Palin having a dissenting voice is one thing. Calling for the assassination of another human being who has not been convicted of any crime is quite another.
Try posting on facebook that you'd like to see our president assassinated, and let us know the outcome.
So, once again, we see clearly what you are talking about. First you want the corporation to have the right to restrict what other's do "A corporation should have the right to produce closed-source software" and then you talk about other people's code and don't want to give them the right to limit what happens to that.
That's a stellar job of making up a scenario which fits your twisted world view. A corporation producing closed source software isn't restricting anyone. You are free to buy their product or not.
I don't really give a shit what your ideals are, or your religion, it's not my problem. You believing it's "unfair" for a company to not release source isn't a restriction or an impediment on any right you have. You don't have a right to live in my house, and you don't have a right to anyone's source code.
In other words, you feel you have a god-given right to take from others but that others should not be allowed to get from you. It's precisely for people like you that things like the GPL, the police and the legal system have to exist.
That's humorous. You think you have the right to take someone else's hard work, stealing their code, and you're casting stones. How ironic. It's precisely people like you, who feel entitled to something you didn't create, that are the reason we have police, and legal system, and the BSD license.
It is my god given right to build something from someone else's work, and not share it with them, yes. When I build a house, I dont' give the logger who cut down the trees free reign of my house. The miner who mined the ore to make the nails doesn't get to use my house as a weekend getaway. They get paid for their product or work, and that's it.
As for not giving anything back, who the hell do you think employes and/or pays for the majority of the BSD coders? They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Get a clue.
Most people? Where do you get your stats? The Institute of Asspullery? I doubt if most people know or care about the difference. In fact, most people probably think that closed-
source freeware is basically the same as public domain.
The same place the OP did. Is it your reading comprehension or your memory that caused your inability to remember what you read 30 seconds before you read my post?
In any case, you're committing the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. It doesn't matter how many people consider one or the other license to be "MORE open". What matters is the facts. And the facts ain't so strong for either side of this debate. (Which is why I argue either side with equal abandon, depending on who I'm talking to.)
Basically, the main counterargument is that the freedom to deprive others of their freedoms is not necessarily a valid freedom. It's hard to argue that a society which allows its citizens the freedom to enslave one another is more free than one which prohibits slavery, even though the latter lacks the "freedom to enslave".
Of course, the "freedom to make proprietary derivatives" is not quite the same as the "freedom to enslave". But it is in opposition to the "freedom to tinker", which makes the "BSD/CDDL is more free" argument at least as dubious as its opposite.
I'm not making any logical fallacy. I even put it into quotes for you. All that time wasted typing. *WHOOSH*
Really? So you can take GPL code, link it with your own, modify it, distribute it, and you don't have to re-release the source (taking it closed source)? Ya, I'm trolling.
Actually the CDDL, just like the BSD license, is considered by "most people" to be MORE open than the GPL. A corporation should have the right to produce closed-source software and link with other closed-source software, as well as make changes to the code, without having to share it. Restricting their ability to do so is not more free, or more open.
You should have a problem with it. It's not WHAT they're seizing, it's HOW they're seizing. DHS has absolutely no place seizing any web property. If companies want to sue these sites, sue them in a court of law, and have them shut-down through the proper legal channels. The way they went about this is just laying the groundwork for them to abuse the power in the future. Don't be so short-sighted about the whole situation. I doubt *ANYONE* around here cares if some scammer has his site shutdown. But when it becomes guilty until proven innocent, we're headed down a VERY slippery slope.
Comparing a brand-new phone to ones that already have market-momentum is brain-dead, as has already been discussed on this forum. Android sold nowhere near as many phones their first day/week/month when it first came out. iPhone wasn't much better.
BOGO offers are in no way a sign of desperation. WTF is wrong with the submitter, and Soulskill? Android has been doing BOGO's or outright free phones for months/years now. Is it "desperate" or "in trouble" or running with "disappointing sales"? Hey, let's all hate on Microsoft without a shred of evidence, it's slashdot!
Will lightpeak be able to power my external hard drive? Will it charge my HD video camera while I pull video off it?
According to Intel, yes:
In addition, Intel said it's working on bundling the optical fiber with copper wire so Light Peak can be used to power devices plugged into the PC, he said.
The TSA has been lying about their numbers. First, they claimed 5 minute waits at LAX. Anyone who has ever been through LAX knows that's a complete lie. LAX has NEVER had a 5 minute wait-time. I flew out of there yesterday... the wait was an hour. I was there at 7am, and for the 15 minutes or so I was actually within view of the machines, there were 10 people that opted out (roughly 2/3rds of the people they actually tried to send through the machine). I STRONGLY doubt their numbers. Furthermore, out of the Minneapolis airport, they turned all the scanners off (I've heard they did that many places). At best, someone should be fired for lying to the public.
Oh, I also tried pointing out that their numbers were not correct, they wouldn't approve my comment.
There is absolutely no way that slideshow was produced on the iPad. Presenting/consuming is NOT creating. And it is NOT doing the "real work" I'm talking about. The "real work" is when I create the presentation, not when I give present it.
I'm not sure I'd say the iPad has "stolen the market". Nearly every presentation I've been in/been a part of still has a laptop as the primary source of information. An ipad is great to carry around if you're just trying to get email. If you're trying to do any real work, it fails miserably.
The reason the tablet never took off is because it's just a more expensive, less powerful laptop. The iPad isn't REPLACING the laptop anytime soon. Hell, it isn't even REPLACING the tablet. The people who have adopted the tablet will continue using it. Everyone else will continue using their laptops for 99% of their business oriented tasks, and keep their iPad's around when they don't want to lug around a full laptop, and don't need to get any "real work" done. If I'm going on an overnight trip to attend a meeting where I'm not presenting, you bet your ass I'll probably just grab an iPad for the flight to watch movies and check email. If I have to get any work done, I'm taking a laptop.
I would be willing to bet the reason most business users have picked up an iPad is the same reason I have: 10 hours of movie playback. I can watch movies for almost my entire trip to Sydney on one charge. You aren't getting anywhere close to that with anything else on the market today.
But the band wants all of their fans to be able to afford tickets. Even if that means they're under-priced. Society has agreed it's not your place to dictate how much the band sells their tickets for.
It's a complete re-write from scratch. It is indeed a 1.0 product. You might as well say Windows 1.0 wasn't 1.0 because they had previously been making DOS. The two platforms share nearly nothing in common beyond the "Windows" branding.
Tel-aviv isn't even in the top 30 busiest airports. Comparing them to a US hub and claiming their method will scale is idiotic. Not to mention, when Israel as a country manages to start functioning without billions of dollars in aid from the US, we can talk about whether their policies are financially viable.
But tea partiers don't want the TSA to go away. They fear those horrible mooslims. They want social security and universal healthcare, and state sponsored education to meet the chopping block first, because they're convinced that's the problem. Cutting funding for the TSA or DOD would be sacrilege.
am glad this professor was so kind as to point out this loophole to the communist rulers. Had he not mentioned the *loophole*, it may have been months, years, or even DECADES before communications of the unfiltered kind could've been shutdown with the outside world!
I have searched and come up empty. From either MS or "industry analysts and observers". Given your response, I'll just assume you pulled that "quote" out of your ass.
What's that, they aren't releasing software for a platform that's a decade old? Jerks! Are you equally pissed you can't get firefox 4.0 for Redhat 7.2 from Redhat? Not to mention you haven't been able to get an update in how long? It never ceases to amaze me how unreasonable people are.
Care to cite that? I can't say I've ever seen an interview with anyone at Microsoft where they claim they're worried about Chrome's rapid release schedule. Again, the majority of the public have no idea when their browser even gets updated unless it notifies them with some impossible to miss notification page.
They've to 60% of the market! Are they losing market share? Definitely. But to claim it needs to be "saved" is ridiculous. When they're at 2% market share, then we can discuss whether or not the product will actually die and possibly go away. I realize this site likes to hate on MS, but can we be just a *BIT* less biased in the story summaries?
Also, they're under tremendous pressure to release IE9? By who? The public? You can't say people are fleeing because IE9 isn't a big deal, and then turn around and say they have to get it out because all these people are waiting for it. Reality is, the average Joe has no idea that IE9 is in development, has no idea when it will be released, and *DOESN'T CARE*. They click the blue E, and they get to the internet. And every couple years, the window looks a bit different and they don't really know why, but it still works so that's good enough. *THE MAJORITY OF WORLD ARE NOT TECH GEEKS*.
They first made a profit in 2008, of $524 Million. While it hasn't made money every quarter, to say it's "lost billions since its inception" is misleading at best. Unless you're claiming that zune sales and PC games are making up for "billions" lost (LOL!), your claim is bogus.
Slashdot Mirror
Palin having a dissenting voice is one thing. Calling for the assassination of another human being who has not been convicted of any crime is quite another.
Try posting on facebook that you'd like to see our president assassinated, and let us know the outcome.
So, once again, we see clearly what you are talking about. First you want the corporation to have the right to restrict what other's do "A corporation should have the right to produce closed-source software" and then you talk about other people's code and don't want to give them the right to limit what happens to that.
That's a stellar job of making up a scenario which fits your twisted world view. A corporation producing closed source software isn't restricting anyone. You are free to buy their product or not.
I don't really give a shit what your ideals are, or your religion, it's not my problem. You believing it's "unfair" for a company to not release source isn't a restriction or an impediment on any right you have. You don't have a right to live in my house, and you don't have a right to anyone's source code.
In other words, you feel you have a god-given right to take from others but that others should not be allowed to get from you. It's precisely for people like you that things like the GPL, the police and the legal system have to exist.
That's humorous. You think you have the right to take someone else's hard work, stealing their code, and you're casting stones. How ironic. It's precisely people like you, who feel entitled to something you didn't create, that are the reason we have police, and legal system, and the BSD license.
It is my god given right to build something from someone else's work, and not share it with them, yes. When I build a house, I dont' give the logger who cut down the trees free reign of my house. The miner who mined the ore to make the nails doesn't get to use my house as a weekend getaway. They get paid for their product or work, and that's it.
As for not giving anything back, who the hell do you think employes and/or pays for the majority of the BSD coders? They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Get a clue.
Most people? Where do you get your stats? The Institute of Asspullery? I doubt if most people know or care about the difference. In fact, most people probably think that closed- source freeware is basically the same as public domain.
The same place the OP did. Is it your reading comprehension or your memory that caused your inability to remember what you read 30 seconds before you read my post?
In any case, you're committing the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum . It doesn't matter how many people consider one or the other license to be "MORE open". What matters is the facts. And the facts ain't so strong for either side of this debate. (Which is why I argue either side with equal abandon, depending on who I'm talking to.)
Basically, the main counterargument is that the freedom to deprive others of their freedoms is not necessarily a valid freedom. It's hard to argue that a society which allows its citizens the freedom to enslave one another is more free than one which prohibits slavery, even though the latter lacks the "freedom to enslave".
Of course, the "freedom to make proprietary derivatives" is not quite the same as the "freedom to enslave". But it is in opposition to the "freedom to tinker", which makes the "BSD/CDDL is more free" argument at least as dubious as its opposite.
I'm not making any logical fallacy. I even put it into quotes for you. All that time wasted typing. *WHOOSH*
Really? So you can take GPL code, link it with your own, modify it, distribute it, and you don't have to re-release the source (taking it closed source)? Ya, I'm trolling.
Actually the CDDL, just like the BSD license, is considered by "most people" to be MORE open than the GPL. A corporation should have the right to produce closed-source software and link with other closed-source software, as well as make changes to the code, without having to share it. Restricting their ability to do so is not more free, or more open.
You should have a problem with it. It's not WHAT they're seizing, it's HOW they're seizing. DHS has absolutely no place seizing any web property. If companies want to sue these sites, sue them in a court of law, and have them shut-down through the proper legal channels. The way they went about this is just laying the groundwork for them to abuse the power in the future. Don't be so short-sighted about the whole situation. I doubt *ANYONE* around here cares if some scammer has his site shutdown. But when it becomes guilty until proven innocent, we're headed down a VERY slippery slope.
Comparing a brand-new phone to ones that already have market-momentum is brain-dead, as has already been discussed on this forum. Android sold nowhere near as many phones their first day/week/month when it first came out. iPhone wasn't much better.
BOGO offers are in no way a sign of desperation. WTF is wrong with the submitter, and Soulskill? Android has been doing BOGO's or outright free phones for months/years now. Is it "desperate" or "in trouble" or running with "disappointing sales"? Hey, let's all hate on Microsoft without a shred of evidence, it's slashdot!
Will lightpeak be able to power my external hard drive? Will it charge my HD video camera while I pull video off it?
According to Intel, yes:
In addition, Intel said it's working on bundling the optical fiber with copper wire so Light Peak can be used to power devices plugged into the PC, he said.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10360047-264.html
The TSA has been lying about their numbers. First, they claimed 5 minute waits at LAX. Anyone who has ever been through LAX knows that's a complete lie. LAX has NEVER had a 5 minute wait-time. I flew out of there yesterday... the wait was an hour. I was there at 7am, and for the 15 minutes or so I was actually within view of the machines, there were 10 people that opted out (roughly 2/3rds of the people they actually tried to send through the machine). I STRONGLY doubt their numbers. Furthermore, out of the Minneapolis airport, they turned all the scanners off (I've heard they did that many places). At best, someone should be fired for lying to the public.
Oh, I also tried pointing out that their numbers were not correct, they wouldn't approve my comment.
There is absolutely no way that slideshow was produced on the iPad. Presenting/consuming is NOT creating. And it is NOT doing the "real work" I'm talking about. The "real work" is when I create the presentation, not when I give present it.
I'm not sure I'd say the iPad has "stolen the market". Nearly every presentation I've been in/been a part of still has a laptop as the primary source of information. An ipad is great to carry around if you're just trying to get email. If you're trying to do any real work, it fails miserably.
The reason the tablet never took off is because it's just a more expensive, less powerful laptop. The iPad isn't REPLACING the laptop anytime soon. Hell, it isn't even REPLACING the tablet. The people who have adopted the tablet will continue using it. Everyone else will continue using their laptops for 99% of their business oriented tasks, and keep their iPad's around when they don't want to lug around a full laptop, and don't need to get any "real work" done. If I'm going on an overnight trip to attend a meeting where I'm not presenting, you bet your ass I'll probably just grab an iPad for the flight to watch movies and check email. If I have to get any work done, I'm taking a laptop.
I would be willing to bet the reason most business users have picked up an iPad is the same reason I have: 10 hours of movie playback. I can watch movies for almost my entire trip to Sydney on one charge. You aren't getting anywhere close to that with anything else on the market today.
But the band wants all of their fans to be able to afford tickets. Even if that means they're under-priced. Society has agreed it's not your place to dictate how much the band sells their tickets for.
It's a complete re-write from scratch. It is indeed a 1.0 product. You might as well say Windows 1.0 wasn't 1.0 because they had previously been making DOS. The two platforms share nearly nothing in common beyond the "Windows" branding.
No actually, none of the above scale just fine. There are almost constantly hour-long lines for all of the above.
I find it humorous the only airports you can come up with as exemplary are ones that do a fraction of the traffic of any major international hub.
Zurich: again, nowhere near the traffic of even a moderate US hub.
Tel-aviv isn't even in the top 30 busiest airports. Comparing them to a US hub and claiming their method will scale is idiotic. Not to mention, when Israel as a country manages to start functioning without billions of dollars in aid from the US, we can talk about whether their policies are financially viable.
You would be sitting in security for 6 hours+ at pretty much any major airport in the US if they spent 10 minutes per passenger screening people.
We put term limits in place for the legislative branch, and we stop electing career politicians.
But tea partiers don't want the TSA to go away. They fear those horrible mooslims. They want social security and universal healthcare, and state sponsored education to meet the chopping block first, because they're convinced that's the problem. Cutting funding for the TSA or DOD would be sacrilege.
am glad this professor was so kind as to point out this loophole to the communist rulers. Had he not mentioned the *loophole*, it may have been months, years, or even DECADES before communications of the unfiltered kind could've been shutdown with the outside world!
I have searched and come up empty. From either MS or "industry analysts and observers". Given your response, I'll just assume you pulled that "quote" out of your ass.
What's that, they aren't releasing software for a platform that's a decade old? Jerks! Are you equally pissed you can't get firefox 4.0 for Redhat 7.2 from Redhat? Not to mention you haven't been able to get an update in how long? It never ceases to amaze me how unreasonable people are.
Care to cite that? I can't say I've ever seen an interview with anyone at Microsoft where they claim they're worried about Chrome's rapid release schedule. Again, the majority of the public have no idea when their browser even gets updated unless it notifies them with some impossible to miss notification page.
They've to 60% of the market! Are they losing market share? Definitely. But to claim it needs to be "saved" is ridiculous. When they're at 2% market share, then we can discuss whether or not the product will actually die and possibly go away. I realize this site likes to hate on MS, but can we be just a *BIT* less biased in the story summaries?
Also, they're under tremendous pressure to release IE9? By who? The public? You can't say people are fleeing because IE9 isn't a big deal, and then turn around and say they have to get it out because all these people are waiting for it. Reality is, the average Joe has no idea that IE9 is in development, has no idea when it will be released, and *DOESN'T CARE*. They click the blue E, and they get to the internet. And every couple years, the window looks a bit different and they don't really know why, but it still works so that's good enough. *THE MAJORITY OF WORLD ARE NOT TECH GEEKS*.
It made $145 million last quarter.
They first made a profit in 2008, of $524 Million. While it hasn't made money every quarter, to say it's "lost billions since its inception" is misleading at best. Unless you're claiming that zune sales and PC games are making up for "billions" lost (LOL!), your claim is bogus.