Around here, if someones says that Quebec tolerates piracy, wouldn't that mean they have a high opinion of Quebec? Or did you mean to say that they have an ignorant view of Quebec?
Anyway, what conservative Quebecois party are you talking about? The Bloc always seemed pretty liberal to me.
For you, probably nothing. For noobs that like to see a pretty "web-2.0" interface to everything they do with a computer, it's "OMG, just what Linux needs to succeed on the desktop!".
Actually, joking aside, I think they offer some things, like "legal" DVD playing software (for money) that you can't get on the usual repositories. For someone who is familiar with apt-get/synaptic and has no problem with libdcss, or liblame, I don't think CNR has anything to offer.
I've heard good things about that one and how it does fine with the modern eye-candy like xgl etc. Apparently there's newer and better already out from Intel. See here.
I've looked around for boards with these chips and found them in several brands including Asus and Intel. A search for "gma" on your favourite computer store's site should find something.
For whomever modded the above troll, here's some points of distinction. All of the code we run (well, not Python and the like) on a Linux system is in binary. That's what happens when you compile the code; you make a binary to run. So it's silly to say that open source purists don't like to load binary software. They just don't like apps that are only distributed in binary form as opposed to both binary and in source form.
I'll just wait here for the Free Software fire-breathing demons of zealotry. It's quite cold right now and my furnace needs a break.
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the coding of the closed and the tyranny of proprietary applications. Blessed is he who in the name of 4 Freedoms and good will frees the source through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's bitkeeper and the user of obsolete hardware. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my installation with binary blobs. And you will know my name is Saint iGNUciuswhen I lay my vengeance upon thee!11.
So I became interested in what has to be done to make a cover legal and after some googling I realize that you have to pay part of your profits to the original artist for doing a cover. I think that's the closest thing to this situation.
Rappers have usually cleared their samples since De La Soul got sued in the late eighties. On most CD covers there's some fine print stating where each sample came from, citing the original artist and song.
The only difference here is that he didn't actually take a direct recording, he "just" did a recording with his own instruments to make it sound just like the original. Which might be legal. After all, covers are legal.
But yeah, I'd like to see the original artist get some money from this too.
I admit, I had forgotten about that part of an upgrade. I think I always went with the new configuration file (or whatever the default action was). I don't remember it changing my settings for anything.
But I still prefer portage and emerge over apt-get (except for the compiling time). It just seemed easier to do things that are complicated in Debian, like downgrading a bunch of packages, or trying out different verions of a package. And I was a noob when I used Gentoo.
My brain exploded when I read that. This author is WAY out of touch with reality. Of all the widely-used Linux distros, Gentoo, by FAR, requires the most administration effort and expertise.
Actually, no. Gentoo is not the easiest to install, even with the new GTK graphical installer. But to maintain, it is a breeze. "emerge --update" isn't any harder to type than "apt-get update". And yes, there are graphical frontends to portage.
Another good thing about the to-do list is that you get a sense of satisfaction after every small task is completed. So even though the big project isn't done you still get some mental reward, which encourages you to do more.
The only thing that I've found that works so far is by determining a reward which I'll give myself after a task is completed. Be it more PS3 or beer or just wasting time on the net (sad, I know), the looking forward to the reward helps me get it done faster. Of course, I still have to have the discipline to not just take the 'reward' before the task is done.
In addition to what the others above me have said, there's also the fact that that "suing out of market" will only work in the US. The rest of the world may just move on without the States.
Before people start bashing those who proposed this, think of the devs who put so much of their time and effort into getting us Linux. And note that the proposal arose from a technical issue, not from a 'everything must be Free' stance. From the last thread/. links to, part of Greg's retraction:
It's just that I'm so damn tired of this whole thing. I'm tired of
people thinking they have a right to violate my copyright all the time.
I'm tired of people and companies somehow treating our license in ways
that are blatantly wrong and feeling fine about it. Because we are a
loose band of a lot of individuals, and not a company or legal entity,
it seems to give companies the chutzpah to feel that they can get away
with violating our license.
So when someone like Andrew gives me the opportunity to put a stop to
all of the crap that I have to put up with each and every day with a
tiny 2 line patch, I jumped in and took it. I need to sit back and
remember to see the bigger picture some times, so I apologize to
everyone here.
And yes, it is crap that I deal with every day due to the lovely grey
area that is Linux kernel module licensing these days. I have customers
that demand we support them despite them mixing three and more different
closed source kernel modules at once and getting upset that I have no
way to help them out. I have loony video tweakers that hand edit kernel
oopses to try to hide the fact that they are using a binary module
bigger than the sum of the whole kernel and demand that our group fix
their suspend/resume issue for them. I see executives who say one thing
to the community and then turn around and overrule them just because
someone made a horrible purchasing decision on the brand of laptop wifi
card that they purchased. I see lawyers who have their hands tied by
attorney-client rules and can not speak out in public for how they
really feel about licenses and how to interpret them.
Please think of the coders, and the shit they have to put up with while making your free operating system the next time you start clamoring for these closed source binary blobs.
I think you missed what I was saying. Natural selection by itself is not evolution. If you have a species with many different traits and some outside influence makes some of those traits more desirable while others less so, the dying out of the less desirable traits is not evolution. No new trait has been introduced into the gene pool. It's not evolution anymore than if some freak disease killed off all the green eyed people in the world.
So, 5000 years ago natural selection occurred. But the gene that allowed the digestion of lactose may have been around for millions of years, before we were even human.
Evolution is the combination of the mutation that created the gene and the natural selection that made for the proliferation of the gene. But that process may have to include a time span of millions of years, from the creation of the gene to the domestication of animals, not just ~5000 years ago.
So I read the article and it sounded like there was never a time they could point to and say 'here's when the mutation occured'. Instead they stated when the mutation started to have an effect on the population by weeding out those without the mutation.
So I'd say natural selection happened as recently as ~5000 years ago, not evolution. But maybe TFA didn't explain everything.
No, it doesn't. It's besides the point. Yes, it may be fair, in a way, that while the poorest 50% own only 1% of the wealth they also only pay 1% of the taxes.
But how much taxes a person pays is not the metric that needs to be equated with how much wealth they should fairly have. Look at how much work the poorest 50% do, and how hard that work is. It wouldn't matter if the poorest 50% paid no taxes. They are still doing far more work than the rich, and all they have to show for it is 1% of the wealth.
That's the better comparison than how much tax they pay; how much of the worlds work do the poorest 50% do compared to how much wealth they have. I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure it's a hell of a lot more than 1%.
Slashdot Mirror
Around here, if someones says that Quebec tolerates piracy, wouldn't that mean they have a high opinion of Quebec? Or did you mean to say that they have an ignorant view of Quebec?
Anyway, what conservative Quebecois party are you talking about? The Bloc always seemed pretty liberal to me.
For you, probably nothing. For noobs that like to see a pretty "web-2.0" interface to everything they do with a computer, it's "OMG, just what Linux needs to succeed on the desktop!".
Actually, joking aside, I think they offer some things, like "legal" DVD playing software (for money) that you can't get on the usual repositories. For someone who is familiar with apt-get/synaptic and has no problem with libdcss, or liblame, I don't think CNR has anything to offer.
I've heard good things about that one and how it does fine with the modern eye-candy like xgl etc. Apparently there's newer and better already out from Intel. See here.
I've looked around for boards with these chips and found them in several brands including Asus and Intel. A search for "gma" on your favourite computer store's site should find something.
Well, everything can be called selfish to some degree. We all do what we want to do. If something had no return, we wouldn't do it.
The only reason I ever do anything nice for anybody is because it makes me happy to see them happy.
Preliminary results suggest that European consumers would like it to be "less crappy".
Those snooty Europeans, think they're better'n us do they?
For whomever modded the above troll, here's some points of distinction. All of the code we run (well, not Python and the like) on a Linux system is in binary. That's what happens when you compile the code; you make a binary to run. So it's silly to say that open source purists don't like to load binary software. They just don't like apps that are only distributed in binary form as opposed to both binary and in source form.
This was the point of the OP.
I'll just wait here for the Free Software fire-breathing demons of zealotry. It's quite cold right now and my furnace needs a break.
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the coding of the closed and the tyranny of proprietary applications. Blessed is he who in the name of 4 Freedoms and good will frees the source through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's bitkeeper and the user of obsolete hardware. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my installation with binary blobs. And you will know my name is Saint iGNUcius when I lay my vengeance upon thee!11.
So I became interested in what has to be done to make a cover legal and after some googling I realize that you have to pay part of your profits to the original artist for doing a cover. I think that's the closest thing to this situation.
Rappers have usually cleared their samples since De La Soul got sued in the late eighties. On most CD covers there's some fine print stating where each sample came from, citing the original artist and song.
The only difference here is that he didn't actually take a direct recording, he "just" did a recording with his own instruments to make it sound just like the original. Which might be legal. After all, covers are legal.
But yeah, I'd like to see the original artist get some money from this too.
A law for procrastination was found centuries ago.
I admit, I had forgotten about that part of an upgrade. I think I always went with the new configuration file (or whatever the default action was). I don't remember it changing my settings for anything.
But I still prefer portage and emerge over apt-get (except for the compiling time). It just seemed easier to do things that are complicated in Debian, like downgrading a bunch of packages, or trying out different verions of a package. And I was a noob when I used Gentoo.
My brain exploded when I read that. This author is WAY out of touch with reality. Of all the widely-used Linux distros, Gentoo, by FAR, requires the most administration effort and expertise.
Actually, no. Gentoo is not the easiest to install, even with the new GTK graphical installer. But to maintain, it is a breeze. "emerge --update" isn't any harder to type than "apt-get update". And yes, there are graphical frontends to portage.
It also caters to my insanely short attention span (brought on by the jolt/halo/porn):
"hey, cool, the new-fangled dvds have been cracked, I'll read about it now.. Oh wait, the youtube video in the next tab is starting"
(2 minutes later)
"That sure was funny, now back to the porn"
(two days later)
"hey, cool, the new-fangled dvds have been cracked..."
Another good thing about the to-do list is that you get a sense of satisfaction after every small task is completed. So even though the big project isn't done you still get some mental reward, which encourages you to do more.
We really are simple creatures, aren't we?
The only thing that I've found that works so far is by determining a reward which I'll give myself after a task is completed. Be it more PS3 or beer or just wasting time on the net (sad, I know), the looking forward to the reward helps me get it done faster. Of course, I still have to have the discipline to not just take the 'reward' before the task is done.
In addition to what the others above me have said, there's also the fact that that "suing out of market" will only work in the US. The rest of the world may just move on without the States.
Before people start bashing those who proposed this, think of the devs who put so much of their time and effort into getting us Linux. And note that the proposal arose from a technical issue, not from a 'everything must be Free' stance. From the last thread /. links to, part of Greg's retraction:
It's just that I'm so damn tired of this whole thing. I'm tired of
people thinking they have a right to violate my copyright all the time.
I'm tired of people and companies somehow treating our license in ways
that are blatantly wrong and feeling fine about it. Because we are a
loose band of a lot of individuals, and not a company or legal entity,
it seems to give companies the chutzpah to feel that they can get away
with violating our license.
So when someone like Andrew gives me the opportunity to put a stop to
all of the crap that I have to put up with each and every day with a
tiny 2 line patch, I jumped in and took it. I need to sit back and
remember to see the bigger picture some times, so I apologize to
everyone here.
And yes, it is crap that I deal with every day due to the lovely grey
area that is Linux kernel module licensing these days. I have customers
that demand we support them despite them mixing three and more different
closed source kernel modules at once and getting upset that I have no
way to help them out. I have loony video tweakers that hand edit kernel
oopses to try to hide the fact that they are using a binary module
bigger than the sum of the whole kernel and demand that our group fix
their suspend/resume issue for them. I see executives who say one thing
to the community and then turn around and overrule them just because
someone made a horrible purchasing decision on the brand of laptop wifi
card that they purchased. I see lawyers who have their hands tied by
attorney-client rules and can not speak out in public for how they
really feel about licenses and how to interpret them.
Please think of the coders, and the shit they have to put up with while making your free operating system the next time you start clamoring for these closed source binary blobs.
I didn't say anything to the contrary.
You don't know how to read and comprehend, do you?
I think you missed what I was saying. Natural selection by itself is not evolution. If you have a species with many different traits and some outside influence makes some of those traits more desirable while others less so, the dying out of the less desirable traits is not evolution. No new trait has been introduced into the gene pool. It's not evolution anymore than if some freak disease killed off all the green eyed people in the world.
So, 5000 years ago natural selection occurred. But the gene that allowed the digestion of lactose may have been around for millions of years, before we were even human.
Evolution is the combination of the mutation that created the gene and the natural selection that made for the proliferation of the gene. But that process may have to include a time span of millions of years, from the creation of the gene to the domestication of animals, not just ~5000 years ago.
So I read the article and it sounded like there was never a time they could point to and say 'here's when the mutation occured'. Instead they stated when the mutation started to have an effect on the population by weeding out those without the mutation.
So I'd say natural selection happened as recently as ~5000 years ago, not evolution. But maybe TFA didn't explain everything.
Ugh. Now where's that big friggin' gong...
No, it doesn't. It's besides the point. Yes, it may be fair, in a way, that while the poorest 50% own only 1% of the wealth they also only pay 1% of the taxes.
But how much taxes a person pays is not the metric that needs to be equated with how much wealth they should fairly have. Look at how much work the poorest 50% do, and how hard that work is. It wouldn't matter if the poorest 50% paid no taxes. They are still doing far more work than the rich, and all they have to show for it is 1% of the wealth.
That's the better comparison than how much tax they pay; how much of the worlds work do the poorest 50% do compared to how much wealth they have. I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure it's a hell of a lot more than 1%.
Ok, I agree. Although I doubt he'll live to see the day when those aids orphans are buying Windows products.
I'm not arguing that it's wasn't a monopoly. Just that it's not stealing. No one forcefully separated you from your money. End of conversation.