They scoffed at Galileo's "Earth orbits the Sun" bullshit, too. They scoffed at Columbus when he claimed "Earth is round."
You know who they also laughed at? Bozo the Clown.
What about Quantum Physics?
What about it, indeed? It was developed by a large number of physicists over a period of years, going through proper scientific channels, eventually overturning Newtonian physics a second time, because it explained heretofore unexplainable phenomena.
I am talking about the kind of people who come up with these theories and obsess over them on the internet, not the kind of people who hear about it once and think it plays into their distrust of the governement and thus believe it without verifying if it makes any sense.
That is one of the main reasons why games are released to mod capability... To put some new back in.
So basically, releasing a moddable is like saying "Aw christ, we really have no idea how to make a fun game. I hope somebody else does it for us."? Sounds about right, if you look around at PC gaming these days. I guess people have just gotten so used to the games sucking to the point that they will say something is a "great game overall" even though it's "tiresome" and "doesn't seem to be much variety".
Yes, it is. Because it once again brings into focus how the internet tends to fuel the psychoses of paranoid schizophrenics worldwide. These people need help, but instead the internet just helps them descend further into madness. It's 9/11, it's chemtrails, it's Morgellons, and above all it's depressing to watch.
Because they did work and got no compensation for that work from you.
Or would you go "hey, I wasn't actually *hurt*" if your boss says "sorry, won't pay you this month"?
I never expected any compensation. That's why I released the source for free, as opposed to charging money for it. Your work analogy is just incredibly silly.
And, for your fouth reason, that is fine with code you wrote, but why are you deciding that for other coders? Release your code GPL and BSD (MIT, SharedSouce,...). Don't release someone else's code BSD.
How, exactly, does not returning improvements hurt others? Obviously, you benefit if people do return their improvements, but you really can't argue it actively hurts anyone. You have exactly the same resources at hand before and after.
I release stuff more freely than the GPL because, first, I trust people to be decent enough to return their improvements, and second, because I know it's in people's best interests to do so because if they fork the source to keep their improvements to themselves, they'll have a hell of a time porting over all the changes from the public source, and thirdly, because even if they don't, it does not hurt me.
There is also a fourth reason, which is that if I do not tie people down with the GPL, more people can use my code, and that makes me happier. I am not offended if my source ends up in a closed project. I feel honoured. Code like zlib, libpng, the IJG's libjpeg, and SQLite are all free to use, and used in massive numbers of both closed and open projects. I do not think their developers are kept up at night because closed projects use their source. They want people to use their code, no matter what.
How about assuming that "more free" means "contains less restrictions". Sounds free to me.
PS: The GPL doesn't prevent me from changing my mind and closing the source of future versions. Releasing under a more free license doesn't allow me to suddenly make previously released version non-free. The only thing the GPL prevents is somebody else using the program in a closed product. And you know what? I don't care if they do. If they want to, they're free to. It doesn't hurt me or any other users one bit.
It was a yawn-fest for developers too, you know. Apple would have been better served by just keeping their mouth shut until they could actually talk about their "super-secret" features. This was just a total letdown.
Meanwhile in reality, if you had been actually following the discussion online in Japan, you'd see that they are laughing their asses off at the high price point and the idea that anybody would pay that much.
Then you are totally missing the actual issues raised by 1984 (and no, it's not really "surveillance is baaaad!"), and just generally discrediting yourself in the eyes of someone who has actually read the book.
It may have been meant to be sarcasm, but it failed miserably. You can not start with a serious "doesn't come cheap" and then suddenly tack on a sarcastic specifier, "a mere $...". Either both halves are sarcastic ("It's cheap, a mere $...") or both serious. Trying to mix them ruins it.
Oops! mysql_escape_string is useless! You need mysql_real_escape_string()!
You just made a textbook example of why PHP is a bad language for web apps. This problem does not exist in decent languages, such as Perl, Python or Ruby.
Slashdot Mirror
And boy, have you ever come to the right place for that!
They scoffed at Galileo's "Earth orbits the Sun" bullshit, too.
They scoffed at Columbus when he claimed "Earth is round."
You know who they also laughed at? Bozo the Clown.
What about Quantum Physics?
What about it, indeed? It was developed by a large number of physicists over a period of years, going through proper scientific channels, eventually overturning Newtonian physics a second time, because it explained heretofore unexplainable phenomena.
I am talking about the kind of people who come up with these theories and obsess over them on the internet, not the kind of people who hear about it once and think it plays into their distrust of the governement and thus believe it without verifying if it makes any sense.
That is one of the main reasons why games are released to mod capability... To put some new back in.
So basically, releasing a moddable is like saying "Aw christ, we really have no idea how to make a fun game. I hope somebody else does it for us."? Sounds about right, if you look around at PC gaming these days. I guess people have just gotten so used to the games sucking to the point that they will say something is a "great game overall" even though it's "tiresome" and "doesn't seem to be much variety".
It's an unpleasant topic...
Yes, it is. Because it once again brings into focus how the internet tends to fuel the psychoses of paranoid schizophrenics worldwide. These people need help, but instead the internet just helps them descend further into madness. It's 9/11, it's chemtrails, it's Morgellons, and above all it's depressing to watch.
Remember, this is Slashdot: News for Luddites, stuff that scares us
Your "most important" section could better be stated as "don't use PHP, it's broken by design".
I don't care if you use youtube or not. However, mocking you is great fun.
A modern world where you're not going to use youtube, and none of us care one bit if you don't.
Because they did work and got no compensation for that work from you.
...). Don't release someone else's code BSD.
Or would you go "hey, I wasn't actually *hurt*" if your boss says "sorry, won't pay you this month"?
I never expected any compensation. That's why I released the source for free, as opposed to charging money for it. Your work analogy is just incredibly silly.
And, for your fouth reason, that is fine with code you wrote, but why are you deciding that for other coders? Release your code GPL and BSD (MIT, SharedSouce,
Why are you accusing me of breaking the law?
How, exactly, does not returning improvements hurt others? Obviously, you benefit if people do return their improvements, but you really can't argue it actively hurts anyone. You have exactly the same resources at hand before and after.
I release stuff more freely than the GPL because, first, I trust people to be decent enough to return their improvements, and second, because I know it's in people's best interests to do so because if they fork the source to keep their improvements to themselves, they'll have a hell of a time porting over all the changes from the public source, and thirdly, because even if they don't, it does not hurt me.
There is also a fourth reason, which is that if I do not tie people down with the GPL, more people can use my code, and that makes me happier. I am not offended if my source ends up in a closed project. I feel honoured. Code like zlib, libpng, the IJG's libjpeg, and SQLite are all free to use, and used in massive numbers of both closed and open projects. I do not think their developers are kept up at night because closed projects use their source. They want people to use their code, no matter what.
And who decides what is more free.
How about assuming that "more free" means "contains less restrictions". Sounds free to me.
PS: The GPL doesn't prevent me from changing my mind and closing the source of future versions. Releasing under a more free license doesn't allow me to suddenly make previously released version non-free. The only thing the GPL prevents is somebody else using the program in a closed product. And you know what? I don't care if they do. If they want to, they're free to. It doesn't hurt me or any other users one bit.
I think he's trying to say choose proprietary* and leave the GPL alone. I'd recommend doing so, and leave the consequences to the team of RMS and FSF.
Did you even read what I said?
Borland? What the hell are you talking about?
The GPL is only ever a problem for you if you want to distribute someone else's work that they already let you use for free.
It is also a problem if I want to use their code in a project that is distributed under a license that is more free than the GPL. And I do.
It was a yawn-fest for developers too, you know. Apple would have been better served by just keeping their mouth shut until they could actually talk about their "super-secret" features. This was just a total letdown.
Ever never heard of a program called Tor?
Yes, I have. That's where the pedophiles hang out.
Wow, Slashdot sure is on the CUTTING EDGE of TECHNOLOGY NEWS!
Meanwhile in reality, if you had been actually following the discussion online in Japan, you'd see that they are laughing their asses off at the high price point and the idea that anybody would pay that much.
Then you are totally missing the actual issues raised by 1984 (and no, it's not really "surveillance is baaaad!"), and just generally discrediting yourself in the eyes of someone who has actually read the book.
It's not really about "your rights online", because they were in a tree, not on the internet.
Did you actually look at the stories being posted in YRO lately?
Yeah, because 1984 was totally all about treehouses and DNA testing. Did you even read the book? Somehow I doubt it.
Good job falling for the senstionalist political baiting, though.
It may have been meant to be sarcasm, but it failed miserably. You can not start with a serious "doesn't come cheap" and then suddenly tack on a sarcastic specifier, "a mere $...". Either both halves are sarcastic ("It's cheap, a mere $...") or both serious. Trying to mix them ruins it.
> mysql_escape_string($value)
Oops! mysql_escape_string is useless! You need mysql_real_escape_string()!
You just made a textbook example of why PHP is a bad language for web apps. This problem does not exist in decent languages, such as Perl, Python or Ruby.
You've just multiplied the resource demands on web servers with several orders of magnitude.