And I made no statement that what he was describing was OK - unfortunately it appears "should" can be interpreted in one of two ways, and you picked the way I did not intend.
When you're donating to a charity, skirting the law by providing ROMs and emulators is just stupid. The last thing a charity needs is a bunch of lawsuits because you feel that you don't have to honour copyright (even if the particular situation does seem stupidly obvious, when the companies in question went out of business they probably assigned their "IP" rights to their creditors).
They shouldn't be. In my opinion, you should have to pay the price asked if you want a game or whatever. What I don't subscribe to, is having to pay extra just because you want it on a different platform - that should be free (or cheap, so as to cover only the cost of actually getting it to you).
No, I define the word upgrade for me, thanks. And I actually find it (situationally) better than XP. For a start, XP wouldn't even be capable of utilising half the hardware I have. Second, some of Aero's features are actually useful (such as live preview of windows in the alt-tab menu). Oh, and CD burning in the file explorer actually lets me burn DVDs too. Sometimes it's the little things that count.
Driver support was terrible, it was pretty bad at running 32 bit apps. Although the OS itself was faster, that's not very useful if there's nothing to run on it.
I did. And I got a nasty surprise indeed - I was expecting to get something to complain about, and the bloody thing worked perfectly fine. How can I fit in with the Slashdot crowd if I actually used Vista and it worked?!?
Of course - "Instead of paying $150 extra to get XP, I think I'll pay $1000 extra to get a Mac. Brillant!"
Seriously, noone does that. Stop saying it. So long as Apple insists on opening new apertures in you if you wish to buy their systems, people wont buy them.
Actually, they can resell that 3pk without hardware too - as long as they resell all 3.
Presumably, this criteria exists to allow small system builders to actually get hold of OEM Windows in larger packs, without having to jump through hoops to get an account with Ingram Micro or other such "screw-small-business" distributors.
Oh, and then does the Mac suddenly bloat up when the Safari updater installs fourty-five unrequested extra applications which the user neither wants nor will use?
I was going to write a long drawn out essay on it, but then I realised that you wont listen and you'll just post some crap like "it's an upgrade lawlz!!!11!!1one"
Actually, Doctor Who is produced in conjunction with another organisation. Amusingly enough, that organisation is the CBC. So Canadian taxpayers (who actually FUND the program) are more than entitled to download it, I reckon.
Apparently Season 3, the black woman left at the end of it. The redhead is Donna, who is there all through S4 (with some cameos from the others, naturally).
Oh? You're still wrong. An example of open source would in fact be... well, vBulletin. With the software, you are provided the source to it and you can use it however you like - you can run a forum, you can eat it, you can even print it out and use it as toilet paper. The only thing you can't do, is give it to non-customers. That makes it open source in the technical sense. What it ISN'T, is OSI approved (and OSI uses the definition you linked, so technically your first and second sentences contradict each other - but that's just being picky).
It is not ludicrous in the slightest. It is perfectly valid vocabulary. Open source, in English, means the source is open to you. It does NOT mean "able to be distributed at will to third parties without requiring permission". Your explanation, that a product must be OSI approved to be open source, is ludicrous.
When you open the files, you see source. As such, it's open source. What it isn't, is OSI-compliant licensed open source software. Contrary to the dogma they feed you, the english language had the words first and the meanings of "free" and "open source" were already defined long before OSI and Richard Stallman decided they wanted to use them.
Slashdot Mirror
And I made no statement that what he was describing was OK - unfortunately it appears "should" can be interpreted in one of two ways, and you picked the way I did not intend.
Well, thanks to Wii, a lot of these games actually ARE offered again. Sure, I don't own a Wii, but you can see the dilemma.
Uh, you just said exactly what I did. You should be able to play a game in whatever platform it comes in, as long as you've bought it once.
When you're donating to a charity, skirting the law by providing ROMs and emulators is just stupid. The last thing a charity needs is a bunch of lawsuits because you feel that you don't have to honour copyright (even if the particular situation does seem stupidly obvious, when the companies in question went out of business they probably assigned their "IP" rights to their creditors).
They shouldn't be. In my opinion, you should have to pay the price asked if you want a game or whatever. What I don't subscribe to, is having to pay extra just because you want it on a different platform - that should be free (or cheap, so as to cover only the cost of actually getting it to you).
No, I define the word upgrade for me, thanks. And I actually find it (situationally) better than XP. For a start, XP wouldn't even be capable of utilising half the hardware I have. Second, some of Aero's features are actually useful (such as live preview of windows in the alt-tab menu). Oh, and CD burning in the file explorer actually lets me burn DVDs too. Sometimes it's the little things that count.
That question might be re-stated: Can you name a feature that makes Vista better than Mac OSX?
It's cheaper.
And I never thought I'd get to say that about Vista, either.
I used XP 64 once. ONCE.
Driver support was terrible, it was pretty bad at running 32 bit apps. Although the OS itself was faster, that's not very useful if there's nothing to run on it.
I did. And I got a nasty surprise indeed - I was expecting to get something to complain about, and the bloody thing worked perfectly fine. How can I fit in with the Slashdot crowd if I actually used Vista and it worked?!?
Of course - "Instead of paying $150 extra to get XP, I think I'll pay $1000 extra to get a Mac. Brillant!"
Seriously, noone does that. Stop saying it. So long as Apple insists on opening new apertures in you if you wish to buy their systems, people wont buy them.
Here's an example:
this is a high end PC from Dell, and here is an inferior spec'd PC from Apple.
Actually, they can resell that 3pk without hardware too - as long as they resell all 3.
Presumably, this criteria exists to allow small system builders to actually get hold of OEM Windows in larger packs, without having to jump through hoops to get an account with Ingram Micro or other such "screw-small-business" distributors.
I'm not a Canadian, unfortunately. Or is that fortunately. I can't quite justify me downloading it, I have to buy the DVD.
Oh, and then does the Mac suddenly bloat up when the Safari updater installs fourty-five unrequested extra applications which the user neither wants nor will use?
No, it's not. Period.
I was going to write a long drawn out essay on it, but then I realised that you wont listen and you'll just post some crap like "it's an upgrade lawlz!!!11!!1one"
This is covered in the fucking summary. Blizzard has signed Massive to provide advertising in Battle.Net lobbies.
It is indeed (partially) Canadian taxpayer funded.
Actually, Doctor Who is produced in conjunction with another organisation. Amusingly enough, that organisation is the CBC. So Canadian taxpayers (who actually FUND the program) are more than entitled to download it, I reckon.
What? This guy didn't die AT ALL.
Hey, but at least that cheap crap has a money back guarantee!
Wow, it didn't even make Stuff? Seriously, dogs walking down the road makes news on Stuff.
Then again, dogs walking down the road turns into a ravaging wolf pack on NZ Herald.
Apparently Season 3, the black woman left at the end of it. The redhead is Donna, who is there all through S4 (with some cameos from the others, naturally).
Oh? You're still wrong. An example of open source would in fact be... well, vBulletin. With the software, you are provided the source to it and you can use it however you like - you can run a forum, you can eat it, you can even print it out and use it as toilet paper. The only thing you can't do, is give it to non-customers. That makes it open source in the technical sense. What it ISN'T, is OSI approved (and OSI uses the definition you linked, so technically your first and second sentences contradict each other - but that's just being picky).
It is not ludicrous in the slightest. It is perfectly valid vocabulary. Open source, in English, means the source is open to you. It does NOT mean "able to be distributed at will to third parties without requiring permission". Your explanation, that a product must be OSI approved to be open source, is ludicrous.
When you open the files, you see source. As such, it's open source. What it isn't, is OSI-compliant licensed open source software. Contrary to the dogma they feed you, the english language had the words first and the meanings of "free" and "open source" were already defined long before OSI and Richard Stallman decided they wanted to use them.
Bugtraq isn't where you list bugs. It's where you list gaping security vulnerabilities, of which phpBB is one of the biggest offenders in the world.