violating their commercial license (enforcable or not), but my reading of the GPL is that this would be allowed as far as the FSF is concerned.
Who cares if it violates the GPL or not? The scam is illegal because their commercial license does not allow GPL versions of their library to be used for development. Period. How can you say "enforcable or not" It IS enforceable. EVERYTHING is enforceable unless it ADDS restrictions to standard copyright law. Standard copyright law says you cannot copy the product without permission. TrollTech gives you that permission PROVIDED you meet their restrictions. End of discussion. There is no question that the license is enforceable or not. If you break it you pay for it.
There is no difference in doing this scam and copying MS Visual C++ to all your developers on a hacked copy
Actually you can enforce this easilly. You are granted permission to distribute this binary if you meet the following criteria:
1) You do not develop any portion of your application using the GPL version of the QT libraries...
Copyright law is pretty consistant in most countries. You cannot distribute ANYTHING without permission. That permission can be granted any number of ways. Normally, in the signing of a contract. Or, TrollTech has the option to give you their permission in writing on a card in the boxed version of the package. That card contains permission to distribute the program only if certain restrictions are met. Those restrictions outlined on the card are legally enforceable if they catch you distributing their software in violation of that card. (you might realize that the "card" i speak of is the EULA or License or whatever you want to call it.)
Wrong. Developers act on behalf of the company, not by themselves, therefore "You" as defined in GPL applies to the company as a whole. The code does not leave company, ergo there's no distribution.
I'm sorry to say it but you are incorrect (at least with today's copyright legislation and case law). Any and ALL distribution (ie, copying) is a breach of copyright if there is no permission. The GPL specifically requires source code be made available to users when you distribute a program under the GPL. Therefore, it is a copyright violation unless they give the source code to all the employees of the company who use the program.
If this were not the case, any company could use ANY piece of software they wanted on every computer in their business with no problem. This is simply not the case. And your analysis is simply false.
But come on, what else do you suppose them to say, given their goal to sell as many copies as possible, even if it is a lie? They can't do anything if you do that, they only can choose to never have any further business with you, which is their right.
Again, simply untrue. Their FAQ is 100% accurate. You simply cannot distribute a program within your company without permission without breaking a copyright law. Period. There is no if's and's or but's. The ONLY permission granted to distribute given by the GPL is if you also give access to the source code to those individuals.
You are trying to equate a "company" to a single "person" this is simply not the case. For tax purposes, a company acts as a single person. But this isn't tax law. This is copyright law. And in copyright law a business and its workforce as a whole is not treated as one entity.
Yes, but the scam involved developers using the GPL version, and then DISTRIBUTING it to another developer who then compiles it with the official version, who then in turn will distribute it to others. In this case, where distributuion is happening, they would be in violation.
If you are distributing a work without permission then you are breaking copyright law just as much as if you warez a cracked copy. So the risk is the same. The businesses who warez copies will also be the ones who warez the GPL QT.
Besides, it has already been pretty clear that courts will consider ANY and ALL distribution without permission to be a breach of copyright. For example, if a GPL developer is distributing his program without source to people in his company, that is distribution. If he is letting people load it on their computers.. even within his organization. that is distribution and it requires GPL compliance.
Good tools are expensive. If you are a crafts man and not just some house framer hourly worker, you take care of your tools and you buy quality tools. The same goes for programers. The same goes for MBA graduates who become CEO's of successfull (or unsuccessfull) companies.
No matter your trade, you will no doubt spend more than $5,000 on an item to make your job easier or more manageable. That is just how the world of economics work. That is life in today's world. We aren't in the 80's or 90's anymore. People charge for services. People charge for products. You do one thing well, they do another thing well. When you need something done you don't normally do what do you do? You hire someone else's services or use a product which enables you to do it.
It isn't a matter of how much something costs. It is a matter of how much do you think your time is worth. If you don't value your time and you don't take pride in your work then I wouldn't expect you to output anything of any value to anybody.
0$ to develop on Windows? Well, Mac costs $149 for the OS license to develop for. Windows costs 299 plus the price of ms visual.. that is pretty expensive..
Both under $1000 but both with no support and both using tedious tools which takes several times more man hours for GUI implementation.
Add MSDN and apple developers subscriptions to the mix and you start seeing what you will spend on the project.
The solution is clear for a project on a deadline: Either hire an extra developer to take care of the GUI, or have your programers do the GUI themselves. That would be on a smaller project. Talk about mass scale projects and its the same thing, only no matter what way you look at it, there are fewer developers required on a project when QT is used as the GUI toolkit.
You might try to argue those facts. And in some cases you would have a point. But in the general case QT will reduce your developers cost. That is the bottom line. And it is also a fact.
For garage band type developers, you can go use GTK or MFC and sit around all day working out bugs in the dark corner of the living room. Or you can just plug your functions into the GUI widgets you drag n dropped and be done with it.
In the domain of GUI evelopment tools, $5K per developer's license is expensive.
$5,000 might be expensive when compared to other GUI development kits. However there is something you are missing.
TrollTech currently has no competition in the fast and cross platform toolkit market. Nobody.
They are all significantly more tedious and significantly less portable. QT is the only one which does not have these problems. You can say that $5,000 is expensive for its type of toolkit. But it is also the only toolkit which has the features needed by developers who would rather get their concept implemented instead of hiring a team of programers to implement their GUI's properly with another less usefull toolkit.
Dude, these are ports... Don't you think they could get it right if they had time to waste on it? Do you think they care if it looks good on a mac? No, only a mac user would give a shit if his damn ported program from windows doesn't look metally enough. That is the mac attitude.
You know what. Mac users who bitch about such lameness can stuff it IMO.
Intel doesn't really produce motherboards anymore... They are manufacturing their motherboards through FoxConn nowadays.
Their chipset is another story. But in all reality you can't argue that anymore either. Because the AMD chipset is built into the processor core.
The only thing you can really argue is that Intel provides a device hub which provides the logic for onboard devices like ethernet and video. AMD does not but instead outsources it to nVidia. Not that I blame them to leave device design up to a 3rd party who specializes in sound and video controllers (and I might add, the industry leaderin it)
So yea, Intel does provide the device hub which routes all its onboard devices.. But honestly, is that really the reason? Somehow the "intel provides the whole platform" is really just a bunch of FUD when looked at analytically. They produce a very (VERY!) minor portion of a system that AMD does not. Significantly important (and expensive) then most other major components of a system.
"I look at Tom's Hardware Guide and see that Intel's latest processors are best at everything in the long run as long as hyperthreading is turned on (why they turn it off at all I don't know - maybe to give AMD some kind of chance?) except in the graphics arena. AMD has always been best at graphics."
Please. Get your facts straight before calling someone an AMD fanboy.
First of all, AMD has always been WORSE at graphics than Intel in overall performance (until the very recent past, athlon64). Even with the Athlon XP line or processors, AMD was only neck and neck with Intel. At the end of the XP line, they were once again lagged behind in graphics.
The facts are that throughout history (until Athlon64), the AMD processor has not been above Intel for any significant amount of time at graphics. It is just evidence that you don't really understand the history of microprocessors, specifically AMD and Intel ones.
I hate to tell you this, but reading a bar graph on tomshardware isn't the best place to get your performance numbers. If you don't know why they disabled HyperThreading, it is a sure sign you don't know what those numbers mean. How you formed an opinion on numbers you don't understand is beyond me.
This is against the GPL license terms. Any programer who touches the code with the GPL version is legally obligated to open the entire codebase.
It is a very VERY VERY risky business to be in if you plan on this scam. Because there are no copyright violations to pay if you get caught. You simply must open your code. Period. And a court order could potentially be issued to require that. If you were caught you would have 2 options: Open your code, or stop distributing your code. Both the nail in the coffin for any closed source software developer.
Not to mention that technically, the developers could do that on ANY developer tool, including MS Visual Studio. Maybe they download the hacked copies and then send the production build into the legit copy. The same can be said for anything. It is all a game of loosly knit trust networks in the Coporate America scene. If you don't semi-trust your customers or suppliers, then you better watch out.
Also, you might think BSA audit, to catch people trying this exact scam. I'm not saying its a good thing for the BSA to exist, I'm just saying they do exist and act as a deterrant.
It is for a small time shop. But even carpenters purchase tools which are much more expensive than that. Shit, sewing machines are much more expensive than $5,000 for a good one.
Developers (not all, just many) are too stuck up if they cannot fathom paying $5000 for a tool which will take care of just about every tedious problem with their GUI program. And leave time for the real work (the application idea and implementation)
The fact that you can now rapidly prototype an application using QT and Python in a matter of hours on programs which may take days to produce is worth the money right there (but honestly just download the GPL version for proof of concept if you are afraid to pay for it)
There are other features which are outrageously worth the money. Not everyone will use them. QT is not for every developer. But honestly, what kind of snob are you that $5000 is an expensive tool for your professional career in which you get paid above the average grade of laborers who must purchase more expensive tools?
"BTW the overall energy efficiency of this setup is substantially lower than the equivalent..."
Actually, It is not only worse off in efficiency, it is actually generating more heat than if he hadn't been using the device to begin with. Unless he is sticking the back of his ice cube maker (probably dorm refridgerator) out the window and sealing it off pretty well, he will actually be generating more heat than he takes away with the ice.
It is just the simple laws of physics.
Not only this, but he would be better off opening the freezer door and blowing a fan into it. At least that wouldn't cost 25$ for the initial startup which wastes even more energy to produce. Plus the time he spent on making the device. Not to mention that leaving the door open with the fan on would cost him less than running an electric pump plus fan.
Actually, this "invention" is not only inefficient, but actualy HEATS up your room...
Assuming he is using the ice cube maker in the same room he is cooling, the ice cube maker is guaranteed to generate more heat than it takes away from the ice (due to inefficiencies in its compressor). Plus the fan and water pump will also generate more heat.
He would be better off leaving the freezer door open in his room. It would actually be more efficient than cooling the room with cubes made from that very freezer.
We all know how efficient leaving the freezer door is don't we?
Best case scenerio, assuming 100% efficiency in all his devices, he gets the same temperature he starts with. Real world scenerio, he is wasting electricity and water and at the same time warming up the room slightly.
Ever thought that maybe the particular people who work on KHTML on a daily/weekly basis aren't the same people who are in charge of KDE as a whole? It is not like the KDE project can just bundle up all their developers, and start making assignments on who should work on what with whom.
It isn't a business. Everyone who works on KDE is working on a particular part of KDE because that is what they are interested in. You got it backwards.
As far as "letting apple" do the grunt work. That is not how you should look at it. You should instead look at KHTML as a project that a small group of developers decided to work on. It just so happens to be part of the KDE project but in reality it does not take away from the KDE project. And apple's Fork of KHTML does not slow KHTML development. It also does not improve it much. There is no "ideal" in this case. The "ideal" case would be for every KHTML developer to keep workin on the project they want to work on. And if that means working on KHTML (their pet project) then so be it. If that means that they don't want to give their baby to Apple then why is that such a bad thing?
Again, No help from apple, tons of help from apple, smal help from apple. It doesn't matter which you pick, none will hurt the KHTML project. It's only limit is itself.
If they would just join forces with KDE, they could devote their resources to making Apple better, and just leave all the refactoring work on WebCore to KDE contributers. Then, if in the future KDE starts slacking off, then they can come back in and try to rework it from what's left over. The point is though, there's no need for the Apple team to make a redundant copy of KDE's work, if KDE is determined to stay in the browser game for the foreseeable future...
You see, your whole post makes one big wrong assumption: "KHTML is apple's pet project." It isn't. It is KDE's. Trying to tell KDE to drop a project THEY STARTED and maintain in replacement for a lower quality but more functional FORK of their project is like telling them to just drop the project altogether. Why should they just drop the project altogether? They are doing a fine job already.
I am sick and tired of hearing all this BS about how KDE needs to do this and KDE needs to do that. If you don't like how it is run then go work on it. But don't sit around all day talking about how KDE needs to go and contribute to WebCore. They don't. It isn't their project. Even if they did try to contribute to WebCore, they don't have a say in the steering of that project. They have no power to make a core decision in its architecture to look out for THEIR project. That is why it is APPLE's project. Not KDE's.
Apple has put almost no energy or effort into this technology when you compare the amount of effort put into it by the KDE team. 90% of the code is from KDE. Most of Apple's code is for hacks to get specific web pages to load and to integrate the software into MacOS X. What do you think the ACID2 test is all about? You think they made major architectural changes to get that? No, they hacked the code up to make it work with ACID2.
So quit saying that KDE needs to join them. Apple needs to join KDE. If they don't want to, nothing is forcing them to, then that is your problem and their problem. It does not hurt KDE in any way (except maybe the bad publicity and FUD people like you are spreading over slashdot)So Quit saying KDE needs to join Apple.
I 100% agree with this. After watching 2 businesses which we had contracts at work with completely drop the ball on customer service after switching to siebel I can know what you mean.
Gateway, which we ordered warranty parts from using a siebel database, started having parts ship within weeks or months. Their old way got us warranty parts ordered before 3pm there the next day by noon. AFter about 6 months to a year of this, most of our clients switched to dell (which we also have a contract on) and it was a very serious blow to a lot of people due to dell's cutroat business practices.
AT&T Wireless also. They switched to siebel about 3 months before the local number portability was required. By the time a month had gone by with LNP, AT&T was already telling investors they were about to go bankrupt because of bad CSR database software transition. They were the only company who had started losing customers when LNP went live while the other big carriers were sucking them dry. The reason I can attribute this to Siebel is because not only did their current customers leave, but they failed to produce new customers as they did just 3 months earlier with the old database system. You see, their activation time (in store waiting by the customer) went up to over 3 hours during the busy parts of the day due to database errors.
Seibel ruins any company it trouches. In fact they are given credit to the takedown of Gateway Computer and AT&T Wireless.
Both companies were forced to sell their stock within 1 year of switching to siebel. Both credit their loss in revenue to a lack of response time in customer support due to problems with their new database.
With Gateway, it was with their delay time in sending out warranty parts (on the order of weedk&months, not hours after the siebel switch). With AT&T it was a problem with activating new customers (on the order of hours, not minutes that the customer would have to stay in a store while CSR waits on the database to type in customer info).
I'm sure there are other problems with companies who rolled out with siebel. But these are 2 big red flags for them.
The recount was mandated by the Flordia Supreme Court, not any Florida statute.
Actually, your wrong. The florida court case was an interpretation of the florida constitution and law. Their state's supreme court is the final decision on what is lawful and what isn't within their state. End of story... The recount was mandated by the fact that the origional count was not compliant with the state constitutiuon and election laws. It was not a mandate by the supreme court.
and/or Florida law Wrong again: The SCOTUS cannot legally interpret Florida law.
Now, you try to say that the recount violated federal election laws and equal protection. It is your right to have that opinion. However, you might want to save those claims considering the SCOTUS also said that this case was a one time decision that should _NEVER_ be used as caselaw for future decisions. It is pretty understood that they really weren't too worried about the constitutionality of stopping the recount. More about getting bush into office. It is pretty obvious to everyone involved that the recount was not in violation of equal protection.
I think you forget one thing about this whole situation. If Fox News hadn't called the election when they KNEW Bush was nowhere NEAR the needed numbers to call it then there would have NEVER been a SCOTUS decision. The recount would have gone as manded by state law and constitution and Al Gore would have been declared the winner. The only reason Bush even had the ability to go to the US Supreme court is because of the previous weeks media frenzy. The stock market crash. And several other problems that were completely thrashing the US economy.
people like to proclaim bush's lack of a popular vote as meaning he is illegitimate
Actually, most people who claim bush is illegitimate correctly state that he never won the electoral vote. Instead, he appealed the the supreme court and forced the end to a recount mandated by florida state law.
In the end, after all the votes were counted, it was found that he actually lost the florida electoral college. The fact that Bush lost the popular vote is just another reinforcing reason. But definately not the main reason he is an illegitimate president.
We shouldn't let states take this decision out of our hands as well. Please don't rationalize this ridiculous system.
Actually, you would be going the other way... taking power from the state, if you disolved the electoral college. Trying to say that you are taking power out of your hands is just plain ludicrous. You _NEVER_ had the power to begin with.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean you want to sync your pocketPC or PalmOS to your desktop calendar? or do you mean that you want to sync your PocketPC or PalmOS to the calendar SERVER?
I have seen lots of desktop sync's.. but server sync is the real solution. And it is the only long term solution. The problem is that I haven't seen any good services which will sync these over the internet.. They all currently need desktop sync as a go-between:(
Seriously.. I have been having a hard time getting different cell phones to sync to calendars.. I have a Nokia 3300 which has a option for calendar sync. It can sync over the internet. I just have to type in the url of the server and it will do it.. Problem is there is no documentation and I have no idea what type of server etc to point it to.. or what type of server I must buy in order to set one up...
Anyone to say that windows is more secure than Unix is fooling themselves and is not a tech.
Anyone who says this isn't a "tech"? Please. You sound like you just got off the schoolbus. You obviously don't have much experience. I'm not defending windows AT ALL. I am simply stating that macOS has proven exploits and proven security holes. Period. End of discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
violating their commercial license (enforcable or not), but my reading of the GPL is that this would be allowed as far as the FSF is concerned.
Who cares if it violates the GPL or not? The scam is illegal because their commercial license does not allow GPL versions of their library to be used for development. Period. How can you say "enforcable or not" It IS enforceable. EVERYTHING is enforceable unless it ADDS restrictions to standard copyright law. Standard copyright law says you cannot copy the product without permission. TrollTech gives you that permission PROVIDED you meet their restrictions. End of discussion. There is no question that the license is enforceable or not. If you break it you pay for it.
There is no difference in doing this scam and copying MS Visual C++ to all your developers on a hacked copy
Actually you can enforce this easilly. You are granted permission to distribute this binary if you meet the following criteria:
...
1) You do not develop any portion of your application using the GPL version of the QT libraries
Copyright law is pretty consistant in most countries. You cannot distribute ANYTHING without permission. That permission can be granted any number of ways. Normally, in the signing of a contract. Or, TrollTech has the option to give you their permission in writing on a card in the boxed version of the package. That card contains permission to distribute the program only if certain restrictions are met. Those restrictions outlined on the card are legally enforceable if they catch you distributing their software in violation of that card. (you might realize that the "card" i speak of is the EULA or License or whatever you want to call it.)
Wrong. Developers act on behalf of the company, not by themselves, therefore "You" as defined in GPL applies to the company as a whole. The code does not leave company, ergo there's no distribution.
I'm sorry to say it but you are incorrect (at least with today's copyright legislation and case law). Any and ALL distribution (ie, copying) is a breach of copyright if there is no permission. The GPL specifically requires source code be made available to users when you distribute a program under the GPL. Therefore, it is a copyright violation unless they give the source code to all the employees of the company who use the program.
If this were not the case, any company could use ANY piece of software they wanted on every computer in their business with no problem. This is simply not the case. And your analysis is simply false.
But come on, what else do you suppose them to say, given their goal to sell as many copies as possible, even if it is a lie? They can't do anything if you do that, they only can choose to never have any further business with you, which is their right.
Again, simply untrue. Their FAQ is 100% accurate. You simply cannot distribute a program within your company without permission without breaking a copyright law. Period. There is no if's and's or but's. The ONLY permission granted to distribute given by the GPL is if you also give access to the source code to those individuals.
You are trying to equate a "company" to a single "person" this is simply not the case. For tax purposes, a company acts as a single person. But this isn't tax law. This is copyright law. And in copyright law a business and its workforce as a whole is not treated as one entity.
"As long as you don't distribute it you're okay,"
Yes, but the scam involved developers using the GPL version, and then DISTRIBUTING it to another developer who then compiles it with the official version, who then in turn will distribute it to others. In this case, where distributuion is happening, they would be in violation.
If you are distributing a work without permission then you are breaking copyright law just as much as if you warez a cracked copy. So the risk is the same. The businesses who warez copies will also be the ones who warez the GPL QT.
Besides, it has already been pretty clear that courts will consider ANY and ALL distribution without permission to be a breach of copyright. For example, if a GPL developer is distributing his program without source to people in his company, that is distribution. If he is letting people load it on their computers.. even within his organization. that is distribution and it requires GPL compliance.
You must not know any carpenters. Oh well.
Good tools are expensive. If you are a crafts man and not just some house framer hourly worker, you take care of your tools and you buy quality tools. The same goes for programers. The same goes for MBA graduates who become CEO's of successfull (or unsuccessfull) companies.
No matter your trade, you will no doubt spend more than $5,000 on an item to make your job easier or more manageable. That is just how the world of economics work. That is life in today's world. We aren't in the 80's or 90's anymore. People charge for services. People charge for products. You do one thing well, they do another thing well. When you need something done you don't normally do what do you do? You hire someone else's services or use a product which enables you to do it.
It isn't a matter of how much something costs. It is a matter of how much do you think your time is worth. If you don't value your time and you don't take pride in your work then I wouldn't expect you to output anything of any value to anybody.
0$ to develop on Windows? Well, Mac costs $149 for the OS license to develop for. Windows costs 299 plus the price of ms visual.. that is pretty expensive..
Both under $1000 but both with no support and both using tedious tools which takes several times more man hours for GUI implementation.
Add MSDN and apple developers subscriptions to the mix and you start seeing what you will spend on the project.
The solution is clear for a project on a deadline: Either hire an extra developer to take care of the GUI, or have your programers do the GUI themselves. That would be on a smaller project. Talk about mass scale projects and its the same thing, only no matter what way you look at it, there are fewer developers required on a project when QT is used as the GUI toolkit.
You might try to argue those facts. And in some cases you would have a point. But in the general case QT will reduce your developers cost. That is the bottom line. And it is also a fact.
For garage band type developers, you can go use GTK or MFC and sit around all day working out bugs in the dark corner of the living room. Or you can just plug your functions into the GUI widgets you drag n dropped and be done with it.
In the domain of GUI evelopment tools, $5K per developer's license is expensive.
$5,000 might be expensive when compared to other GUI development kits. However there is something you are missing.
TrollTech currently has no competition in the fast and cross platform toolkit market. Nobody.
They are all significantly more tedious and significantly less portable. QT is the only one which does not have these problems. You can say that $5,000 is expensive for its type of toolkit. But it is also the only toolkit which has the features needed by developers who would rather get their concept implemented instead of hiring a team of programers to implement their GUI's properly with another less usefull toolkit.
Dude, these are ports... Don't you think they could get it right if they had time to waste on it? Do you think they care if it looks good on a mac? No, only a mac user would give a shit if his damn ported program from windows doesn't look metally enough. That is the mac attitude.
You know what. Mac users who bitch about such lameness can stuff it IMO.
Intel doesn't really produce motherboards anymore... They are manufacturing their motherboards through FoxConn nowadays.
Their chipset is another story. But in all reality you can't argue that anymore either. Because the AMD chipset is built into the processor core.
The only thing you can really argue is that Intel provides a device hub which provides the logic for onboard devices like ethernet and video. AMD does not but instead outsources it to nVidia. Not that I blame them to leave device design up to a 3rd party who specializes in sound and video controllers (and I might add, the industry leaderin it)
So yea, Intel does provide the device hub which routes all its onboard devices.. But honestly, is that really the reason? Somehow the "intel provides the whole platform" is really just a bunch of FUD when looked at analytically. They produce a very (VERY!) minor portion of a system that AMD does not. Significantly important (and expensive) then most other major components of a system.
"I look at Tom's Hardware Guide and see that Intel's latest processors are best at everything in the long run as long as hyperthreading is turned on (why they turn it off at all I don't know - maybe to give AMD some kind of chance?) except in the graphics arena. AMD has always been best at graphics."
Please. Get your facts straight before calling someone an AMD fanboy.
First of all, AMD has always been WORSE at graphics than Intel in overall performance (until the very recent past, athlon64). Even with the Athlon XP line or processors, AMD was only neck and neck with Intel. At the end of the XP line, they were once again lagged behind in graphics.
The facts are that throughout history (until Athlon64), the AMD processor has not been above Intel for any significant amount of time at graphics. It is just evidence that you don't really understand the history of microprocessors, specifically AMD and Intel ones.
I hate to tell you this, but reading a bar graph on tomshardware isn't the best place to get your performance numbers. If you don't know why they disabled HyperThreading, it is a sure sign you don't know what those numbers mean. How you formed an opinion on numbers you don't understand is beyond me.
This is against the GPL license terms. Any programer who touches the code with the GPL version is legally obligated to open the entire codebase.
It is a very VERY VERY risky business to be in if you plan on this scam. Because there are no copyright violations to pay if you get caught. You simply must open your code. Period. And a court order could potentially be issued to require that. If you were caught you would have 2 options: Open your code, or stop distributing your code. Both the nail in the coffin for any closed source software developer.
Not to mention that technically, the developers could do that on ANY developer tool, including MS Visual Studio. Maybe they download the hacked copies and then send the production build into the legit copy. The same can be said for anything. It is all a game of loosly knit trust networks in the Coporate America scene. If you don't semi-trust your customers or suppliers, then you better watch out.
Also, you might think BSA audit, to catch people trying this exact scam. I'm not saying its a good thing for the BSA to exist, I'm just saying they do exist and act as a deterrant.
That is expensive?
It is for a small time shop. But even carpenters purchase tools which are much more expensive than that. Shit, sewing machines are much more expensive than $5,000 for a good one.
Developers (not all, just many) are too stuck up if they cannot fathom paying $5000 for a tool which will take care of just about every tedious problem with their GUI program. And leave time for the real work (the application idea and implementation)
The fact that you can now rapidly prototype an application using QT and Python in a matter of hours on programs which may take days to produce is worth the money right there (but honestly just download the GPL version for proof of concept if you are afraid to pay for it)
There are other features which are outrageously worth the money. Not everyone will use them. QT is not for every developer. But honestly, what kind of snob are you that $5000 is an expensive tool for your professional career in which you get paid above the average grade of laborers who must purchase more expensive tools?
"BTW the overall energy efficiency of this setup is substantially lower than the equivalent..."
Actually, It is not only worse off in efficiency, it is actually generating more heat than if he hadn't been using the device to begin with. Unless he is sticking the back of his ice cube maker (probably dorm refridgerator) out the window and sealing it off pretty well, he will actually be generating more heat than he takes away with the ice.
It is just the simple laws of physics.
Not only this, but he would be better off opening the freezer door and blowing a fan into it. At least that wouldn't cost 25$ for the initial startup which wastes even more energy to produce. Plus the time he spent on making the device. Not to mention that leaving the door open with the fan on would cost him less than running an electric pump plus fan.
Actually, this "invention" is not only inefficient, but actualy HEATS up your room...
Assuming he is using the ice cube maker in the same room he is cooling, the ice cube maker is guaranteed to generate more heat than it takes away from the ice (due to inefficiencies in its compressor). Plus the fan and water pump will also generate more heat.
He would be better off leaving the freezer door open in his room. It would actually be more efficient than cooling the room with cubes made from that very freezer.
We all know how efficient leaving the freezer door is don't we?
Best case scenerio, assuming 100% efficiency in all his devices, he gets the same temperature he starts with. Real world scenerio, he is wasting electricity and water and at the same time warming up the room slightly.
Ever thought that maybe the particular people who work on KHTML on a daily/weekly basis aren't the same people who are in charge of KDE as a whole? It is not like the KDE project can just bundle up all their developers, and start making assignments on who should work on what with whom.
It isn't a business. Everyone who works on KDE is working on a particular part of KDE because that is what they are interested in. You got it backwards.
As far as "letting apple" do the grunt work. That is not how you should look at it. You should instead look at KHTML as a project that a small group of developers decided to work on. It just so happens to be part of the KDE project but in reality it does not take away from the KDE project. And apple's Fork of KHTML does not slow KHTML development. It also does not improve it much. There is no "ideal" in this case. The "ideal" case would be for every KHTML developer to keep workin on the project they want to work on. And if that means working on KHTML (their pet project) then so be it. If that means that they don't want to give their baby to Apple then why is that such a bad thing?
Again, No help from apple, tons of help from apple, smal help from apple. It doesn't matter which you pick, none will hurt the KHTML project. It's only limit is itself.
If they would just join forces with KDE, they could devote their resources to making Apple better, and just leave all the refactoring work on WebCore to KDE contributers. Then, if in the future KDE starts slacking off, then they can come back in and try to rework it from what's left over. The point is though, there's no need for the Apple team to make a redundant copy of KDE's work, if KDE is determined to stay in the browser game for the foreseeable future...
You see, your whole post makes one big wrong assumption: "KHTML is apple's pet project." It isn't. It is KDE's. Trying to tell KDE to drop a project THEY STARTED and maintain in replacement for a lower quality but more functional FORK of their project is like telling them to just drop the project altogether. Why should they just drop the project altogether? They are doing a fine job already.
I am sick and tired of hearing all this BS about how KDE needs to do this and KDE needs to do that. If you don't like how it is run then go work on it. But don't sit around all day talking about how KDE needs to go and contribute to WebCore. They don't. It isn't their project. Even if they did try to contribute to WebCore, they don't have a say in the steering of that project. They have no power to make a core decision in its architecture to look out for THEIR project. That is why it is APPLE's project. Not KDE's.
Apple has put almost no energy or effort into this technology when you compare the amount of effort put into it by the KDE team. 90% of the code is from KDE. Most of Apple's code is for hacks to get specific web pages to load and to integrate the software into MacOS X. What do you think the ACID2 test is all about? You think they made major architectural changes to get that? No, they hacked the code up to make it work with ACID2.
So quit saying that KDE needs to join them. Apple needs to join KDE. If they don't want to, nothing is forcing them to, then that is your problem and their problem. It does not hurt KDE in any way (except maybe the bad publicity and FUD people like you are spreading over slashdot)So Quit saying KDE needs to join Apple.
I 100% agree with this. After watching 2 businesses which we had contracts at work with completely drop the ball on customer service after switching to siebel I can know what you mean.
Gateway, which we ordered warranty parts from using a siebel database, started having parts ship within weeks or months. Their old way got us warranty parts ordered before 3pm there the next day by noon. AFter about 6 months to a year of this, most of our clients switched to dell (which we also have a contract on) and it was a very serious blow to a lot of people due to dell's cutroat business practices.
AT&T Wireless also. They switched to siebel about 3 months before the local number portability was required. By the time a month had gone by with LNP, AT&T was already telling investors they were about to go bankrupt because of bad CSR database software transition. They were the only company who had started losing customers when LNP went live while the other big carriers were sucking them dry. The reason I can attribute this to Siebel is because not only did their current customers leave, but they failed to produce new customers as they did just 3 months earlier with the old database system. You see, their activation time (in store waiting by the customer) went up to over 3 hours during the busy parts of the day due to database errors.
You have it backwards..
Seibel ruins any company it trouches. In fact they are given credit to the takedown of Gateway Computer and AT&T Wireless.
Both companies were forced to sell their stock within 1 year of switching to siebel. Both credit their loss in revenue to a lack of response time in customer support due to problems with their new database.
With Gateway, it was with their delay time in sending out warranty parts (on the order of weedk&months, not hours after the siebel switch). With AT&T it was a problem with activating new customers (on the order of hours, not minutes that the customer would have to stay in a store while CSR waits on the database to type in customer info).
I'm sure there are other problems with companies who rolled out with siebel. But these are 2 big red flags for them.
The recount was mandated by the Flordia Supreme Court, not any Florida statute.
Actually, your wrong. The florida court case was an interpretation of the florida constitution and law. Their state's supreme court is the final decision on what is lawful and what isn't within their state. End of story... The recount was mandated by the fact that the origional count was not compliant with the state constitutiuon and election laws. It was not a mandate by the supreme court.
and/or Florida law
Wrong again: The SCOTUS cannot legally interpret Florida law.
Now, you try to say that the recount violated federal election laws and equal protection. It is your right to have that opinion. However, you might want to save those claims considering the SCOTUS also said that this case was a one time decision that should _NEVER_ be used as caselaw for future decisions. It is pretty understood that they really weren't too worried about the constitutionality of stopping the recount. More about getting bush into office. It is pretty obvious to everyone involved that the recount was not in violation of equal protection.
I think you forget one thing about this whole situation. If Fox News hadn't called the election when they KNEW Bush was nowhere NEAR the needed numbers to call it then there would have NEVER been a SCOTUS decision. The recount would have gone as manded by state law and constitution and Al Gore would have been declared the winner. The only reason Bush even had the ability to go to the US Supreme court is because of the previous weeks media frenzy. The stock market crash. And several other problems that were completely thrashing the US economy.
people like to proclaim bush's lack of a popular vote as meaning he is illegitimate
Actually, most people who claim bush is illegitimate correctly state that he never won the electoral vote. Instead, he appealed the the supreme court and forced the end to a recount mandated by florida state law.
In the end, after all the votes were counted, it was found that he actually lost the florida electoral college. The fact that Bush lost the popular vote is just another reinforcing reason. But definately not the main reason he is an illegitimate president.
We shouldn't let states take this decision out of our hands as well. Please don't rationalize this ridiculous system.
Actually, you would be going the other way... taking power from the state, if you disolved the electoral college. Trying to say that you are taking power out of your hands is just plain ludicrous. You _NEVER_ had the power to begin with.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean you want to sync your pocketPC or PalmOS to your desktop calendar? or do you mean that you want to sync your PocketPC or PalmOS to the calendar SERVER?
:(
I have seen lots of desktop sync's.. but server sync is the real solution. And it is the only long term solution. The problem is that I haven't seen any good services which will sync these over the internet.. They all currently need desktop sync as a go-between
Which phone do you use?
Seriously.. I have been having a hard time getting different cell phones to sync to calendars.. I have a Nokia 3300 which has a option for calendar sync. It can sync over the internet. I just have to type in the url of the server and it will do it.. Problem is there is no documentation and I have no idea what type of server etc to point it to.. or what type of server I must buy in order to set one up...
any help?
If you decide to opt out of paying for sewer treatment, you will have a problem surviving.
If you decide to opt out of water purification, you too will have a problem surviving.
If you decide to opt out of national security, you will have a hard time surviving.
If you decide to opt out of local security (police force) you will have trouble surviving.
If you decide to opt out of buying gasoline, you will also probably have a problem finding a job (thus surviving)
If you decide to opt out of buying groceries, you will probably have a hard time surviving.
Anyone to say that windows is more secure than Unix is fooling themselves and is not a tech.
Anyone who says this isn't a "tech"? Please. You sound like you just got off the schoolbus. You obviously don't have much experience. I'm not defending windows AT ALL. I am simply stating that macOS has proven exploits and proven security holes. Period. End of discussion.