The skewed subset of the population that represent the average ipad user however. Because --honestly-- what subset of ipad owners aren't facebook users too? And how many of them are unlikely to post about their ipad and thus get selected for the survey?
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if such definition turned out to comprise over 50% of ipad users. So it's a sample of the projected demographic.
Honestly stuff breaks under Ubuntu/linux kinda often, usually desktop stuff and it's usually specific problematic software. Fixing those problems properly require quite some knowledge of Linux.
Since it's specific to problematic software it shouldn't be a problem but it is when the thing that fail is, the the window manager for instance.
Of course compiz usually breaks because of some other programs fault but if you refuse to use problematic software under Linux must of the bling fades aways very fast, a rock solid Linux desktop is a limited desktop.
Properly fixing compiz, or gnome-panel, or nautilus, or even X requires knowing about ttys, ps, kill and or killall and being capable of reading ps output.
But then, Windows software fails too and the cooler stuff breaks the most. Fixing those require you to know about Windows own task manager, and if explorer fails you'd need to know what it was and how to run it again.
The standard solution for common users is rebooting and that tends to work equally fine on both OSes but Windows breaks less often on reboot. session management in Linux attempts to do much more and thus has a higher failure rate. (One of the downsides of the network oriented nature of X)
Of course installing software under Linux is way easier than Windows I don't know where did the parent pulled that from and I don't want to find out.
But it's true that the "web user" does need a couple things beyond just a browser.
Microsoft fonts is an often overlooked example. a PDF reader, a media player with codecs, plugins, including silverlight and shockwave, heck, I even have run into needing a PPT reader went I lent my linux netbook to my mom.
But then again, many web users don't need those and if they were more numerous developers would provide adequate alternatives.
And anyway, if they give you the source then they are not in control of "what the software can do" nor "how the software is run"
I know, I only included that for the sake of completeness about the definition of free and open. I know SugarCRM doesn't restrict you in that way. But it does result in a vendor lock-in.
Suppose for example that you want a piece of a generic software, let's say a web browser.
Later you find out that it doesn't do everything you want but, at the same time you can't move because you also depend on some features of your current browser.
One solution is to develop the required customizations in house. At your own expense, for each iteration of the browser. You can't rely on an external provider with a ready-to-go solution because that's illegal in your model.
The example I have in mind is Firefox/Flock.
You like Firefox, you developed extensions for Firefox. Then you want to move to Flock because it has the features you want AND is compatible with your extensions.
But you just made Flock illegal. You can still have Flock, if you develop it in-house. You can also have it if Flock only releases patches, but then Flock can't seek for any external help because THEY can't leek the source as per the license. And even if Firefox used some sort of MS style license were people could still see the source and hack it but only Mozilla has the right to distribute/compile/use/license it, then you are still locked-in.
If Mozilla starts charging for Firefox then Flock(the patched Firefox) will also cost money, if they raise their prices again the price of Flock will also raise.
That's vendor lock-in.
Now you are going to say, "but isn't that normal? Mozilla has the right to charge for Firefox if they want" and it's true, but you are still locked-in, you can't change browsers because you depend on the extensions you made for it.
That might not mean much for you if your see software as an end product, but in F/OSS software is always both, an end product and a platform.
People make software on Linux counting on Linux being F/OSS, people make Ffirefox extensions counting on Firefox being F/OSS.
Had Linus pulled this "trick" people would have invested themselves in a platform that locks them in.
Not that I think anyone falls for this trick, it's just a cheep publicity trick.
Also SugarCRM's licensing ensures that the equivalent of Flock will never exist for SugarCRM.
Wrong, to put it bluntly. You miss the point of software freedom/openness. Basically it's freedom from lock-in.
Software freedom means freedom from lock-in. As long as the original vendor retains control about who runs the software, how the software is run and what the software can do then it lacks that *freedom*.
Software openness is about distributed development/ownership of the software. Everybody is considered an author of the software even just potentially so and everyone can use it as they see fit, including sharing it with others.
SugarCMR is neither free nor open, they are simply dishonestly representing themselves.
Yes sure they can come up with whatever definition of open they want, for that matter I can call say I sell holy software, or rainbow software, I just have to make up whatever definition will sell.
Yes you can create your own virtual currency, what's the point? Are you trying to troll me?
Your ecoins, Ted's digicoins and your cousin's euro-digibitcoin are all valid choices in theory so there's no problem.
With all of these standards it's a bit tough to choose, but since they all have real honest to goodness value it's fairly safe to put your money into it.
No, the choice is easy, bitcoin transactions are backed by a decentralized, P2P web of trust. Your coins don't.
But you are right that if you implement a system trust-able enough to attract traders your coins will be good enough for trade, tautologically so.
I don't think bitcoins depend on being the only virtual currency ever.
Although I have to agree as to what purpose could it have to mint the coins in the first place other than to arrange an initial distribution.
Under a gold standard, a goldmine is essentially making money, one could say the coins are useless because the mine can make as much as they want *under realistic constrains*.
The coins are still useful because: a) They are shiny. b) They can be exchanged for goods and services. c) It costs more to dig your own gold than working for an already minted coin.
And while the goldmine owner get really well off, they had to work and invest resources into getting the gold, so you can't say they didn't expend any effort.
Bit coins are similar. They aren't shiny but they are hard to create (value c) so the "Bitcoin printer" is still performing a service for the community by generating the certificates. Every bitcoin represents a given amount of money invested in generating it (this is what they mean with "energy"). Since each bitcoin has a very real value in dollars that means that the "initial distribution" of bitcoins will somehow match the precedent distribution of dollars. Rich people and smart investors will have more bitcoins, just as expected.
But the real value of the coin is that once created, it can be exchanged around for services (value b). And while it isn't shiny it has an advantage over the gold standard in that it won't deflate indeterminably. There is a hardcoded limit to the mount of bitcoins that can be created (21 billions).
Well that's the theory, the problem here isn't translating dollars into bitcoins, the problem is translating bitcoins back to dollars. Of course if everyone was into the system you wouldn't even have to worry about converting them back but initially, lots of real world products and services won't want to deal with them. Specifically, you can't offer them to people unless there's someone accepting them in exchange of a service, and the most likely kind of service provider that could accept bitcoins, IT companies, are the ones better suited to mint their own bitcoins.
I guess they could, and they may give RIAA executives multiple orgasms, but they''ll get shunned in the court of public opinion.
You see, this is why I support whistle blowers. Because despite the claims of national security threats and the ridiculous conflation of government abuse and individual privacy rights, the ultimate judge is the public, and it just so happen that whistle blowers have an excellent record of watching over the best interests of the public.
But what's the point of installing a word editor as a pluging? Just install OpenOffice.org already, it will do more and run faster than anything firefox can offer(, yes it's Java but firefox is *Javascript* which is slower still).
The beauty of web apps is noth that they can be installed as plugins but that they are accessible from any platform with a browser. From your PC to your phone to your gaming console, to your plane sit, to your toilet, if you live in Japan.
Any web-enabled machine becomes your desktop with just a login.
If an application requires you to install it as a firefox pluging, how are you going to use it in your car's gps?
Wait wait wait both of you guys, are you telling us that direct democracy will cause those problems and representative democracy would prevent them? Because those examples actually happened under representative democracy not too long ago, so what's the shit are you talking about?
Given the sensitivity of the site, I wouldn't recommend downloading files from them without Tor, much less uploading them.
In my opinion the wikileaks site should only contain a Tor link to the hidden site and instructions for setting up Tor, which everyone should install anyway.
But in a way that's good, It's been said that the worse deterrent to Linux adoption is not Windows but pirated Windows.
If hypothetically, piracy became absolutely impossible tomorrow, rather than the skyrocketing of income they expect, what you would find is people turning to free stuff on the web.
There are tons of legally free stuff to watch in youtube, entire channels of good stuff, lots of things to read on the web, lots of webcomics, CC music and free art galleries and free games to play.
My prediction is that the same leeches that want to put up ACTA will start pissing free content like incontinent alcoholics. Free movie previews of up to 50% of the movie, they would start putting up adds in the movie theaters while the movie is running, they'll be begging you to please listen to badly degraded audio clips of Britney Spears "music", and will be offering through loudspeakers such luxuries like backup copies and limited sharing of songs with up to two friends (for a limited time only).
And even then they'll be hard pressed by competition from free content. (Unless they find a way to make that illegal too).
Meanwhile the Internet would become a police state, personal freedom or privacy would become a thing of the past and personal computing would be so locked down as to make the ipad look open source.
I dunno, the first part about women sucking was very true although I can't really agree that men are much better, I'm on the opinion that people are generally mediocre, not necessarily mean --even nice, often-- but unreliable.
The bit about men inventing forceps was pretty insightful, but this is wrong:
We have now had forty years of feminism. Are people happier? Is the economy healthier? Is crime lower? Is the world a more peaceful place? Have racism, poverty, and dictatorship in the world decreased? Are children better educated? The answer is a resounding no. Feminism has been an unqualified disaster.
Let's see: * People are happier now, in fact, it has become a problem for activists that people are now too content with the way things are. It has become increasingly difficult to move people out of the comfort zone even for stuff they know is important.
* The economy is much more productive than ever, of course GDP might not be the best scale of human happiness, what about disposable income and leisure time? Those too are very high right now, but what does that have to do with feminism anyway? Well there is this thing that most women have jobs now thus increasing disposable income I guess. So yes, the economy is healthier because of feminism.
* Crime is lower. The is world a more peaceful place. Racism, poverty, and dictatorship in the world have decreased. Children are better educated, despite that America in particular could make a better effort.
In all of these she was wrong. But WTF has any of that have to do with feminism? There's lots of new stuff that came up 40 years ago. Are we going to blame it on that too?
The parent poster has that typical combo of a bleakly distorted vision of current reality accompanied by an amusing idealization of the 20's that is so common among Republicans, which, surprise surprise, she is.
But I rather judge people on the specifics than the generality. She says she wants some "sexist" policies enacted again. What is she talking about.
My guess is that she doesn't want women to have the right to vote, and she doesn't want women in juries or as judges.
Personally I'm just against feminist Affirmative Action (and Affirmative Action in general), but I can't support her on those other views, seems retarded to me.
Now I'm not going to say my own logic is better than evidence, but I really don't understand why seeing 3D objects would perturb development of depth perception. The entire world around us is 3D, how do kids manage to train themselves to perceive depth in a three-dimensional wor... well that actually makes perfect sense, rather the question is, shouldn't it be 2D displays the ones messing with depth perception?
Slashdot Mirror
The skewed subset of the population that represent the average ipad user however. Because --honestly-- what subset of ipad owners aren't facebook users too? And how many of them are unlikely to post about their ipad and thus get selected for the survey?
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if such definition turned out to comprise over 50% of ipad users. So it's a sample of the projected demographic.
Ok, let''s, let's play this properly:
evilution is a lye cuss nebrasker man! it was scientiologically proved to be a thoot of an pigs! PRAISE GOD we now the thrut!
The parent is right and wrong.
Honestly stuff breaks under Ubuntu/linux kinda often, usually desktop stuff and it's usually specific problematic software. Fixing those problems properly require quite some knowledge of Linux.
Since it's specific to problematic software it shouldn't be a problem but it is when the thing that fail is, the the window manager for instance.
Of course compiz usually breaks because of some other programs fault but if you refuse to use problematic software under Linux must of the bling fades aways very fast, a rock solid Linux desktop is a limited desktop.
Properly fixing compiz, or gnome-panel, or nautilus, or even X requires knowing about ttys, ps, kill and or killall and being capable of reading ps output.
But then, Windows software fails too and the cooler stuff breaks the most. Fixing those require you to know about Windows own task manager, and if explorer fails you'd need to know what it was and how to run it again.
The standard solution for common users is rebooting and that tends to work equally fine on both OSes but Windows breaks less often on reboot. session management in Linux attempts to do much more and thus has a higher failure rate. (One of the downsides of the network oriented nature of X)
Of course installing software under Linux is way easier than Windows I don't know where did the parent pulled that from and I don't want to find out.
But it's true that the "web user" does need a couple things beyond just a browser.
Microsoft fonts is an often overlooked example. a PDF reader, a media player with codecs, plugins, including silverlight and shockwave, heck, I even have run into needing a PPT reader went I lent my linux netbook to my mom.
But then again, many web users don't need those and if they were more numerous developers would provide adequate alternatives.
And anyway, if they give you the source then they are not in control of "what the software can do" nor "how the software is run"
I know, I only included that for the sake of completeness about the definition of free and open. I know SugarCRM doesn't restrict you in that way. But it does result in a vendor lock-in.
Suppose for example that you want a piece of a generic software, let's say a web browser.
Later you find out that it doesn't do everything you want but, at the same time you can't move because you also depend on some features of your current browser.
One solution is to develop the required customizations in house. At your own expense, for each iteration of the browser. You can't rely on an external provider with a ready-to-go solution because that's illegal in your model.
The example I have in mind is Firefox/Flock.
You like Firefox, you developed extensions for Firefox. Then you want to move to Flock because it has the features you want AND is compatible with your extensions.
But you just made Flock illegal. You can still have Flock, if you develop it in-house. You can also have it if Flock only releases patches, but then Flock can't seek for any external help because THEY can't leek the source as per the license. And even if Firefox used some sort of MS style license were people could still see the source and hack it but only Mozilla has the right to distribute/compile/use/license it, then you are still locked-in.
If Mozilla starts charging for Firefox then Flock(the patched Firefox) will also cost money, if they raise their prices again the price of Flock will also raise.
That's vendor lock-in.
Now you are going to say, "but isn't that normal? Mozilla has the right to charge for Firefox if they want" and it's true, but you are still locked-in, you can't change browsers because you depend on the extensions you made for it.
That might not mean much for you if your see software as an end product, but in F/OSS software is always both, an end product and a platform.
People make software on Linux counting on Linux being F/OSS, people make Ffirefox extensions counting on Firefox being F/OSS.
Had Linus pulled this "trick" people would have invested themselves in a platform that locks them in.
Not that I think anyone falls for this trick, it's just a cheep publicity trick.
Also SugarCRM's licensing ensures that the equivalent of Flock will never exist for SugarCRM.
Wrong, to put it bluntly. You miss the point of software freedom/openness. Basically it's freedom from lock-in.
Software freedom means freedom from lock-in. As long as the original vendor retains control about who runs the software, how the software is run and what the software can do then it lacks that *freedom*.
Software openness is about distributed development/ownership of the software. Everybody is considered an author of the software even just potentially so and everyone can use it as they see fit, including sharing it with others.
SugarCMR is neither free nor open, they are simply dishonestly representing themselves.
Yes sure they can come up with whatever definition of open they want, for that matter I can call say I sell holy software, or rainbow software, I just have to make up whatever definition will sell.
Wooosh^2
IPhone to antenna, tongue already stuck.
So.... Fresh fruit... the female monkeys in heat aint good enough for them?
FTFY
Yes you can create your own virtual currency, what's the point? Are you trying to troll me?
Your ecoins, Ted's digicoins and your cousin's euro-digibitcoin are all valid choices in theory so there's no problem.
With all of these standards it's a bit tough to choose, but since they all have real honest to goodness value it's fairly safe to put your money into it.
No, the choice is easy, bitcoin transactions are backed by a decentralized, P2P web of trust. Your coins don't.
But you are right that if you implement a system trust-able enough to attract traders your coins will be good enough for trade, tautologically so.
I don't think bitcoins depend on being the only virtual currency ever.
Although I have to agree as to what purpose could it have to mint the coins in the first place other than to arrange an initial distribution.
Isn't it just like a goldmine?
Under a gold standard, a goldmine is essentially making money, one could say the coins are useless because the mine can make as much as they want *under realistic constrains*.
The coins are still useful because:
a) They are shiny.
b) They can be exchanged for goods and services.
c) It costs more to dig your own gold than working for an already minted coin.
And while the goldmine owner get really well off, they had to work and invest resources into getting the gold, so you can't say they didn't expend any effort.
Bit coins are similar. They aren't shiny but they are hard to create (value c) so the "Bitcoin printer" is still performing a service for the community by generating the certificates. Every bitcoin represents a given amount of money invested in generating it (this is what they mean with "energy"). Since each bitcoin has a very real value in dollars that means that the "initial distribution" of bitcoins will somehow match the precedent distribution of dollars. Rich people and smart investors will have more bitcoins, just as expected.
But the real value of the coin is that once created, it can be exchanged around for services (value b). And while it isn't shiny it has an advantage over the gold standard in that it won't deflate indeterminably. There is a hardcoded limit to the mount of bitcoins that can be created (21 billions).
Well that's the theory, the problem here isn't translating dollars into bitcoins, the problem is translating bitcoins back to dollars. Of course if everyone was into the system you wouldn't even have to worry about converting them back but initially, lots of real world products and services won't want to deal with them. Specifically, you can't offer them to people unless there's someone accepting them in exchange of a service, and the most likely kind of service provider that could accept bitcoins, IT companies, are the ones better suited to mint their own bitcoins.
At least until the hard limit is reached.
I guess they could, and they may give RIAA executives multiple orgasms, but they''ll get shunned in the court of public opinion.
You see, this is why I support whistle blowers. Because despite the claims of national security threats and the ridiculous conflation of government abuse and individual privacy rights, the ultimate judge is the public, and it just so happen that whistle blowers have an excellent record of watching over the best interests of the public.
But what's the point of installing a word editor as a pluging? Just install OpenOffice.org already, it will do more and run faster than anything firefox can offer(, yes it's Java but firefox is *Javascript* which is slower still).
The beauty of web apps is noth that they can be installed as plugins but that they are accessible from any platform with a browser. From your PC to your phone to your gaming console, to your plane sit, to your toilet, if you live in Japan.
Any web-enabled machine becomes your desktop with just a login.
If an application requires you to install it as a firefox pluging, how are you going to use it in your car's gps?
I'd argue that MathML and SVG have a very proper place as components of a Hypertext Document, I don't know why are you talking about XPath.
But where does the law come from Einstein?
Ok my first proposal would be to impose multiple choice polls when posible using a Condocert method or similar.
Wait wait wait both of you guys, are you telling us that direct democracy will cause those problems and representative democracy would prevent them? Because those examples actually happened under representative democracy not too long ago, so what's the shit are you talking about?
4chan serves another purpose --as does slashdot-- in that you can post anonymously. In fact I suggest people who don't like this to post on 4chan.
No, digital distribution is more convenient, by their reckoning it MUST be more expensive.
But Halo is basically the prequel to Bungie's Marathon for the Mac so you could say that "Halo" came out for the Mac first.
Nevermind, Wikileaks HAS a Tor hiddenservice, but it's down, none the less, I don't understand why the entire site doesn't work within tor,
Given the sensitivity of the site, I wouldn't recommend downloading files from them without Tor, much less uploading them.
In my opinion the wikileaks site should only contain a Tor link to the hidden site and instructions for setting up Tor, which everyone should install anyway.
Just two questions.
Are you single? And if so, are you planning to live single for the rest of your life?
But in a way that's good, It's been said that the worse deterrent to Linux adoption is not Windows but pirated Windows.
If hypothetically, piracy became absolutely impossible tomorrow, rather than the skyrocketing of income they expect, what you would find is people turning to free stuff on the web.
There are tons of legally free stuff to watch in youtube, entire channels of good stuff, lots of things to read on the web, lots of webcomics, CC music and free art galleries and free games to play.
My prediction is that the same leeches that want to put up ACTA will start pissing free content like incontinent alcoholics. Free movie previews of up to 50% of the movie, they would start putting up adds in the movie theaters while the movie is running, they'll be begging you to please listen to badly degraded audio clips of Britney Spears "music", and will be offering through loudspeakers such luxuries like backup copies and limited sharing of songs with up to two friends (for a limited time only).
And even then they'll be hard pressed by competition from free content. (Unless they find a way to make that illegal too).
Meanwhile the Internet would become a police state, personal freedom or privacy would become a thing of the past and personal computing would be so locked down as to make the ipad look open source.
So yeah maybe it's not a good idea at all.
I dunno, the first part about women sucking was very true although I can't really agree that men are much better, I'm on the opinion that people are generally mediocre, not necessarily mean --even nice, often-- but unreliable.
The bit about men inventing forceps was pretty insightful, but this is wrong:
We have now had forty years of feminism. Are people happier? Is the economy healthier? Is crime lower? Is the world a more peaceful place? Have racism, poverty, and dictatorship in the world decreased? Are children better educated? The answer is a resounding no. Feminism has been an unqualified disaster.
Let's see:
* People are happier now, in fact, it has become a problem for activists that people are now too content with the way things are. It has become increasingly difficult to move people out of the comfort zone even for stuff they know is important.
* The economy is much more productive than ever, of course GDP might not be the best scale of human happiness, what about disposable income and leisure time? Those too are very high right now, but what does that have to do with feminism anyway? Well there is this thing that most women have jobs now thus increasing disposable income I guess. So yes, the economy is healthier because of feminism.
* Crime is lower. The is world a more peaceful place. Racism, poverty, and dictatorship in the world have decreased. Children are better educated, despite that America in particular could make a better effort.
In all of these she was wrong. But WTF has any of that have to do with feminism? There's lots of new stuff that came up 40 years ago. Are we going to blame it on that too?
The parent poster has that typical combo of a bleakly distorted vision of current reality accompanied by an amusing idealization of the 20's that is so common among Republicans, which, surprise surprise, she is.
But I rather judge people on the specifics than the generality. She says she wants some "sexist" policies enacted again. What is she talking about.
My guess is that she doesn't want women to have the right to vote, and she doesn't want women in juries or as judges.
Personally I'm just against feminist Affirmative Action (and Affirmative Action in general), but I can't support her on those other views, seems retarded to me.
and I can't blame 3D displays for it!
Now I'm not going to say my own logic is better than evidence, but I really don't understand why seeing 3D objects would perturb development of depth perception. The entire world around us is 3D, how do kids manage to train themselves to perceive depth in a three-dimensional wor... well that actually makes perfect sense, rather the question is, shouldn't it be 2D displays the ones messing with depth perception?