I agree with GP, in what places on earth, apart from what I assume is a farm in the middle of the desert in Australia, is quotas an issue ?:)
Cuba. My quota used to be 170 Mb/month, and I had one of the highest quotas in the university (I was the sysadmin, and I was authorized to increase my own quota, and ask for permission later, if I needed). In practice, though, I never reached that ammount... 1mbit/sec shared by 10000 users didn't make it easy, but there were professors in the 50-70 Mb/month range that had a hard time by the end of the month.
The very first thing we had to teach users was to disable automatic updates (instead we would download new versions once and publish then internally). We really couldn't afford one program taking all the available bandwith for several hours while everyone's instances were being updated.
Sadly, that situation won't change until the Cuba-Venezuela cable is finished, if it ever is.
You're just walked square into the middle of the "free software" vs "open source" debate. Now they've got you right where they want you, there is no escape!
Picasa is free (and awesome) but not open source - so Ubuntu and Fedora will never ship it.
I think you have it backwards. The "open source" crowd would happily use non-free software if they believe it is the best. The "free software" crowd would not touch Picasa. See this article for an example (jump to "bitkeeper issue").
You may be confused because of the two meanings of the word "free". It is sad that in the English language, the word for a concept as great as "freedom" is the same as the word for the meager idea of "no cost".
Of course, there are several shades of grey in between the two camps, but that is the main difference.
(That said, neither Ubuntu nor Fedora are very strong supporters of "free software"... specially not Ubuntu. It wouldn't surprise me that one of them decided to include picasa)
That's how far I moved recently, after seriously considering a position 7780 kilometers away. And I settled with the closer one, not because it was closer (which, with that distance, doesn't really matter anyway), but because it would be also interesting for my wife. So, yeah, I'd say I'm willing to move far away looking for interesting things to do.
(1425 and 4834 miles, for those who don't use metric)
In that case, I was wrong, and I apologize for the mistake.
No need to apologize - if I seemed harsh or angry, please blame my English skills.
However, I think it makes more sense to blame your government for this problem than it does to blame Blizzard...
In the Cuban case, yes, my government is one of the parties to blame (not the only one, mind you - a great deal of the blame, probably most of it, should go to the US government). But that is not the point, I said so in the first post (Blizzard can't even let us buy the game, after all). Cuba is not the only place in the world where Internet is scarce, but computers not necessarily so. For any such place, the only one at fault for having to use a cracked version of the game would be the publisher.
If you don't have Internet access, you really have no need to play StarCraft 1 or 2. The whole point is the online play. I can see why people would get angry at online-activation for other games, but for competitive RTS games whose main purpose is online play, it really isn't an issue.
What? That may be your whole point to the game. Mine, I loved the campaigns, but I couldn't stand multiplayer games. Even if you are into multiplaying, with SC1, you could play over a LAN, no need for internet access. Don't be selfish and assume that because you (and a lot of other people) only enjoy the multiplayer games over the internet, no one else can enjoy any other form of play. We do - specially when online playing is not an option.
Of course, in Cuba, that point is moot. You have to be out of your mind pay for the game abroad, then violate the license by importing it to Cuba, then possibly violate some obscure Cuban law or directive by bringing it, then cracking it anyway to bypass the activation. But there are many people out of their minds... and while I can't be certain of it, if most Cuban gamers enjoyed SC1 without BattleNet, I can assume that many people who may have access to the game but not to the online services would also enjoy it.
Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet, even temporarily, but still are modern enough to meet the other system requirements.
I come from a country where connecting to the internet is a luxury. Luxury, as in "no ISP will ever consider offering you the service without explicit authorization from the government (or without a bribe)". Connecting, and having something else than HTTP access, was unheard of (unless, like me, you happened to work at one ISP, in which case, maybe you could be NATted from work).
Now, I realize, or at least hope, that Cuba is the exception (but don't fool yourself thinking about all the poverty - I know plenty of people who have brought games abroad). But internet access is not a guaranteed everywhere, even if you can afford a to buy a game.
Yes, it was rather refreshing seeing that text in the website... too bad the words got lost in the summary (not suprising, this is slashdot after all), and the linked article.
endorse a new FLOSS license. [...] It prevents software, licensed under the HPL, to be used for harming humans or animals.
Then it is not a FLOSS license. It restricts use ("freedom 0"), however noble the cause may be. (emphasis in "may"). It may not even be an EULA instead of a Licence.
Besides, your statement is not true - what's to stop Mozilla licensing H.264 just like everybody else does?
Is there any licencing option for H.264 that would allow Firefox to remain free software? I highly doubt that, but you seem to know better than Mozilla's and the FSF's lawyers. Please, point them at that option, I'm sure everyone will be grateful to be able to put this matter behind.
(But, if there is no licencing option for Mozilla... then it is your statement the one that is not true.)
I'm all for FSF, opensource, and freedoms in general. But, FFS, there IS NO HURD!! Go on, I challenge. Download that HURD kernel[...]
I won't take that challenge. Since when it is necessary to create a kernel to promote an ideology - specially if there is another mature kernel that works for that? Luckily, the ones making that claim are the zealots against the FSF, and not the FSF. In Stallman's own words:
Given the years of work we had already put into the Hurd, we decided to finish it rather than throw them away.
If we did face the question that people ask---if Linux were already available, and we were considering whether to start writing another kernel---we would not do it. Instead we would choose another project, something to do a job that no existing free software can do.
Hurd is not even in the FSF's priority project list. Do you still believe that Stallman & others are the blind zealots?
So actually, no, you're obfuscating things for no gain whatsoever.
If you consider that hiding the company names "obfuscates" this argument, clearly the company names have something to do with your position: it may not be because what X did, but because of who X is. Fair enough.
(Luckily, there is at least W != Z where Y works and that, in this particular instance, is not trying to screw up their customers as badly as Z).
They shouldn't have had HTC make the phone! But then you clearly think it's better to have made a phone that no one wants than not to have tried at all.
Clearly, it is a mistake to try to enter the smartphone market. No one should try it, ever, because they would seem stupid if one carrier wants you to pay more.
But... why am I defending Google? I guess I just joined the thread trying to understand the reasons behind blaming the party that has no control over what you don't like, instead of the one that is directly responsible for it (AT&T). I see this trend all too often: like when blaming "Linux" for its lack of driver support, or the customer for the "identity theft".
Easy. Because it doesn't matter who are X, Y and Z, your claim of X's stupidity is based solely on the fact that X has no control over Z, and yet it "dares" to launch a product... the one taxing the Nexus is AT&T, not Google. In your mind, what would be the non-stupid thing google could do? I can only think two options: not producing the nexus, or giving it away and taking a loss for the benefit of AT&T, and IMHO, both options are really stupid.
Well, I agree that evolution is a theory (I wish people would do a better job of remembering that).
And I wish that more people knew what it means to be a "scientific theory" before propagating that nonsense. Hint: scientific theory != hunch, guess or supposition. Gravity is also a theory... and I'd dare anyone who disregards evolution for being just a theory, to jump off a building and try to levitate.
Nice that you mention it... I usually warn people to stay away from Google Code because they also block these countries. A lot of the times, the developers who put the code there (and sometimes are not from the US) are not even aware that their code is inaccessible.
For a long time, Google Code was/the worst/ code hosting site available for me. Now, SF sunk to their level.
No, I'm telling you that you should make your purchasing decision, and I should make my purchasing decision, and we should stay out of each other's business. How's that sound?
It sounds like you have a personality problem, unless "Moofle" and "node 3" are the same person, and not very good at logic anyway, because/he/ wasn't saying that either. The grandparent implied (last sentence) that having the device locked down was necessary for "everyone else" to have the opportunity to/not/ tinker with their devices.
Your ability to do as you wish with your ipad is not hindered in any way by my opinions... It is, however, hindered by Apple. Yet you chose to attack me for pointing that out. How curious.
In a better world, complaining about it could lead to having a non locked device, without causing any harm to you, the non tinkerer. In the real world, complaining about it still can't cause any harm to you. So, the only way I can think of that my opinion affects your purchasing decision is that you already believe it to be true but are in denial.
(The same can't be said about those who advocate having the devices locked down... but I can't really understand why would one want that. Apple flavoured brainwashing, perhaps?)
You, the tinkerer, will *always* be able to buy a PC that meets your needs. Why not allow everyone else the opportunity to do the same?
And how I being able to tinker with/my/ device deprives you of your opportunity to not tinker with/your/ identical device?
And no matter how popular the iPad becomes (very popular, trust me, most people do *not* share the geek-centered criticisms)
And yes, that's exactly the problem. If it becomes very popular, then we geeks won't be able to "play" with the popular devices. I doubt may would bother if it were a useless piece of crap. Are you telling us that we can't play with our devices, unless we get a less popular/functional one, because you don't want to or know how to play with yours?
As a non-native English speaker, I agree with you. I find it easier to understand another non-native speaker than a native speaker (with one notable exception: if the speaker is French, I can't understand him).
For me, bulgarians are the easiest to understand. I guess that because of their native tongue, their "r" are very strong - just like in spanish.
Furthermore... the GPL exempts the linking to the libraries commonly distributed with the operating system (otherwise it would be impossible to link against, i.e, Windows API). IANAL, but I'd believe that Nintendo's libraries would qualify for that
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with GP, in what places on earth, apart from what I assume is a farm in the middle of the desert in Australia, is quotas an issue ? :)
Cuba. My quota used to be 170 Mb/month, and I had one of the highest quotas in the university (I was the sysadmin, and I was authorized to increase my own quota, and ask for permission later, if I needed). In practice, though, I never reached that ammount... 1mbit/sec shared by 10000 users didn't make it easy, but there were professors in the 50-70 Mb/month range that had a hard time by the end of the month.
The very first thing we had to teach users was to disable automatic updates (instead we would download new versions once and publish then internally). We really couldn't afford one program taking all the available bandwith for several hours while everyone's instances were being updated.
Sadly, that situation won't change until the Cuba-Venezuela cable is finished, if it ever is.
Then, I stand corrected about Fedora. Thank you!
You're just walked square into the middle of the "free software" vs "open source" debate. Now they've got you right where they want you, there is no escape!
Picasa is free (and awesome) but not open source - so Ubuntu and Fedora will never ship it.
I think you have it backwards. The "open source" crowd would happily use non-free software if they believe it is the best. The "free software" crowd would not touch Picasa. See this article for an example (jump to "bitkeeper issue").
You may be confused because of the two meanings of the word "free". It is sad that in the English language, the word for a concept as great as "freedom" is the same as the word for the meager idea of "no cost".
Of course, there are several shades of grey in between the two camps, but that is the main difference.
(That said, neither Ubuntu nor Fedora are very strong supporters of "free software"... specially not Ubuntu. It wouldn't surprise me that one of them decided to include picasa)
That's how far I moved recently, after seriously considering a position 7780 kilometers away. And I settled with the closer one, not because it was closer (which, with that distance, doesn't really matter anyway), but because it would be also interesting for my wife. So, yeah, I'd say I'm willing to move far away looking for interesting things to do.
(1425 and 4834 miles, for those who don't use metric)
In that case, I was wrong, and I apologize for the mistake.
No need to apologize - if I seemed harsh or angry, please blame my English skills.
However, I think it makes more sense to blame your government for this problem than it does to blame Blizzard...
In the Cuban case, yes, my government is one of the parties to blame (not the only one, mind you - a great deal of the blame, probably most of it, should go to the US government). But that is not the point, I said so in the first post (Blizzard can't even let us buy the game, after all). Cuba is not the only place in the world where Internet is scarce, but computers not necessarily so. For any such place, the only one at fault for having to use a cracked version of the game would be the publisher.
If you don't have Internet access, you really have no need to play StarCraft 1 or 2. The whole point is the online play. I can see why people would get angry at online-activation for other games, but for competitive RTS games whose main purpose is online play, it really isn't an issue.
What? That may be your whole point to the game. Mine, I loved the campaigns, but I couldn't stand multiplayer games. Even if you are into multiplaying, with SC1, you could play over a LAN, no need for internet access. Don't be selfish and assume that because you (and a lot of other people) only enjoy the multiplayer games over the internet, no one else can enjoy any other form of play. We do - specially when online playing is not an option.
Of course, in Cuba, that point is moot. You have to be out of your mind pay for the game abroad, then violate the license by importing it to Cuba, then possibly violate some obscure Cuban law or directive by bringing it, then cracking it anyway to bypass the activation. But there are many people out of their minds... and while I can't be certain of it, if most Cuban gamers enjoyed SC1 without BattleNet, I can assume that many people who may have access to the game but not to the online services would also enjoy it.
s/brought/bought/, of course. Typo.
Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet, even temporarily, but still are modern enough to meet the other system requirements.
I come from a country where connecting to the internet is a luxury. Luxury, as in "no ISP will ever consider offering you the service without explicit authorization from the government (or without a bribe)". Connecting, and having something else than HTTP access, was unheard of (unless, like me, you happened to work at one ISP, in which case, maybe you could be NATted from work).
Now, I realize, or at least hope, that Cuba is the exception (but don't fool yourself thinking about all the poverty - I know plenty of people who have brought games abroad). But internet access is not a guaranteed everywhere, even if you can afford a to buy a game.
Yes, it was rather refreshing seeing that text in the website... too bad the words got lost in the summary (not suprising, this is slashdot after all), and the linked article.
endorse a new FLOSS license. [...] It prevents software, licensed under the HPL, to be used for harming humans or animals.
Then it is not a FLOSS license. It restricts use ("freedom 0"), however noble the cause may be. (emphasis in "may"). It may not even be an EULA instead of a Licence.
[...] because despite Facebook's atrocious privacy policy they can only work with data you give them.
... or that your friends give them. Some of which may not even be your "facebook friends".
Besides, your statement is not true - what's to stop Mozilla licensing H.264 just like everybody else does?
Is there any licencing option for H.264 that would allow Firefox to remain free software? I highly doubt that, but you seem to know better than Mozilla's and the FSF's lawyers. Please, point them at that option, I'm sure everyone will be grateful to be able to put this matter behind.
(But, if there is no licencing option for Mozilla... then it is your statement the one that is not true.)
I'm all for FSF, opensource, and freedoms in general. But, FFS, there IS NO HURD!! Go on, I challenge. Download that HURD kernel[...]
I won't take that challenge. Since when it is necessary to create a kernel to promote an ideology - specially if there is another mature kernel that works for that? Luckily, the ones making that claim are the zealots against the FSF, and not the FSF. In Stallman's own words:
Given the years of work we had already put into the Hurd, we decided to finish it rather than throw them away.
If we did face the question that people ask---if Linux were already available, and we were considering whether to start writing another kernel---we would not do it. Instead we would choose another project, something to do a job that no existing free software can do.
Hurd is not even in the FSF's priority project list. Do you still believe that Stallman & others are the blind zealots?
So actually, no, you're obfuscating things for no gain whatsoever.
If you consider that hiding the company names "obfuscates" this argument, clearly the company names have something to do with your position: it may not be because what X did, but because of who X is. Fair enough.
(Luckily, there is at least W != Z where Y works and that, in this particular instance, is not trying to screw up their customers as badly as Z).
They shouldn't have had HTC make the phone! But then you clearly think it's better to have made a phone that no one wants than not to have tried at all.
Clearly, it is a mistake to try to enter the smartphone market. No one should try it, ever, because they would seem stupid if one carrier wants you to pay more.
But... why am I defending Google? I guess I just joined the thread trying to understand the reasons behind blaming the party that has no control over what you don't like, instead of the one that is directly responsible for it (AT&T). I see this trend all too often: like when blaming "Linux" for its lack of driver support, or the customer for the "identity theft".
Why are you substituting letters for everything?
Easy. Because it doesn't matter who are X, Y and Z, your claim of X's stupidity is based solely on the fact that X has no control over Z, and yet it "dares" to launch a product... the one taxing the Nexus is AT&T, not Google. In your mind, what would be the non-stupid thing google could do? I can only think two options: not producing the nexus, or giving it away and taking a loss for the benefit of AT&T, and IMHO, both options are really stupid.
Are you saying that it is stupid for X to release product Y, because company Z will not offer you a "discount"?
Well, I agree that evolution is a theory (I wish people would do a better job of remembering that).
And I wish that more people knew what it means to be a "scientific theory" before propagating that nonsense. Hint: scientific theory != hunch, guess or supposition. Gravity is also a theory... and I'd dare anyone who disregards evolution for being just a theory, to jump off a building and try to levitate.
I'm guessing you didn't read the second paragraph...
prepared statements solve 99% of it
What's the 1% they don't solve? (Genuine question...)
Read his second paragraph... he gave an example there.
Google Code is awesome by comparison.
Nice that you mention it... I usually warn people to stay away from Google Code because they also block these countries. A lot of the times, the developers who put the code there (and sometimes are not from the US) are not even aware that their code is inaccessible.
For a long time, Google Code was /the worst/ code hosting site available for me. Now, SF sunk to their level.
Again, how am I demanding that any ipad owner do anything "my" way?
No, I'm telling you that you should make your purchasing decision, and I should make my purchasing decision, and we should stay out of each other's business. How's that sound?
It sounds like you have a personality problem, unless "Moofle" and "node 3" are the same person, and not very good at logic anyway, because /he/ wasn't saying that either. The grandparent implied (last sentence) that having the device locked down was necessary for "everyone else" to have the opportunity to /not/ tinker with their devices.
Your ability to do as you wish with your ipad is not hindered in any way by my opinions... It is, however, hindered by Apple. Yet you chose to attack me for pointing that out. How curious.
In a better world, complaining about it could lead to having a non locked device, without causing any harm to you, the non tinkerer. In the real world, complaining about it still can't cause any harm to you. So, the only way I can think of that my opinion affects your purchasing decision is that you already believe it to be true but are in denial.
(The same can't be said about those who advocate having the devices locked down... but I can't really understand why would one want that. Apple flavoured brainwashing, perhaps?)
And how I being able to tinker with /my/ device deprives you of your opportunity to not tinker with /your/ identical device?
And yes, that's exactly the problem. If it becomes very popular, then we geeks won't be able to "play" with the popular devices. I doubt may would bother if it were a useless piece of crap. Are you telling us that we can't play with our devices, unless we get a less popular/functional one, because you don't want to or know how to play with yours?
As a non-native English speaker, I agree with you. I find it easier to understand another non-native speaker than a native speaker (with one notable exception: if the speaker is French, I can't understand him).
For me, bulgarians are the easiest to understand. I guess that because of their native tongue, their "r" are very strong - just like in spanish.
Furthermore... the GPL exempts the linking to the libraries commonly distributed with the operating system (otherwise it would be impossible to link against, i.e, Windows API). IANAL, but I'd believe that Nintendo's libraries would qualify for that