Government cannot go around telling people what they must do with their property, that's central planning, and it makes it impossible for private owners to regulate how their property is used efficiently
Yay! So I can ban all those filthy niggers nips and spics from my Quikkkie*Mart!
Except no, we know this is wrong and there are laws against it.
For the same reason telcoms shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily throttle traffic based on who is sending it to who and for what purpose.
Telcoms can state that I can connect at 2Mb/s for up to 100GB up, 20GB down a month with bursts of up to 1GB/hour up, 500MB down. (And they better should be serving me that! No excuses.)
They shouldn't be able to say what I can do with that bandwidth, if I want to spend all day watching youtubes video or chatting over skype is my business only.
And don't bring the "free market", most people have no choice of ISP or only 2 ISP that are equally bad.
its not like the guys fiddling with the arpanet in the 1960s said "hey, lets destroy the recorded music industry", but that's what their invention is doing
Except it's not, stop feeding from the RIAA propaganda machine, Internet distribution, has generally increased record sales due exposure, it spawned the whole industry of digital media players, cultivated an entire generation of music addicts and produced a boom of indie record companies.
No, the problem is not the free Lamborghini, the problem is that nothing stops you from making your own Lamborghini except a promise society made to not copy the car in exchange of good cars.
But if they ask too much for the cars then society can't get the cars and so they aren't getting their part of the deal.
So yes the people can set the prices they want since the protection of that design is provided by the people themselves.
I know I know, one person society makes not, the way to make this change is to propose it then wait for the law to pass. But do you really think your government represents your bests interests?
...and found nothing superior about H.264 over Theora.
This "H.264 is superior" is a myth, astroturfing at it best.
I have no doubt the main drive for H.264 is political, specially since they are insisting on codec exclusivity. Codec always used to be pluggable but now Apple and Microsoft have decided that they are only going to allow their codec. How am I not to guess this is yet another underhanded stab at open source?
How do we know this? Because an increasing number of games incorporate telemetry systems that track our every action. They measure the time we play, they watch where we get stuck, and they broadcast our behavior back to the people that make the games so they can tune the experience accordingly.
This, believe it or not is one of the things that prevents me from buying a Wii.
My main reason to buy a Wii would be getting Megaman 10 and Dr. Mario so I'll probably need to plug it into the net, but it bothers me that it tracks and logs every thing it can about me, from the hours I play and time of day to how log I spend playing a level.
How come nobody complains about it?
This is a Wii so the arguments of "If you are doing nothing wrong..." is fucking retarded, I just don't want Nintendo to probe it's cold fingers into me without my consent.
So I vote with my wallet by not playing their games.
Also, am I the only one who is offended if a game makes itself easier because a player has troubles with it? Perhaps as an opt-in option it would be ok but if a player sucks at a game let him get better at it dammit.
You know what is lacking in modern games? challenge.
Before Apple sunk their teeth into flash, a lot of the posters here also bashed it.
Note that the main criticism here is about Jobs' hypocrisy and Apple's oppression, not particularly about flash.
taco and dawson rush to defend it as a superior alternative.
Again, is not that it is superior but is something people do want no matter how much you insist they don't really want it, you are not them.
Does everyone remember what a pain in the ass it was to get flash support on Linux systems? Now that it is available, it is just another user-approved attack vector.
Which is a good argument to discourage users not to install it, legally banning it is overstepping their users' choice, for comparison, how would you react if Ubuntu made it illegal to install flash on it?
There would be an uproar.
Consider the people who love to bash about the lack of freedom of Debian or Gnewsense or even Ubuntu because they don't have flash in the default installation they should be up in arms about Apple outlawing Flash. I hope these are the same people, but I suspect is the opposite.
AND THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR
That is a good thing, like wise you could say that C is the lowest common denominator among programmers, does that make it bad? HTML (as opposed to XUL or XAMEL) is another lowest common denominator, isn't it useful?
For God's sake, can we please just flash die for a more modern alternative?
Pray your God harder, thanks to Apple's legally questionable demand that code must be originally made in an Apple approved way you can't even hope to use a better, more modern alternative to flash.
How could it be? Mono apologists have repeatedly asured me that Microsoft promises are solid like reinforced concrete and that awesome pure heart is completely dedicated to support.NET in all it's implementations!
Seriously, does anybody besides Adobe want Flash to become the dominate platform for anything other than little browser games? Sure, Apple and MS are fighting against it for self-interested reasons, but those reasons seem to align rather nicely with what is good for the internet as a whole, which is to have as much be open standards as is possible.
As buggy as flash can be on linux, flash as been a blessing to my linux experience. Thanks to flash, all my browser games that I played on Windows are still playable on linux, it's mostly thanks to flash that I have thousands of games at my reach.
Flash has also been an enabler of video in linux for which I'm thankful. Before the rise of the embedded flash player. The primary means of streaming video were the RealPlayer plugin and integration with the Windows Media Player.
Because of this I consider flash a positive thing. Would it be better if it was an open standard? Yes and it's a shame it hasn't become more open. The SWF format is, AFAIK open, there even are competing flash building tools, although they are special case tools, neither as flexible or as good as the Flash IDE.
So it really was just a case of being more open with the standard. In fact I'm half expecting the rise of html5 to drive more openness in the SWF format.
You're saying that if a buisness could cut the wages of employees, keep the employees, it would then keep the money for itself, and all that would happen is the buisness would make more money? You're making a lot of huge assumptions there, that ITRW, would not happen.
Want a site to talk about politics? Base it in the states. Want a site to talk about anything else? Go China! No UK libel suits! No Bullshit Apple secrecy! China home of the free (from american overreaching arms)!
And to continue punishing my karma. Why the fuck people love a company that threatens its most loyal news outlets? Gizmodo and similar sites should give the cold shoulder to Apple, make them learn or they'll never change.
No, it's more like, if there is a crack in the wall you have agreed to Google selling tapes of you having sex, if you didn't wan't to be recorded you shouldn't be broadcasting it!
I also got your girlfriend's moaning as my ringtone thanks to Google Street Laser Microphone, thankfully I didn't have to listen to weeks of mundane stuff to get that ringtone because I got a graph of your sad, appalling sexual life thanks to Google Street Thermo-cam.
I jest but the idea is that you can't claim I agreed to broadcast information I didn't knew I was broadcasting, and that's exactly what Google apologetics want to claim.
I didn't understand what the problem was at first so this is what I get from the article:
If there wasn't a market for LCD TVs all LCD monitor producers would be EXCLUSIVELY focused in desktop/laptop/handheld monitors.
Because there is a usability limit in the size of monitors for desktop/laptop/handhelds, most of the progress would go on making them better (higher resolution, lighting quality etc).
Rather, thanks to the TV market, the technology is pushed in the direction of larger displays with shitty resolutions.
Yes there are desktop monitors with higher resolutions, but they are expensive because there is no competition in that market, yes competition in that market will grow, but only after the HDTV market gets saturated, take a number and wait.
Nope, originally the button position was changed globally for all themes because the functionality for specifying button order via themes just wasn't there.
Ubuntu had to change metacity in order to add support for theme-specific button order, which means they worker harder than necessary just to avoid letting users customize the default theme.
Serioulsy I can pull a solution for this out of my ass in 1 minute:
gconftool-2 --type string --set/apps/metacity/general/button_layout \ `zenity --list --radiolist \ --title="Window Button Layout" \ --text="Select your preferred window button layout:" \ --print-column=3 \ --column="Selection" --column="Description" --column="Order" \ TRUE "Fantabulous, perfect." "maximize,minimize,close:" \ FALSE "Just like I said it was perfect three weeks ago when *that* was perfection." "minimize,maximize,close:" \ FALSE "Evil, retrograde, retarded, comunist, democratic:'(" "menu:minimize,maximize,close" \ FALSE "Well it's Mac so it can't be bad." "close,maximize,minimize:"`
You are not the first one to recognize it as a bike shed, with two exceptions:
1) Bike shedding is characterized by long discussions without consensus, this time there is consensus. 2) If you think betatesters are prone to bike shedding, wait till you meet the *users*.
And what are they being "coy" about? This is open source, the mere fact that it is secret is going to upset the community, we are not "a Mac".
Which really only stress how wrong was Ubuntu about the last LTS.
When pulse audio was shoved into the LTS (hardy), the rationale was that it was better to switch the LTS to a unstable technology and then update that rather than have an outdated LTS.
Now this LTS introduces a lot of new applications, software and music stores, more cloud computing as well as new and controversial theme issues, gnome panel changes and more social network integration, all of these unsuficiently tested, just because, again, its better to get it in the LTS then fix it than waiting for the next LTS.
It completely misses the point of LTSs if you are going to rush them.
Ubuntu developers are now desperate for people willing to test out this updated X.Org Server package so they can determine by this Friday whether to ship it with Ubuntu 10.04 LTS or doing an early SRU (Stable Release Update).
They should have thought that before antagonizing over 80% of the tester community with the windows button issue.
Yes, it IS a petty issue, the problem is that everybody said "We don want it, please revert pretty please" and Mark was like "Thank you, your opinions are very valuable, however, just bite it".
So I'm not surprised at all if the tester community feels withdrawn. There is a growing feeling that the opinions of the community are being soundly ignored, for instance these (public) statements from the bug tracker I'm going to reproduce without permission:
Jef Spaleta:
First of all I think you put too much weight behind Brainstorm as a tool to drive change inside Ubuntu. You actually shouldn't be at all surprised that Brainstorm popularity has very little influence over design decisions. It's never had influence in any technical decision making and no one in a position of authority inside Canonical or Ubuntu governance has ever claimed that it has. Canonical nor the external Ubuntu governance structures make it a policy to rely heavily or to even officially review highly popular ideas in Brainstorm on a regular basis or part of technical decision making or public governance discussion. Were highly popular Brainstorm ideas even discussed in an organized session during the UDS in the run up to 10.04?
The track record of implemented ideas backs up my point. You look really closely at the ideas marked implemented in Brainstorm and they are at best mediocre in terms of Brainstorm popularity. None of the highly popular ideas in Brainstorm get implemented..or even discussed publicly as a matter of technical decision making or governance. Take for example the music store idea. It has a negative voting total and is marked implemented.
It's wishful thinking to suggest that Brainstorm popularity plays an important role in decision making. It doesn't. At best brainstorm is a dumping ground for random ideas. There's no evidence that the voting process correlates with feature development or decision making at all.
The thing is, Ubuntu has dropped the ball massively with this release, there is simply nothing good about the new release, worse still is that it lost contact with its user base, most of the decisions are now either politically or corporately motivated, or driven by the team of Cupertino rejects that Mark appointed to drive Ubuntu development.
But really, this is interesting, I'll get some marsh mellows and enjoy the fireworks. The question no longer is if Lucid is going to be an embarrassment but whether Mark will learn anything from it. If Mark learns a lesson it's well worth it.
I really loved ubuntu, I want to love it again, but right now, I'm just deciding whether to switch to mint or debian.
Slashdot Mirror
Government cannot go around telling people what they must do with their property, that's central planning, and it makes it impossible for private owners to regulate how their property is used efficiently
Yay! So I can ban all those filthy niggers nips and spics from my Quikkkie*Mart!
Except no, we know this is wrong and there are laws against it.
For the same reason telcoms shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily throttle traffic based on who is sending it to who and for what purpose.
Telcoms can state that I can connect at 2Mb/s for up to 100GB up, 20GB down a month with bursts of up to 1GB/hour up, 500MB down. (And they better should be serving me that! No excuses.)
They shouldn't be able to say what I can do with that bandwidth, if I want to spend all day watching youtubes video or chatting over skype is my business only.
And don't bring the "free market", most people have no choice of ISP or only 2 ISP that are equally bad.
its not like the guys fiddling with the arpanet in the 1960s said "hey, lets destroy the recorded music industry", but that's what their invention is doing
Except it's not, stop feeding from the RIAA propaganda machine, Internet distribution, has generally increased record sales due exposure, it spawned the whole industry of digital media players, cultivated an entire generation of music addicts and produced a boom of indie record companies.
Seriously, this is the first really good Apple and Google related news I remember since long ago.
Why "Windows has better games" and "Windows sux" are not mutually exclusive tough.
I have a windows system named "gameboy", guess what I use it for...
And the abundance of games is not even a virtue of Windows per se, but of it's ubiquity.
No, the problem is not the free Lamborghini, the problem is that nothing stops you from making your own Lamborghini except a promise society made to not copy the car in exchange of good cars.
But if they ask too much for the cars then society can't get the cars and so they aren't getting their part of the deal.
So yes the people can set the prices they want since the protection of that design is provided by the people themselves.
I know I know, one person society makes not, the way to make this change is to propose it then wait for the law to pass. But do you really think your government represents your bests interests?
In other words Apple is not the way to go if you tend to Think Different.
...and found nothing superior about H.264 over Theora.
This "H.264 is superior" is a myth, astroturfing at it best.
I have no doubt the main drive for H.264 is political, specially since they are insisting on codec exclusivity. Codec always used to be pluggable but now Apple and Microsoft have decided that they are only going to allow their codec. How am I not to guess this is yet another underhanded stab at open source?
How do we know this? Because an increasing number of games incorporate telemetry systems that track our every action. They measure the time we play, they watch where we get stuck, and they broadcast our behavior back to the people that make the games so they can tune the experience accordingly.
This, believe it or not is one of the things that prevents me from buying a Wii.
My main reason to buy a Wii would be getting Megaman 10 and Dr. Mario so I'll probably need to plug it into the net, but it bothers me that it tracks and logs every thing it can about me, from the hours I play and time of day to how log I spend playing a level.
How come nobody complains about it?
This is a Wii so the arguments of "If you are doing nothing wrong..." is fucking retarded, I just don't want Nintendo to probe it's cold fingers into me without my consent.
So I vote with my wallet by not playing their games.
Also, am I the only one who is offended if a game makes itself easier because a player has troubles with it? Perhaps as an opt-in option it would be ok but if a player sucks at a game let him get better at it dammit.
You know what is lacking in modern games? challenge.
then wii came. it bitchslapped the exceedingly corporatized and industrialized gaming sector.
That's a funny statement, inst the Wii the most DRM'd and locked down console? How many games it has that live up to SNES standars of fun?
* Megaman 10
* ?
Ok I'm sure there are more but the majority of the minigames in the Wii make it feel like an overpriced stationary cellphone.
Before Apple sunk their teeth into flash, a lot of the posters here also bashed it.
Note that the main criticism here is about Jobs' hypocrisy and Apple's oppression, not particularly about flash.
taco and dawson rush to defend it as a superior alternative.
Again, is not that it is superior but is something people do want no matter how much you insist they don't really want it, you are not them.
Does everyone remember what a pain in the ass it was to get flash support on Linux systems? Now that it is available, it is just another user-approved attack vector.
Which is a good argument to discourage users not to install it, legally banning it is overstepping their users' choice, for comparison, how would you react if Ubuntu made it illegal to install flash on it?
There would be an uproar.
Consider the people who love to bash about the lack of freedom of Debian or Gnewsense or even Ubuntu because they don't have flash in the default installation they should be up in arms about Apple outlawing Flash. I hope these are the same people, but I suspect is the opposite.
AND THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR
That is a good thing, like wise you could say that C is the lowest common denominator among programmers, does that make it bad?
HTML (as opposed to XUL or XAMEL) is another lowest common denominator, isn't it useful?
For God's sake, can we please just flash die for a more modern alternative?
Pray your God harder, thanks to Apple's legally questionable demand that code must be originally made in an Apple approved way you can't even hope to use a better, more modern alternative to flash.
The possessive form of "Jobs" is "Jobs's"
EOL
Jobs'
EOL
Is also admissible. But come on, that's not why you don't want to read it, your problem is that it call Jobs on his bullshit and you can't have that.
That people come here defending Jobs choice as anything but detrimental to his customers is appalling, batter wife syndrome indeed.
How could it be? Mono apologists have repeatedly asured me that Microsoft promises are solid like reinforced concrete and that awesome pure heart is completely dedicated to support .NET in all it's implementations!
Seriously, does anybody besides Adobe want Flash to become the dominate platform for anything other than little browser games? Sure, Apple and MS are fighting against it for self-interested reasons, but those reasons seem to align rather nicely with what is good for the internet as a whole, which is to have as much be open standards as is possible.
As buggy as flash can be on linux, flash as been a blessing to my linux experience. Thanks to flash, all my browser games that I played on Windows are still playable on linux, it's mostly thanks to flash that I have thousands of games at my reach.
Flash has also been an enabler of video in linux for which I'm thankful. Before the rise of the embedded flash player. The primary means of streaming video were the RealPlayer plugin and integration with the Windows Media Player.
Because of this I consider flash a positive thing. Would it be better if it was an open standard? Yes and it's a shame it hasn't become more open. The SWF format is, AFAIK open, there even are competing flash building tools, although they are special case tools, neither as flexible or as good as the Flash IDE.
So it really was just a case of being more open with the standard. In fact I'm half expecting the rise of html5 to drive more openness in the SWF format.
You're saying that if a buisness could cut the wages of employees, keep the employees, it would then keep the money for itself, and all that would happen is the buisness would make more money? You're making a lot of huge assumptions there, that ITRW, would not happen.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. What a clown...
Want a site to talk about politics? Base it in the states.
Want a site to talk about anything else? Go China!
No UK libel suits!
No Bullshit Apple secrecy!
China home of the free (from american overreaching arms)!
And to continue punishing my karma. Why the fuck people love a company that threatens its most loyal news outlets? Gizmodo and similar sites should give the cold shoulder to Apple, make them learn or they'll never change.
Just when I was moving to Debian.
Except this was part of an expansion of power and coverage of copyright, it only looks benevolent from a western point of view.
No, it's more like, if there is a crack in the wall you have agreed to Google selling tapes of you having sex, if you didn't wan't to be recorded you shouldn't be broadcasting it!
I also got your girlfriend's moaning as my ringtone thanks to Google Street Laser Microphone, thankfully I didn't have to listen to weeks of mundane stuff to get that ringtone because I got a graph of your sad, appalling sexual life thanks to Google Street Thermo-cam.
I jest but the idea is that you can't claim I agreed to broadcast information I didn't knew I was broadcasting, and that's exactly what Google apologetics want to claim.
I didn't understand what the problem was at first so this is what I get from the article:
If there wasn't a market for LCD TVs all LCD monitor producers would be EXCLUSIVELY focused in desktop/laptop/handheld monitors.
Because there is a usability limit in the size of monitors for desktop/laptop/handhelds, most of the progress would go on making them better (higher resolution, lighting quality etc).
Rather, thanks to the TV market, the technology is pushed in the direction of larger displays with shitty resolutions.
Yes there are desktop monitors with higher resolutions, but they are expensive because there is no competition in that market, yes competition in that market will grow, but only after the HDTV market gets saturated, take a number and wait.
Nope, originally the button position was changed globally for all themes because the functionality for specifying button order via themes just wasn't there.
Ubuntu had to change metacity in order to add support for theme-specific button order, which means they worker harder than necessary just to avoid letting users customize the default theme.
Serioulsy I can pull a solution for this out of my ass in 1 minute:
gconftool-2 --type string --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout \ :'(" "menu:minimize,maximize,close" \
`zenity --list --radiolist \
--title="Window Button Layout" \
--text="Select your preferred window button layout:" \
--print-column=3 \
--column="Selection" --column="Description" --column="Order" \
TRUE "Fantabulous, perfect." "maximize,minimize,close:" \
FALSE "Just like I said it was perfect three weeks ago when *that* was perfection." "minimize,maximize,close:" \
FALSE "Evil, retrograde, retarded, comunist, democratic
FALSE "Well it's Mac so it can't be bad." "close,maximize,minimize:"`
What an empty post...
And complaining about complaining is just classic.
You are not the first one to recognize it as a bike shed, with two exceptions:
1) Bike shedding is characterized by long discussions without consensus, this time there is consensus.
2) If you think betatesters are prone to bike shedding, wait till you meet the *users*.
And what are they being "coy" about? This is open source, the mere fact that it is secret is going to upset the community, we are not "a Mac".
Which really only stress how wrong was Ubuntu about the last LTS.
When pulse audio was shoved into the LTS (hardy), the rationale was that it was better to switch the LTS to a unstable technology and then update that rather than have an outdated LTS.
Now this LTS introduces a lot of new applications, software and music stores, more cloud computing as well as new and controversial theme issues, gnome panel changes and more social network integration, all of these unsuficiently tested, just because, again, its better to get it in the LTS then fix it than waiting for the next LTS.
It completely misses the point of LTSs if you are going to rush them.
Ubuntu developers are now desperate for people willing to test out this updated X.Org Server package so they can determine by this Friday whether to ship it with Ubuntu 10.04 LTS or doing an early SRU (Stable Release Update).
They should have thought that before antagonizing over 80% of the tester community with the windows button issue.
Yes, it IS a petty issue, the problem is that everybody said "We don want it, please revert pretty please" and Mark was like "Thank you, your opinions are very valuable, however, just bite it".
So I'm not surprised at all if the tester community feels withdrawn. There is a growing feeling that the opinions of the community are being soundly ignored, for instance these (public) statements from the bug tracker I'm going to reproduce without permission:
Jef Spaleta:
First of all I think you put too much weight behind Brainstorm as a tool
to drive change inside Ubuntu. You actually shouldn't be at all
surprised that Brainstorm popularity has very little influence over
design decisions. It's never had influence in any technical decision
making and no one in a position of authority inside Canonical or Ubuntu
governance has ever claimed that it has. Canonical nor the external
Ubuntu governance structures make it a policy to rely heavily or to even
officially review highly popular ideas in Brainstorm on a regular basis
or part of technical decision making or public governance discussion.
Were highly popular Brainstorm ideas even discussed in an organized
session during the UDS in the run up to 10.04?
The track record of implemented ideas backs up my point. You look
really closely at the ideas marked implemented in Brainstorm and they
are at best mediocre in terms of Brainstorm popularity. None of the
highly popular ideas in Brainstorm get implemented..or even discussed
publicly as a matter of technical decision making or governance. Take
for example the music store idea. It has a negative voting total and is
marked implemented.
It's wishful thinking to suggest that Brainstorm popularity plays an
important role in decision making. It doesn't. At best brainstorm is a
dumping ground for random ideas. There's no evidence that the voting
process correlates with feature development or decision making at all.
The thing is, Ubuntu has dropped the ball massively with this release, there is simply nothing good about the new release, worse still is that it lost contact with its user base, most of the decisions are now either politically or corporately motivated, or driven by the team of Cupertino rejects that Mark appointed to drive Ubuntu development.
But really, this is interesting, I'll get some marsh mellows and enjoy the fireworks. The question no longer is if Lucid is going to be an embarrassment but whether Mark will learn anything from it. If Mark learns a lesson it's well worth it.
I really loved ubuntu, I want to love it again, but right now, I'm just deciding whether to switch to mint or debian.
No, you miss the point, how can the ipad change the web when it refuses to play nice with *anyone*, let alone the leading browser makers?