This is a mere trifle to the Chinese government. Real change will have to come from within China - when enough of them want a change in their government and way of life, they'll fight for it. Otherwise, there's really not much anyone can do that will improve things measurably.
I for one am in favor of using the military to solve all conflicts, and destroying all of nature. Anyone that disagrees is a dirty hippie. There's no middle ground here.
Explain that to the for-profit corporate lawyers who will eat them alive in court. All it takes is some small company getting their nose bent out of shape because they didn't get the contract to supply goods and/or services and that agency will suddenly be out several million dollars.
It's not necessarily right, but that's how it is and until FOSS can buy their own politicians, that's how it's going to be.
Most of us aren't out there revolutionizing the world with our leet skills - we're pulling numbers out of a database and shuffling them into some other database. It happens - we get paid.
If this language gets some of the shovelwork off my back and frees up time for me to solve some interesting problems, then I'm all in favor of it. If it provides a way for me to earn an income (or someone else to) then I'm all in favor of it.
If it gets a few more people interested in programming, I think the world can handle that. Just because there's a new language on the block doesn't mean that all the other languages are suddenly useless. After all, we still have stuff written in COBOL floating around.
The big picture guys will still hire programmers to do what we do because we can think about a task and break it down into it's component steps.
Yes, this is a troll. But deserved ...
on
Learning Ext JS
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I suppose it all depends on what their licensing terms are today at this given moment.
The problem with 1984, though, is that it crushes any hope that any resistance is useful.
In order to get people fight for change, you have to give them the hope that their fight will result in change, or perhaps a small change, or a piece of the change. Without that hope, they're just dying.
Equilibrium and V for Vendetta show that the hero doesn't sacrifice himself needlessly.
As Admiral Adama said (roughly, I don't remember the exact quote): It's not enough just to live.
So, if you go to movies to walk out feeling hopelessly abused and that whatever struggle you commit yourself to is a pointless walk thru a hellish morass of equally bad choices and that no matter what you do, you will never effect change of any sort in an uncaring world that hates you and despises your very existence, then by all means, 1984 is the movie for you.
I suggest it hurts a slightly smaller subset - the ones who use Google who need access to news created in, by, and for Belgium and Belgians.
Which cuts down the numbers a bit.
I'm all in favor of just letting Belgium do this completely stupid thing and then letting them rot until they change their minds. Cut these publishers off until they die out.
Dumbshit? I think not. Yes, I have read Finnegan's Wake - up to a point. Didn't particularly care for it. Do I think James Joyce is an idiot? Again, no. I also think James Joyce could have easily passed any class on English grammar that you could give him. The difference is that Joyce was writing from a character's perspective, and the OP (as near as I can tell) was writing from his own perspective and completely giving the impression that he was an ass and moron, to boot.
And since coarse invective is the only language you appear to understand, fuck you, as well.
You're comparing that mindless drivel to James Joyce?!?!
And yes, if James Joyce failed to demonstrate an ability to communicate using the rules of English grammar and spelling, I would have failed him and gladly.
Please don't take offense when I mention that you knew what you were getting into when you signed up for a music service, encryption and all. The music you purchase (or don't purchase, as appears to be the case) is a luxury item, not essential to your survival, so it is beyond me to ascertain the justification for breaking the licensing agreements you willingly entered into. You can claim that it's the only way to get the music, but what you should be doing is asking yourself if it's necessary for your survival.
BTW, the term "freedom fighter" is all a matter of perspective. The Minutemen during the Revolution War were Freedom Fighters to one side, bloody-minded terrorists to another.
I don't particularly want DRM-ed music, but on the other hand, I don't want some two-bit cellar monkey with a hard-on for the latest Korn single to be the apparent spokesman for my rights. Personally, I would rather just boycott the entire industry until it's dead, then start over.
One problem is the lack of qualifications to call oneself a legitimate security researcher. Every two-bit script kiddy hacker in the world is a "security researcher" by the current definition. Unfortunately, many of the current actually-qualified security researchers have some sort of black-hatting in their background, which, to my mind, makes them suspect in the first place.
It's an issue of trust. If you sit outside the system and make pronouncements, it's difficult to trust what you say. If you break into a system, then it's even more difficult to trust what you say, since, of course, you've been in there, maybe rummaged around, broken who know's what, etc.
If it doesn't suck, it may be worth the $699 price tag. Up til now, I haven't seen a phone yet that didn't have some degree of objective suck (wallet, features, service) and a high degree of subjective suck (ringtones, wallpapers, all the other suckitude).
Having seen the demos, I'll give some considerable thought to buying one, even if it means switching back to Cingular.
Being greedy with the "product name" namespace is rather uncool. The world doesn't run by "cool" or "uncool". It's merely a social convention. Get over it.
It's a weak argument to base it off of a directory name. Not at all - with the exception of NTFS and OS X, I don't know of another OS that allows spaces in directory names as a general rule (could be wrong, I admit). In order to maintain cross-platform compatibility, it is sometimes necessary to use a shortened form of the program name to name the home directory.
But, you never answered the original question - who had the name usage first, them or you? And for how long? And were you aware of the general convention of using the name "PMail" to refer to Pegasus Mail? Sounds to me like they excellent grounds to sic their lawyers on you.
Well, who had the name first? It sounds like they were justified in pursuing some sort of trademark action against you, since on the surface, you were using the same name and competing in the same software market.
I think you missed the PP's point - the issue is not whether or not you can install software, it's one of notification. Nothing forces you to disclose the fact that you installed non-vendor software on a vendor-certified system, which is a problem for the vendor.
They sell hardware not software. I for one would be looking hard at it if it sold me more hardware.
Sure, but how much more, in real terms, are we talking about? I feel pretty safe stating that the US is the largest market for video cards (based on these numbers) but how many of those machines are non-Windows operating systems, with a need for a high-end graphics card?
Linux, inside the US, in the major market, has a very minority share of the desktop OS market. So one really has to wonder if the gains made from opening up the drivers would offset the losses.
How could they lose? Several ways: 1) No longer be able to access proprietary methods of speed enhancement and optimization from outside closed-source vendors. They're not going to touch an open-source company, as we've already seen. 2) Be open to lawsuits from same for using open-source drivers implementing the same methods. This one is notable, since even defending against an unsuccessful lawsuit could wind up eating up serious chunks of revenue. Imagine the hell that would happen if the video card vendor lost. The open-source non-company coders are perfectly safe, but the company itself could be in deep manure, to say the least. 3) Instead of having to test against a single platform with a single operating system (or even a few), they instead have to test against potentially hundreds, since there is no guarantee that any single distribution will follow the same patterns as any other. In general, they do, but there's no guarantee of it in the future. 4) Closed-source competitors immediately have the inside scoop on the capabilities of their product. Instead of at least pretending to be innovative, they will have to play catch-up, forever, in terms of features and capability. Why? As soon as a product goes out for testing, the competition can get it, with full access to source, without having to reverse-engineer a single thing. 5) Their competitors can use it against them. Remember, in marketing, "free" can also mean "cheap" and not in the good way.
I don't mean say that Open-Sourcing a product is a completely bad idea, but one must consider the real-world ramifications.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a mere trifle to the Chinese government. Real change will have to come from within China - when enough of them want a change in their government and way of life, they'll fight for it. Otherwise, there's really not much anyone can do that will improve things measurably.
What controversy? All I see is someone promoting their own project on /.
I think you missed the sarcasm inherent in both our comments.
I for one am in favor of using the military to solve all conflicts, and destroying all of nature. Anyone that disagrees is a dirty hippie. There's no middle ground here.
Lefty.
Explain that to the for-profit corporate lawyers who will eat them alive in court. All it takes is some small company getting their nose bent out of shape because they didn't get the contract to supply goods and/or services and that agency will suddenly be out several million dollars.
It's not necessarily right, but that's how it is and until FOSS can buy their own politicians, that's how it's going to be.
So what if it's easier or dumber or whatever?
Most of us aren't out there revolutionizing the world with our leet skills - we're pulling numbers out of a database and shuffling them into some other database. It happens - we get paid.
If this language gets some of the shovelwork off my back and frees up time for me to solve some interesting problems, then I'm all in favor of it. If it provides a way for me to earn an income (or someone else to) then I'm all in favor of it.
If it gets a few more people interested in programming, I think the world can handle that. Just because there's a new language on the block doesn't mean that all the other languages are suddenly useless. After all, we still have stuff written in COBOL floating around.
The big picture guys will still hire programmers to do what we do because we can think about a task and break it down into it's component steps.
I suppose it all depends on what their licensing terms are today at this given moment.
The problem with 1984, though, is that it crushes any hope that any resistance is useful.
In order to get people fight for change, you have to give them the hope that their fight will result in change, or perhaps a small change, or a piece of the change. Without that hope, they're just dying.
Equilibrium and V for Vendetta show that the hero doesn't sacrifice himself needlessly.
As Admiral Adama said (roughly, I don't remember the exact quote): It's not enough just to live.
So, if you go to movies to walk out feeling hopelessly abused and that whatever struggle you commit yourself to is a pointless walk thru a hellish morass of equally bad choices and that no matter what you do, you will never effect change of any sort in an uncaring world that hates you and despises your very existence, then by all means, 1984 is the movie for you.
As in, "Why am I paying you to do this? My newphew can do that!"
I'm not entirely convinced it shouldn't be now.
Should they? No.
Are they free to? Yes.
Their project, not yours. Their rules, not yours.
I suggest it hurts a slightly smaller subset - the ones who use Google who need access to news created in, by, and for Belgium and Belgians.
Which cuts down the numbers a bit.
I'm all in favor of just letting Belgium do this completely stupid thing and then letting them rot until they change their minds. Cut these publishers off until they die out.
Dumbshit? I think not. Yes, I have read Finnegan's Wake - up to a point. Didn't particularly care for it. Do I think James Joyce is an idiot? Again, no. I also think James Joyce could have easily passed any class on English grammar that you could give him. The difference is that Joyce was writing from a character's perspective, and the OP (as near as I can tell) was writing from his own perspective and completely giving the impression that he was an ass and moron, to boot.
And since coarse invective is the only language you appear to understand, fuck you, as well.
You're comparing that mindless drivel to James Joyce?!?!
And yes, if James Joyce failed to demonstrate an ability to communicate using the rules of English grammar and spelling, I would have failed him and gladly.
Learn English and stop taking drugs.
Please don't take offense when I mention that you knew what you were getting into when you signed up for a music service, encryption and all. The music you purchase (or don't purchase, as appears to be the case) is a luxury item, not essential to your survival, so it is beyond me to ascertain the justification for breaking the licensing agreements you willingly entered into. You can claim that it's the only way to get the music, but what you should be doing is asking yourself if it's necessary for your survival.
BTW, the term "freedom fighter" is all a matter of perspective. The Minutemen during the Revolution War were Freedom Fighters to one side, bloody-minded terrorists to another.
I don't particularly want DRM-ed music, but on the other hand, I don't want some two-bit cellar monkey with a hard-on for the latest Korn single to be the apparent spokesman for my rights. Personally, I would rather just boycott the entire industry until it's dead, then start over.
One problem is the lack of qualifications to call oneself a legitimate security researcher. Every two-bit script kiddy hacker in the world is a "security researcher" by the current definition. Unfortunately, many of the current actually-qualified security researchers have some sort of black-hatting in their background, which, to my mind, makes them suspect in the first place.
It's an issue of trust. If you sit outside the system and make pronouncements, it's difficult to trust what you say. If you break into a system, then it's even more difficult to trust what you say, since, of course, you've been in there, maybe rummaged around, broken who know's what, etc.
If it doesn't suck, it may be worth the $699 price tag. Up til now, I haven't seen a phone yet that didn't have some degree of objective suck (wallet, features, service) and a high degree of subjective suck (ringtones, wallpapers, all the other suckitude).
Having seen the demos, I'll give some considerable thought to buying one, even if it means switching back to Cingular.
Being greedy with the "product name" namespace is rather uncool.
The world doesn't run by "cool" or "uncool". It's merely a social convention. Get over it.
It's a weak argument to base it off of a directory name.
Not at all - with the exception of NTFS and OS X, I don't know of another OS that allows spaces in directory names as a general rule (could be wrong, I admit). In order to maintain cross-platform compatibility, it is sometimes necessary to use a shortened form of the program name to name the home directory.
But, you never answered the original question - who had the name usage first, them or you? And for how long? And were you aware of the general convention of using the name "PMail" to refer to Pegasus Mail? Sounds to me like they excellent grounds to sic their lawyers on you.
Pay someone to have Darl and the lawyers "dismantled"?
I'd contribute.
Well, who had the name first? It sounds like they were justified in pursuing some sort of trademark action against you, since on the surface, you were using the same name and competing in the same software market.
Unlike Firebird and (now) Firefox.
I think you missed the PP's point - the issue is not whether or not you can install software, it's one of notification. Nothing forces you to disclose the fact that you installed non-vendor software on a vendor-certified system, which is a problem for the vendor.
In Soviet Russia, the mole whacks ... aw, screwit.
In Putin's Russia, you get whacked, mole or no.
Maybe now I'll feel safe when driving on the freeway!!
They sell hardware not software. I for one would be looking hard at it if it sold me more hardware.
Sure, but how much more, in real terms, are we talking about? I feel pretty safe stating that the US is the largest market for video cards (based on these numbers) but how many of those machines are non-Windows operating systems, with a need for a high-end graphics card?
Linux, inside the US, in the major market, has a very minority share of the desktop OS market. So one really has to wonder if the gains made from opening up the drivers would offset the losses.
How could they lose? Several ways:
1) No longer be able to access proprietary methods of speed enhancement and optimization from outside closed-source vendors. They're not going to touch an open-source company, as we've already seen.
2) Be open to lawsuits from same for using open-source drivers implementing the same methods. This one is notable, since even defending against an unsuccessful lawsuit could wind up eating up serious chunks of revenue. Imagine the hell that would happen if the video card vendor lost. The open-source non-company coders are perfectly safe, but the company itself could be in deep manure, to say the least.
3) Instead of having to test against a single platform with a single operating system (or even a few), they instead have to test against potentially hundreds, since there is no guarantee that any single distribution will follow the same patterns as any other. In general, they do, but there's no guarantee of it in the future.
4) Closed-source competitors immediately have the inside scoop on the capabilities of their product. Instead of at least pretending to be innovative, they will have to play catch-up, forever, in terms of features and capability. Why? As soon as a product goes out for testing, the competition can get it, with full access to source, without having to reverse-engineer a single thing.
5) Their competitors can use it against them. Remember, in marketing, "free" can also mean "cheap" and not in the good way.
I don't mean say that Open-Sourcing a product is a completely bad idea, but one must consider the real-world ramifications.