So, part of the motivation for "arguing against global warming" (on its reality or on the need for action) is that GW is apparently being used, by some, to push a socialist agenda.
I'm not sure I agree that laws in general are a socialist agenda. How about laws against murder? Or laws against violation of the right of property - theft, are they also part of the socialist agenda? Truth to be told, I don't think it's such a stretch to say that people who are contributing a disproportionate amount to pollution are trying to kill me. They are actively destroying the resources I need to survive, after all. Am I, while I'm trying to defend myself against these indirect murderers, pushing a socialist agenda?
I honestly think the system is pretty sane. They can not search my house, even if I'm suspected of shop lifting. They can, however, search the house of the drug dealer living down the road. Somewhere the line has to be drawn, and if it has to be drawn, there has to be some way of figuring out which side any particular case should end up on. They've chosen the penalty of the crime the suspect is suspected of. Care to come up with a better measurement?
And by the way, I live in Sweden, if that's in any way relevant.
Because my 72 year old mother can, and does, install programs herself in Windows. If it requires anything more complex than "double click on setup.exe" or "double click on the program icon when you save it", you've lost her completely and I have to tunnel in to her machine or make a 125 mile drive.
And this "setup.exe" icon magically appears on her desktop? I've never understood how trying to locate the right bloody installer on some potentially untrusted website can be considered easier than using a GUI on top of a package manager.
If you want me to say "I trust you", I get to decide what's gibberish. If I want you to say "I trust you", you get to decide what's gibberish. And, logically, if anybody wants AMS to say "we trust you", clearly AMS gets to decide what's gibberish.
The only possible room for confusion is who, within AMS, gets to make this decision on their behalf - but that's an internal organisational issue for AMS. And it's hardly a unique problem. Any organisation needs to appoint people with the authority to make certain decisions on the organisation's behalf. That's not really rocket (or, as it were, climate) science.
This is not censorship. This is about single organisation, the American Meteorological Society, that apparently sometimes chooses to give their formal approval of a specific indivudual. Essentialy they're saying "we think this dude knows his shit, you can trust him". If any person who they have given this approval start sprouting complete gibberish (in their view), of course they can then say "nope, we were wrong, we don't think you can trust him". What's the fucking problem here? They're not revoking his right to speak. They're just saying that they don't trust him any more. Are we under some damn obligation to approve of everybody's ideas, just because they're allowed to speak about them?
This is a non issue. Go get upset about the rights that are actually being taken away from you, not about this triviality.
and the machine is powered by the flow of tears from green party members.
Not necessarily. As I don't live in the USA, I'm not a member of the party you're referring to, but I tend to vote green in our local elections - and I think this may be a good idea, even from an environmental perspective. The reason is simple; I can be relatively sure that a book printed by this machine will be used. If someone is explicitly asking it to print a specific book, pay the cash for it (as I assume it will come with a fee), and wait seven minutes there's a high probability that there is actually a demand for the book. Compare this with dead tree books available today, that are printed in large series, where a certain percentage of the total amount printed is destined to never be opened at all - much less read.
Nothing makes my environmentalist heart weep as much as resources that are spent but never used.
My opinion? Screw em both. SUSE strikes me as OSX without the pricetag. That's what I'll be sticking to. I'll be keeping XP around to run WoW. That's pretty much my OS lineup for the next 5 years...
I needn't add anything to your excellent summary of the situation - just point out that WoW runs excellently under Wine (second hand knowledge), and Cedega (first hand knowledge). Just FYI:)
It's a wonder any software works at all on Linux, isn't it?
The problems you describe are not unique to gaming development (yes, I develop commercial software for Linux for a living, thanks for asking). However, if you get your act together, you can quite easilly specify a minimum set of requirements a system needs to fullfil in order to be able to run your application. Your chosen desktop environment is usually irrelevant when it comes to games. What you expect from the kernel is not impossible to indicate, and versions of other critical dependancies are also possible to document.
Yes, the list of "minimum requirements" would be longer for Linux than Windows, but people who want to run games on Linux would live with that. Heck, now we generally need to fall back on Cedega or (patched versions of) Wine - which generally is a significantly greater amount of trouble.
The flipside to what are saying is that such projects are inherently less permanent than for-profit projects, and should not be relied upon in any professional setting without either having the ability to support it yourself or through a contracted third party.
You can not claim that they're "inherently less permanent" without backing that statement up with some sort of argument. I fail to see how it is, in any way, true at all.
As for the second part of what you're saying, that is of course true for (for-profit) closed source software as well. The only differance is that with closed source software you lose the ability to: 1) support it yourself 2) contract the third party of your choice (in that you're limited to a specific one)
America is still admired, and still hated, as much as it always has been.
That is highly incorrect. The USA actually used to be admired. It used to be an ideal. Nowadays, I don't know a single (non American) person who doesn't loathe the country. I'm serious. You may be fed filtered bullshit about how popular the country is, but that is simply not true.
As you say, you may point out similar flaws in other countries, but that will not change the GP's points: The fact that the USA has gone from being admired to being loathed/pitied in a timespan of less than three decades.
Now, I love Ubuntu (although I'm more fond of Mark's original goals than the distro itself), so I hate to flame it, but...
How can you notice improved stability within two days after release? That implies that older releases were so fraught with stability problems that you couldn't spend two days with the machine without having to deal with them.
Maybe I live in a sheltered world of vanilla Debian, but... two days? Geez....
#62705 +(57)- [X] <toe2toe> the part i like is where IRAQ's going "we got nothing" <toe2toe> and US is going "PFFFT WE'RE GONNA TAKE YOU OUT" <toe2toe> and then <toe2toe> North Koreas going "CHECK OUT OUR NUKES, BUDDY" <toe2toe> and US is going "Hey... are you iraq? no? THEN STAY OUT OF IT"
All examples are you give are easilly solved by proper backup/mirroring routines, and digital certificates. I'd trust a digitally signed (possibly encrypted) copy of my data, mirrored at, say a dozen different places in the world, over a single, fragile, inflamable photo album, audio recording, phone book or cheque. You list one example where it might be good to have a temporary physical medium for data - the map. However, all your contempt for digital data is based on experiences where people have treated it carelessly. None of them need be repeated with the technology we have available.
In short - the problems described are, as always, sociological rather than technological.
"I will not use the unofficial patch, nor can I think of anyone I would recommend it to," said Jesper Johansson, a former Microsoft security consultant now working at a Seattle-based online retailer. "Personally, I worry about putting unverified and untrusted binaries on my system, and about the likelihood that they are going to be any higher quality than the ones Microsoft releases."
And this, dear Johansson, is exactly why I, and many with me, will never trust neither your former employer's nor third party patchers' code. "[We] worry about putting unverified and untrusted binaries on [our] system[s]." Give us the source under a sane license and we'll be able to verify that both Microsoft's and third party patchers' code is trustworthy.
Anyhoo, since people started complaining so much about it, I had to dig this up (30kg/m^2+ is apparently the definition of "obese"). The European countries are chosen "randomly" (in other words, I scrolled up and down that list, and picked the ones I noticed, until I had a total of ten).
> > > That signage would be particularly effective in your country, if it was allowed by your government. > > Are you implying that such a signage wouldn't be allowed? [...] There is absolutely no truth what so ever in this hypothesis of yours. > And what hypothesis might that be?
In your first post you implied that one would in some way be prevented by the government from detailing how much of the price is tax, or not. That's the "hypothesis" I was referring to. It's possible that this is illegal in some states in the US - you guys do seem to have a lot of strange laws - but in the Nordic countries (and since you were speaking about Finland, I thought you were actually referring to said country) it most certainly is not.
That signage would be particularly effective in your country, if it was allowed by your government.
Are you implying that such a signage wouldn't be allowed? You seem to have bought too much propaganda about the evils of Socialism (which, by the way, isn't practised in the Nordic countries). There is absolutely no truth what so ever in this hypothesis of yours.
So what's the draw? Why keep running on something like a Commodore 64?
I spend hours every month - maybe even every week, just maintaining my two machines (Linux at work & Windows at home). Hours. Of wasted time. Each week. I never did that with my C128 (yah, I had a C128 rather than a C64, but I guess they're pretty equal in the amount of maintenance time required).
Agreed. However, any punishment will come from the fact that they've broken copyright laws, rather than the GPL.
I want to make it very, very clear that my comment was not directed at you, Sasha. It was directed at the myth (lacking a better word) that the GPL needs to be tested. I'm annoyed with the slashdot blurb for "supporting" that myth, but I'm definitely not annoyed with you for taking things to court. Quite the opposite, I wish you the best of luck.
Here we go again... GPL doesn't need to be tested in court. GPL doesn't restrict you from doing anything. The only thing GPL does is to allow you to do some things with copyrighted work - such as, under certain circumstances, distribute said work even if you are not the copyright holder. What's being "tested", if anything, is copyright laws. And I believe that we all can agree on the fact that they are already, if nothing else, fairly tested in court.
Slashdot Mirror
So, part of the motivation for "arguing against global warming" (on its reality or on the need for action) is that GW is apparently being used, by some, to push a socialist agenda.
I'm not sure I agree that laws in general are a socialist agenda. How about laws against murder? Or laws against violation of the right of property - theft, are they also part of the socialist agenda?
Truth to be told, I don't think it's such a stretch to say that people who are contributing a disproportionate amount to pollution are trying to kill me. They are actively destroying the resources I need to survive, after all. Am I, while I'm trying to defend myself against these indirect murderers, pushing a socialist agenda?
Because you didn't do it. We were all expecting you to fix it, and only now you tell us that you were waiting for someone else!?
Bastard!
Please explain.
I honestly think the system is pretty sane. They can not search my house, even if I'm suspected of shop lifting. They can, however, search the house of the drug dealer living down the road. Somewhere the line has to be drawn, and if it has to be drawn, there has to be some way of figuring out which side any particular case should end up on. They've chosen the penalty of the crime the suspect is suspected of. Care to come up with a better measurement?
And by the way, I live in Sweden, if that's in any way relevant.
Because my 72 year old mother can, and does, install programs herself in Windows. If it requires anything more complex than "double click on setup.exe" or "double click on the program icon when you save it", you've lost her completely and I have to tunnel in to her machine or make a 125 mile drive.
And this "setup.exe" icon magically appears on her desktop?
I've never understood how trying to locate the right bloody installer on some potentially untrusted website can be considered easier than using a GUI on top of a package manager.
Nobody is stopping you.
If you want me to say "I trust you", I get to decide what's gibberish.
If I want you to say "I trust you", you get to decide what's gibberish.
And, logically, if anybody wants AMS to say "we trust you", clearly AMS gets to decide what's gibberish.
The only possible room for confusion is who, within AMS, gets to make this decision on their behalf - but that's an internal organisational issue for AMS. And it's hardly a unique problem. Any organisation needs to appoint people with the authority to make certain decisions on the organisation's behalf. That's not really rocket (or, as it were, climate) science.
This is not censorship. This is about single organisation, the American Meteorological Society, that apparently sometimes chooses to give their formal approval of a specific indivudual. Essentialy they're saying "we think this dude knows his shit, you can trust him". If any person who they have given this approval start sprouting complete gibberish (in their view), of course they can then say "nope, we were wrong, we don't think you can trust him".
What's the fucking problem here? They're not revoking his right to speak. They're just saying that they don't trust him any more. Are we under some damn obligation to approve of everybody's ideas, just because they're allowed to speak about them?
This is a non issue. Go get upset about the rights that are actually being taken away from you, not about this triviality.
Source?
Not necessarily.
As I don't live in the USA, I'm not a member of the party you're referring to, but I tend to vote green in our local elections - and I think this may be a good idea, even from an environmental perspective.
The reason is simple; I can be relatively sure that a book printed by this machine will be used. If someone is explicitly asking it to print a specific book, pay the cash for it (as I assume it will come with a fee), and wait seven minutes there's a high probability that there is actually a demand for the book. Compare this with dead tree books available today, that are printed in large series, where a certain percentage of the total amount printed is destined to never be opened at all - much less read.
Nothing makes my environmentalist heart weep as much as resources that are spent but never used.
My opinion? Screw em both. SUSE strikes me as OSX without the pricetag. That's what I'll be sticking to. I'll be keeping XP around to run WoW. That's pretty much my OS lineup for the next 5 years...
:)
I needn't add anything to your excellent summary of the situation - just point out that WoW runs excellently under Wine (second hand knowledge), and Cedega (first hand knowledge). Just FYI
It's a wonder any software works at all on Linux, isn't it?
The problems you describe are not unique to gaming development (yes, I develop commercial software for Linux for a living, thanks for asking). However, if you get your act together, you can quite easilly specify a minimum set of requirements a system needs to fullfil in order to be able to run your application.
Your chosen desktop environment is usually irrelevant when it comes to games. What you expect from the kernel is not impossible to indicate, and versions of other critical dependancies are also possible to document.
Yes, the list of "minimum requirements" would be longer for Linux than Windows, but people who want to run games on Linux would live with that. Heck, now we generally need to fall back on Cedega or (patched versions of) Wine - which generally is a significantly greater amount of trouble.
The flipside to what are saying is that such projects are inherently less permanent than for-profit projects, and should not be relied upon in any professional setting without either having the ability to support it yourself or through a contracted third party.
You can not claim that they're "inherently less permanent" without backing that statement up with some sort of argument. I fail to see how it is, in any way, true at all.
As for the second part of what you're saying, that is of course true for (for-profit) closed source software as well. The only differance is that with closed source software you lose the ability to:
1) support it yourself
2) contract the third party of your choice (in that you're limited to a specific one)
America is still admired, and still hated, as much as it always has been.
That is highly incorrect. The USA actually used to be admired. It used to be an ideal.
Nowadays, I don't know a single (non American) person who doesn't loathe the country. I'm serious. You may be fed filtered bullshit about how popular the country is, but that is simply not true.
As you say, you may point out similar flaws in other countries, but that will not change the GP's points: The fact that the USA has gone from being admired to being loathed/pitied in a timespan of less than three decades.
Now, I love Ubuntu (although I'm more fond of Mark's original goals than the distro itself), so I hate to flame it, but...
How can you notice improved stability within two days after release? That implies that older releases were so fraught with stability problems that you couldn't spend two days with the machine without having to deal with them.
Maybe I live in a sheltered world of vanilla Debian, but... two days? Geez....
#62705 +(57)- [X]
<toe2toe> the part i like is where IRAQ's going "we got nothing"
<toe2toe> and US is going "PFFFT WE'RE GONNA TAKE YOU OUT"
<toe2toe> and then
<toe2toe> North Koreas going "CHECK OUT OUR NUKES, BUDDY"
<toe2toe> and US is going "Hey... are you iraq? no? THEN STAY OUT OF IT"
All examples are you give are easilly solved by proper backup/mirroring routines, and digital certificates.
I'd trust a digitally signed (possibly encrypted) copy of my data, mirrored at, say a dozen different places in the world, over a single, fragile, inflamable photo album, audio recording, phone book or cheque.
You list one example where it might be good to have a temporary physical medium for data - the map. However, all your contempt for digital data is based on experiences where people have treated it carelessly. None of them need be repeated with the technology we have available.
In short - the problems described are, as always, sociological rather than technological.
"I will not use the unofficial patch, nor can I think of anyone I would recommend it to," said Jesper Johansson, a former Microsoft security consultant now working at a Seattle-based online retailer. "Personally, I worry about putting unverified and untrusted binaries on my system, and about the likelihood that they are going to be any higher quality than the ones Microsoft releases."
And this, dear Johansson, is exactly why I, and many with me, will never trust neither your former employer's nor third party patchers' code. "[We] worry about putting unverified and untrusted binaries on [our] system[s]."
Give us the source under a sane license and we'll be able to verify that both Microsoft's and third party patchers' code is trustworthy.
It was a joke, dammit.
Anyhoo, since people started complaining so much about it, I had to dig this up (30kg/m^2+ is apparently the definition of "obese"). The European countries are chosen "randomly" (in other words, I scrolled up and down that list, and picked the ones I noticed, until I had a total of ten).
"Put some clothes on, you flabby bastards."
;)
This is a European initiative, not an American one
> > > That signage would be particularly effective in your country, if it was allowed by your government.
> > Are you implying that such a signage wouldn't be allowed? [...] There is absolutely no truth what so ever in this hypothesis of yours.
> And what hypothesis might that be?
In your first post you implied that one would in some way be prevented by the government from detailing how much of the price is tax, or not. That's the "hypothesis" I was referring to.
It's possible that this is illegal in some states in the US - you guys do seem to have a lot of strange laws - but in the Nordic countries (and since you were speaking about Finland, I thought you were actually referring to said country) it most certainly is not.
That signage would be particularly effective in your country, if it was allowed by your government.
Are you implying that such a signage wouldn't be allowed?
You seem to have bought too much propaganda about the evils of Socialism (which, by the way, isn't practised in the Nordic countries). There is absolutely no truth what so ever in this hypothesis of yours.
Lögn! Jag kan ej se vad i vårt språk som för dig är så svårt! Det tal ljud som finns i vart ord lär med all viss va' fler än ett!
Oh... bugger. Never mind.
So what's the draw? Why keep running on something like a Commodore 64?
I spend hours every month - maybe even every week, just maintaining my two machines (Linux at work & Windows at home). Hours. Of wasted time. Each week.
I never did that with my C128 (yah, I had a C128 rather than a C64, but I guess they're pretty equal in the amount of maintenance time required).
Agreed.
However, any punishment will come from the fact that they've broken copyright laws, rather than the GPL.
I want to make it very, very clear that my comment was not directed at you, Sasha. It was directed at the myth (lacking a better word) that the GPL needs to be tested. I'm annoyed with the slashdot blurb for "supporting" that myth, but I'm definitely not annoyed with you for taking things to court. Quite the opposite, I wish you the best of luck.
Here we go again... GPL doesn't need to be tested in court. GPL doesn't restrict you from doing anything. The only thing GPL does is to allow you to do some things with copyrighted work - such as, under certain circumstances, distribute said work even if you are not the copyright holder.
What's being "tested", if anything, is copyright laws. And I believe that we all can agree on the fact that they are already, if nothing else, fairly tested in court.