The poll above is a very good example of the self selection bias. Most users that have successfully upgraded are unlikely to take a poll related to how the upgrade has had problems for them or even search out such a poll.
The difference between that and closed source software is that if you're willing to pay for developers to make it do so, it darn well will and you don't have to ask anybodies permission for it or depend on anyone else to do it. Also, if it's under the GPL and you don't distribute it outside your company or group, you don't even have to share. Sure beats relying on external support and development you may not even be able to get in the future.
That said, if a publishing house needed the software to do what you describe, then it would be done -- so please, don't trot out the "current solutions aren't applicable to my domain therefore all open source solutions and benefits must be rejected" horse.. it's old and needs to be put out to pasture. Given a bit of money and time, Scribus and other solutions that don't/quite/ meet your requirements could have some serious clout and be much less expensive to boot.
Ah I see, so it's more about specialist (read expensive) equipment that needs to change with the ebb and flow of internet usage (which changes much more quickly than the natural bandwidth requirements of said technology) in order to stay effective. Not to mention that at the same time they nicely segment their market so they can jack up margins netting them a bigger return. Wow, so no matter what they win, they're just making it harder for us to win too... how... er.. clever, I guess. Though, since they're going to win anyway, I'd rather they didn't feel the need to grind us into the mud to get bigger return. Then again, we never were their customers in the first place, so it doesn't surprise me.
On the other hand it would ensure the demand for ever more bandwidth carrying capacity and faster equipment. This essentially means that all of their deployed equipment will need to be upgraded sooner. So now, instead of developing new products, they just get to make old ones faster and bigger. How is that bad for them?
This is why it is recommended by the license itself to leave a clause in the license grant that reads "or any later version" which allows license upgrades to be performed by the originators of the GPL and now people without any copyright claim to the software to take a license out under the newest version. It has a repair function and it's built into the grant.
Exactly my point, since the brain is itself non-deterministic then you've assigned something with a permanent logical significance to a meaning which is not permanent and variable. Since the meaning is not permanent the number loses relevance and then becomes useless as a basis for conceptual comparison using logical operators across autonomous agents.
If you're going to collapse a complex and subjective set of attributes into a single magnitude using a hidden and non-deterministic function, yes, you too can compare apples and oranges.
This is not uncommon in reporting. See good old TVTropes's Cowboy Bebop At His Computer article for other examples. Also, just couldn't pass up the chance to give others the same wiki walk I got -- but if you need the next few hours, don't look.
Does anyone remember Blinx: the timesweeper for XBox that was released at the beginning of the decade? If you're familiar with that game then this game mechanic seems not so new and maybe even a bit more limited (because of the pad requirement, if it is one). I hope it's well implemented because then it has the potential to make for some really awesome puzzles. I'm glad to see they're experimenting with higher dimensional puzzles again.
Thank you, this is exactly the argument I would've posed. Please also note that the moment it starts appearing in the wild everyone with access to that source code is going to be on a witch hunt for the bug. The number of people with the source code is much greater and those people are more motivated since they're actually the ones experiencing its affect.
Yes, but the issue in this case isn't in the amount of time the bug is exploitable -- it's all about the amount of time it goes from known to fixed. In the bug you cite's case that patch time was zero since the patch was announced with the bug. You just can't do that with closed source software unless you're the original developer. DNDTR.
Indeed. It would be nice, although completely untenable, if the Patent Office required physical prototypes or accurate models of said prototypes of all patented inventions to be on file for later inspection for an application to even be considered. That'd kill all of this nonsense, but would also probably kill our budget.
Here's that word again that people who take that position are so fond of -- 'stealing'. It's not stealing when I transmit a copy of your idea to someone who didn't pay you. It is an infringement on your artificial monopoly granted, and I do mean artificial, to you by us. If I copy a work, you have not lost anything of concrete value. Sure you can talk about 'lost potential sales' but that is completely meaningless in a real and practical sense. However, that isn't the main issue. If I follow your line of reasoning correctly with regards to open standards then the problem with them is not that they allow stealing, it is that they allow freedom. Open standards allow me to consume and use content I have purchased in the way I choose. Yes, this freedom to choose also allows me to violate your artificial monopoly but it also ensures that everyone can use and enjoy your product how they want. By forcing people into giving up their choice you are making enemies of them. You are making enemies of those who want to give you money. In what way is this a good business practice? They are your customers and they will find some way to get what they want, how they want, when they want. We cannot be stopped -- we are the audience and if we aren't pleased then we will move on to something better. Welcome to the new free market.
-----
Would it really be so bad if people created art for art's sake? In what way does it make sense for one person to get millions of dollars for a single hit song or a single novel for the rest of their life?
Nope, just means you're ignorant of the fact that pretty much all software (and I say pretty much just to CYA, otherwise I'd say all software) is like that, so there's no use pointing out the obvious.
Congratulations. In addition to the above story we now have to be subjected to that awful jingle. Could you have at least made some obscure reference to a geeky movie made in the eighties? Spatula city, perhaps?
Slashdot Mirror
This technology is meant to guard against physical layer problems (power, hardware failure) and not against software bugs.
The poll above is a very good example of the self selection bias. Most users that have successfully upgraded are unlikely to take a poll related to how the upgrade has had problems for them or even search out such a poll.
The difference between that and closed source software is that if you're willing to pay for developers to make it do so, it darn well will and you don't have to ask anybodies permission for it or depend on anyone else to do it. Also, if it's under the GPL and you don't distribute it outside your company or group, you don't even have to share. Sure beats relying on external support and development you may not even be able to get in the future. That said, if a publishing house needed the software to do what you describe, then it would be done -- so please, don't trot out the "current solutions aren't applicable to my domain therefore all open source solutions and benefits must be rejected" horse.. it's old and needs to be put out to pasture. Given a bit of money and time, Scribus and other solutions that don't /quite/ meet your requirements could have some serious clout and be much less expensive to boot.
Wow, I never thought I'd observe a thermal cascade reaction outside of a chemistry lab or a nuclear power plant. Thanks slashdot!
Oh, so you just have to brag that you bought the high-security luggage.
Ah I see, so it's more about specialist (read expensive) equipment that needs to change with the ebb and flow of internet usage (which changes much more quickly than the natural bandwidth requirements of said technology) in order to stay effective. Not to mention that at the same time they nicely segment their market so they can jack up margins netting them a bigger return. Wow, so no matter what they win, they're just making it harder for us to win too... how... er.. clever, I guess. Though, since they're going to win anyway, I'd rather they didn't feel the need to grind us into the mud to get bigger return. Then again, we never were their customers in the first place, so it doesn't surprise me.
On the other hand it would ensure the demand for ever more bandwidth carrying capacity and faster equipment. This essentially means that all of their deployed equipment will need to be upgraded sooner. So now, instead of developing new products, they just get to make old ones faster and bigger. How is that bad for them?
This is why it is recommended by the license itself to leave a clause in the license grant that reads "or any later version" which allows license upgrades to be performed by the originators of the GPL and now people without any copyright claim to the software to take a license out under the newest version. It has a repair function and it's built into the grant.
Exactly my point, since the brain is itself non-deterministic then you've assigned something with a permanent logical significance to a meaning which is not permanent and variable. Since the meaning is not permanent the number loses relevance and then becomes useless as a basis for conceptual comparison using logical operators across autonomous agents.
If you're going to collapse a complex and subjective set of attributes into a single magnitude using a hidden and non-deterministic function, yes, you too can compare apples and oranges.
This is not uncommon in reporting. See good old TVTropes's Cowboy Bebop At His Computer article for other examples. Also, just couldn't pass up the chance to give others the same wiki walk I got -- but if you need the next few hours, don't look.
Does anyone remember Blinx: the timesweeper for XBox that was released at the beginning of the decade? If you're familiar with that game then this game mechanic seems not so new and maybe even a bit more limited (because of the pad requirement, if it is one). I hope it's well implemented because then it has the potential to make for some really awesome puzzles. I'm glad to see they're experimenting with higher dimensional puzzles again.
Thank you, this is exactly the argument I would've posed. Please also note that the moment it starts appearing in the wild everyone with access to that source code is going to be on a witch hunt for the bug. The number of people with the source code is much greater and those people are more motivated since they're actually the ones experiencing its affect.
Yes, but the issue in this case isn't in the amount of time the bug is exploitable -- it's all about the amount of time it goes from known to fixed. In the bug you cite's case that patch time was zero since the patch was announced with the bug. You just can't do that with closed source software unless you're the original developer. DNDTR.
If by "faster" you mean faster to execute and not faster to write or debug.
Indeed. It would be nice, although completely untenable, if the Patent Office required physical prototypes or accurate models of said prototypes of all patented inventions to be on file for later inspection for an application to even be considered. That'd kill all of this nonsense, but would also probably kill our budget.
Indeed, evolution is more of a concept to describe the result of the way nature works, not a separate thing in and of itself.
Here's that word again that people who take that position are so fond of -- 'stealing'. It's not stealing when I transmit a copy of your idea to someone who didn't pay you. It is an infringement on your artificial monopoly granted, and I do mean artificial, to you by us. If I copy a work, you have not lost anything of concrete value. Sure you can talk about 'lost potential sales' but that is completely meaningless in a real and practical sense. However, that isn't the main issue. If I follow your line of reasoning correctly with regards to open standards then the problem with them is not that they allow stealing, it is that they allow freedom. Open standards allow me to consume and use content I have purchased in the way I choose. Yes, this freedom to choose also allows me to violate your artificial monopoly but it also ensures that everyone can use and enjoy your product how they want. By forcing people into giving up their choice you are making enemies of them. You are making enemies of those who want to give you money. In what way is this a good business practice? They are your customers and they will find some way to get what they want, how they want, when they want. We cannot be stopped -- we are the audience and if we aren't pleased then we will move on to something better. Welcome to the new free market.
-----
Would it really be so bad if people created art for art's sake? In what way does it make sense for one person to get millions of dollars for a single hit song or a single novel for the rest of their life?
Probably about an OC1.
Is that something like the sound of one server port flapping?
Indeed, sometimes I think we all are.
Nope, just means you're ignorant of the fact that pretty much all software (and I say pretty much just to CYA, otherwise I'd say all software) is like that, so there's no use pointing out the obvious.
Congratulations. In addition to the above story we now have to be subjected to that awful jingle. Could you have at least made some obscure reference to a geeky movie made in the eighties? Spatula city, perhaps?
Awesome! That's exactly right, thanks so much. :)
In this case, having a high dot pitch, while nice for a display, is a bad thing for people living in there.