So, why are software patents automatically bad, but hardware ones OK? That smells like more of that hypocrisy there. Why are patents that protect hardware inventors OK, but not patents that protect innovative programmers?
How can the phone design be open and free, if it is comprised of proprietary, patent-encumbered parts that one isn't allowed to reproduce? How are the chips used not a part of the phone design? Those parts are actually the majority of the design.
But the FSF are pushing it as an alternative to the iPhone. Which it clearly isn't yet. basically they are promoting vaporware. "Just trust us, one day it will be really cool." Sorry, I'm not buying promises. Show us a working product, or STFU about how it's a viable alternative.
Even basic things like routine physical training carry high risks of injury and other harms. I thought that would be pretty obvious. In contrast, some proscribed drugs have less risk of harm than ordinary physical training.
What are you, stupid? Do you not understand that chip fabs are slightly less accessible to normal individuals than compilers are?
So, use transistors then. This just shows the hypocrisy of saying free software should be used, even if it less functional or advanced - and then making excuses when it comes to the hardware side of things, because what the community can build is less functional than what's available off-the-shelf. If they were really committed to this freedom, they'd insist upon rejecting the modern corporate-made chips.
Totally Free hardware is an ideal, but it's not feasible at the moment.
Neither is totally Free software. But that doesn't stop the FSF bitching about people who choose to use proprietary software. Also, what's infeasible about totally Free hardware? Sure, you might not get a Free Intel Core Duo - but you could make something more limited. Exactly the same as it is with Free Software. but for some reason, the FSF proponents aren't willing to put up with inferior hardware, even as they evangelize inferior software.
If the software is free then you are not locked in to one hardware platform. If you don't like the hardware you can replace it easily and still access the same applications and data.
Easily? I guess that depends on how much money one has. And what hardware is available (not many choices there, even if one has the money).
If you don't have total control over the hardware, you can't do some thing in the most efficient way. If you don't have total control over the software then you can't do some things at all.
I'm not seeing it. Software is also limited by hardware. There are plenty of things one can't do because one doesn't have control over hardware. Software and hardware work together. They are inter-dependent. So why so much emphasis on the software side?
Sounds like you have a shit phone. I'm don't see how that makes the Openmoko any good. From what it looks like, it barely works at all. Most people wouldn't accept the experience you are having with your Sony-Ericcson, let alone something worse.
Why the hell are you putting up with a dud phone, anyway?
But what if it was full of bugs, and caused dropped phone calls and whatnot? People expect a lot more reliability from phones than they do from computers.
Indeed. What I can't wrap my head around is how the FSF crowd has such a strong religious belief that software should be Free and not be subject to patents, etc, but they seem to be perfectly fine with patents and lack of freedom in so many other areas. It's hypocritical. If they care so much about freedom, shouldn't all the hardware they run also be made by the community under open licenses?
You can see how irrational and religious they get, when simply pointing out that the hardware isn't totally free results in my original post being modded "flamebait."
But they're also well known for being a pain in the ass to use, and overcomplicated. Being able to do whatever you want is great, but not if it comes at the expense of usability.
We previously discussed the July 4th launch of this GNU/Linux-based smartphone, which is open down to its core, with the company providing CAD files and schematics for the phone.
I don't think so. Provide all the CAD drawings you like, but companies still own the designs and patents for the processors and other chips used to assemble the phone. Providing a CAD drawing of the assembly doesn't give you the ability or legal right to reproduce those chips. So how can the hardware be considered open or "free" to the core? That's marketing bullshit, not truth.
One would think the "core" of phone hardware would be you know, the actual units that do the work, not their arrangement on a circuit board, or the design of the case.
Bullshit. It's a different OS. If it were the same OS, then why is Mac OS at version 10.5.x, while the iPhone OS is at version 2.x.x? And if it were the same OS, then why can't I control my Mac using multitouch gestures - and why can't I control my iPhone with menu-based commands, or open multiple windows and applications simultaneously.
You must have been dropped on your head if you think the iPhone is running the same OS as the Mac. Like I said, they have architectural similarities. But using some of Darwin on each, does not make hem the same OS. There's a lot more to Mac OS or iPhone OS than Darwin.
Do you also believe that Windows Vista and Windows Mobile are the same OS? Is Ubuntu and Fedora the same OS?
Either it is an open standard [digistan.org] or it is a patent encumbered format
False dichotomy. Some open standards are also patent encumbered, because of potential violations. Something being open source or an open standard does not grant it immunity from patent claims.
The Olympics is "just a sports event"? You poor, naive fellow. Sport is just the tool used to distract people from what's really happening. Do you think the 1936 Berlin Olympics was just a sporting event?
And why are they following China's commie propaganda?
Huh? Why would you even need to ask this question? The whole purpose of the modern Olympics is to spread nationalist propaganda. The IOC are just doing their job. Did you think it is supposed to be about a sporting competition or something?
I'm not seeing it. Developers may whine about the NDA, but I don't know of any who have actually stopped developing for the iPhone because of it. In fact, new developers and applications appear every day. If you ran a commercial software business, you'd be be pretty crazy to give up the easy money that comes with the App Store.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. Not many people actually buy google products. They get them for free. And, if you read the post you were replying to, it was specifically referring to third-party development. Not an area where Google has proven themselves yet. Heck, even their own software is continually in beta, and they haven't shown a lot of encouragement to third-party developers.
How exactly is it a "secret weapon" when everybody knows that science is used in sports? If it were secret, why are we reading it here, wouldn't it be classified or something?
Finding better ways of doing things to beat everyone else by applying thought isn't the same.
Why not? Using drugs is often finding a better way to do something. And plenty of the allowed techniques that athletes practice are dangerous to the athlete.
It just seems that you think drugs=bad, and can't offer a rational reason why one form of enhancement is OK, but another is not.
Slashdot Mirror
So, why are software patents automatically bad, but hardware ones OK? That smells like more of that hypocrisy there. Why are patents that protect hardware inventors OK, but not patents that protect innovative programmers?
How can the phone design be open and free, if it is comprised of proprietary, patent-encumbered parts that one isn't allowed to reproduce? How are the chips used not a part of the phone design? Those parts are actually the majority of the design.
But the FSF are pushing it as an alternative to the iPhone. Which it clearly isn't yet. basically they are promoting vaporware. "Just trust us, one day it will be really cool." Sorry, I'm not buying promises. Show us a working product, or STFU about how it's a viable alternative.
Even basic things like routine physical training carry high risks of injury and other harms. I thought that would be pretty obvious. In contrast, some proscribed drugs have less risk of harm than ordinary physical training.
What are you, stupid? Do you not understand that chip fabs are slightly less accessible to normal individuals than compilers are?
So, use transistors then. This just shows the hypocrisy of saying free software should be used, even if it less functional or advanced - and then making excuses when it comes to the hardware side of things, because what the community can build is less functional than what's available off-the-shelf. If they were really committed to this freedom, they'd insist upon rejecting the modern corporate-made chips.
You post on slashdot... That means you have a greater that 80% chance of thinking Obama isn't liberal enough, never mine McCain!
Uhhh, please explain. Slashdot is generally pretty right-libertarian leaning. Hardly 80% strongly liberal.
... but what's his position on tubes, and whether a truck will fit in them or not? There's serious issues here which demand real answers!
Totally Free hardware is an ideal, but it's not feasible at the moment.
Neither is totally Free software. But that doesn't stop the FSF bitching about people who choose to use proprietary software. Also, what's infeasible about totally Free hardware? Sure, you might not get a Free Intel Core Duo - but you could make something more limited. Exactly the same as it is with Free Software. but for some reason, the FSF proponents aren't willing to put up with inferior hardware, even as they evangelize inferior software.
If the software is free then you are not locked in to one hardware platform. If you don't like the hardware you can replace it easily and still access the same applications and data.
Easily? I guess that depends on how much money one has. And what hardware is available (not many choices there, even if one has the money).
If you don't have total control over the hardware, you can't do some thing in the most efficient way. If you don't have total control over the software then you can't do some things at all.
I'm not seeing it. Software is also limited by hardware. There are plenty of things one can't do because one doesn't have control over hardware. Software and hardware work together. They are inter-dependent. So why so much emphasis on the software side?
Sounds like you have a shit phone. I'm don't see how that makes the Openmoko any good. From what it looks like, it barely works at all. Most people wouldn't accept the experience you are having with your Sony-Ericcson, let alone something worse.
Why the hell are you putting up with a dud phone, anyway?
But what if it was full of bugs, and caused dropped phone calls and whatnot? People expect a lot more reliability from phones than they do from computers.
Indeed. What I can't wrap my head around is how the FSF crowd has such a strong religious belief that software should be Free and not be subject to patents, etc, but they seem to be perfectly fine with patents and lack of freedom in so many other areas. It's hypocritical. If they care so much about freedom, shouldn't all the hardware they run also be made by the community under open licenses?
You can see how irrational and religious they get, when simply pointing out that the hardware isn't totally free results in my original post being modded "flamebait."
But they're also well known for being a pain in the ass to use, and overcomplicated. Being able to do whatever you want is great, but not if it comes at the expense of usability.
Pretty simple: The Openmoko is the closest thing to a "PC" of the phone world that you can get.
That doesn't actually sound like a good thing. It sounds like something to avoid.
We previously discussed the July 4th launch of this GNU/Linux-based smartphone, which is open down to its core, with the company providing CAD files and schematics for the phone.
I don't think so. Provide all the CAD drawings you like, but companies still own the designs and patents for the processors and other chips used to assemble the phone. Providing a CAD drawing of the assembly doesn't give you the ability or legal right to reproduce those chips. So how can the hardware be considered open or "free" to the core? That's marketing bullshit, not truth.
One would think the "core" of phone hardware would be you know, the actual units that do the work, not their arrangement on a circuit board, or the design of the case.
Bullshit. It's a different OS. If it were the same OS, then why is Mac OS at version 10.5.x, while the iPhone OS is at version 2.x.x? And if it were the same OS, then why can't I control my Mac using multitouch gestures - and why can't I control my iPhone with menu-based commands, or open multiple windows and applications simultaneously.
You must have been dropped on your head if you think the iPhone is running the same OS as the Mac. Like I said, they have architectural similarities. But using some of Darwin on each, does not make hem the same OS. There's a lot more to Mac OS or iPhone OS than Darwin.
Do you also believe that Windows Vista and Windows Mobile are the same OS? Is Ubuntu and Fedora the same OS?
Either it is an open standard [digistan.org] or it is a patent encumbered format
False dichotomy. Some open standards are also patent encumbered, because of potential violations. Something being open source or an open standard does not grant it immunity from patent claims.
The Olympics is "just a sports event"? You poor, naive fellow. Sport is just the tool used to distract people from what's really happening. Do you think the 1936 Berlin Olympics was just a sporting event?
And why are they following China's commie propaganda?
Huh? Why would you even need to ask this question? The whole purpose of the modern Olympics is to spread nationalist propaganda. The IOC are just doing their job. Did you think it is supposed to be about a sporting competition or something?
...which is called Mac OS.
No, it's not. Mac OS is what runs on Macs. A different OS (with architectural similarities) runs on the iPhone.
I'm not seeing it. Developers may whine about the NDA, but I don't know of any who have actually stopped developing for the iPhone because of it. In fact, new developers and applications appear every day. If you ran a commercial software business, you'd be be pretty crazy to give up the easy money that comes with the App Store.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. Not many people actually buy google products. They get them for free. And, if you read the post you were replying to, it was specifically referring to third-party development. Not an area where Google has proven themselves yet. Heck, even their own software is continually in beta, and they haven't shown a lot of encouragement to third-party developers.
How exactly is it a "secret weapon" when everybody knows that science is used in sports? If it were secret, why are we reading it here, wouldn't it be classified or something?
I thought this was Directive Four:
4. Do not arrest or allow any senior OCP executive to come to harm
Finding better ways of doing things to beat everyone else by applying thought isn't the same.
Why not? Using drugs is often finding a better way to do something. And plenty of the allowed techniques that athletes practice are dangerous to the athlete.
It just seems that you think drugs=bad, and can't offer a rational reason why one form of enhancement is OK, but another is not.
with its digitizer thoughtfully placed on the right so they won't inadvertently jog it when using the trackpad
??? It's a Wacom tablet. You can't "inadvertently jog it" with your hand, or anything else. It requires a special Wacom stylus to register any inputs.