The Core 2, meanwhile, is an immediate follow-on of Core, just as Core was a follow-on of Pentium M, is architecturally similar and even shares a pinout with Core in the case of Merom. To claim that Core 2 is the first "Core architecture" product is arbitrary and more absurd than claiming that Pentium M is a new version of PIII, yet that seems to be what's floated around here. Each processor is a new design effort that benefits from designs that came before it. Naming is simply marketing BS.
and don't forget his gigabit claims...
"How many of you have ever had non-stop continuous hassle free wireless experiences?"
I have a Sonos network which uses dedicated WiFi for similar uses and it is absolutely continuous and hassle free. It works flawlessly. Depending on how MS implements their WiFi I can easily see it working well. I can also see it working poorly.
"You never even gave an example for this strong-arming."
I did. It's the GPLv3.
"Of course it takes it away, that's the whole point of DRM! You can't run modified code. That you think there is no such thing as the freedom of its users is telling."
GPL'ed software has no inherent right to dictate what hardware does as it cannot define terms of use for products unrelated to it. All the GPL can do is grant rights regrading what it licenses. That you think it can is telling.
"Please tell about the terrible deeds of the FSF."
I never even suggested that they committed terrible deeds. Surely you can argue better than to put words in my mouth.
"_That's strong-arming! You're being ridiculous. You you have any rights to RMS showing up?"
Of course I don't. I wouldn't even see RMS if he did show up (unlike RMS, I don't have an allergy to showers) but that's beside the point. RMS is a crybaby when he doesn't get his way and he uses juvenile tactics to influence others. He's successfully gotten users groups to change their names using just this tactic. I don't really care if you refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
"Again, that's not true. I debunked it already and yet you repeat the same lie."
You've debunked nothing and it's no lie. If I release code under the GPL using the "or later" clause, then RMS can release a new version of the GPL that I object to and I cannot prevent my work from being used under that later license. It is an undeniable fact and it's the reason that some, such as Linus, have chosen not to use his language.
"I meant stupid not because of any properties of the name Linux because what is commonly called Linux is actually GNU. Linux chose his name for _the _kernel _he _started _to _write. Linux of course was not a GNU project. But RMS doesn not want to call Linux the kernel GNU/Linux. What he wants is to call the GNU system with the Linux kernel GNU/Linux. Debian is called "Debian GNU/Linux" by Debian. The others are called RedHat and Suse actually."
Who cares what RMS wants except RMS? Each distribution can choose the name of their product as they see fit.
There is only a GNU system in RMS's mind. What there is, in fact, is GPL'ed source code for a large variety of software that can be used to make up a Unix-like system. It's not the only open source software of it's kind BTW. The GPL license allows me to integrate the licensed software into a larger system as I choose provided I meet the terms of the GPL. Those terms do NOT include recognizing RMS's right to pick the name of my project or referring to my use of the "GNU system". There is no defensible claim whatsoever to RMS's position that "GNU/" should be prepended to Linux. If RMS wants to do his own distribution and call it the "GNU system" he is free to do so.
"Yeah, that was trolling because RMS never demanded that Linux be called anything other than "Linux.""
Like hell he didn't. Read the FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
Only the most hardened RMS apologist can read this shameless, self-promoting propoganda and believe that he isn't "demanding" anything. RMS knows he's wrong so he sugarcoats it.
RMS claims that Linus, through Linux, modified the GNU system by providing an alternative kernel when that is clearly untrue. There was no kernel for the "GNU system". The problem is that RMS can't stand the heat of his own free software kitchen. His "GNU system" code got used in an alternative unix-like system and it didn't get named after him. Boo Hoo.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of "troll". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Your inability to argue your indefensible positions does not make me a troll.
"Your original claim was "he wants to strongarm hardware manufacturers into removing all DRM from their hardware." Now you say he wants control over his own stuff."
No, I said that's the leverage used to strongarm the manufacturers.
"The influence would be: if you use my code you can't take away the freedom of its users by locking it up by DRM"
The GPL grants specific rights to users for code that it specifically licenses. It cannot grant freedoms to users outside of the code licensed. DRM doesn't change the freedom of GPL'ed code, it only effects the hardware it exists in. In other words, there's no such thing as "the freedom of its users".
"In contrast, "content providers" (your term for the media conglomerates) take away their users' rights and money."
What? Surely you don't mean that. If you don't like their terms then don't use their product. Isn't that the answer to anyone who objects to the GPL?
"Can't you see the difference?"
No, I don't. Each uses copyright law to influence hardware. One does it for financial profit and the other does it to obtain greater contributions to a code base that he can freely use. That is another form of profit and there is no difference.
"This is an example for how he "actively strongarms other developers into his licensing view"? Tell me, please, how he "recruits". Does he have an army that will drag developers out of their homes? You must be delirious."
Recruiting does not involve taking by force. The FSF absolutely recruits. You apparently are ignorant of what the FSF does.
"That's a lie or ignorance of the GPL. Go read the license and the "v2 or later" clause. It gives the _recipient of the software the right to choose. If you write software and license it under "GPLv2 or later" and I receive the software from somewhere, then _I can choose if I want to license it under v2 or v3, whatever I prefer."
That is no lie. I used the word "encouraged" not forced. The "or later" allows for the software to have its license modified at RMS's whim. Authors don't have to choose it but they are encouraged to do so. Fortunately Linus is wise to that.
"You know, this is getting tedious."
Then don't play. Where is it found in the GPL that authors retain the right to name your product when you incorporate their code? Since when does the use of GNU developed software require anyone to add GNU to their name. Nowhere of course. Since RMS knows he has no legal OR moral leg to stand on he resorted to more underhanded tactics. No distribution is required to name their product Linux, much less GNU/Linux. You are simply an apologist.
"He _says that he'd like it for specific reasons (look it up at gnu.org). You have a really low threshold for feeling strongarmed, how do you cope socially?"
And that must be why he refuses appearances whenever his preferred name isn't used. I cope socially quite well. You?
"He has contributed by tiny things like giving birth to the idea of a completely free reimplementation of Unix (while BSD was tangled in lawsuits), the GNU system, which was more or less complete (for the time) except a kernel."
This was never a discussion of RMS's contributions and arguing them serves no purpose here.
"Calling it Linux is catchy but kinda stupid. Nevertheless the name will stay."
The same could be said for GNU---catchy but kinda stupid. Linus chose his name. Linux was not a GNU project. Neither is Red Hat, Debian, SUSE, etc.
"However calling it GNU/Linux sometimes is necessary so that trolls like you can't spread the lie that GNU did "not contribute" to the development of the body of free software as it stands today."
I never said any such thing. I said that RMS did not contribute to Linux and had no legal claim to its name nor any claim to the naming of any distribution that was not his.
It's interesting that you've resorted to multiple insults and have accused me of spreading multiple lies simply because I don't agr
Over the lifetime of HD-DVD and BluRay, devices that can record off of HDMI are possible and even likely to be offered. The same was said for DVDs when they were first introduced (that MPEG compression was too hard to do in real time to make home DVD recorders a practicality). The data streams themselves are not too challenging to process (as evidenced by devices that do so today) and realtime video compression at those data rates is readily achievable. It's only a matter of cost and I want one.
If you mean 1080 vs 720 then perhaps that's true. If you mean HD vs NTSC then perhaps you need to move closer than 40 feet away or get equipment that actually works. Barring that, your eyes are hopeless.
"Not true. Only if they run GPLv3-licensed code on the hardware. They are free to write their own stuff, then they don't have to deal with GPLv3."
Only because he overlooked it in previous versions of the GPL. As content owners would say "You're free to watch your own stuff". Both RMS and MPAA are using the same leverage to accomplish the same goals. "Do as I say or don't use my stuff".
"I don't believe that."
Can't see why not. Content providers are attempting to influence the computing platform for their own interests. RMS is attempting to influence the computing platform for his own interests. There is no difference.
"Examples please?"
Stallman recruits developers and projects to GNU and then dictates development and licensing terms. He runs an entire organization for that purpose after all. Stallman evangelizes the GPL and periodically updates it to reflect his beliefs. He encourages developers to license code under the current GPL with a clause that allows transfer to a newer version so that he's free to modify licensing of existing code authored by other programmers. He co-opts existing language (open source, freedom) to imply meaning that otherwise doesn't exist. He strongarms people into recognizing that he has naming rights to projects for which he doesn't contribute (gnu/linux).
What I said isn't controversial; it's RMS's explicit goal. You do realize that that's what the FSF is for, right?
There is control, there is speed, and then there is the speed limit. While speed and control are related, the speed limit is not. Get it? The government can change speed limits all they want and the control of my car is unaffected.
As for your example in a neighborhood, it's not control that is the problem, it's visibility. Visibility is the issue with stopping distances as well.
No speed is a safe speed when a kid jumps out in front of your car. The only answer to that case is to not drive.
"and are blasted because 'they are obscure'"
They aren't blasted for being obsure. That point is made only when advocates of alternatives claim that lack of publicized problems is proof that those systems are more secure. There is nothing wrong with obscurity except for the false confidence that it potentially provides.
Ahhh some people get it and some don't.
If only we set speed limits to 0 everywhere. Then everyone who drove would be infinitely lacking control over their vehicles. What an unsafe world we would live in then.
He needs to say what he intends to say. If it's so obvious what he really meant then perhaps there was no need to say it at all.
Regarding the "natural speed limit", that is generally a function of visibility more than it is vehicle capability. In your example, it is probably true that the vehicle itself limits speeds, but most roads have hazards that you can easily outdrive without pushing your car's limits. For example, Formula 1 races are set on city streets and therefore provide ample evidence that a car *could* go 150+ mph in those areas. No way they would be doing that if grandma were backing out onto the course from your driveway.
Finally, there is only a loose correlation between "natural speed limits" and posted ones. Drivers, except the most inexperienced ones, have a natural feel for what speeds are safely supported by conditions. Speed limits are generally set much lower than that (at least in the US). One can only conclude that exceeding the posted limit by a modest amount is unlikely to ever result in a compromise in vehicle handling. That is what the original poster *intended* to say IMO and it's simply incorrect. Cars, over the years, have made great improvements in handling safety and roads have generally improved. Sadly, speed limits have not gone up as a result (freeways excluded).
Clearly he is, but his original post mentioned nothing of reaction time. That's simply another absurd error he made in defending his senseless position.
Speed limits have no bearing on the control you have of your vehicle. On the contrary, your ability to control your vehicle may be what determines the speed limit. In practice it does not. Most speed limits are set arbitrarily low to encourage a sufficient proportion of speeding. Ignoring that obvious bit of corruption, visibility and overall conditions generally determine what the maximum safe speed really is, not what the ultimate performance of the average vehicle can deliver. Exceeding the speed limit by 10 or 15 mph (the original poster's example) is, in fact, expected in the US since it's well established that limits are intentionally set low by that amount. As a result, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that such a speed jeopardizes the driver's ability to control the vehicle.
In an ideal world, traffic laws would be just and speed limits appropriately set. There would be 100% compliance and essentially no collisions except for mechanical failures. 100% compliance would mean no traffic tickets and the result would be insufficient revenues and lost ability to judge the performance of traffic officers. In the real world, traffic cops are measured by their ability to meet quotas and local governments are partially and sometimes totally funded by traffic ticket revenues. Cops are poorly educated and poorly paid but pursue their careers because of the power trip it affords them. Traffic laws are not at all uniformly enforced since most fail to generate revuenue.
It is well known that when speed limits are set reasonably there is near total compliance and when they are totally unreasonable they are largely ignored. Limits are set somewhere in between so that there is only partial compliance and officers are afforded discretion. That's how speed limits work. They have essentially nothing to do with how much control you have over your car.
Near where I lived, a large blvd was opened to through traffic and the local residents were extremely mad about it. In order to placate them, speed limits were set to 35 mph even though 45 would have been expected (and 55 was easily supported by visibility). Traffic was horribly slow and every day, at the same spot, there was an assembly line of traffic tickets being handed out by the same group of police. After about 6 months of this the speed limits were raised, the cops disappeared, and congestion improved. Apparently they stopped the wrong guy or the judge had seen enough. Sadly, this is the norm for our society, not the exception. Anyone who thinks speed limits are set scientifically is a fool.
There is a certain amount of work that needs to get done regardless of how much disposable income the average guy has, so one could argue that sucha move would inherently reduce unemployment. I don't believe it's a given, therefore, that reducing the amount of work will "increase unemployment dramatically and reduce overall wages" as you say. It's true that such a move might have a great impact on which businesses thrive and which do not. No doubt the overall productivity of the economy would suffer but that's not a direct measure of happiness.
Counteracting that is the possibility that people are happier because they work less hard. It's very complex.
It's probably unergonomic and definitely butt-ugly!
You value your leisure time and others value other things. People often lose sight of what is important to them once they get caught up in their careers.
While I agree with you mostly, I think people who obtain wealth don't come to think of it as easy. They say that to ease their guilt. In reality they believe that they've come into money because they are better than the everyday guy.
It's good that you keep a healthy perspective on work and leisure. We'd all be better off if more did that.
Yes I have, "jackass". What does the speed limit have to do with reaction time? Does lowering the speed limit raise reaction time?
I'll remind you again, this is what you posted:
"In fact, even driving 10-15mph over the speed limit greatly decreases control one has over their vehicle."
It is a fact that higher speeds limit what a car is capable of doing, but speed limits have nothing to do with that. Reaction times are a constant and do not affect the amount of control a driver has over his vehicle. I can't help it if you aren't able to commumicate effectively, but what you said is nonsense.
"...reaction time, decreased when you increase speed, is a contributing factor in accidents. Reaction time is a fact."
Sorry, another ignorant statement from you. Reaction times remain relatively constant and do not decrease with increasing speed. If only they would.
"...n fact speed was often a contributing factor in those types of accidents due to decreased reaction time."
Also ridiculously incorrect. Reaction time is constant. Learn your terms.
Speed is always a contributing factor in accidents. If everyone was going 0 mph there would be no accidents. That point is inarguable and that's why police and insurance companies love it.
Are you saying you have no claims to privacy while you are in public?