Nobody cares about an original name. I can call my next cell phone the Flooblegarber 17-and-a-half, and people will remember its name just about as well as they remember "FIC Neo1973". On the other hand, everyone knows what an iPhone is, what it's supposed to do, and what company made it.
Provided of course that the band in question actually wanted to get paid. Some of us make music just because we like it, you know. It was art before it was a business. Some folks think of it still as art. Not everything amounts to a "cash flow opportunity".
Er, if the band does not want to get paid, they should announce this publicly. If they don't, then the broadcaster can simply find their address and send them a check for the cost of compulsory licensing, rather than negotiating difficult and possibly DRM-laden terms with every band whose music they'd like to use.
I believe you'll find that the vast majority of musicians, as well as the vast majority of anyone else with a skill that they use for a living, would indeed like to get paid for their work.
despite Linux' vendors' holier-than-thou attitude with regard to F/OSS vs. proprietary and software patents, business takes precedence.
So?
If you want to be Richard Stallman about it, this is exactly the difference between "free software" -- an ethical prerogative -- and "open source" -- a business convenience. We knew all along that Red Hat et al. were from the open-source faction.
In practical terms, Red Hat makes money off its software, and uses that money to pay many prolific Linux developers. Same with many other OSS-friendly commercial companies. Same with even Apple - for example, they caused the largest KHTML deployment ever, in the form of Safari, and thereby fixed several bugs and other issues and sent the patches upstream.
no one is fooling themselves into thinking that they are getting a $400 program for ten bucks.
That's for the $10 copies. There are, however, the $400 copies, in which case people are fooled into thinking that the $400 they're paying for this program is going to Microsoft instead of some thief's pocket.
(And yes, this is in fact theft. The data might not be "stolen", but the $400 definitely was stolen.)
How do you know that it's not Creative Commons or public domain material? One of these cases was tipped off by an angry girlfriend.
Because the vast majority of commercial music that can be reasonably counterfeited is not CC or PD. I said "reasonable to presume", not "certain".
Democracies are supposed to work that way.
Yes, so then make your argument "This shouldn't be illegal", not "This isn't illegal, so the police shouldn't be arresting people for it...oh wait, it is, but it shouldn't be."
That's not hard to do when you presume all music and movies are owned by the MAFIAA, but this is not the case.
It's entirely reasonable to presume that all music and movies that were being sold were copyrighted by *an entity other than the sellers* who had *not authorized that sale*, and the work was not in the public domain. The fact that the "MAFIAA" tipped off the police has no effect on which works the police can seize.
The second problem is that copyright is a civil matter.... Oh, I know, there's now criminal copyright violation - but it's wrong and should be repealed.
So because you think something shouldn't be a criminal matter, it isn't? Also, "now"? Fraud has been a crime for a long while...
Would society go to bat for anyone but the MAFIAA companies?
Yes, any actual rightsholder would care, regardless of whether they're part of the "MAFIAA" or not.
Because, sir, if you give a man $200, you feed him for half a week.
WTF are you eating? I spend $80 a week at the grocery store
Yeah, I didn't phrase that too well. $200 is half a week's cost of living (food, housing, etc.), according to the person that I replied to, but I was trying to adapt the "Give a man a fish..." proverb, which only refers to food.
Fun trivia: $60BN is enough to give *every* child and adult in the US $200; about half a week's wages for people working minimum wage (before the roughly 1/3rd that goes to taxes, of course.)... Now sit there and explain to me why New Orleans is still a disaster area, why 10 million kids in the US don't get enough food to eat...
Because, sir, if you give a man $200, you feed him for half a week. If you keep up the hegemony status of that man's nation, and use a successful war to spur on the economy (as successful wars always do), you feed him for a lifetime. Remember that although there may be poverty in America, there is nothing resembling an actual humanitarian crisis due to an outright failure of the economy to sell food where it's needed - and there will never be one, so long as America remains the superpower.
As a Louisiana resident, I know the Katrina disaster response was woefully inadequate and an embarrassment to our nation. But that isn't to say that the federal government should have any role in the long-term rebuilding of the city. The worst thing New Orleans, or in fact anywhere, could have is handouts. All they do is provide a source of capital that nobody can compete with, and therefore nobody bothers to work towards restoring an economy.
You're wrong. "Carbon" is the collective name for all native Mac OS X APIs, see http://developer.apple.com/carbon/. Quartz, Core Data, Code Audio, etc. are all parts of the umbrella technology set called "Carbon". "Cocoa" OTOH is a handy Objective-C object-oriented abstraction layer atop of that, which is supposed to make development of applications easier....
That's among the most incorrect statements I've ever heard regarding the Carbon/Cocoa setup. Sure, in practice, Cocoa may resemble MFC. But Cocoa and Carbon are at the same level and alternatives.
Also, if "Carbon" is "all native Mac OS X APIs", then how can Carbon apps possibly run on OS 9?
On the other hand, your point is correct. Because Carbon and Cocoa are equal alternatives, you pick the best one depending on how your code is structured. You can get to most interesting OS X APIs via Carbon, so if you're porting existing C/C++ software, Carbon probably makes more sense than Cocoa. (This used to also give you the side benefit of OS 9 compatibility, but frankly, nobody cares anymore.) However, it's incorrect to claim that Cocoa apps use Carbon - Cocoa apps use Cocoa so they don't have to use Carbon.
hope some college will look harder at his employment record than it will at his HS diploma
MIT does not require a high-school diploma for admissions, because it understands there are corner cases from "We had a bad harvest my senior year" to "My country's school system sucks" to "I ran out of classes junior year, can I just go straight to college?" to even "There are weird things on my disciplinary record, yet I have glowing recommendations and great scores."
(In fact, I slightly fall into the latter case, except I do have a normal diploma. I got an in-school suspension in high school for excessive tardies. I still can't get to lecture on time. I don't think they really cared enough to look at my discipline record; if they did, they would've looked hard enough to see why it wasn't immaculate.)
The odd thing is that, unlike most other Deans of Admission, at MIT and elsewhere, she had a compulsion to turn herself into a public figure.
Maybe it's not 'cause she found she "got away with it" and wanted to see how far it could go -- maybe it's because she realized that she was capable and able to go far without a formal college degree and all the accoutrements of traditional education, and she wanted to make sure the next generation of the intellectual elite would be able to focus on actually bettering themselves instead of continuing to chace after the same accoutrements.
Actually, if you have a large enough number of properly-designed APs blanketing the area, VoIP might be what you want. I can confirm that Skype works seamlessly both from an actual laptop (of course) and a Windows Mobile device.
I'm sorry, but his record, both before and after becoming president, show him to be a callous opportunist with delusions of grandeur. The man thinks God speaks directly to him.
I think God speaks directly to me, but I'm not a callous opportunist with delusions of grandeur. On the other hand I don't publicly justify anything I do, other than my faith, with "God told me to." Perhaps you should clarify your implication there - there are certainly millions who believe God speaks directly to them who don't think that gives them the right to do whatever they want.
Also, he is the most powerful man in the world. I'm not sure how one can have delusions of grandeur for that. Delusions of competence, sure.
I can't remember what the Slashdot Party Line is on the Swift Boat Veterans. Are they anti-Kerry and thus pro-Bush and thus bad? Anti-Kerry and thus good? Pro-truth and good? Pro-lie and bad? Just plain weird?
the statement is obvously designed to be at least initially interpretted as "the purpose for which men were created was to worship god, god created us to worship him"
"God created us to worship him" clearly has a different primary interpretation from "Men were created to worship God." The subject of the sentence is different. Honestly, don't they teach people why and when to use passive voice anymore? It's not always anathema.
most religious people probably perform these sorts of logical contortions without batting an eye daily if not continuously
How do you justify this claim? Why can't religious people say that the non-religious are the ones making logical contortions to make religious beliefs look inherently silly?
they are not content with your atheism
So? Also, note that many religious people would take issue with the secondary interpretation of this sentence (and many would therefore take issue with the sentence as a whole), so I'm not sure why this is relevant, even if the concern made sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody cares about an original name. I can call my next cell phone the Flooblegarber 17-and-a-half, and people will remember its name just about as well as they remember "FIC Neo1973". On the other hand, everyone knows what an iPhone is, what it's supposed to do, and what company made it.
The Great Journey is near!
Provided of course that the band in question actually wanted to get paid. Some of us make music just because we like it, you know. It was art before it was a business. Some folks think of it still as art. Not everything amounts to a "cash flow opportunity".
Er, if the band does not want to get paid, they should announce this publicly. If they don't, then the broadcaster can simply find their address and send them a check for the cost of compulsory licensing, rather than negotiating difficult and possibly DRM-laden terms with every band whose music they'd like to use.
I believe you'll find that the vast majority of musicians, as well as the vast majority of anyone else with a skill that they use for a living, would indeed like to get paid for their work.
despite Linux' vendors' holier-than-thou attitude with regard to F/OSS vs. proprietary and software patents, business takes precedence.
So?
If you want to be Richard Stallman about it, this is exactly the difference between "free software" -- an ethical prerogative -- and "open source" -- a business convenience. We knew all along that Red Hat et al. were from the open-source faction.
In practical terms, Red Hat makes money off its software, and uses that money to pay many prolific Linux developers. Same with many other OSS-friendly commercial companies. Same with even Apple - for example, they caused the largest KHTML deployment ever, in the form of Safari, and thereby fixed several bugs and other issues and sent the patches upstream.
Who died and made ICANN boss?
Jon Postel, right?
no one is fooling themselves into thinking that they are getting a $400 program for ten bucks.
That's for the $10 copies. There are, however, the $400 copies, in which case people are fooled into thinking that the $400 they're paying for this program is going to Microsoft instead of some thief's pocket.
(And yes, this is in fact theft. The data might not be "stolen", but the $400 definitely was stolen.)
How do you know that it's not Creative Commons or public domain material? One of these cases was tipped off by an angry girlfriend.
Because the vast majority of commercial music that can be reasonably counterfeited is not CC or PD. I said "reasonable to presume", not "certain".
Democracies are supposed to work that way.
Yes, so then make your argument "This shouldn't be illegal", not "This isn't illegal, so the police shouldn't be arresting people for it...oh wait, it is, but it shouldn't be."
That's not hard to do when you presume all music and movies are owned by the MAFIAA, but this is not the case.
... Oh, I know, there's now criminal copyright violation - but it's wrong and should be repealed.
It's entirely reasonable to presume that all music and movies that were being sold were copyrighted by *an entity other than the sellers* who had *not authorized that sale*, and the work was not in the public domain. The fact that the "MAFIAA" tipped off the police has no effect on which works the police can seize.
The second problem is that copyright is a civil matter.
So because you think something shouldn't be a criminal matter, it isn't? Also, "now"? Fraud has been a crime for a long while...
Would society go to bat for anyone but the MAFIAA companies?
Yes, any actual rightsholder would care, regardless of whether they're part of the "MAFIAA" or not.
Because, sir, if you give a man $200, you feed him for half a week.
WTF are you eating? I spend $80 a week at the grocery store
Yeah, I didn't phrase that too well. $200 is half a week's cost of living (food, housing, etc.), according to the person that I replied to, but I was trying to adapt the "Give a man a fish..." proverb, which only refers to food.
Fun trivia: $60BN is enough to give *every* child and adult in the US $200; about half a week's wages for people working minimum wage (before the roughly 1/3rd that goes to taxes, of course.) ... Now sit there and explain to me why New Orleans is still a disaster area, why 10 million kids in the US don't get enough food to eat ...
Because, sir, if you give a man $200, you feed him for half a week. If you keep up the hegemony status of that man's nation, and use a successful war to spur on the economy (as successful wars always do), you feed him for a lifetime. Remember that although there may be poverty in America, there is nothing resembling an actual humanitarian crisis due to an outright failure of the economy to sell food where it's needed - and there will never be one, so long as America remains the superpower.
As a Louisiana resident, I know the Katrina disaster response was woefully inadequate and an embarrassment to our nation. But that isn't to say that the federal government should have any role in the long-term rebuilding of the city. The worst thing New Orleans, or in fact anywhere, could have is handouts. All they do is provide a source of capital that nobody can compete with, and therefore nobody bothers to work towards restoring an economy.
You're wrong. "Carbon" is the collective name for all native Mac OS X APIs, see http://developer.apple.com/carbon/. Quartz, Core Data, Code Audio, etc. are all parts of the umbrella technology set called "Carbon". "Cocoa" OTOH is a handy Objective-C object-oriented abstraction layer atop of that, which is supposed to make development of applications easier. ...
That's among the most incorrect statements I've ever heard regarding the Carbon/Cocoa setup. Sure, in practice, Cocoa may resemble MFC. But Cocoa and Carbon are at the same level and alternatives.
Also, if "Carbon" is "all native Mac OS X APIs", then how can Carbon apps possibly run on OS 9?
On the other hand, your point is correct. Because Carbon and Cocoa are equal alternatives, you pick the best one depending on how your code is structured. You can get to most interesting OS X APIs via Carbon, so if you're porting existing C/C++ software, Carbon probably makes more sense than Cocoa. (This used to also give you the side benefit of OS 9 compatibility, but frankly, nobody cares anymore.) However, it's incorrect to claim that Cocoa apps use Carbon - Cocoa apps use Cocoa so they don't have to use Carbon.
Roland has recently been posting links directly to other sites, with no mention of his blog, far more frequently than links to his own blog.
Have you just stopped looking at his articles for maybe a year now, because other Slashbots once told you they're links to his blogs?
RTFRolandAs.
beau coup
Have you stopped beating your boyfriend?
Flood pings?
Ethereal?
Several popular uses of mount?
Shutdown?
apt-get install package-that-won't-obliterate-other-stuff?
"Will no one rid me of this troublesome network?"
hope some college will look harder at his employment record than it will at his HS diploma
MIT does not require a high-school diploma for admissions, because it understands there are corner cases from "We had a bad harvest my senior year" to "My country's school system sucks" to "I ran out of classes junior year, can I just go straight to college?" to even "There are weird things on my disciplinary record, yet I have glowing recommendations and great scores."
(In fact, I slightly fall into the latter case, except I do have a normal diploma. I got an in-school suspension in high school for excessive tardies. I still can't get to lecture on time. I don't think they really cared enough to look at my discipline record; if they did, they would've looked hard enough to see why it wasn't immaculate.)
The odd thing is that, unlike most other Deans of Admission, at MIT and elsewhere, she had a compulsion to turn herself into a public figure.
Maybe it's not 'cause she found she "got away with it" and wanted to see how far it could go -- maybe it's because she realized that she was capable and able to go far without a formal college degree and all the accoutrements of traditional education, and she wanted to make sure the next generation of the intellectual elite would be able to focus on actually bettering themselves instead of continuing to chace after the same accoutrements.
Actually, if you have a large enough number of properly-designed APs blanketing the area, VoIP might be what you want. I can confirm that Skype works seamlessly both from an actual laptop (of course) and a Windows Mobile device.
In fact, my school is transitioning to VoIP everywhere, for both (non-emergency) landlines and Institute-issued wireless phones.
I can't tell if you're serious or not, but in case you are, I might remind you that spammers can write while-loops too.
I'm sorry, but his record, both before and after becoming president, show him to be a callous opportunist with delusions of grandeur. The man thinks God speaks directly to him.
I think God speaks directly to me, but I'm not a callous opportunist with delusions of grandeur. On the other hand I don't publicly justify anything I do, other than my faith, with "God told me to." Perhaps you should clarify your implication there - there are certainly millions who believe God speaks directly to them who don't think that gives them the right to do whatever they want.
Also, he is the most powerful man in the world. I'm not sure how one can have delusions of grandeur for that. Delusions of competence, sure.
Good morning, Max Diems (or is it Max Harmony?). I hope you had a happy birthday Wednesday. How's the weather in Florida?
Ooh, ooh, can I get on TV predicting how the shooter's computer has Microsoft Word installed on it? I'm more likely to be right.
How often do you reformat the drive? If the answer's "never", you're owned, regardless.
I can't remember what the Slashdot Party Line is on the Swift Boat Veterans. Are they anti-Kerry and thus pro-Bush and thus bad? Anti-Kerry and thus good? Pro-truth and good? Pro-lie and bad? Just plain weird?
the statement is obvously designed to be at least initially interpretted as "the purpose for which men were created was to worship god, god created us to worship him"
"God created us to worship him" clearly has a different primary interpretation from "Men were created to worship God." The subject of the sentence is different. Honestly, don't they teach people why and when to use passive voice anymore? It's not always anathema.
most religious people probably perform these sorts of logical contortions without batting an eye daily if not continuously
How do you justify this claim? Why can't religious people say that the non-religious are the ones making logical contortions to make religious beliefs look inherently silly?
they are not content with your atheism
So? Also, note that many religious people would take issue with the secondary interpretation of this sentence (and many would therefore take issue with the sentence as a whole), so I'm not sure why this is relevant, even if the concern made sense.