The problem is that it also has far less software that some of us want to use.
This is a classic. I've been doing the usual family-support for many years and got my mom over on Linux a few years ago. A few things tend to break during upgrades (ubuntu), but other than that she is a happy user.
My sister uses stuff like frontpage (of all things) and windows movie maker for making compilations of her kids. I haven't looked into proper Linux replacements for a few years, suggestions are welcome. She has had numerous problems with her Windows over the years though, with reinstall being needed several times (she has family in-law to take care of it). I've considered pushing a Mac in her direction, but since I don't use it myself it's hard to recommend.
Software on Linux is getting better all the time. It might be different than the Windows counterpart, but it does the job, and that's all that matters. Most users defend Windows because they don't know any better. A friend of mine recently bought a Mac because he was tired of all the problems with Windows. It was quite the revelation for him.
(Optimally people would switch to Linux instead of Mac, but at least the average Joe is getting used to the notion that Computer != Windows, and I think that's a benefit for any future Linux acceptance and adaption. Pointing out to people that they're already using Linux [on their Android phone] is also a great acceptance boost.)
Your getting close to the real problem of abandoning cash, I live in Ireland and many smaller businesses will not accept a bank card for transactions of less than 10 euro's due to the transaction fee's charged by the banks.
Trouble is a lot of the time you will make small transactions from your morning cup of coffee, buying a paper , a carton of milk and you can't always make the value of the transaction raise above 10. Then there are some transactions which cannot really be done other than in cash, such as taxi rides.
In Norway, I use my debit card for just about anything, like.e.g buying a soda in a shop for a single euro. As for cabs, all the cabs here have GPS terminals.
The only place I can think of that doesn't take debit or credit cards in Norway is the bus (and perhaps some small, strange and uncommon shops). I don't see a problem installing (GPS) terminals in them though. In fact, due to a recent surge in bus-robberies, a suggestion of banning cash on buses has been voiced (but rejected, for now).
We don't have any "minimum amount"-problem here (in fact, I can't remember ever being rejected for buying cheap, single items with a card anywhere in my life). However, if Norway was going to suddenly void cash, a lot of older folks would get pretty angry. A lot of old people here still use cash for everything, and even go to the bank to pay their bills.
The heavy use of debit/credit cards in Norway made me interested in this idea. The politicians here are planning on removing the highest denominator bill because it's "only used in the black marked anyway".
Oh god, please don't program in non-english. I'm a Norwegian myself and currently working on (perl) code that uses Norwegian for comments, sub names and variables. The problem is that the perl API and keywords are of course english (like any other programming language), so at best you get a horrible mix of English and native (in this case Norwegian). It's much much clearer to read code that is consistently written in *one* language (programming is communication after all).
The inconsistency and constant parsing the brain has to do (is this Norwegian or English? does this variable name make more sense in Norwegian or English?) is an energy drain, not to mention annoying. This is true for any mix of languages I think (that uses the same alphabet/characters).
Plus, as others have pointed out, using native language in the code is all nice and good until someone that doesn't speak that language wants or needs to look at the code. In IT business, using non-native consultants or even outsourcing a programming task isn't uncommon. Heck, at once the company goes international you end up with the problem of having to translate everything from native to english anyway.
[...] I first and foremost want my field to be a place where people can actually make a living, and not have everything stolen out from underneath them.
[...] [Legalese] seems to be getting in the way of comprehending the simple situation of someone absconding with other's work, and collapsing their revenue stream, and how that could drastically affect future investment and development for the entire industry.
That is a flawed way of looking at open source, IMO. Companies that are afraid of the "risks" that the license they choose for their product brings are using the wrong license.
Choosing an open source license means you're basically saying "the life of this product is worth more for us than our control over it and its technology." If you want to or need to control a product, don't use an open source license.
Looking at "the big picture:" Open source doesn't fit every business every time. You invite the community by giving up your control of the technology. In return, you might get a very benefiting community with skilled and dedicated users that actually works for free to improve the product you're relying on.
[...] So, clearly, openning the source could only be done, with a hope of continuing to maintain the IP, by relying on the software patents. Without them, Sun would have been idiots to open anything up at all ala GPL.
Sun is not a victim here. They had their probably highly talented engineers and managers and lawyers and whatnot discuss this, and they decided that an open source license was the way to go. They knew what they were doing. Anything else would be amateurish and definitely not worth any sympathy. Nothing is being stolen if Sun chose to give it away.
About the patents: Software patents are infringed left and right, by everyone (even Sun). This is because obvious patents and patents with prior art are easy to create and difficult to void. It's a broken system. If Google honestly thought they needed patent licenses for all of their software they certainly would have negotiated with Sun about it. Blatantly violating the law isn't good business.
This lawsuit was surprising, even though the free software movement several times has reminded us that the real threat to free software is software patents. It's surprising because by suing they're basically saying "bring it on," and there's a lot out there to actually bring on. It's going to be interesting to see if this leads to a rise of patent lawsuits.
The only thing they're really "copying" (as far as I can tell) is the syntax specification for the language and parts of the API.
Ah, hate replying to myself but I forgot to mention: If copying an API is deemed illegal, than the SCO vs IBM case should actually go in SCOs favour, since that is the only evidence of "copying" they have (that some header files look very similar, because they're implementing the same UNIX/POSIX API). See http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/07/11/2314254/Claimed-Proof-That-UNIX-Code-Was-Copied-Into-Linux .
The part where they're getting paid is what funded the development of all three. If software patents did not exist, then they would not have open sourced anything, and would have stuck to their previous "open source" strategy of allowing read-only access to the source. But, because software patents do exist, they opened up their copyright protection, allowing projects like Harmony.
I don't agree that the open source model relies on software patents to work (for business or non-profit). Especially considering that software patents is an American concept, and does not exist in e.g. the EU (at least for now).
But in the end, Google has abused Sun's openness to circumvent their business model.
[...]
Now, if Google gets away with taking the open version, straight up copying it, and not paying for anything, damn the patents, then that will create a huge disincentive for having open software. We'll be back in the closed source days, which really sucked for everyone.
You say that Google "straight up [copied]" their open version, but that would fall under copyright, not patents. And as far as I understand Google never copied anything from Suns java implementation (it would be a blatant copyright violation and also easy to detect since both implementations are open sourced, so I doubt Google would make such a huge mistake). The only thing they're really "copying" (as far as I can tell) is the syntax specification for the language and parts of the API.
Think about WINE for a second. They implement the entire Windows API in order to make Windows software run on Linux. They're not using any code from Windows, so they're not breaking any copyright, and aren't calling it Windows (eventhough they mention the trademark on their site). I think it's a fitting analogy to the Oracle vs Google case. Do you think WINE should not be allowed to do what they do? Software patents probably could destroy that project completly, but I think that is true for any software project without a proper "patent defender" behind it (which is why I oppose sw patents).
Imagine WINE one day becoming a viable gaming platform, after they implement the most recent DirectX version as well as supporting old DirectX versions, and someone decides to profit on this by creating and selling a cheap "gaming" box that can run any Windows game without actually running any Windows code, and thus not paying any money to Microsoft. Do you still think that Microsoft should be allowed to "control" such a market (e.g. via licenses) even though they're not actually a part of it? (Sidetracking the original topic, but I still think it's a fitting analogy.)
No wonder efforts to open Java stalled out a couple years ago, because along comes Google, who's willing to leverage every strength of Java, borne on Sun's back, and take it away without giving back, by walking some fine line of the letter of the law, while ignoring the spirit of the law, which is that if a company drops billions of dollars into a technology, and is trying to sell it (JavaME), they should be compensated.
It sounds to me like your basically advocating software patents. Because, like you say yourself, google isn't triggering any other legal problems like copyright or trademark. They didn't copy anything without permission, and they aren't calling it Java(tm). The only thing left to fight over is patents.
I started writing a long post arguing against patents, but to cut it short: Copyright and trademark (and trade secrets) is enough protection in the market. We can't own each others minds, because even dumb and lazy people have original ideas sometimes. Dedicated and hard working people are the ones that actually drive innovation and that is what the market is willing to pay for, not dumb and lazy people (despite sometimes having original ideas, which can be patented).
Google took a lot of available knowledge and built something new. Good on them, and good for the market.
From what I know of their development practices, they really need something like git (Linus, himself, agrees). But who's going to tell Balmer that they're switching to software written by arch-enemy Linus Torvaldes? You might think they'd prefer that (we're using your free software, faggots!), but chances are VSS 2011 will contain some sort of half-assed distributed RCS support.
Exactly, this guy is trying to prove that the open source model, where anyone can point out e.g. security holes to the developers which then will fix them doesn't work, because he is pointing out security holes to the developers which then will fix them... and this proves his point how exactly?
When Norway gained parliamentary system in 1884, the Norwegian prime minister uttered some (now very famous) words: "All makt i denne sal," literally: "All power [lies] within this hall." The US equivalent seems to be... at the discovery channel?
Amazing stuff. When you put it like it almost seems "meant to be" ("what are the odds" etc).
I've seen a lot of disaster shows on national geographics, and my conclusion is the same: Accidents (in aviation) very rarely happen because of one single event, it's always a chain of small events that together cause the (mayor) accident.
What I think is a good lesson from that is that people involved in anything remotely security related has to be taught to be completely nazi about what they do, as if they're always the final defence before an accident. Because if just a single person never slips on the tiny details, mayor disasters might actually be avoided (on that guys shift at least).
It's all about the details. Never rush the details.
You are so caught up in the physics of re-booting that you ignore the reason people re-boot. Because something has changed. And in the Windows world, this often includes new software, new drivers, new... stuff that is an improvement.
Sure, so if the term was used in the meaning of "incremental change" it would be a (slightly) different story, but it's used as if to mean "complete rewrite" which isn't what I expect would happen whenever I reboot my computer.
Rebooting a show or series is like pressing the reset button: everything is cleared from the table and begun anew, but still with the same hardware basis. However, what happens in the boot sequence? Which OS do you choose in grub? Is there a live cd in the drive? You might end up somewhere completely different compared with before the reboot, even though the underlying principles are exactly the same. Similarly with shows and series, the subsequent seasons and games = boot sequence.
I guess you could look at it like that: When I reboot a computer you "never know what you're gonna get," but I'm not really buying it. Rebooting isn't viewed as something inconsistent or earth shattering: You expect a consistent result when rebooting a computer. Sure you could boot another OS, but that OS was there all along, it didn't just appear. You could boot a live CD but the old OS would still be there. Rebooting is a pretty safe, normal event that is related to consistent results without anything unexpected happening. "Rewrite" or "remake" or even something computer related like "reinstall" on the other hand is much closer to the meaning that the term "reboot" is being used as here (IMO).
Reboot: To start over from scratch. These days it's not entirely accurate what with these new-fangled "hard drive" things, but go back a bit and that's exactly what a reboot did.
This is interesting. I was not aware that it was an old expression (predating PCs, which you're implying). But after checking with the free online dictionary, I'm not sure it is, since it's not mentioned outside of a computer context (correct me if I'm wrong).
The term "booting a computer" comes from the term "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" meaning that you're helping yourself / being independent (accomplishing some task). A computer booting thus means something in the line that it's starting up and loading the operating system without external aid.
Transferring that meaning to rebooting "some game" meaning anything else than "shutting off the game and starting it again"... just doesn't work for me. I can't see how that is supposed to mean "creating an entirely new game from scratch."
The term "reboot" is used to describe something "done again", but I think it's a pretty stupid word to use as it's not descriptive at all. Does my OS or hardware somehow radically change whenever I reboot it? Maybe Windows users experience this, I don't know.
When I first heard the term years ago I immediately disliked it. It feels like someone that don't work with computers as a profession thought that it was "cool" or "trendy" to use "pc terms" outside their original context, so "reboot" was the victim of the day.
I always find it strange that there has to be new laws whenever a new medium comes a long. Why aren't laws generic? If there is no problem posting mugshots on the internet, then posting it on facebook should be no different. If it *is* a problem, then it was a problem all a long, and the involvement of facebook actually put a light on the issue (that someone then should fix).
One of the things that keeps America going is that it is divided up into states and even smaller jurisdictional units. If you are comparing Europe to North America, you need to be thinking along the lines that USA== EU and individual states like Texas, California, and Florida == France, Germany, and Italy.
I agree, that makes sense (I'm the AC, forgot to post with user). I'm actually against the EU, exactly because power is moved too far away from the average Joe (and because a lot of social politics is not economically driven, which has to yield to the "money rules" of the EU).
As for proportional representation, what keeps that from happening is that there are too many "local" issues that get in the way of getting that to happen. In nearly every case where it has been proposed, American voters have turned the idea down. And yes, the idea has been proposed before. Most recently, the state of Colorado proposed to select its electoral votes for U.S. President on a proportional vote system.... and was soundly defeated. Selfish interests that were not based on the merits of the system also came into play, so it was unfortunate that it wasn't even tried.
Ah, didn't know that. I can see how a single state wouldn't want that for their presidential election, as all other states go "all in" for one party, it could be seen as a "weakness" for one state to spread their votes. Perhaps one state needs to take the first step for others to follow, so yeah it's a shame they didn't just go for it and give it a try.
I'm guessing people would be surprised that Microsoft uses open source software where people can inspect the source and verify that only "I am alive" is sent.
But something tells me that wouldn't be the Microsoft way.
The other weekend I was staying at a hotel on work related business. When I was checking out the hotel guy asked me what kind of work I did and I said I was a computer programmer. He started asking me about a windows server problem they were having, and I said I only know Linux and that the company I work for specializes in it.
At this point he told me that he had just switched permanently to Ubuntu, and that he was really enjoying the experience. He made the switch after his pirated copy of Windows stopped functioning due to an "anti-piracy" update. It was the final straw he said, because he was sick of all the troubles with Windows and sick of things not working (granted it was his own fault that he used a pirated copy of Windows, but honestly how many home users actually use a legal copy of Windows that didn't come preloaded with their computer?).
We had a long talk and it was really encouraging to hear how this Windows user had taken the step on his own to switch to Linux. He said the last time he tried out Linux he was forced to mess around with the command line and was positively surprised that he didn't need to touch the command line with Ubuntu, everything was either GUI-based or Just Worked. The only thing lacking was proper support for games, but he said he just used the x-box or playstation for gaming anyway, so it wasn't really a concern for him. In other words, he was happy with the transition.
Success stories like that makes me think Canonical has done a lot of things right, and are bringing Linux ever so closer to the final frontier: The average Joe. It's a confirmation that Linux is on the right track. And I find that very exciting.
Needless to say, she took a string of beatings, was stabbed a couple of times, her kids were beaten. The family finally just cut her off and told her that they weren't going to help her anymore until she started making smarter decisions.
Probably all people are naive in their early lives, but learn the hard way that life's different and grow it off. Some people (I guess like the woman you're describing) simply doesn't.
But that makes me think that it might be something sociologically involved. Like she had a bad childhood, that for example she was beaten as a child and somehow become locked into that "safe" or at least familiar situation, causing her to seek it in adulthood.
I am not a psychologist, but I find it strange that some people seem to fail so miserably in learning from experience.
And yet liberals plug their ears and scream "I CANT HEAR YOU" when you present the solid and provenfact that gun laws DO NOT STOP gun violence as criminals, suprisingly, do not care what gun laws say... Criminals have no problems getting guns even in places like the UK.
Well, by definition, everyone who commits a crime using a gun is a criminal, so of course gun laws doesn't stop criminals from getting a hold of one (that would be self-contradicting). It probably doesn't stop hardcore criminals from getting (more) guns, but not every criminal is hardcore.
Gun laws simply disarm honest people. That is it. there is no other use.
More to the point would be asking: Would limiting the possession of guns to honest people also reduce the number of gun violence? Would person X kill person Y if X didn't have a gun? Or in other words: Does guns make criminals out of honest people?
So let's say that reducing guns "from honest people" (as you put it) does reduce gun violence. We're then left with a situation where the criminals have all the guns and the honest people doesn't. But criminals always had the guns, so no change there. And if that actually reduces the gun violence, then isn't it a better situation to be in?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that it also has far less software that some of us want to use.
This is a classic. I've been doing the usual family-support for many years and got my mom over on Linux a few years ago. A few things tend to break during upgrades (ubuntu), but other than that she is a happy user.
My sister uses stuff like frontpage (of all things) and windows movie maker for making compilations of her kids. I haven't looked into proper Linux replacements for a few years, suggestions are welcome. She has had numerous problems with her Windows over the years though, with reinstall being needed several times (she has family in-law to take care of it). I've considered pushing a Mac in her direction, but since I don't use it myself it's hard to recommend.
Software on Linux is getting better all the time. It might be different than the Windows counterpart, but it does the job, and that's all that matters. Most users defend Windows because they don't know any better. A friend of mine recently bought a Mac because he was tired of all the problems with Windows. It was quite the revelation for him.
(Optimally people would switch to Linux instead of Mac, but at least the average Joe is getting used to the notion that Computer != Windows, and I think that's a benefit for any future Linux acceptance and adaption. Pointing out to people that they're already using Linux [on their Android phone] is also a great acceptance boost.)
The last of these two videos (maybe NSFW):
http://engrishfunny.failblog.org/2010/11/17/engrish-funny-nma-news-id-fly-that-airline/
Wow, just read my comment again.
s/GPS/GSM/g. Well, come to think about it I guess that it is actually GPRS, but you get the point.
I use the biggest bank in Norway (DNB Nor), and it's free (no matter what the amount).
I don't know much the store has to pay, but they don't seem to have a problem with it (small transactions).
Your getting close to the real problem of abandoning cash, I live in Ireland and many smaller businesses will not accept a bank card for transactions of less than 10 euro's due to the transaction fee's charged by the banks.
Trouble is a lot of the time you will make small transactions from your morning cup of coffee, buying a paper , a carton of milk and you can't always make the value of the transaction raise above 10. Then there are some transactions which cannot really be done other than in cash, such as taxi rides.
In Norway, I use my debit card for just about anything, like .e.g buying a soda in a shop for a single euro. As for cabs, all the cabs here have GPS terminals.
The only place I can think of that doesn't take debit or credit cards in Norway is the bus (and perhaps some small, strange and uncommon shops). I don't see a problem installing (GPS) terminals in them though. In fact, due to a recent surge in bus-robberies, a suggestion of banning cash on buses has been voiced (but rejected, for now).
We don't have any "minimum amount"-problem here (in fact, I can't remember ever being rejected for buying cheap, single items with a card anywhere in my life). However, if Norway was going to suddenly void cash, a lot of older folks would get pretty angry. A lot of old people here still use cash for everything, and even go to the bank to pay their bills.
The heavy use of debit/credit cards in Norway made me interested in this idea. The politicians here are planning on removing the highest denominator bill because it's "only used in the black marked anyway".
Oh god, please don't program in non-english. I'm a Norwegian myself and currently working on (perl) code that uses Norwegian for comments, sub names and variables. The problem is that the perl API and keywords are of course english (like any other programming language), so at best you get a horrible mix of English and native (in this case Norwegian). It's much much clearer to read code that is consistently written in *one* language (programming is communication after all).
The inconsistency and constant parsing the brain has to do (is this Norwegian or English? does this variable name make more sense in Norwegian or English?) is an energy drain, not to mention annoying. This is true for any mix of languages I think (that uses the same alphabet/characters).
Plus, as others have pointed out, using native language in the code is all nice and good until someone that doesn't speak that language wants or needs to look at the code. In IT business, using non-native consultants or even outsourcing a programming task isn't uncommon. Heck, at once the company goes international you end up with the problem of having to translate everything from native to english anyway.
Reminds me of what my old computer science teacher used to say:
Remember: Real men don't take backups. But they do cry a lot.
[...] I first and foremost want my field to be a place where people can actually make a living, and not have everything stolen out from underneath them.
[...] [Legalese] seems to be getting in the way of comprehending the simple situation of someone absconding with other's work, and collapsing their revenue stream, and how that could drastically affect future investment and development for the entire industry.
That is a flawed way of looking at open source, IMO. Companies that are afraid of the "risks" that the license they choose for their product brings are using the wrong license.
Choosing an open source license means you're basically saying "the life of this product is worth more for us than our control over it and its technology." If you want to or need to control a product, don't use an open source license.
Looking at "the big picture:" Open source doesn't fit every business every time. You invite the community by giving up your control of the technology. In return, you might get a very benefiting community with skilled and dedicated users that actually works for free to improve the product you're relying on.
[...] So, clearly, openning the source could only be done, with a hope of continuing to maintain the IP, by relying on the software patents. Without them, Sun would have been idiots to open anything up at all ala GPL.
Sun is not a victim here. They had their probably highly talented engineers and managers and lawyers and whatnot discuss this, and they decided that an open source license was the way to go. They knew what they were doing. Anything else would be amateurish and definitely not worth any sympathy. Nothing is being stolen if Sun chose to give it away.
About the patents: Software patents are infringed left and right, by everyone (even Sun). This is because obvious patents and patents with prior art are easy to create and difficult to void. It's a broken system. If Google honestly thought they needed patent licenses for all of their software they certainly would have negotiated with Sun about it. Blatantly violating the law isn't good business.
This lawsuit was surprising, even though the free software movement several times has reminded us that the real threat to free software is software patents. It's surprising because by suing they're basically saying "bring it on," and there's a lot out there to actually bring on. It's going to be interesting to see if this leads to a rise of patent lawsuits.
The only thing they're really "copying" (as far as I can tell) is the syntax specification for the language and parts of the API.
Ah, hate replying to myself but I forgot to mention: If copying an API is deemed illegal, than the SCO vs IBM case should actually go in SCOs favour, since that is the only evidence of "copying" they have (that some header files look very similar, because they're implementing the same UNIX/POSIX API). See http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/07/11/2314254/Claimed-Proof-That-UNIX-Code-Was-Copied-Into-Linux .
The part where they're getting paid is what funded the development of all three. If software patents did not exist, then they would not have open sourced anything, and would have stuck to their previous "open source" strategy of allowing read-only access to the source. But, because software patents do exist, they opened up their copyright protection, allowing projects like Harmony.
I don't agree that the open source model relies on software patents to work (for business or non-profit). Especially considering that software patents is an American concept, and does not exist in e.g. the EU (at least for now).
But in the end, Google has abused Sun's openness to circumvent their business model.
[...]
Now, if Google gets away with taking the open version, straight up copying it, and not paying for anything, damn the patents, then that will create a huge disincentive for having open software. We'll be back in the closed source days, which really sucked for everyone.
You say that Google "straight up [copied]" their open version, but that would fall under copyright, not patents. And as far as I understand Google never copied anything from Suns java implementation (it would be a blatant copyright violation and also easy to detect since both implementations are open sourced, so I doubt Google would make such a huge mistake). The only thing they're really "copying" (as far as I can tell) is the syntax specification for the language and parts of the API.
Think about WINE for a second. They implement the entire Windows API in order to make Windows software run on Linux. They're not using any code from Windows, so they're not breaking any copyright, and aren't calling it Windows (eventhough they mention the trademark on their site). I think it's a fitting analogy to the Oracle vs Google case. Do you think WINE should not be allowed to do what they do? Software patents probably could destroy that project completly, but I think that is true for any software project without a proper "patent defender" behind it (which is why I oppose sw patents).
Imagine WINE one day becoming a viable gaming platform, after they implement the most recent DirectX version as well as supporting old DirectX versions, and someone decides to profit on this by creating and selling a cheap "gaming" box that can run any Windows game without actually running any Windows code, and thus not paying any money to Microsoft. Do you still think that Microsoft should be allowed to "control" such a market (e.g. via licenses) even though they're not actually a part of it? (Sidetracking the original topic, but I still think it's a fitting analogy.)
No wonder efforts to open Java stalled out a couple years ago, because along comes Google, who's willing to leverage every strength of Java, borne on Sun's back, and take it away without giving back, by walking some fine line of the letter of the law, while ignoring the spirit of the law, which is that if a company drops billions of dollars into a technology, and is trying to sell it (JavaME), they should be compensated.
It sounds to me like your basically advocating software patents. Because, like you say yourself, google isn't triggering any other legal problems like copyright or trademark. They didn't copy anything without permission, and they aren't calling it Java(tm). The only thing left to fight over is patents.
I started writing a long post arguing against patents, but to cut it short: Copyright and trademark (and trade secrets) is enough protection in the market. We can't own each others minds, because even dumb and lazy people have original ideas sometimes. Dedicated and hard working people are the ones that actually drive innovation and that is what the market is willing to pay for, not dumb and lazy people (despite sometimes having original ideas, which can be patented).
Google took a lot of available knowledge and built something new. Good on them, and good for the market.
From what I know of their development practices, they really need something like git (Linus, himself, agrees). But who's going to tell Balmer that they're switching to software written by arch-enemy Linus Torvaldes? You might think they'd prefer that (we're using your free software, faggots!), but chances are VSS 2011 will contain some sort of half-assed distributed RCS support.
From http://lwn.net/Articles/403903/ :
Microsoft's CodePlex.com has announced the donation of $25,000 to support the development of the Mercurial source code management system.
Looks like they've found what they're looking for.
Exactly, this guy is trying to prove that the open source model, where anyone can point out e.g. security holes to the developers which then will fix them doesn't work, because he is pointing out security holes to the developers which then will fix them ... and this proves his point how exactly?
When Norway gained parliamentary system in 1884, the Norwegian prime minister uttered some (now very famous) words: "All makt i denne sal," literally: "All power [lies] within this hall." The US equivalent seems to be ... at the discovery channel?
Amazing stuff. When you put it like it almost seems "meant to be" ("what are the odds" etc).
I've seen a lot of disaster shows on national geographics, and my conclusion is the same: Accidents (in aviation) very rarely happen because of one single event, it's always a chain of small events that together cause the (mayor) accident.
What I think is a good lesson from that is that people involved in anything remotely security related has to be taught to be completely nazi about what they do, as if they're always the final defence before an accident. Because if just a single person never slips on the tiny details, mayor disasters might actually be avoided (on that guys shift at least).
It's all about the details. Never rush the details.
You are so caught up in the physics of re-booting that you ignore the reason people re-boot. Because something has changed. And in the Windows world, this often includes new software, new drivers, new... stuff that is an improvement.
Sure, so if the term was used in the meaning of "incremental change" it would be a (slightly) different story, but it's used as if to mean "complete rewrite" which isn't what I expect would happen whenever I reboot my computer.
The software can radically change with a reboot.
Rebooting a show or series is like pressing the reset button: everything is cleared from the table and begun anew, but still with the same hardware basis. However, what happens in the boot sequence? Which OS do you choose in grub? Is there a live cd in the drive? You might end up somewhere completely different compared with before the reboot, even though the underlying principles are exactly the same. Similarly with shows and series, the subsequent seasons and games = boot sequence.
I guess you could look at it like that: When I reboot a computer you "never know what you're gonna get," but I'm not really buying it. Rebooting isn't viewed as something inconsistent or earth shattering: You expect a consistent result when rebooting a computer. Sure you could boot another OS, but that OS was there all along, it didn't just appear. You could boot a live CD but the old OS would still be there. Rebooting is a pretty safe, normal event that is related to consistent results without anything unexpected happening. "Rewrite" or "remake" or even something computer related like "reinstall" on the other hand is much closer to the meaning that the term "reboot" is being used as here (IMO).
Reboot: To start over from scratch. These days it's not entirely accurate what with these new-fangled "hard drive" things, but go back a bit and that's exactly what a reboot did.
This is interesting. I was not aware that it was an old expression (predating PCs, which you're implying). But after checking with the free online dictionary, I'm not sure it is, since it's not mentioned outside of a computer context (correct me if I'm wrong).
The term "booting a computer" comes from the term "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" meaning that you're helping yourself / being independent (accomplishing some task). A computer booting thus means something in the line that it's starting up and loading the operating system without external aid.
Transferring that meaning to rebooting "some game" meaning anything else than "shutting off the game and starting it again"... just doesn't work for me. I can't see how that is supposed to mean "creating an entirely new game from scratch."
Yeah, still a little rantish I guess..
The term "reboot" is used to describe something "done again", but I think it's a pretty stupid word to use as it's not descriptive at all. Does my OS or hardware somehow radically change whenever I reboot it? Maybe Windows users experience this, I don't know.
When I first heard the term years ago I immediately disliked it. It feels like someone that don't work with computers as a profession thought that it was "cool" or "trendy" to use "pc terms" outside their original context, so "reboot" was the victim of the day.
< /rant >
Newsday has been publishing DUI arrestees' mugshots on their website for at least the last few years.
Just to follow up with an example: http://www.newsday.com/7.25434?q=mugshot&type=example.Image
I always find it strange that there has to be new laws whenever a new medium comes a long. Why aren't laws generic? If there is no problem posting mugshots on the internet, then posting it on facebook should be no different. If it *is* a problem, then it was a problem all a long, and the involvement of facebook actually put a light on the issue (that someone then should fix).
One of the things that keeps America going is that it is divided up into states and even smaller jurisdictional units. If you are comparing Europe to North America, you need to be thinking along the lines that USA== EU and individual states like Texas, California, and Florida == France, Germany, and Italy.
I agree, that makes sense (I'm the AC, forgot to post with user). I'm actually against the EU, exactly because power is moved too far away from the average Joe (and because a lot of social politics is not economically driven, which has to yield to the "money rules" of the EU).
As for proportional representation, what keeps that from happening is that there are too many "local" issues that get in the way of getting that to happen. In nearly every case where it has been proposed, American voters have turned the idea down. And yes, the idea has been proposed before. Most recently, the state of Colorado proposed to select its electoral votes for U.S. President on a proportional vote system.... and was soundly defeated. Selfish interests that were not based on the merits of the system also came into play, so it was unfortunate that it wasn't even tried.
Ah, didn't know that. I can see how a single state wouldn't want that for their presidential election, as all other states go "all in" for one party, it could be seen as a "weakness" for one state to spread their votes. Perhaps one state needs to take the first step for others to follow, so yeah it's a shame they didn't just go for it and give it a try.
I'm guessing people would be surprised that Microsoft uses open source software where people can inspect the source and verify that only "I am alive" is sent.
But something tells me that wouldn't be the Microsoft way.
The other weekend I was staying at a hotel on work related business. When I was checking out the hotel guy asked me what kind of work I did and I said I was a computer programmer. He started asking me about a windows server problem they were having, and I said I only know Linux and that the company I work for specializes in it.
At this point he told me that he had just switched permanently to Ubuntu, and that he was really enjoying the experience. He made the switch after his pirated copy of Windows stopped functioning due to an "anti-piracy" update. It was the final straw he said, because he was sick of all the troubles with Windows and sick of things not working (granted it was his own fault that he used a pirated copy of Windows, but honestly how many home users actually use a legal copy of Windows that didn't come preloaded with their computer?).
We had a long talk and it was really encouraging to hear how this Windows user had taken the step on his own to switch to Linux. He said the last time he tried out Linux he was forced to mess around with the command line and was positively surprised that he didn't need to touch the command line with Ubuntu, everything was either GUI-based or Just Worked. The only thing lacking was proper support for games, but he said he just used the x-box or playstation for gaming anyway, so it wasn't really a concern for him. In other words, he was happy with the transition.
Success stories like that makes me think Canonical has done a lot of things right, and are bringing Linux ever so closer to the final frontier: The average Joe. It's a confirmation that Linux is on the right track. And I find that very exciting.
Needless to say, she took a string of beatings, was stabbed a couple of times, her kids were beaten. The family finally just cut her off and told her that they weren't going to help her anymore until she started making smarter decisions.
Probably all people are naive in their early lives, but learn the hard way that life's different and grow it off. Some people (I guess like the woman you're describing) simply doesn't.
But that makes me think that it might be something sociologically involved. Like she had a bad childhood, that for example she was beaten as a child and somehow become locked into that "safe" or at least familiar situation, causing her to seek it in adulthood.
I am not a psychologist, but I find it strange that some people seem to fail so miserably in learning from experience.
And yet liberals plug their ears and scream "I CANT HEAR YOU" when you present the solid and provenfact that gun laws DO NOT STOP gun violence as criminals, suprisingly, do not care what gun laws say... Criminals have no problems getting guns even in places like the UK.
Well, by definition, everyone who commits a crime using a gun is a criminal, so of course gun laws doesn't stop criminals from getting a hold of one (that would be self-contradicting). It probably doesn't stop hardcore criminals from getting (more) guns, but not every criminal is hardcore.
Gun laws simply disarm honest people. That is it. there is no other use.
More to the point would be asking: Would limiting the possession of guns to honest people also reduce the number of gun violence? Would person X kill person Y if X didn't have a gun? Or in other words: Does guns make criminals out of honest people?
So let's say that reducing guns "from honest people" (as you put it) does reduce gun violence. We're then left with a situation where the criminals have all the guns and the honest people doesn't. But criminals always had the guns, so no change there. And if that actually reduces the gun violence, then isn't it a better situation to be in?