If you think freedom of speech exists in the US and not in Europe, then explainto to us why we don't see naked bodies anywhere on American network TV (unlike in Europe).
Because the FCC grants the permits to broadcast, and if they decide they no longer want to grant a permit for some reason or another they have the ultimate right to do so. It really has nothing to do with the government regulating speech. If you go over a private carrier you can send pretty much anything you want. But if you choose to deal with the government in order to use its distributed channels (radio frequencies), you do so on their terms. I don't agree that they should do this, but they nevertheless do because nobody has a right to the airwaves, only a privelege that the government grants you. Just like they can revoke your driver's license if you repeatedly disobey traffic laws.
Explain to me why the government can't stop me from calling for the murder of people of one particular color, but Microsoft can stop me from publishing benchmarks of their SQL server, and my ISP can regulate what I can put on my web page.
Microsoft can't stop you from publishing benchmarks on your page. They may try to, but in the end they really can't use the force of law against you, unless you made up those benchmarks and have used them as libel. Your ISP can regulate what you put on your web page because they lease you the space and you made an agreement with them when you signed up as to the terms of that lease.
Freedom of speech in the US (as well as privacy) is an illusion: money and corporate greed have almost total control over what can be said and done. The government can't stop me from speaking, but the corporate world controls our lives.
Perhaps, for weak willed whiners. But only the government can use guns and force to decide what you can and cannot say.
The US government does NOTHING to help me protect my freedom of speech or my privacy. European governments actually protect the privacy and the freedom of speech of their citizens to a much larger extent (and I have lived on both sides of the pond).
In other words, in Europe they protect your right to say whatever they think you should say. Not only that, but they interfere in private business to make sure you damn well can say anything on the government approved list without such petty things as "contracts" and "agreements" getting in the way. Lovely, makes me want to move to France now... will they perform the lobotomy at the consulate or do I have to do it at the border?
Well, on a similar note, I just wanted to say that I am extremely satisfied with my Windows machine. Note, however, that I have not used, extensively, a Unix system. I've heard great things about them, but you know what: MY WINDOWS MACHINE IS FINE. It gets the job done, and quite well, if you ask me. I've never had a problem with it (aside from the "interface" going all to hell), and I am impressed by the enormous number of functions that come built into the OS.
I really should not say anything bad about Unix, as I am sure Unix machines are great, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Windows line. My friends use them, and I use them. They work wonders for us.
Also, I would like to tell you how extremely satisfied I am with my McDonald's hamburger. Note, however, that I have not eaten, often, steak...
Uses include airbag collision detectors in cars, pressure guages, "micro-microphones", video projection, scientific equipment, and the ever popular optical switching technology.
Wow, talk about advanced technology! If they can put all this stuff in a toy car the size of my thumbnail, imagine what they can put in, say, a Matchbox racer! Or, dare I say it... A Tonka truck!
I liked having fake email addresses! I want all my account info sent to my private, real email address and having people send email (and spam) to another fake address. Makes things much easier.
I don't want people to know my real address unless I explicitly give it to them, and I don't want to have things like my password get sent to an email address I don't check as often and could possibly forget the password to. I don't care so much about spamproofing my fake email address (Hotmail accounts start with 50 pieces of spam in them when you sign up, and it seems to breed somehow) as protecting my real email address from sickos and perverts. I wouldn't give out my phone number on Slashdot, and I treat my email address the same way.
That said, assuming no wind, a plane at sea level flying at 350kia (Knots Indicated Airspeed) will have the same groundspeed as the same plane flying at 35,000ft 350kia.
Note the description of indicated airspeed vs. true airspeed:
For example, at sea level a TAS of 440 MPH will equal an IAS of about 440. At 20,000 feet, a TAS of 440 MPH will have an IAS of about 360. Thus, for a given TAS, indicated airspeed will decrease with altitude.
As altitude increases and true airspeed, and therefore, groundspeed remains constant, indicated airspeed drops due to the lesser air pressure. The true airspeed doesn't really matter, however. Indicated airspeed becomes much more important, as lift does not get produced as a function of speed, but rather a function of pressure. You can move a million miles an hour through a vacuum, and still produce absolutely no lift. Conversely, in an extremely dense atmosphere it takes much less speed to provide the same amount of lift (assuming constant gravity).
Look at it this way: If you have a rocket , and you propel yourself at sea level, your groundspeed and airspeed (assuming no wind) will stay pretty much the same. Now, if you leave the atmosphere and go into outer space, your groundspeed remains the same, but your airspeed drops to zero, since you have no air pressure. As you fall back to Earth, maintaining a constant groundspeed, your (horizontal) airspeed increases as ambient air pressure rises.
In any event, I think I have shown that indicated airspeed simply measures pressure, and not speed at all. If you want to convert that to true airspeed, you need to do some math involving altitude and temperature, but, like you said, for most pilots this serves no purpose since this only really tells you groundspeed +- wind, and nobody cares about that.
Not all airplanes are incapable of climbing out of the atmosphere the flight ceilings of most aircraft have more to do with the engines than the abilty to make lift.
I didn't really say that... I said not all airplanes can escape the atmosphere, implying that some perhaps can (or at least, could). But as you go higher, you need greater groundspeeds to produce the same amount of lift, and most engines will just not have the ability to produce that much thrust.
Wait a minute... you just told me the same thing I told you. In other words, I do understand it. =-)
Ground speed measures how fast the airplane moves across the Earth, and airspeed measures how fast air moves across the wings. In a nosedive, the ground speed drops to zero while the airspeed rises. Of course, this tells you how fast you go, but it doesn't directly measure that. It simply measures air pressure, which gets affected by (at least) two things: the speed of the aircraft and the density of the air. At a given ground speed, your airspeed drops as you go higher, so you experience less drag. Conversely, at a given airspeed, your ground speed goes higher at higher altitudes, so you experience the same amount of drag.
The bottom line: Since airspeed doesn't measure any particular speed, but rather pressure, at a given airspeed you will experience the same amount of drag at any altitude, because you have just as much air coming across the wings.
Anyway, for the most part, knowing how fast you actually move at a given times doesn't work out as important as knowing whether you have enough speed to create sufficient lift, which the airspeed indicator will tell you regardless of your altitude. Naturally, as you go higher, the lesser density of the air means you need a greater groundspeed (and therefore, more thrust) to get the same airspeed, which explains why all airplanes couldn't just keep climbing until they reach outer space.
I just noticed, however, that when you quoted me I said, "an airplane moving at 350kts", which I suppose accidentally implies ground speed, when I really meant to say "an airplane with an airspeed of 350kts", so this may have caused some confusion.
You are correct that jets fy at high altitudes to save fuel, however this statement make no sense:
No, no, it made perfect sense. The way I understand it, airspeed does not measure how fast the aircraft actually moves, but rather how much air moves across the wings. The measurement gets made by testing the air pressure coming across the wing and then compensating for the air pressure in still air at that altitude, which gets measured by another device that the air doesn't flow across. Therefore, an airplane moving at 350kts will have the same air pressure coming across its wing at sea level and 25,000 feet, and hence, the same amount of drag.
What should make any of that illegal? You have to take the bad with the good, just like anything... the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, etc. If you don't want to get subjected to their outrageous licensing terms, don't deal with them. You just can't get the benefits without the downsides. If you don't like it, deal with someone else. Why do socialists fail to see this? We can't have a utopian society based on your or my ideals, we have to deal with reality. And time and time again, the laissez-faire free market has proved itself the best way for everyone.
And anyway, I don't think I ever really said anything in defense of Microsoft per se. I do not like their products and I never have. However, I do support a free market economy, and so I oppose those, such as yourself, who want to whine to the government to fix problems instead of letting the market decide how to resolve them. Remember, only one monopoly in this country can enforce its power through the use of physical violence. Why do we want to give it even more power than the outrageous amount it already has?
Seriously though, where did you get all your arguments from? I never said those things.
I didn't exactly say you said them. I just noted that you expressed strong communist sentiments, whether you realized it or not, with your statement: Something is utterly wrong when computing is more about money, power and law, than it is about programming.
For instance, if they know you have looked at their code and you are coding something that competes with their products, they might sue you for copyright infringement, breaking an EULA or something like that.
Actually, it seems to me they have much more to lose. The negative publicity, especially in these times when everyone sees Microsoft as "evil" would far outweigh the benefits of maybe eliminating some "competition".
Something is utterly wrong when computing is more about money, power and law, than it is about programming.
How typically hypocritical. You sound just like a communist: "Something is terribly wrong when industry is more about money, power, and law than it is about the toil of the laborers."
Nothing gives you the inherent right to anyone else's property! If Bill Gates wants to license software to you under terms that give him advantages in terms of money, power, and law, well, he paid money to get that software and he has the perfect right to license it how he wants. I see nothing "wrong" with that. By the same token, you have the right to choose not to do business with him, and write your own software and license it how you see fit. I see nothing "wrong" with that either. The computer industry requires capital to sustain, just like any other industry, and doing what you can to get that capital, within the bounds of the law, of course, should never get looked on as "wrong" or "evil", just because some person has had more success at it than you. Making arbitrary moral judgments about others' behavior only leads to imposing arbitrary moral standards on others, which, in the end, leads to a police state.
Heheh, good point. But I still sometimes feel the need to prefix "ultra" so as to make clear the fact that I consider American capitalism as we know it today just another from of socialism. I don't support it, and I don't want anyone thinking I do.
Even if you never look at the downloaded code, the electronic trail will look like you did -- which is perhaps the most insidious aspect of this version of sharing.
So everything Microsoft does gets demonized as evil, simply because you have to deal with "THE EVIL EMPIRE" to take advantage of it? Let's not forget that the GPL has more or less the same provisions. If you use GPL code in closed source, or certain open source projects, you can get sued. If you use MS code in closed or open source, you can get sued. In fact, GNU has proved quite litigious in the past. What makes them so much more righteous than MS? Simply because you don't like MS?
What does Microsoft stand to gain by suing anyone and everyone who it thinks may have violated its license? Not a whole lot. And don't whine about trying to eliminate competition... as an ultra-capitalist proponent of the free market I don't buy that argument for one second. But regardless of that, the bad publicity they would receive (since people already perceive them as evil and manipulative) would likely make such a lawsuit much more harmful than beneficial.
Why does everyone have this perception of everyone at Microsoft as a Snidely Whiplash type character, who sits around in boardrooms with other evil villains twirling his mustache and dreaming up ways to destroy everyone else and rule the world?
CHRIST ON A GODDAMN FUCKING CRUTCH! Tell me where I said "caffeine isn't habit forming"! I didn't say that at all! I don't feel like repeating myself YET AGAIN, so please read the following threads:
After doing so, go back to my post. If you still think I made the unqualified statement that nobody ever becomes caffeine dependent, then perhaps you really should lay off the caffeine, as it seems to have addled your brain.
I said COKE FIX, not caffeine/coffee fix. Big difference. If you would actually apply critical thinking instead of just responding with inane sarcasm, you might understand the point. I did not say nobody gets addicted to caffeine, I said cola companies don't put caffeine in their beverages primarily to create addicts. That would serve no purpose anyway, as these "addicts" would just move on to harder beverages, enervating the target market rather than bolstering it. And anyway, show a little self control and lay off the caffiene.
Look, folks. I never said nobody gets addicted to caffeine. I simply responded to the statement that cola companies put caffeine in their beverages primarily to create addicts. If you got addicted to caffeine, well, that sucks, and you should have drank more responsibly--I frankly don't pity you a bit. But many more people can drink caffeine regularly without getting even remotely addicted.
So, let's get this straight. You need caffeine, but only because the cola companies say you need it? Makes no sense to me. You want the caffeine because it helps you perform well, not because some company says you've gotten addicted somehow. By that logic, the blame for alcoholism falls squarely on the shoulders of the makers of alcoholic beverages, and the blame for gun deaths falls on the makers of the guns, and the blame for medical malpractice falls on the institutions who taught those doctors.
Grow up, people. Learn to take responsibility for your actions instead of passing yourself off as a victim of some entity. Rather than whine about how you don't perform well without caffeine, try to break yourself of the habit.
And for the record, I have read books that say that cocaine does not cause a physical addiction, only a psychological one. So perhaps you should see a therapist to help break yourself of this "caffeine addiction". What does that prove? Nothing, really, but whatever.
I personally would love to see them have to put there caffiene amounts on everything that contains it except fresh roasted coffee
Just what we need, more government regulation to help whiners deal with their problems.
Caffeine is dependency-forming. This is the major reason for adding it to cola drinks: it increases consumer loyalty.
Come, come, now, you don't actually believe this bit of tripe? Big bad corporations manipulating us by spiking their drinks with addictive substances much in the way drug dealers spike "gateway drugs" like marijuana with heroin to make them more addictive and thus get more repeat business. Caffeine does not cause an addiction wherein someone simply must get his Coke fix... if anything someone addicted to caffeine would seem more likely to move up to more highly saturated foods than Coke (which, as you point out, contains not even half the amount of caffeine as coffee).
Cola companies add caffeine to their drinks because the consumers WANT caffeine in their drinks, and not because of a mass addiction to caffeine. I know a lot of cola drinkers, but very few (if any) caffeine addicts.
Fortune delivers a whithering attack on Rambus...
on
Fortune on Rambus
·
· Score: 3
foo@localhost:/usr/home/foo$/usr/games/fortune -o Rambus, like, sucks and stuff. They have dumb employees and they kinda smell like poo. Nyahh!!! Neener neener! Take that Rambus!
foo@localhost:/usr/home/foo$
Whaaaaaat? You're not making any sense. The poster said, or at least implied, that under non-GPL licenses, anyone who wanted to could take the code and declare the rights to it, closing it up. So did you. THIS IS NOT TRUE. And the whole point of the BSDL is that I don't particularly care what the user does, as long as I get some credit. Even if Microsoft or some other large company decides they want my code, and they take it and use it, that doesn't by any means make my code any less available, which is the point I was raising.
What if you could get the news several days in advance? Why, you could form a crappy little software company that releases total garbage, and still build it into a multibillion dollar enterprise through a series of "lucky" investments! Hmmmm...
The developers of GPLed software usually want the security of not having their software used by Microsoft.
Which just goes to prove the point that GPLers aren't interested in good code for the sake of good code, they're interested mainly in pushing a political ideology. "Wahhh, wahhh, Microsoft is a successful business, and I don't want to share my toys with them. So I'm going to make sure that nobody can use my stuff unless they agree to my terms." Yeah, I've heard it before, and it only reinforces my point. The GPL isn't about freedom, it's about a utopian "software is free" society. When people start pushing their ethics on other people, even people they don't like, that's when freedom loving people get scared.
Personally, if Microsoft decided that some code I'd written is better than what they could do in house, as long as they give me credit I'd be thrilled to have helped make a Microsoft product something better than the total piece of crap it more than likely was.
My central complaint is that anti-GPL/anti-RMS people keep pushing the "GPL software is tainted/viral/etc" ideology.
Well, the whole concept behind the GPL is that it is viral, so if you have a problem with that then perhaps you need to sit down for awhile and think.
Absolutely ridiculous. Are you saying that if I release some BSD or public domain code, someone can come and take the rights to that code away from me, close up the source, and continue to distribute the binaries as closed source? I don't think so. Mostly, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
The GPL protects the freedom of the software, not the freedom of the author or users.
I suspect you don't know very much about property law. Property law defines the relationship between people regarding property. Property itself cannot have any rights or freedoms. So if the GPL doesn't protect the freedom of the author or users, it doesn't protect any freedom at all.
Anyway, this Open Motif licensing clause is just another example of open source hypocrisy: "This software is totally open and free. Unless, of course, you are one of those moral halfpints who don't agree with our philosophies."
Yes. Yes I do. However, in certain cases, and only in those cases, I am willing to trade a bit of freedom for security. I am willing to say that people should be prevented from or punished for doing things that deprive people of life, health, or property. But that's all. So, yes, being able to do anything you want is total freedom, but total freedom may not be a good thing.
On the other hand, I remain open to the position that total freedom is in fact a good thing. Unlike you, who just wants to push the GNU "non-GPL software is tainted" ideology.
Not really. Vote third party. Considering that your vote is not ever going to make a difference anyway if you cast it for one of the "Big Two", due to margins of error and such, your vote probably means more voting for a third party, because every vote the third party gets is one more vote they can say they got. It hasn't always been Democrats and Republicans, and it won't always be either. If you support gun rights and abortion rights, vote for a party that supports both of those. I voted for Browne in the last election, and I feel my vote was much more useful than if I'd simply cast it for the person I hate less between Gore and Bush.
I voted Nader. If he wasn't available, I would have voted Socialist. I'm sorry, _both_ the Democrats and Republicans are hopeless at this point. It's time to take stock of what humans are still left in the Senate and House, in case they can do anything- and failing that, buy guns.
Here you're talking out of both sides of your ass, to coin a phrase. On the one hand, you choose to vote Nader or Socialist because you feel the Democrats and Republicans are too corrupt. So, rather than trying to strip them of the powers they are abusing, you want to give the Government even more power over us by voting ultra-liberal, thus creating a state where you'd definately feel the corruption, which will still be there. Power corrupts, and all that jazz.
Next sentence, you talk about buying guns. Make up your mind: are you supporting the Second Amendment or voting liberal? In this country, the two really are mutually exclusive. Perhaps you should consider voting Libertarian. Or maybe you should just not vote at all until you've figured out exactly what you want out of a country. And if you decide you want to live in a socialist hell, well... to tell the truth, I'd just as soon you moved to Europe or Canada, and you probably would be happier there too. Don't think socialism is going to work any better or even differently in the U.S. than any other country in the world.
I assume you are trying to quote the Steely Dan song. Unfortunately, that song is properly called "Brooklyn (Owes The Charmer Under Me)". I'm looking at Can't Buy a Thrill right now and I'm undoubtably right on this.
It's a good song though, even if I have no idea what it means.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think freedom of speech exists in the US and not in Europe, then explainto to us why we don't see naked bodies anywhere on American network TV (unlike in Europe).
Because the FCC grants the permits to broadcast, and if they decide they no longer want to grant a permit for some reason or another they have the ultimate right to do so. It really has nothing to do with the government regulating speech. If you go over a private carrier you can send pretty much anything you want. But if you choose to deal with the government in order to use its distributed channels (radio frequencies), you do so on their terms. I don't agree that they should do this, but they nevertheless do because nobody has a right to the airwaves, only a privelege that the government grants you. Just like they can revoke your driver's license if you repeatedly disobey traffic laws.
Explain to me why the government can't stop me from calling for the murder of people of one particular color, but Microsoft can stop me from publishing benchmarks of their SQL server, and my ISP can regulate what I can put on my web page.
Microsoft can't stop you from publishing benchmarks on your page. They may try to, but in the end they really can't use the force of law against you, unless you made up those benchmarks and have used them as libel. Your ISP can regulate what you put on your web page because they lease you the space and you made an agreement with them when you signed up as to the terms of that lease.
Freedom of speech in the US (as well as privacy) is an illusion: money and corporate greed have almost total control over what can be said and done. The government can't stop me from speaking, but the corporate world controls our lives.
Perhaps, for weak willed whiners. But only the government can use guns and force to decide what you can and cannot say.
The US government does NOTHING to help me protect my freedom of speech or my privacy. European governments actually protect the privacy and the freedom of speech of their citizens to a much larger extent (and I have lived on both sides of the pond).
In other words, in Europe they protect your right to say whatever they think you should say. Not only that, but they interfere in private business to make sure you damn well can say anything on the government approved list without such petty things as "contracts" and "agreements" getting in the way. Lovely, makes me want to move to France now... will they perform the lobotomy at the consulate or do I have to do it at the border?
Well, on a similar note, I just wanted to say that I am extremely satisfied with my Windows machine. Note, however, that I have not used, extensively, a Unix system. I've heard great things about them, but you know what: MY WINDOWS MACHINE IS FINE. It gets the job done, and quite well, if you ask me. I've never had a problem with it (aside from the "interface" going all to hell), and I am impressed by the enormous number of functions that come built into the OS.
I really should not say anything bad about Unix, as I am sure Unix machines are great, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Windows line. My friends use them, and I use them. They work wonders for us.
Also, I would like to tell you how extremely satisfied I am with my McDonald's hamburger. Note, however, that I have not eaten, often, steak...
Uses include airbag collision detectors in cars, pressure guages, "micro-microphones", video projection, scientific equipment, and the ever popular optical switching technology.
Wow, talk about advanced technology! If they can put all this stuff in a toy car the size of my thumbnail, imagine what they can put in, say, a Matchbox racer! Or, dare I say it... A Tonka truck!
I liked having fake email addresses! I want all my account info sent to my private, real email address and having people send email (and spam) to another fake address. Makes things much easier.
I don't want people to know my real address unless I explicitly give it to them, and I don't want to have things like my password get sent to an email address I don't check as often and could possibly forget the password to. I don't care so much about spamproofing my fake email address (Hotmail accounts start with 50 pieces of spam in them when you sign up, and it seems to breed somehow) as protecting my real email address from sickos and perverts. I wouldn't give out my phone number on Slashdot, and I treat my email address the same way.
That said, assuming no wind, a plane at sea level flying at 350kia (Knots Indicated Airspeed) will have the same groundspeed as the same plane flying at 35,000ft 350kia.
s .htm
Wrong. That only works for true airspeed, which generally does not get measured except by very advanced instruments. I refer you to the following page: http://www.elmendorf.af.mil/Units/90FS/instrument
Note the description of indicated airspeed vs. true airspeed:
For example, at sea level a TAS of 440 MPH will equal an IAS of about 440. At 20,000 feet, a TAS of 440 MPH will have an IAS of about 360. Thus, for a given TAS, indicated airspeed will decrease with altitude.
As altitude increases and true airspeed, and therefore, groundspeed remains constant, indicated airspeed drops due to the lesser air pressure. The true airspeed doesn't really matter, however. Indicated airspeed becomes much more important, as lift does not get produced as a function of speed, but rather a function of pressure. You can move a million miles an hour through a vacuum, and still produce absolutely no lift. Conversely, in an extremely dense atmosphere it takes much less speed to provide the same amount of lift (assuming constant gravity).
Look at it this way: If you have a rocket , and you propel yourself at sea level, your groundspeed and airspeed (assuming no wind) will stay pretty much the same. Now, if you leave the atmosphere and go into outer space, your groundspeed remains the same, but your airspeed drops to zero, since you have no air pressure. As you fall back to Earth, maintaining a constant groundspeed, your (horizontal) airspeed increases as ambient air pressure rises.
In any event, I think I have shown that indicated airspeed simply measures pressure, and not speed at all. If you want to convert that to true airspeed, you need to do some math involving altitude and temperature, but, like you said, for most pilots this serves no purpose since this only really tells you groundspeed +- wind, and nobody cares about that.
Not all airplanes are incapable of climbing out of the atmosphere the flight ceilings of most aircraft have more to do with the engines than the abilty to make lift.
I didn't really say that... I said not all airplanes can escape the atmosphere, implying that some perhaps can (or at least, could). But as you go higher, you need greater groundspeeds to produce the same amount of lift, and most engines will just not have the ability to produce that much thrust.
Wait a minute... you just told me the same thing I told you. In other words, I do understand it. =-)
Ground speed measures how fast the airplane moves across the Earth, and airspeed measures how fast air moves across the wings. In a nosedive, the ground speed drops to zero while the airspeed rises. Of course, this tells you how fast you go, but it doesn't directly measure that. It simply measures air pressure, which gets affected by (at least) two things: the speed of the aircraft and the density of the air. At a given ground speed, your airspeed drops as you go higher, so you experience less drag. Conversely, at a given airspeed, your ground speed goes higher at higher altitudes, so you experience the same amount of drag.
The bottom line: Since airspeed doesn't measure any particular speed, but rather pressure, at a given airspeed you will experience the same amount of drag at any altitude, because you have just as much air coming across the wings.
Anyway, for the most part, knowing how fast you actually move at a given times doesn't work out as important as knowing whether you have enough speed to create sufficient lift, which the airspeed indicator will tell you regardless of your altitude. Naturally, as you go higher, the lesser density of the air means you need a greater groundspeed (and therefore, more thrust) to get the same airspeed, which explains why all airplanes couldn't just keep climbing until they reach outer space.
I just noticed, however, that when you quoted me I said, "an airplane moving at 350kts", which I suppose accidentally implies ground speed, when I really meant to say "an airplane with an airspeed of 350kts", so this may have caused some confusion.
You are correct that jets fy at high altitudes to save fuel, however this statement make no sense:
No, no, it made perfect sense. The way I understand it, airspeed does not measure how fast the aircraft actually moves, but rather how much air moves across the wings. The measurement gets made by testing the air pressure coming across the wing and then compensating for the air pressure in still air at that altitude, which gets measured by another device that the air doesn't flow across. Therefore, an airplane moving at 350kts will have the same air pressure coming across its wing at sea level and 25,000 feet, and hence, the same amount of drag.
What should make any of that illegal? You have to take the bad with the good, just like anything... the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, etc. If you don't want to get subjected to their outrageous licensing terms, don't deal with them. You just can't get the benefits without the downsides. If you don't like it, deal with someone else. Why do socialists fail to see this? We can't have a utopian society based on your or my ideals, we have to deal with reality. And time and time again, the laissez-faire free market has proved itself the best way for everyone.
And anyway, I don't think I ever really said anything in defense of Microsoft per se. I do not like their products and I never have. However, I do support a free market economy, and so I oppose those, such as yourself, who want to whine to the government to fix problems instead of letting the market decide how to resolve them. Remember, only one monopoly in this country can enforce its power through the use of physical violence. Why do we want to give it even more power than the outrageous amount it already has?
Seriously though, where did you get all your arguments from? I never said those things.
I didn't exactly say you said them. I just noted that you expressed strong communist sentiments, whether you realized it or not, with your statement: Something is utterly wrong when computing is more about money, power and law, than it is about programming.
For instance, if they know you have looked at their code and you are coding something that competes with their products, they might sue you for copyright infringement, breaking an EULA or something like that.
Actually, it seems to me they have much more to lose. The negative publicity, especially in these times when everyone sees Microsoft as "evil" would far outweigh the benefits of maybe eliminating some "competition".
Something is utterly wrong when computing is more about money, power and law, than it is about programming.
How typically hypocritical. You sound just like a communist: "Something is terribly wrong when industry is more about money, power, and law than it is about the toil of the laborers."
Nothing gives you the inherent right to anyone else's property! If Bill Gates wants to license software to you under terms that give him advantages in terms of money, power, and law, well, he paid money to get that software and he has the perfect right to license it how he wants. I see nothing "wrong" with that. By the same token, you have the right to choose not to do business with him, and write your own software and license it how you see fit. I see nothing "wrong" with that either. The computer industry requires capital to sustain, just like any other industry, and doing what you can to get that capital, within the bounds of the law, of course, should never get looked on as "wrong" or "evil", just because some person has had more success at it than you. Making arbitrary moral judgments about others' behavior only leads to imposing arbitrary moral standards on others, which, in the end, leads to a police state.
Heheh, good point. But I still sometimes feel the need to prefix "ultra" so as to make clear the fact that I consider American capitalism as we know it today just another from of socialism. I don't support it, and I don't want anyone thinking I do.
Even if you never look at the downloaded code, the electronic trail will look like you did -- which is perhaps the most insidious aspect of this version of sharing.
So everything Microsoft does gets demonized as evil, simply because you have to deal with "THE EVIL EMPIRE" to take advantage of it? Let's not forget that the GPL has more or less the same provisions. If you use GPL code in closed source, or certain open source projects, you can get sued. If you use MS code in closed or open source, you can get sued. In fact, GNU has proved quite litigious in the past. What makes them so much more righteous than MS? Simply because you don't like MS?
What does Microsoft stand to gain by suing anyone and everyone who it thinks may have violated its license? Not a whole lot. And don't whine about trying to eliminate competition... as an ultra-capitalist proponent of the free market I don't buy that argument for one second. But regardless of that, the bad publicity they would receive (since people already perceive them as evil and manipulative) would likely make such a lawsuit much more harmful than beneficial.
Why does everyone have this perception of everyone at Microsoft as a Snidely Whiplash type character, who sits around in boardrooms with other evil villains twirling his mustache and dreaming up ways to destroy everyone else and rule the world?
CHRIST ON A GODDAMN FUCKING CRUTCH! Tell me where I said "caffeine isn't habit forming"! I didn't say that at all! I don't feel like repeating myself YET AGAIN, so please read the following threads:
3 1&cid=413
3 1&cid=366
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/07/14/1772
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/07/14/1772
After doing so, go back to my post. If you still think I made the unqualified statement that nobody ever becomes caffeine dependent, then perhaps you really should lay off the caffeine, as it seems to have addled your brain.
I said COKE FIX, not caffeine/coffee fix. Big difference. If you would actually apply critical thinking instead of just responding with inane sarcasm, you might understand the point. I did not say nobody gets addicted to caffeine, I said cola companies don't put caffeine in their beverages primarily to create addicts. That would serve no purpose anyway, as these "addicts" would just move on to harder beverages, enervating the target market rather than bolstering it. And anyway, show a little self control and lay off the caffiene.
Look, folks. I never said nobody gets addicted to caffeine. I simply responded to the statement that cola companies put caffeine in their beverages primarily to create addicts. If you got addicted to caffeine, well, that sucks, and you should have drank more responsibly--I frankly don't pity you a bit. But many more people can drink caffeine regularly without getting even remotely addicted.
So, let's get this straight. You need caffeine, but only because the cola companies say you need it? Makes no sense to me. You want the caffeine because it helps you perform well, not because some company says you've gotten addicted somehow. By that logic, the blame for alcoholism falls squarely on the shoulders of the makers of alcoholic beverages, and the blame for gun deaths falls on the makers of the guns, and the blame for medical malpractice falls on the institutions who taught those doctors.
Grow up, people. Learn to take responsibility for your actions instead of passing yourself off as a victim of some entity. Rather than whine about how you don't perform well without caffeine, try to break yourself of the habit.
And for the record, I have read books that say that cocaine does not cause a physical addiction, only a psychological one. So perhaps you should see a therapist to help break yourself of this "caffeine addiction". What does that prove? Nothing, really, but whatever.
I personally would love to see them have to put there caffiene amounts on everything that contains it except fresh roasted coffee
Just what we need, more government regulation to help whiners deal with their problems.
Caffeine is dependency-forming. This is the major reason for adding it to cola drinks: it increases consumer loyalty.
Come, come, now, you don't actually believe this bit of tripe? Big bad corporations manipulating us by spiking their drinks with addictive substances much in the way drug dealers spike "gateway drugs" like marijuana with heroin to make them more addictive and thus get more repeat business. Caffeine does not cause an addiction wherein someone simply must get his Coke fix... if anything someone addicted to caffeine would seem more likely to move up to more highly saturated foods than Coke (which, as you point out, contains not even half the amount of caffeine as coffee).
Cola companies add caffeine to their drinks because the consumers WANT caffeine in their drinks, and not because of a mass addiction to caffeine. I know a lot of cola drinkers, but very few (if any) caffeine addicts.
foo@localhost:/usr/home/foo$ /usr/games/fortune -o
Rambus, like, sucks and stuff. They have dumb employees and they kinda smell like poo. Nyahh!!! Neener neener! Take that Rambus!
foo@localhost:/usr/home/foo$
Whaaaaaat? You're not making any sense. The poster said, or at least implied, that under non-GPL licenses, anyone who wanted to could take the code and declare the rights to it, closing it up. So did you. THIS IS NOT TRUE. And the whole point of the BSDL is that I don't particularly care what the user does, as long as I get some credit. Even if Microsoft or some other large company decides they want my code, and they take it and use it, that doesn't by any means make my code any less available, which is the point I was raising.
What if you could get the news several days in advance? Why, you could form a crappy little software company that releases total garbage, and still build it into a multibillion dollar enterprise through a series of "lucky" investments! Hmmmm...
A Billion For Boris, anyone?
The developers of GPLed software usually want the security of not having their software used by Microsoft.
Which just goes to prove the point that GPLers aren't interested in good code for the sake of good code, they're interested mainly in pushing a political ideology. "Wahhh, wahhh, Microsoft is a successful business, and I don't want to share my toys with them. So I'm going to make sure that nobody can use my stuff unless they agree to my terms." Yeah, I've heard it before, and it only reinforces my point. The GPL isn't about freedom, it's about a utopian "software is free" society. When people start pushing their ethics on other people, even people they don't like, that's when freedom loving people get scared.
Personally, if Microsoft decided that some code I'd written is better than what they could do in house, as long as they give me credit I'd be thrilled to have helped make a Microsoft product something better than the total piece of crap it more than likely was.
My central complaint is that anti-GPL/anti-RMS people keep pushing the "GPL software is tainted/viral/etc" ideology.
Well, the whole concept behind the GPL is that it is viral, so if you have a problem with that then perhaps you need to sit down for awhile and think.
Absolutely ridiculous. Are you saying that if I release some BSD or public domain code, someone can come and take the rights to that code away from me, close up the source, and continue to distribute the binaries as closed source? I don't think so. Mostly, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
The GPL protects the freedom of the software, not the freedom of the author or users.
I suspect you don't know very much about property law. Property law defines the relationship between people regarding property. Property itself cannot have any rights or freedoms. So if the GPL doesn't protect the freedom of the author or users, it doesn't protect any freedom at all.
Anyway, this Open Motif licensing clause is just another example of open source hypocrisy: "This software is totally open and free. Unless, of course, you are one of those moral halfpints who don't agree with our philosophies."
Yes. Yes I do. However, in certain cases, and only in those cases, I am willing to trade a bit of freedom for security. I am willing to say that people should be prevented from or punished for doing things that deprive people of life, health, or property. But that's all. So, yes, being able to do anything you want is total freedom, but total freedom may not be a good thing.
On the other hand, I remain open to the position that total freedom is in fact a good thing. Unlike you, who just wants to push the GNU "non-GPL software is tainted" ideology.
Not really. Vote third party. Considering that your vote is not ever going to make a difference anyway if you cast it for one of the "Big Two", due to margins of error and such, your vote probably means more voting for a third party, because every vote the third party gets is one more vote they can say they got. It hasn't always been Democrats and Republicans, and it won't always be either. If you support gun rights and abortion rights, vote for a party that supports both of those. I voted for Browne in the last election, and I feel my vote was much more useful than if I'd simply cast it for the person I hate less between Gore and Bush.
I voted Nader. If he wasn't available, I would have voted Socialist. I'm sorry, _both_ the Democrats and Republicans are hopeless at this point. It's time to take stock of what humans are still left in the Senate and House, in case they can do anything- and failing that, buy guns.
Here you're talking out of both sides of your ass, to coin a phrase. On the one hand, you choose to vote Nader or Socialist because you feel the Democrats and Republicans are too corrupt. So, rather than trying to strip them of the powers they are abusing, you want to give the Government even more power over us by voting ultra-liberal, thus creating a state where you'd definately feel the corruption, which will still be there. Power corrupts, and all that jazz.
Next sentence, you talk about buying guns. Make up your mind: are you supporting the Second Amendment or voting liberal? In this country, the two really are mutually exclusive. Perhaps you should consider voting Libertarian. Or maybe you should just not vote at all until you've figured out exactly what you want out of a country. And if you decide you want to live in a socialist hell, well... to tell the truth, I'd just as soon you moved to Europe or Canada, and you probably would be happier there too. Don't think socialism is going to work any better or even differently in the U.S. than any other country in the world.
Your sig: Brooklyn Knows the Charmer under me.
I assume you are trying to quote the Steely Dan song. Unfortunately, that song is properly called "Brooklyn (Owes The Charmer Under Me)". I'm looking at Can't Buy a Thrill right now and I'm undoubtably right on this.
It's a good song though, even if I have no idea what it means.