I disagree with the notion that Open Source is a fad. What is true is that Open Source, and to a larger degree, Free Software is not viable under certain business models. If you are using a service-based model, then its quite doable. For instance, I could run an MMORPG based on free software, because the users are paying for the service more than the program. I couldn't sell a free software one player game, however, because the user is paying for the software, and not a service.
Additionally, much programming work done in the world isn't done on software meant to be sold, but for companies' internal systems. Like, accounting software for a retail chain.
There are other projects as well. OpenTNL also uses a dual license system, with GPL being for personal or hobbyist use, and a per-seat license for commercial works. The moral of the story is, that if you're selling software and not services, don't use the GPL unless you're dual-licensing.
I'd say that your fears are justified, considering China is one of the countries that was really pushing for this, plus other countries expressed interest in greater control. I remember the original article several months ago, in which several countries expressed interest in controlling spam (who gets to decide what spam is?), and also complaining about the xxx domain, hinting at censorship.
So what you're saying is that bigotry is ok as long as the party in question is well represented? So I'm assuming that you're ok with racism against, say, asians in China?
No, apparently you swollowed the modified history. If you care to read the literature the framers put out, you'd find that most of them felt a seperation of religion and state was a good thing. Consider, for instance, that a good portion of settlers moved here to escape religious persecution. The people persecuting them weren't Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, or Buddists, but rather other sects and denominations of Christianity.
Do a bit of research and you will find that the founding father's were mostly deists and atheists, with some Christians in there as well.
I've gotten comments from people who did not see the original series, that they hadn't really been interested in the movie because the trailer seemed pretty bad. They loved Serenity.
Eh, its more like when you take the pills you can see that the big black blotch is just a small dab of spilled ink on an otherwise perfectly white sheet of paper. I've taken anti-depressants, and they didn't make me happy. They allowed me to get my head under control, and gain some perspective. That, in turn, allowed me to be happy.
You speak as if there aren't financial vehicles to maintain or grow money to middle class people. Its called investment, and middle class people can do it too. Its simply easier when you have more money to start with.
All languages allow you to avoid buffer and heap overflows if the language implementation is correct. Buffer and heap overflows are programming errors, not problems with a language. Some languages just have better facilities to force well-behaved code. You can add Java and C# to your list there by the way.
I remember reading the original article about this, a couple of months ago. The main voices from the UN came from countries that had little to do with the creation of the current internet. China was one of the countries as well. The stated goals of UN control were censorship and filtering of content. They mentioned the xxx domain name, and stated that they wanted to do something about spam. Now, doing something about spam seems well and good and all, but who gets to decide what is spam? And considering that China was showing interest here, I don't really feel good about handing over internet infrastructure to the UN.
As an American, I would have no objections to handing over control of the DNS root servers to an international body, provided that they are able to reliably keep it working, and avoid exerting control over the actual content. Given the facts, I'd say neither seemed likely.
The European Union, however, might be a different matter. And Europe has given us a lot in terms of developing the internet as we know it today.
I'll agree with the parent. I've had my iRiver for a year now, and constantly carry it around in my pocket with my keys. I've dropped it and put it through all sorts of abuse and it still doesnt have a single scratch on the screen.
Right, because I'm sure you personally know Bill Gates, and he has divulged this information to you. You don't know Bill Gates' motivation, and neither do I. The only person who knows is Bill Gates. If trying to rationalize away his charity so that you can continue to look down at him helps you sleep at night then knock yourself out. But then again, maybe, just maybe, its possible that a very rich man genuinely wants to use his wealth to help other people.
But no, I'm sure you're making such a statement because its true, and not because you have some sort of prejudice against the man.
I agree, and I think this process has already started. I'm seeing less of Microsoft's influence, and I get this general feeling that they're starting to have to fight on equal footing. Based on nothing other than my gut feeling, of course. I actually look forward to it, because I believe Microsoft can deliver some great products when they're forced to do so. For example, take Visual Studio, C#, and.Net.
This tale is held by Christians and other followers of Jesus' teachings, to mean that a gift is to be judged, not by its impressiveness or value to men, but by measure of what God is seeking from those who worship him. It is also seen as an admoniton to give oneself entirely to God.
So basically, judging based on percentage of wealth given is just as unimportant as judging on total wealth given. What is important is the intent and manner in which it is given. The issue with the parable is that the Pharases gave out of their wealth to make themselves look charitible, while the widow gave out of her poverty for the glory of God. This doesn't make what the GP said any less valid.
So something that has limits of the limitations that can be enforced is too restrictive? I think he has it backwards!
The way I see it, the GPL trades a developer's freedoms to give the user more freedoms. So the GPL is restrictive to a developer and liberating to a user. The BSD license is much less restrictive to a developer, for example.
Ack, correction, that's 5 billion in 1999. "As of 2005, the foundation has an endowment of approximately US$28 billion." I wonder how much of that comes from Gates though (other companies donate to it, I believe).
According to Wikipedia, Gates has donated about 5 billion dollars in charity. Thats about 10 percent of his total wealth. The list of the accomplishments of the Melinda Gates Foundation is quite impressive.
It's not the "stopping him" part of the event that's objectionable, genius. It's the part where they search him, find nothing more suspicious than some gadgets, and arrest him anyway.
You'll notice that in my other comment to this story, I remark that I didn't agree with the way it was handled, according to the story. As far as arresting him, he claims that it was because of events connecting to the company he worked for. Again, IMO, not reasonable. However I believe there's a difference between saying "given this side of the story, it appears unreasonable," and taking everything written by some person on the internet as infallable truth. You assume this means I'm a dimwit. I take it to mean I'm not a sheep thats influenced by everything he reads.
No, not an enemy of freedom. You're just kind of a dimwit. Hint: the police will never make a detailed statement. You won't hear from the other side. Unless the fellow involved has enough money to litigate a rather expensive case against the police and British law permits it, or if the guy generates enough noise in the press and forces their hand.
We heard bits of explanation from the police, in his story. And assuming that the police don't make a detailed statement (saying that they never will is a pretty big assumption, considering police have made statements concerning controversial events), then I would simply take the story at face value. I'm at least allowing the possibility for there to be another side to the story.
That's fine though, wait to be "properly informed" like a good little sheep.
Typically, if you care about swaying someone to your point of view, its best to not insult them. Seems that you do that a lot, given your journal and slashdot postings. You seem to be a rather intolerant and close-minded person, so this will be my last response.
I don't think it was unreasonable for the policement to stop him, assuming the events portrayed were accurate. What I think was unreasonable was the way they stopped him. I think all that was needed would be one or two policemen to approach him, request to search his bag, do the search, and flag him on his way. The events portrayed by this person, if accurate, are excessive.
Carefull, your knee is jerking pretty hard there. How do you know the police didn't have a very good reason to stop him? We've only heard his side of the story. You know people DO lie don't you? Getting both sides of the story is only common sense.
But I suppose I'll be labelled an enemy of freedom simply because I believe in withholding judgement until I'm properly informed of the situation.
No, that isn't a problem with ASP.Net. Its a problem with the programmer.
Do you honestly think that there aren't poorly written PHP pages? How about ones written in Java or Perl? I've seen plenty of crappy, non-cross-platform pages written in stuff other than.Net. Its not the fault of the language, just the developer.
My group does.Net work, and besides some really bad legacy projects that we did not code originally, all our stuff is usable on the non-IE browsers and non-MS operating systems. And its rare that we ever have to tweak anything to work correctly; dragging and dropping works fine 95% of the time. The other 5% of the time, problems require only a little tweaking.
Whether they can afford to or not isn't the question. Whether it will make them money is the important point. And Blizzard doesn't think it will make them money. They have no obligation to provide a Linux client.
Slashdot Mirror
Doing a quick google search it appears that C# often beats Java or shows comparable performance in most tests. That is unless you're a Java zealot who bases opinions on limited and unfair tests.
In real-world applications, C# matches up quite well to Java's speed.
I disagree with the notion that Open Source is a fad. What is true is that Open Source, and to a larger degree, Free Software is not viable under certain business models. If you are using a service-based model, then its quite doable. For instance, I could run an MMORPG based on free software, because the users are paying for the service more than the program. I couldn't sell a free software one player game, however, because the user is paying for the software, and not a service.
Additionally, much programming work done in the world isn't done on software meant to be sold, but for companies' internal systems. Like, accounting software for a retail chain.
There are other projects as well. OpenTNL also uses a dual license system, with GPL being for personal or hobbyist use, and a per-seat license for commercial works. The moral of the story is, that if you're selling software and not services, don't use the GPL unless you're dual-licensing.
I'd say that your fears are justified, considering China is one of the countries that was really pushing for this, plus other countries expressed interest in greater control. I remember the original article several months ago, in which several countries expressed interest in controlling spam (who gets to decide what spam is?), and also complaining about the xxx domain, hinting at censorship.
So what you're saying is that bigotry is ok as long as the party in question is well represented? So I'm assuming that you're ok with racism against, say, asians in China?
No, apparently you swollowed the modified history. If you care to read the literature the framers put out, you'd find that most of them felt a seperation of religion and state was a good thing. Consider, for instance, that a good portion of settlers moved here to escape religious persecution. The people persecuting them weren't Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, or Buddists, but rather other sects and denominations of Christianity.
Do a bit of research and you will find that the founding father's were mostly deists and atheists, with some Christians in there as well.
I've gotten comments from people who did not see the original series, that they hadn't really been interested in the movie because the trailer seemed pretty bad. They loved Serenity.
Eh, its more like when you take the pills you can see that the big black blotch is just a small dab of spilled ink on an otherwise perfectly white sheet of paper. I've taken anti-depressants, and they didn't make me happy. They allowed me to get my head under control, and gain some perspective. That, in turn, allowed me to be happy.
You speak as if there aren't financial vehicles to maintain or grow money to middle class people. Its called investment, and middle class people can do it too. Its simply easier when you have more money to start with.
All languages allow you to avoid buffer and heap overflows if the language implementation is correct. Buffer and heap overflows are programming errors, not problems with a language. Some languages just have better facilities to force well-behaved code. You can add Java and C# to your list there by the way.
I remember reading the original article about this, a couple of months ago. The main voices from the UN came from countries that had little to do with the creation of the current internet. China was one of the countries as well. The stated goals of UN control were censorship and filtering of content. They mentioned the xxx domain name, and stated that they wanted to do something about spam. Now, doing something about spam seems well and good and all, but who gets to decide what is spam? And considering that China was showing interest here, I don't really feel good about handing over internet infrastructure to the UN.
As an American, I would have no objections to handing over control of the DNS root servers to an international body, provided that they are able to reliably keep it working, and avoid exerting control over the actual content. Given the facts, I'd say neither seemed likely.
The European Union, however, might be a different matter. And Europe has given us a lot in terms of developing the internet as we know it today.
I'll agree with the parent. I've had my iRiver for a year now, and constantly carry it around in my pocket with my keys. I've dropped it and put it through all sorts of abuse and it still doesnt have a single scratch on the screen.
Right, because I'm sure you personally know Bill Gates, and he has divulged this information to you. You don't know Bill Gates' motivation, and neither do I. The only person who knows is Bill Gates. If trying to rationalize away his charity so that you can continue to look down at him helps you sleep at night then knock yourself out. But then again, maybe, just maybe, its possible that a very rich man genuinely wants to use his wealth to help other people.
But no, I'm sure you're making such a statement because its true, and not because you have some sort of prejudice against the man.
I agree, and I think this process has already started. I'm seeing less of Microsoft's influence, and I get this general feeling that they're starting to have to fight on equal footing. Based on nothing other than my gut feeling, of course. I actually look forward to it, because I believe Microsoft can deliver some great products when they're forced to do so. For example, take Visual Studio, C#, and .Net.
This tale is held by Christians and other followers of Jesus' teachings, to mean that a gift is to be judged, not by its impressiveness or value to men, but by measure of what God is seeking from those who worship him. It is also seen as an admoniton to give oneself entirely to God.
So basically, judging based on percentage of wealth given is just as unimportant as judging on total wealth given. What is important is the intent and manner in which it is given. The issue with the parable is that the Pharases gave out of their wealth to make themselves look charitible, while the widow gave out of her poverty for the glory of God. This doesn't make what the GP said any less valid.
I don't really see Microsoft collapsing, given their massive amount of revenue. Isn't a far more likely scenario that they reinvent themselves?
So something that has limits of the limitations that can be enforced is too restrictive? I think he has it backwards!
The way I see it, the GPL trades a developer's freedoms to give the user more freedoms. So the GPL is restrictive to a developer and liberating to a user. The BSD license is much less restrictive to a developer, for example.
Wikipedia has a pretty good section on Bill Gate's charitable contributions.
Ack, correction, that's 5 billion in 1999. "As of 2005, the foundation has an endowment of approximately US$28 billion." I wonder how much of that comes from Gates though (other companies donate to it, I believe).
According to Wikipedia, Gates has donated about 5 billion dollars in charity. Thats about 10 percent of his total wealth. The list of the accomplishments of the Melinda Gates Foundation is quite impressive.
It's not the "stopping him" part of the event that's objectionable, genius. It's the part where they search him, find nothing more suspicious than some gadgets, and arrest him anyway.
You'll notice that in my other comment to this story, I remark that I didn't agree with the way it was handled, according to the story. As far as arresting him, he claims that it was because of events connecting to the company he worked for. Again, IMO, not reasonable. However I believe there's a difference between saying "given this side of the story, it appears unreasonable," and taking everything written by some person on the internet as infallable truth. You assume this means I'm a dimwit. I take it to mean I'm not a sheep thats influenced by everything he reads.
No, not an enemy of freedom. You're just kind of a dimwit. Hint: the police will never make a detailed statement. You won't hear from the other side. Unless the fellow involved has enough money to litigate a rather expensive case against the police and British law permits it, or if the guy generates enough noise in the press and forces their hand.
We heard bits of explanation from the police, in his story. And assuming that the police don't make a detailed statement (saying that they never will is a pretty big assumption, considering police have made statements concerning controversial events), then I would simply take the story at face value. I'm at least allowing the possibility for there to be another side to the story.
That's fine though, wait to be "properly informed" like a good little sheep.
Typically, if you care about swaying someone to your point of view, its best to not insult them. Seems that you do that a lot, given your journal and slashdot postings. You seem to be a rather intolerant and close-minded person, so this will be my last response.
I don't think it was unreasonable for the policement to stop him, assuming the events portrayed were accurate. What I think was unreasonable was the way they stopped him. I think all that was needed would be one or two policemen to approach him, request to search his bag, do the search, and flag him on his way. The events portrayed by this person, if accurate, are excessive.
Carefull, your knee is jerking pretty hard there. How do you know the police didn't have a very good reason to stop him? We've only heard his side of the story. You know people DO lie don't you? Getting both sides of the story is only common sense.
But I suppose I'll be labelled an enemy of freedom simply because I believe in withholding judgement until I'm properly informed of the situation.
No, that isn't a problem with ASP.Net. Its a problem with the programmer.
.Net. Its not the fault of the language, just the developer.
.Net work, and besides some really bad legacy projects that we did not code originally, all our stuff is usable on the non-IE browsers and non-MS operating systems. And its rare that we ever have to tweak anything to work correctly; dragging and dropping works fine 95% of the time. The other 5% of the time, problems require only a little tweaking.
Do you honestly think that there aren't poorly written PHP pages? How about ones written in Java or Perl? I've seen plenty of crappy, non-cross-platform pages written in stuff other than
My group does
Whether they can afford to or not isn't the question. Whether it will make them money is the important point. And Blizzard doesn't think it will make them money. They have no obligation to provide a Linux client.