This is a great idea that I can guaruntee will make money.
Personally, I expect to see one of these im my home. There have always been USB hubs, then there have been the wireless adapters (labelled for printers and such), but never a wireless hub (to my knowledge). We have a couple digital cameras, a scanner, an external hard drive, and a mouse hooked up through USB. All but the mouse go through a USB 2.0 hub. When we move the laptop, we usually just disconnect the hub. now, it will be possible to just... well... go!
That's fair enough - but if you want to defend Linux's use of FAT you'll need a better argument than something that nit-picks about the wording. How about the fact that the FAT spec was released under MS's "open source" initiative a few years ago - there were probebly terms and conditions with that release which might make Linux's position safe (can't remember).
Why do you say that? Taking the same design ideas and retyping the source code hardly makes it a different operating system, now does it? Why do you think Stallman hates patents but loves copyright? Because he can only type, not create.
There's a massive amount of energy in a car collision, more than most people would expect given how much we take moving a tonne or two of steel from one place to another daily.
Well, I reakon there's about 100-200kJ when town driving, going up to 500-1000kJ on the freeway (or motorway as we call them in the UK). 1000kJ will power a 100 watt light bulb for about 3 hours.
What is really impressive is the power levels. If you can accelerate to 1000kJ in 10 seconds you're averaging 100kW of mechanical output power from your engine. And if it takes 50ms for your vehicle to decelerate when you then hit a huge block of granite, your vehicle's kinetic energy is being converted to other forms of energy at a rate of 20 megawatts, enough to power a village (for 50ms). If you forgot to wear your seatbelt, the dashboard may absorb the kinetic energy in your body (about 50-100kJ) in 5ms, which is once again 10-20 megawatts. Your body wasn't designed to transfer mechanical energy at this rate so...
Not getting the point...let me simplify it for you. The "market" for GPL software is just as free as for proprietary software.
I recommend you begin reading comments before you reply to them. I indicated that the GPL inhibited the free market process when users are forced via lock-in (eg comatibility requirements) to incorporate GPL code which forces their proprietary code to be released under GPL too. It's called a viral license and it's anti-competitive. Don't worry, you'll understand it one day when you can't get a software job that pays and RMS controls everything that happens in your computer.
The article poster believes "free market" is also a funny one, not because a free market cannot theoretically exist, but because they don't exist for various reasons.
So you now claim the submitter knew that the term "free market" is not an oxymoron. This differs from your earlier explaination. Would you like more time to get your story straight?
How can a story be off-topic?
It was submitted under the category of science, yet contains the submitter's worthless political opinion.
Perhaps you need to go back and read the dictionary some more.
The story was neither ironic, sarcastic nor witty.
Rejecting a story because you don't agree with the political point of view of the poster is censorship
Linux is a hotbed for development of new OS ideas-- All copied from *BSD
KDE contains tons of unique and original features-- Just copies the features (and bugs) from Windows GUI
all of the most innovative and interesting networking and security tools are OSS-- Actual algorithms from research papers that are public domain, not GPL
All of the design ideas in GPL software are copied from commercial software anyway, so there's no point. That's why RMS supports software copyrights but rejects software patents: only his code is his own; his algorithms and ideas are copied from other people.
In fact, unoriginality is a common trait among socialists. They think creativity (like wealth) drop from the sky in fixed amounts and should be distributed in a controlled manner. In fact both of these things are created by people and the key is to encourage people to keep creating them. By outselling the commercial Unices from which it stole all its ideas, GNU/Linux is doing a good job at stamping out that creativity.
Well, you are free to write your own implementation of that code "required for compatibility" making yourself free of the GPL.
Ever head of lock-in? One in three articles on Slashdot criticises MS for devious practices that result in lock-in. Yet you imagine that GNU could never do the same thing. Here's a free clue: encouraging lock-in is their raison d'etre!
You are also free to buy a non-GPL license from the FSF
Wrong.
Oh wait, I get it, a free market is only "free" depending on the point of view of the observer. Sounds pretty oxymoronic to me.
The term "free market" has a certain definition and I have explained why the market for GPL software is not a free market. If you didn't understand my explanation you should think harder (but be careful not to burst your brain) instead of whining "that's just your opinion i'm not listening la la la". And please look up the word oxymoron in a dictionary.
And since when should the editors censor articles just because of a political, albeit satirical (*woosh*), comment?
The story was both off-topic and inflammatory. But not funny or satirical (look up the word satire in a dictionary). As such it would be due for moderation to -1 and most readers choose not to read at that level. The story is also technically incorrect about when the list was published, and since the list was really published over 6 months ago, hardly qualifies as "news". Furthermore, Slashdot rejects submissions frequently and without giving reasons; if in your opinion this is censorship then it happens all the time at Slashdot already.
If it's a joke then I can't find the punchline. Either the words "free" and "market" are oxymoronic when juxtaposed or they aren't. It merely states the political opinion of the submitter and as such in my opinion the story should not have been accepted (and yet I suspect that's why it got accepted).
For your information, the term "free market" refers to a market in which pairs of individuals are free to conduct transactions at whichever price they choose.
For example, the software market is a free market because I can offer you a licence to use my software for a price upon which we agree.
By contrast, if for compatibility reasons I am forced to use GPL code in my software I lose my freedom to sell it to you for a price acceptable to us both because you can get it for free, and I lose my freedom to agree terms with the author becuse he has probably signed it over to the socialist FSF organisation. The FSF defines "free" as "free from anything that goes against Stallman's communist agenda".
Why is the parent modded "Troll"? Moderators should not do this simply because they disagree with the comment, or because it disagrees with their personal position. The parent does not attempt to incite a flame war and should not be modded as it has been.
Well good thing we can ignore global warming, thermonuclear war and
eating too much fast-food.
The people who say we're screwed because of these things are not practising science. They are lobbyists. You should check their vested interests before believing them.
Atomic bombs don't "fall out of a tree" somewhere. Nothing about it
says that it would have "eventaully" been created.
They would have been. Non-scientific methods still discover things, just slower (via an evolution-like process). Atom bombs aren't that complicated - once somebody discovered slow-burning nuclear reactions by accident (a virtual inevitability) somebody would have thought "I wonder if I can speed this up by purifying the ingredients". No understanding of the atom required.
Seriously, you need [sic] review Bush and the role religion played in
getting him elected.
You need to compare Bush with other powerful leaders, both past and present. You and I would both like less religion involved in US politics, but trust me it's been worse in other places and at other times... much worse!!!one
In fact science doesn't say "Hey man, you're 100% screwed!". Science just tries to measure the world around it - not to decide anyone's fate.
For example, science isn't to blame for the atom bomb, that would have been invented by some means or other eventually (unless religious wars killed everyone first). Science just meant America invented it first (because they did the best science). Now everyone hates America even though they're the most benign world power in human history, mostly because they value rationalism and capitalism above religion or quasi-religious politics.
As for religion, it usually accomodates scientific discoveries after opposing them for about 50-100 years. The ID debarcle is unusual and serves as a warning to society that whilst we stive to accomodate a wide range of ideas, we must still be willing to detect and reject bullshit when it lands on our plate.
...was an extrememly hot babe. Hotter than any babe that has existed since. Then a genetic abberation caused geeks to appear and people became less hot. Except for Carmen Electra.
So the problem with the Turing test for intelligence is that it relies on the human observer's rational judgement, which can be clouded by experimental bias, prejudice etc. A more reliable test would use the emotions of the observer since these are more predictable (ask any behavioural psychologist). As we have learned from the invention of teh Internets, the easist emotion to invoke via plain text communication is pure, flaming rage.
Therefore the CaptainFork test for successful AI is one that can troll effectively. Hence, in a purely electronic environment, like Slashdot, the trolling comments are the only ones that irrefutably demonstrate intelligence.
and I don't mean just say "wikipedia"; I mean find out who contributed the article and ask them where they got the bit about "economic corporatism" from. Until you do that, the indented part of your article has no more credibility than any other slashdot comment (and judging by the moderation on this topic your "5, Informative" actully reduces your credibility).
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I expect to see one of these im my home. There have always been USB hubs, then there have been the wireless adapters (labelled for printers and such), but never a wireless hub (to my knowledge). We have a couple digital cameras, a scanner, an external hard drive, and a mouse hooked up through USB. All but the mouse go through a USB 2.0 hub. When we move the laptop, we usually just disconnect the hub. now, it will be possible to just... well... go!
Fnaaarrr!
Classic!
Orion's dagger my a$$
We are the aliens We are the aliens No time for earthlings Cos we are the aliens Of the world
Disgusting!
That's fair enough - but if you want to defend Linux's use of FAT you'll need a better argument than something that nit-picks about the wording. How about the fact that the FAT spec was released under MS's "open source" initiative a few years ago - there were probebly terms and conditions with that release which might make Linux's position safe (can't remember).
Would you defend an infrigement case on a no-win-no-fee basis based on the above rationale? Didn't think so.
Television! The drug of the nation! Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation!
Why do you say that? Taking the same design ideas and retyping the source code hardly makes it a different operating system, now does it? Why do you think Stallman hates patents but loves copyright? Because he can only type, not create.
Well, I reakon there's about 100-200kJ when town driving, going up to 500-1000kJ on the freeway (or motorway as we call them in the UK). 1000kJ will power a 100 watt light bulb for about 3 hours.
What is really impressive is the power levels. If you can accelerate to 1000kJ in 10 seconds you're averaging 100kW of mechanical output power from your engine. And if it takes 50ms for your vehicle to decelerate when you then hit a huge block of granite, your vehicle's kinetic energy is being converted to other forms of energy at a rate of 20 megawatts, enough to power a village (for 50ms). If you forgot to wear your seatbelt, the dashboard may absorb the kinetic energy in your body (about 50-100kJ) in 5ms, which is once again 10-20 megawatts. Your body wasn't designed to transfer mechanical energy at this rate so...
I agree. It would be more accurate to say the post was somewhat lacking in substance.
I recommend you begin reading comments before you reply to them. I indicated that the GPL inhibited the free market process when users are forced via lock-in (eg comatibility requirements) to incorporate GPL code which forces their proprietary code to be released under GPL too. It's called a viral license and it's anti-competitive. Don't worry, you'll understand it one day when you can't get a software job that pays and RMS controls everything that happens in your computer.
The article poster believes "free market" is also a funny one, not because a free market cannot theoretically exist, but because they don't exist for various reasons.
So you now claim the submitter knew that the term "free market" is not an oxymoron. This differs from your earlier explaination. Would you like more time to get your story straight?
How can a story be off-topic?
It was submitted under the category of science, yet contains the submitter's worthless political opinion.
Perhaps you need to go back and read the dictionary some more.
The story was neither ironic, sarcastic nor witty.
Rejecting a story because you don't agree with the political point of view of the poster is censorship
Look up the word "censorship" in a dictionary.
KDE contains tons of unique and original features -- Just copies the features (and bugs) from Windows GUI
all of the most innovative and interesting networking and security tools are OSS -- Actual algorithms from research papers that are public domain, not GPL
In fact, unoriginality is a common trait among socialists. They think creativity (like wealth) drop from the sky in fixed amounts and should be distributed in a controlled manner. In fact both of these things are created by people and the key is to encourage people to keep creating them. By outselling the commercial Unices from which it stole all its ideas, GNU/Linux is doing a good job at stamping out that creativity.
Ever head of lock-in? One in three articles on Slashdot criticises MS for devious practices that result in lock-in. Yet you imagine that GNU could never do the same thing. Here's a free clue: encouraging lock-in is their raison d'etre!
You are also free to buy a non-GPL license from the FSF
Wrong.
Oh wait, I get it, a free market is only "free" depending on the point of view of the observer. Sounds pretty oxymoronic to me.
The term "free market" has a certain definition and I have explained why the market for GPL software is not a free market. If you didn't understand my explanation you should think harder (but be careful not to burst your brain) instead of whining "that's just your opinion i'm not listening la la la". And please look up the word oxymoron in a dictionary.
And since when should the editors censor articles just because of a political, albeit satirical (*woosh*), comment?
The story was both off-topic and inflammatory. But not funny or satirical (look up the word satire in a dictionary). As such it would be due for moderation to -1 and most readers choose not to read at that level. The story is also technically incorrect about when the list was published, and since the list was really published over 6 months ago, hardly qualifies as "news". Furthermore, Slashdot rejects submissions frequently and without giving reasons; if in your opinion this is censorship then it happens all the time at Slashdot already.
It wouldn't assist Mr Stallman in his unceasing efforts to bend reality by playing with the semanics of the word. "Free as in freedom" my ass.
For your information, the term "free market" refers to a market in which pairs of individuals are free to conduct transactions at whichever price they choose.
For example, the software market is a free market because I can offer you a licence to use my software for a price upon which we agree.
By contrast, if for compatibility reasons I am forced to use GPL code in my software I lose my freedom to sell it to you for a price acceptable to us both because you can get it for free, and I lose my freedom to agree terms with the author becuse he has probably signed it over to the socialist FSF organisation. The FSF defines "free" as "free from anything that goes against Stallman's communist agenda".
Why is the parent modded "Troll"? Moderators should not do this simply because they disagree with the comment, or because it disagrees with their personal position. The parent does not attempt to incite a flame war and should not be modded as it has been.
The people who say we're screwed because of these things are not practising science. They are lobbyists. You should check their vested interests before believing them.
Atomic bombs don't "fall out of a tree" somewhere. Nothing about it says that it would have "eventaully" been created.
They would have been. Non-scientific methods still discover things, just slower (via an evolution-like process). Atom bombs aren't that complicated - once somebody discovered slow-burning nuclear reactions by accident (a virtual inevitability) somebody would have thought "I wonder if I can speed this up by purifying the ingredients". No understanding of the atom required.
Seriously, you need [sic] review Bush and the role religion played in getting him elected.
You need to compare Bush with other powerful leaders, both past and present. You and I would both like less religion involved in US politics, but trust me it's been worse in other places and at other times... much worse!!!one
For example, science isn't to blame for the atom bomb, that would have been invented by some means or other eventually (unless religious wars killed everyone first). Science just meant America invented it first (because they did the best science). Now everyone hates America even though they're the most benign world power in human history, mostly because they value rationalism and capitalism above religion or quasi-religious politics.
As for religion, it usually accomodates scientific discoveries after opposing them for about 50-100 years. The ID debarcle is unusual and serves as a warning to society that whilst we stive to accomodate a wide range of ideas, we must still be willing to detect and reject bullshit when it lands on our plate.
...was an extrememly hot babe. Hotter than any babe that has existed since. Then a genetic abberation caused geeks to appear and people became less hot. Except for Carmen Electra.
Therefore the CaptainFork test for successful AI is one that can troll effectively. Hence, in a purely electronic environment, like Slashdot, the trolling comments are the only ones that irrefutably demonstrate intelligence.
and I don't mean just say "wikipedia"; I mean find out who contributed the article and ask them where they got the bit about "economic corporatism" from. Until you do that, the indented part of your article has no more credibility than any other slashdot comment (and judging by the moderation on this topic your "5, Informative" actully reduces your credibility).
He may now be able to moderate other people's comments because of this.