You want the video card manufacturers to open up their drivers? Give them an incentive that actually pays the bills in the largest market, cause you can't spend good will the last time I checked. Moral reasons don't pay the bills any more than any other feel-good reason.
My response is: Use what works. When MySQL fails to work for whatever situation I'm in, then I'll consider switching to something else. Probably PostgresSQL, but maybe not.
Firebird is out, regardless. Configuration is difficult, and I'll never forgive them for their pissing and moaning over branding. It's not just the project devs that have long memories.
The law allows this only if the legally-blind hunter is assisted by a sighted person. I'm guessing that the blind will now be the best buddies of anyone who wants to install a laser-scope on their rifle.
"Oh, yes, Game Warden! My best buddy here with the coke-bottle glasses nailed that sucker right in the brainpan."
When filming (say, for an independent movie) you have to consider the impact of the filmed object in question. If you're panning a shot past a bunch of storefronts to indicate locale, then you're free to do so, because none of the buildings or people are the focus of the shot. If you include a storefront in a static shot, with visible logos, or a person, who will become more recognizable due to the nature of the shot, then you start talking permission slips.
These rules do not apply to news, since the primary focus is the gathering of fact*. However, for most other purposes, you need to be careful and err on the side of caution. It's entirely too easy to get sued.
*unless you're Fox News, then the primary focus is the gathering of material for the governmental knobslob.
"Knowing when to let well enough alone" should be our Number One priority. We had business in Afghanistan - we conducted it and, from all appearances, fairly well. Well, up until Iraq, anyway. Iraq, on the other hand, has been a debacle of disastrous proportions - from corrupt contractors to war crimes that will never see real punishment (we've given the death penalty for less, against our own civilians). Iraq was far from perfect before, but now we've pushed it in exactly the direction it didn't need to go.
I say "we" but frankly, I've never supported the War in Iraq and so maybe I should just say "you".
I don't want people passing legislation. I think legislation is almost always the source of the problem.
Well, how do you propose to get rid of the old, bad laws? They don't just evaporate because the shelf-life has expired. Some do, like budgets, but there's a lot more than just budgets that need to be changed, and we do need some form of operating government, which requires some sort of budget. People don't just volunteer to get the hard stuff done.
But if you vote Green, or Libertarian, or Independent, you're sending a message that you don't trust mainstream politics.
You're only sending a message if anyone with the actual power to change things is listening. Elected officials at all levels of government have to listen to members of other political parties, but only when there are enough numbers to actually make a difference at the electoral polls.
That said, I tend to agree somewhat with the Libertarians, but, I'd like to see actual legislation passed before I die. So, I don't vote Libertarian - the timeframe to get any effective legislation passed by that political party is entirely too long; especially, when there are problems that need dealing with now.
Somewhere in there is a valid point that you have missed: it costs more to provide services for specific groups with special needs. If businesses were allowed to recoup some of those costs, then such services might be offered more freely. That has nothing to do with empathy, but more with the fact that there is only so much one can afford to do, regardless if such giving is voluntary or forced.
So, the PP was kind of a dick for the way he stated his point, but it doesn't invalidate the point itself.
There is no justifiable reason musicians or any creator of art or athelete should be making more than a few hundred grand per year.
So why a few hundred grand? That's some arbitrary number you picked out of a hat. What you seem to be saying is that no matter how much ingenuity I display or creative talent, the most I'll ever be able to earn is some arbitrarily set amount, thereby devaluing anything I do over that amount.
Were I a great artist, I could earn my yearly 200K in one month and not produce anything for the rest of the year (which might not be so bad, really), but what happens to any income I make that exceeds my set amount? Does it get arbitrarily subsumed by the same committee to be redirected to causes or needs I don't necessarily agree with?
Say, for argument's sake, the money is redirected to schooling and let's say, for the sake of argument, I am a believer in zero-population growth. Or in not having kids, ever, for whatever reason. Somewhere in there lies a conflict of interest. My money, which I earned, and you took under some system of wealth re-distribution, is being used for a cause I do not support.
You can argue for limiting the earning capacity of any sector all you want, but I'm guessing that what you're really mad about is that you don't make as much as you feel you should, whether you deserve it or not, or that you believe we should live under some wealth-redistribution system, which has already been proven not to work (Soviet Union, anyone)?
I guess pretty soon, we'll have to start bussing stars around to get an equal mix of heavy and light stars. Otherwise, the galactic central cores gonna be all fat, old stars griping about how they don't get cosmic incidents like they used to in the old days and all these young stars with their loud music and the dancing and the glavin. oh, hey!
That would be the first time anyone has stated that publicly and clearly, then. I really wish someone official would make that absolutely clear. Instead, they keep pushing V3 and nary a word about whether or not V2 remains viable for new stuff released after V3 becomes official.
I've thought about that, but it all boils down to: the more things change, the more things stay the same.
The advantage of moving to a foreign country is context. You live somewhere else, you can be someone else. You practically have no choice.
Would I bail - sure. I'm only going to live another 40-50 years. Why not enjoy it someplace where I'm discovering new things daily, rather than stuck here where I'm pretty sure of my surroundings.
Why do I stay - same as everyone else. Money. Inertia.
I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it's a decent story anyway.
IBM is negotiating with Sun regarding a patent of some sort (which one doesn't matter). Sun goes through this whole dog-and-pony about exactly where Sun's patent comes into play and how much it's going to cost IBM.
Long silence.
An IBM lawyer clears his throat and says they're going to go back to Armonk and dig through their thousands of patents and see just which ones Sun has violated since the company started.
IBM gets the patent license for free.
Like I said, no idea if it's true or not, but it's illustrative of the power of IBM and their patent catalog.
No, but true freedom is without restriction. Freedom with restriction is not freedom, in the true sense of the word. However, the greater the freedom, the greater the consequences.The two licenses have entirely different goals and outcomes. BSD gives the code with no restrictions on further distribution, but accepts as a consequence that it may eventually reach a point where it can be taken, modified, and locked away. GPL requires that one pass on the same rights that one received the code under, but with lesser consequences in that the source must be made available at some point. BSD is more free than GPL. End of story.
GPL may be considered to be more "ethical", insofar as the propagation of knowledge is concerned. One may re-examine the code after a few generations of distribution and gain more knowledge about the nature of the problem the software was intended to solve. With BSD, it is entirely possible for such knowledge to be stopped within one generation of distribution.
As a matter of practical reality, the same can occur with GPL, if the software enters into a situation where it is used to provide a service to others, where there is no need for examination beyond the result. In that case, the effects of both license are exactly the same, so long as the source for the software itself is kept within the closed domain.
Maybe it's time to stop blaming the victim and start blaming the perpetrators. It's real easy to point fingers at Microsoft, but let's face it, the consequences of a radical redesign of the core software would be too great to handle in one generation. If the shoe were on the other foot and you had to redesign, rewrite, recompile and distribute Linux from scratch and do the same for all the application software, while maintaing some degree of backward compatibility, how long would it take? What would be the cost?
We make mistakes and decisions made a long time ago can affect systems for years to come. You're casting all the blame at Microsoft's feet and none at the ones who take advantage to wrong ends.
Your solution essentially locks everything down to a read-only state. Tell me, how do you serve up that website if the machine doing the serving is read-only? Does it just appear on the machine by magic?
I doubt you'll see any real innovation, since software engineering will be controlled by whomever has the most money to pass laws giving real teeth to infringements upon someone's software domain.
A different (more realistic) side effect: a lot of Open/Libre code is written as an adjunct to paid programmer's work (ie., as a hobby). Get rid of patents, copyrights, etc., the paid work becomes worthless and along with it, programmers. Who then have to find other work which will most likely not afford them the luxury of time or money to write the Open/Libre code.
What does it take to enact legislation in this country? Being right doesn't matter unless you have a REALLY LOUD VOICE or money.
It's not so much being defeatist as it is not even getting a chance to step up to the plate. I wouldn't so much call it acceptance as a sure and certain knowledge that there is no way to change the system, since the foxes control the henhouse and there's no way out unless you have enough money.
All things considered, I'd worry more about my neighbors than the local constabulary, in most cases.
It's pretty well known what sets off the local police and fairly easy to avoid those actions. There are going to be the extreme cases where other factors arise (racism, boredom, what have you...), but generally speaking, most police really have enough on their plate and you have to work to get their attention.
OTOH, there's no predicting the reaction of the well-meaning, but not-clued-in neighbor.
Slashdot Mirror
You want the video card manufacturers to open up their drivers? Give them an incentive that actually pays the bills in the largest market, cause you can't spend good will the last time I checked. Moral reasons don't pay the bills any more than any other feel-good reason.
My response is: Use what works. When MySQL fails to work for whatever situation I'm in, then I'll consider switching to something else. Probably PostgresSQL, but maybe not.
Firebird is out, regardless. Configuration is difficult, and I'll never forgive them for their pissing and moaning over branding. It's not just the project devs that have long memories.
The law allows this only if the legally-blind hunter is assisted by a sighted person. I'm guessing that the blind will now be the best buddies of anyone who wants to install a laser-scope on their rifle.
"Oh, yes, Game Warden! My best buddy here with the coke-bottle glasses nailed that sucker right in the brainpan."
When filming (say, for an independent movie) you have to consider the impact of the filmed object in question. If you're panning a shot past a bunch of storefronts to indicate locale, then you're free to do so, because none of the buildings or people are the focus of the shot. If you include a storefront in a static shot, with visible logos, or a person, who will become more recognizable due to the nature of the shot, then you start talking permission slips.
These rules do not apply to news, since the primary focus is the gathering of fact*. However, for most other purposes, you need to be careful and err on the side of caution. It's entirely too easy to get sued.
*unless you're Fox News, then the primary focus is the gathering of material for the governmental knobslob.
All comments about monopolies, anti-trust, etc. aside, why would Bill Gates bother? He's got more influence where he is now.
Millions of IT geeks exclaim "Who? Oh ... a political appointee? And his qualifications are exactly what, again?"
Nation Building should be our NUMBER ONE priority
"Knowing when to let well enough alone" should be our Number One priority. We had business in Afghanistan - we conducted it and, from all appearances, fairly well. Well, up until Iraq, anyway. Iraq, on the other hand, has been a debacle of disastrous proportions - from corrupt contractors to war crimes that will never see real punishment (we've given the death penalty for less, against our own civilians). Iraq was far from perfect before, but now we've pushed it in exactly the direction it didn't need to go.
I say "we" but frankly, I've never supported the War in Iraq and so maybe I should just say "you".
I don't want people passing legislation. I think legislation is almost always the source of the problem.
Well, how do you propose to get rid of the old, bad laws? They don't just evaporate because the shelf-life has expired. Some do, like budgets, but there's a lot more than just budgets that need to be changed, and we do need some form of operating government, which requires some sort of budget. People don't just volunteer to get the hard stuff done.
But if you vote Green, or Libertarian, or Independent, you're sending a message that you don't trust mainstream politics.
You're only sending a message if anyone with the actual power to change things is listening. Elected officials at all levels of government have to listen to members of other political parties, but only when there are enough numbers to actually make a difference at the electoral polls.
That said, I tend to agree somewhat with the Libertarians, but, I'd like to see actual legislation passed before I die. So, I don't vote Libertarian - the timeframe to get any effective legislation passed by that political party is entirely too long; especially, when there are problems that need dealing with now.
Somewhere in there is a valid point that you have missed: it costs more to provide services for specific groups with special needs. If businesses were allowed to recoup some of those costs, then such services might be offered more freely. That has nothing to do with empathy, but more with the fact that there is only so much one can afford to do, regardless if such giving is voluntary or forced.
So, the PP was kind of a dick for the way he stated his point, but it doesn't invalidate the point itself.
just look at Emacs.
There is no justifiable reason musicians or any creator of art or athelete should be making more than a few hundred grand per year.
So why a few hundred grand? That's some arbitrary number you picked out of a hat. What you seem to be saying is that no matter how much ingenuity I display or creative talent, the most I'll ever be able to earn is some arbitrarily set amount, thereby devaluing anything I do over that amount.
Were I a great artist, I could earn my yearly 200K in one month and not produce anything for the rest of the year (which might not be so bad, really), but what happens to any income I make that exceeds my set amount? Does it get arbitrarily subsumed by the same committee to be redirected to causes or needs I don't necessarily agree with?
Say, for argument's sake, the money is redirected to schooling and let's say, for the sake of argument, I am a believer in zero-population growth. Or in not having kids, ever, for whatever reason. Somewhere in there lies a conflict of interest. My money, which I earned, and you took under some system of wealth re-distribution, is being used for a cause I do not support.
You can argue for limiting the earning capacity of any sector all you want, but I'm guessing that what you're really mad about is that you don't make as much as you feel you should, whether you deserve it or not, or that you believe we should live under some wealth-redistribution system, which has already been proven not to work (Soviet Union, anyone)?
Get over your sour grapes.
I guess pretty soon, we'll have to start bussing stars around to get an equal mix of heavy and light stars. Otherwise, the galactic central cores gonna be all fat, old stars griping about how they don't get cosmic incidents like they used to in the old days and all these young stars with their loud music and the dancing and the glavin. oh, hey!
Then, if one has to surrender a drive for discovery, point out that deleted files could have been created and deleted by the prior owner of the drive.
So, do you think that lying to the court is an acceptable defense, then?
Man, what a total lack of personal honor.
So at what point does the expression of a "different perspective" become an incitement to violence or intimidation?
...
The moment "I think" becomes "you should" and includes some sort of call to action instead of philosophy without action
GPL V3 DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY REPLACE GPL V2.
That would be the first time anyone has stated that publicly and clearly, then. I really wish someone official would make that absolutely clear. Instead, they keep pushing V3 and nary a word about whether or not V2 remains viable for new stuff released after V3 becomes official.
I've thought about that, but it all boils down to: the more things change, the more things stay the same.
The advantage of moving to a foreign country is context. You live somewhere else, you can be someone else. You practically have no choice.
Would I bail - sure. I'm only going to live another 40-50 years. Why not enjoy it someplace where I'm discovering new things daily, rather than stuck here where I'm pretty sure of my surroundings.
Why do I stay - same as everyone else. Money. Inertia.
I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it's a decent story anyway.
IBM is negotiating with Sun regarding a patent of some sort (which one doesn't matter). Sun goes through this whole dog-and-pony about exactly where Sun's patent comes into play and how much it's going to cost IBM.
Long silence.
An IBM lawyer clears his throat and says they're going to go back to Armonk and dig through their thousands of patents and see just which ones Sun has violated since the company started.
IBM gets the patent license for free.
Like I said, no idea if it's true or not, but it's illustrative of the power of IBM and their patent catalog.
Your version of freedom seems to be anarchy.
No, but true freedom is without restriction. Freedom with restriction is not freedom, in the true sense of the word. However, the greater the freedom, the greater the consequences.The two licenses have entirely different goals and outcomes. BSD gives the code with no restrictions on further distribution, but accepts as a consequence that it may eventually reach a point where it can be taken, modified, and locked away. GPL requires that one pass on the same rights that one received the code under, but with lesser consequences in that the source must be made available at some point. BSD is more free than GPL. End of story.
GPL may be considered to be more "ethical", insofar as the propagation of knowledge is concerned. One may re-examine the code after a few generations of distribution and gain more knowledge about the nature of the problem the software was intended to solve. With BSD, it is entirely possible for such knowledge to be stopped within one generation of distribution.
As a matter of practical reality, the same can occur with GPL, if the software enters into a situation where it is used to provide a service to others, where there is no need for examination beyond the result. In that case, the effects of both license are exactly the same, so long as the source for the software itself is kept within the closed domain.
Maybe it's time to stop blaming the victim and start blaming the perpetrators. It's real easy to point fingers at Microsoft, but let's face it, the consequences of a radical redesign of the core software would be too great to handle in one generation. If the shoe were on the other foot and you had to redesign, rewrite, recompile and distribute Linux from scratch and do the same for all the application software, while maintaing some degree of backward compatibility, how long would it take? What would be the cost?
We make mistakes and decisions made a long time ago can affect systems for years to come. You're casting all the blame at Microsoft's feet and none at the ones who take advantage to wrong ends.
Your solution essentially locks everything down to a read-only state. Tell me, how do you serve up that website if the machine doing the serving is read-only? Does it just appear on the machine by magic?
I doubt you'll see any real innovation, since software engineering will be controlled by whomever has the most money to pass laws giving real teeth to infringements upon someone's software domain.
A different (more realistic) side effect: a lot of Open/Libre code is written as an adjunct to paid programmer's work (ie., as a hobby). Get rid of patents, copyrights, etc., the paid work becomes worthless and along with it, programmers. Who then have to find other work which will most likely not afford them the luxury of time or money to write the Open/Libre code.
I guess you don't read the news, then.
What does it take to enact legislation in this country? Being right doesn't matter unless you have a REALLY LOUD VOICE or money.
It's not so much being defeatist as it is not even getting a chance to step up to the plate. I wouldn't so much call it acceptance as a sure and certain knowledge that there is no way to change the system, since the foxes control the henhouse and there's no way out unless you have enough money.
On the other hand, where would you go?!?
because someone you need to write/talk to has it.
Well, when everyone magically switches over to free and open, you can join in. Until then, I guess we'll have to do without ya.
All things considered, I'd worry more about my neighbors than the local constabulary, in most cases.
...), but generally speaking, most police really have enough on their plate and you have to work to get their attention.
It's pretty well known what sets off the local police and fairly easy to avoid those actions. There are going to be the extreme cases where other factors arise (racism, boredom, what have you
OTOH, there's no predicting the reaction of the well-meaning, but not-clued-in neighbor.
That's my perspective, anyway.
The workaround is dirt simple - modify Adblock to download the ads, but not present them. You could trap the cookies in the same way.