Not much, because there'll still be poverty, there'll still be inequality, and there'll still be people willing to make a quick buck no matter who it hurts. There'll still be plenty of crime, and there'll still be lots of petty crime, which is partly fuelled by the need for drug money.
The argument's similar for prostitution - where it has been legalised, funnily enough it's not really more acceptable, and it doesn't pull in a huge amount of money for the government.
I had high hopes for Citizendium, but wikis thrive on drive-by editing, and I don't think Citizendium allows that. It sure hasn't gotten anywhere much in the year it's been running, and it's woefully incomplete.
And thank Christ, to be honest. Linux is notorious for having terrible, clunky UI, and programmers doing it for the love of it aren't really inclined to improve the UI for people who don't love their computers and simply aren't experts. This is exactly the sort of thing Linux needs to be a truly professional alternative to the focus-tested to buggery OS X and Windows.
It's to do with the editor. The EULA explicitly prohibits me from reverse-engineering or modifying any part of the game, which of course the editor is designed to do.
I think I installed some mods as well, which violate the same section.
Which rights are we talking about? Free speech isn't a constitutionally protected right in many countries, including first-world countries where there is an assumption of free speech but it's not technically law. (Having lived in one for most of my life, I'm not convinced it's worse. I think I prefer censorship, conducted under public scrutiny, to any idiot with an agenda being able to whip up chaos. Not that the US doesn't have censorship - for all intents and purposes, if Walmart won't carry your work you've been censored.)
Let's turn this question around. There's many laws that apply in other countries that don't apply in the US - laws relating to copyright, for instance, and relating to competition, for instance eBay forcing PayPal in Australia, which was ruled a monopoly action but probably would have happened in the US. Whose rights, whose laws, do we respect on the Internet? Should the rest of the world be forced to respect America's laws when America isn't willing to do the same?
It's the same place where nothing ever gets to ship because the coders won't let it go until it's perfect. Witness Gmail, being in beta for years as a perfectly fine 1.0.
I'm not sure I'm up for supporting research that would make Rupert Murdoch or Fred Phelps live forever.
In all seriousness, if humanity lived forever we'd be screwed. We're not built, physically or mentally, to be able to survive more than a hundred years of changes, and we're terribly poor at letting go of things that don't match the facts unless they physically hurt us. Bad ideas would never die. Bigotry would never fade. Bad people would never go away unless they crossed the line and had an 'accident'. How many people who undergo this procedure would end up trying to change the world to reflect the way it was when they were kids, being too unwilling to accept the world changing underfoot?
Look, I'm going to have to quibble with the memory use. My Firefox 3 on my laptop uses about 30M more than Firefox 2 on my desktop. My desktop's got more extensions, too.
The real real question to ask is how PayPal can get away with forcing any person or company (bank or otherwise) to do with their property other than they wish.
I always wonder how come the government's motives always seem to be questioned when corporations never are, despite infringing on people's rights and liberties just as much. You can't even say corporations don't have their own army - many of them do. Some of them are the army.
"Religious people just don't get it, but separation of church and state, is just as much in their interest as it is of atheists and minority religions."
I'm not American, but I'm told that the American churches were the ones that lobbied hardest for separation of church and state. The reasoning was that they didn't want some other church coming along and taking over the government.
You can, but getting on a government website is the trick, isn't it, especially when they ask you to prove who you work for. (The government department did the anonymising, poorly.)
I'm reminded of that infamous bug amongst webcomic creators where alt text on images wouldn't go to a new line when it needed to. It was identified in something like 0.8, and finally got fixed in 3.0, with Firefox developers mocking those stupid webcomic people the entire time and continually refusing to allow someone else to fix the bug.
They make a pretty good browser, but man those developers are a buncha dicks.
I fail to see how scrapping bugfixes and a perfectly functional framework is considered 'cruft'. Sure, they got a lot of bugs, in the same sort of way that a nuclear explosion is bound to kill a few bad guys somewhere. They also killed a lot of stuff that was perfectly salvageable and they'd have to rewrite, and the only reason Firefox 'caught up' is because IE simply didn't going anywhere for five years.
The Netscape code was a perfect example of how to mismanage a rewrite operation.
Cults deliberately try to isolate you from people who tell you that it's a really bad idea. Religions, in general, do not. Even the small ones - people will look at you strangely, but you won't be encouraged to stay away from the SPs.
But then they would lose their luxury lustre. The Apple brand is built around the idea that it's a luxury good that only trendy people use - the elaborate Apple stores with the people who fix your computer so you don't have to, the industrial design that looks better than the standard Dell, and the high-end specs and price. Apple makes its money because it can afford, through ruthless and effective positioning, to call itself a luxury good, and price accordingly.
Prada doesn't make cheap sunnies for the punters. Apple doesn't make cheap laptops for the punters. If either tried, they'd ruin their luxury reputation and they wouldn't be able to afford to put all that effort into making a nice-looking product.
"Regular updates to the OS keep developers on the upgrade treadmill; they work to make their applications fit in with the latest and greatest release, leveraging whatever new bells and whistles it provides, further improving the software ecosystem."
As we see from the Windows and Mac OS (pre-X) ecosystems, this is completely false. Developers are loathe to change custom-written code that they know works in order to implement some kind of link to the OS; and in many cases they'll let old versions of their program stop working when a new version comes out and replaces it.
Microsoft knew what they were getting into with Vista's backwards incompatibilities, and oh lordie how people complained. Consumers (and, it seems, developers, who should know better) often blame Microsoft when their new product breaks backwards compatibility, even if it's the program's fault for doing it the wrong way. For the most part, Windows developers are pragmatic, which is why they're working on Windows (the biggest install base), so whatever works is more or less good enough.
I will delight at what happens if Linux ever manages to get majority market share and it starts getting some of the less-skilled pragmatic developers.
Slashdot Mirror
Not much, because there'll still be poverty, there'll still be inequality, and there'll still be people willing to make a quick buck no matter who it hurts. There'll still be plenty of crime, and there'll still be lots of petty crime, which is partly fuelled by the need for drug money.
The argument's similar for prostitution - where it has been legalised, funnily enough it's not really more acceptable, and it doesn't pull in a huge amount of money for the government.
I wonder if they remember pirating the hell out of all the games coming from the big studios? I know I did.
I had high hopes for Citizendium, but wikis thrive on drive-by editing, and I don't think Citizendium allows that. It sure hasn't gotten anywhere much in the year it's been running, and it's woefully incomplete.
And if it does, how would we tell the difference?
And thank Christ, to be honest. Linux is notorious for having terrible, clunky UI, and programmers doing it for the love of it aren't really inclined to improve the UI for people who don't love their computers and simply aren't experts. This is exactly the sort of thing Linux needs to be a truly professional alternative to the focus-tested to buggery OS X and Windows.
It's to do with the editor. The EULA explicitly prohibits me from reverse-engineering or modifying any part of the game, which of course the editor is designed to do.
I think I installed some mods as well, which violate the same section.
Listen, we can make sure these ships will have a positive effect on global warming if we take all these ships and we staff them with pirates.
I have a copy of the PC game Morrowind whose EULA explicitly prevents me from using it.
I'm pretty sure it's down to copy-paste.
Which rights are we talking about? Free speech isn't a constitutionally protected right in many countries, including first-world countries where there is an assumption of free speech but it's not technically law. (Having lived in one for most of my life, I'm not convinced it's worse. I think I prefer censorship, conducted under public scrutiny, to any idiot with an agenda being able to whip up chaos. Not that the US doesn't have censorship - for all intents and purposes, if Walmart won't carry your work you've been censored.)
Let's turn this question around. There's many laws that apply in other countries that don't apply in the US - laws relating to copyright, for instance, and relating to competition, for instance eBay forcing PayPal in Australia, which was ruled a monopoly action but probably would have happened in the US. Whose rights, whose laws, do we respect on the Internet? Should the rest of the world be forced to respect America's laws when America isn't willing to do the same?
It's the same place where nothing ever gets to ship because the coders won't let it go until it's perfect. Witness Gmail, being in beta for years as a perfectly fine 1.0.
I'm not sure I'm up for supporting research that would make Rupert Murdoch or Fred Phelps live forever.
In all seriousness, if humanity lived forever we'd be screwed. We're not built, physically or mentally, to be able to survive more than a hundred years of changes, and we're terribly poor at letting go of things that don't match the facts unless they physically hurt us. Bad ideas would never die. Bigotry would never fade. Bad people would never go away unless they crossed the line and had an 'accident'. How many people who undergo this procedure would end up trying to change the world to reflect the way it was when they were kids, being too unwilling to accept the world changing underfoot?
Look, I'm going to have to quibble with the memory use. My Firefox 3 on my laptop uses about 30M more than Firefox 2 on my desktop. My desktop's got more extensions, too.
While Microsoft technically still supports an OS in Extended Support, the chief problem is that most third-party vendors start dropping support.
Of course, third-party vendors would be fools to drop support for XP at this stage.
The real real question to ask is how PayPal can get away with forcing any person or company (bank or otherwise) to do with their property other than they wish.
I always wonder how come the government's motives always seem to be questioned when corporations never are, despite infringing on people's rights and liberties just as much. You can't even say corporations don't have their own army - many of them do. Some of them are the army.
"Religious people just don't get it, but separation of church and state, is just as much in their interest as it is of atheists and minority religions."
I'm not American, but I'm told that the American churches were the ones that lobbied hardest for separation of church and state. The reasoning was that they didn't want some other church coming along and taking over the government.
The question's more why did they invite a Texas Senator to speak at a video game event anyway.
You can, but getting on a government website is the trick, isn't it, especially when they ask you to prove who you work for. (The government department did the anonymising, poorly.)
Probably because for most of its life it was not free. Opera dropped the pricetag when Firefox came along.
I'm reminded of that infamous bug amongst webcomic creators where alt text on images wouldn't go to a new line when it needed to. It was identified in something like 0.8, and finally got fixed in 3.0, with Firefox developers mocking those stupid webcomic people the entire time and continually refusing to allow someone else to fix the bug.
They make a pretty good browser, but man those developers are a buncha dicks.
I fail to see how scrapping bugfixes and a perfectly functional framework is considered 'cruft'. Sure, they got a lot of bugs, in the same sort of way that a nuclear explosion is bound to kill a few bad guys somewhere. They also killed a lot of stuff that was perfectly salvageable and they'd have to rewrite, and the only reason Firefox 'caught up' is because IE simply didn't going anywhere for five years.
The Netscape code was a perfect example of how to mismanage a rewrite operation.
Cults deliberately try to isolate you from people who tell you that it's a really bad idea. Religions, in general, do not. Even the small ones - people will look at you strangely, but you won't be encouraged to stay away from the SPs.
But then they would lose their luxury lustre. The Apple brand is built around the idea that it's a luxury good that only trendy people use - the elaborate Apple stores with the people who fix your computer so you don't have to, the industrial design that looks better than the standard Dell, and the high-end specs and price. Apple makes its money because it can afford, through ruthless and effective positioning, to call itself a luxury good, and price accordingly.
Prada doesn't make cheap sunnies for the punters. Apple doesn't make cheap laptops for the punters. If either tried, they'd ruin their luxury reputation and they wouldn't be able to afford to put all that effort into making a nice-looking product.
FTA:
"Regular updates to the OS keep developers on the upgrade treadmill; they work to make their applications fit in with the latest and greatest release, leveraging whatever new bells and whistles it provides, further improving the software ecosystem."
As we see from the Windows and Mac OS (pre-X) ecosystems, this is completely false. Developers are loathe to change custom-written code that they know works in order to implement some kind of link to the OS; and in many cases they'll let old versions of their program stop working when a new version comes out and replaces it.
Microsoft knew what they were getting into with Vista's backwards incompatibilities, and oh lordie how people complained. Consumers (and, it seems, developers, who should know better) often blame Microsoft when their new product breaks backwards compatibility, even if it's the program's fault for doing it the wrong way. For the most part, Windows developers are pragmatic, which is why they're working on Windows (the biggest install base), so whatever works is more or less good enough.
I will delight at what happens if Linux ever manages to get majority market share and it starts getting some of the less-skilled pragmatic developers.
Linux: The War Against Facts?
A ready-made Microsoft campaign right there.
I wanna know how much it cost the Linux people.