Hahaha. Yeah, they tried to "frame" him. No, you'd find "bumbling" like this in any murder trial of this scope. The simple fact is he paid for enough lawyer time that they found all this stuff, and stupid jurors don't understand how to reason and apply critical thinking to a problem.
There, that's clearer and I at least know what you're saying now. It's a fundamentally weak argument, though. This "social contract" is a rational construct I agree with in some areas. For example, government regulation of monopolies (real ones - oil, power, water, electricity, etc... not make believe ones like Microsoft, Google, Apple, whoever the competitors whine about). We, the people, will tear them asunder if they put undue hardship on us - the government protects them from that, and in return they have basic regulations concerning antitrust, price-fixing, etc...
I'm surprised, however, you'd bring it up in this context. Where does it end? The government protects my property rights, too, does that mean I have to let some asshole post a nazi sign in my front yard? Or that I can't kick someone out of my house for saying something I disagree with? Can an anti-gun lobbying group not prohibit firearms on their property because of the second amendment? The fact that the government provides basic protections doesn't give them the right to pick and choose which constitutional protections they enforce on private individuals and companies.
In other words, nobody buys your argument. It's not even a slippery slope, it's a straight fall to fascism. The government protects your shit, so you must do as it says. It's fun to be all hip and "anti-corporate", but the simple, undeniable truth is that free speech is guarantee of the government to the people, not something the government enforces on private entities.
Ayn? Never even read it. Your "point" is essentially indefensible either way. Also, nonsensical. I'm not really sure what you think "government precedes property rights" [sic] means, but it means absolutely nothing. "government" doesn't precede anything.
Youtube or any other entity can dictate their terms of service. The only thing the constitution is the government can't censor the people of the United States. These are facts, not Rand-esque ramblings, you fucking half-wit.
No, seriously. "government precedes property rights" - what the fuck does that mean? I can barely parse the sentence. Are you literally a retarded person?
Oooh, can I be a lolly-minded pollyanna too? Can I get teary eyed at the lofty concept of "Freedom of Speech!". Is there any way I can double capitalize it to emphasisize how important it is?! I'm frantic here!
Jesus (Hey-soos) Christ (Christo). First, convicts lose some rights, whichever ones we want them to. Second, Youtube is a private company and can "censor" whatever the fuck they want.
You can have shared address space with multiple processes.
Yeah, that always works so seamlessly and easily, too. The fact is that for most tasks which require multiple paths of execution, threads are are still better for the majority of [these] computing tasks, as the grandparent mentions.
This isn't a sea shift, it's just an instance of process isolation being more beneficial in this case than the better efficiency of threaded applications.
Without copyright law, the GPL becomes meaningless. Those "big meanie software houses" can now download Linux and other GNU tools, make a whole bunch of changes, and tell the community to piss off. I mean, after all, they just copied some bits off the internet, right?
And you wouldn't have access to the proprietary software house's code. They just wouldn't give it to you. Instead of relying on copyright protections (which nobody does now anyway for proprietary software source code) they'd just lock it up tighter than a duck's ass. You would never get the source code to MSLinux.
The GPL absolutely requires copyright to work at its intended hippy-ass purpose.
You people are such fucking blatant hypocrites it just makes my ass itch.
Anytime someone copies your precious GPL software and uses it in a commercial product without following those asinine, byzantine GNU rules, you throw a little hissy fit. Information wants to be free, assholes, so I think MS should just appopriate the Linux codebase, embrase it, extend it, then extinguish it. I mean, by copying the Linux source bits they didn't steal anything, you can just make another copy, right assholes?
The harder you fight, the closer you are to driving a stake through the entire concept of the GPL and other similar shitty little commie licenses which put requirements on modifications.
I'm sorry, did you just make the hilarious mistake of using a legal definition of theft (in English law no less) to somehow demonstrate that you think it's OK to infringe on copyright? That's really cutesie and all, but the simple fact is that making available copyrighted material without right of copyright or downloading copyrighted materials is a crime. I'm too lazy to look it up, but there's a _whole_ lot of codes defining that.
In general - your point is moot. It's illegal. Most people with any kind of rational thinking skill think it should be illegal (though not to the extent it is currently, that's just RIAA/MPAA buying laws).
Define "suck". It sucks as an EDA platform and for batch computing, a domain where Linux is excellent. I wouldn't use it for hosting traditionally UNIX-ish services based on LAMP or similar, not that it would really suck as such. It sucks as a free hosting platform because, well, it isn't free and e.g. SQL Server 2008 is expensive.
I would use it as an enterprise application hosting platform. I would use it for a desktop. There are lots of areas where it doesn't suck. You can ignore the industry and stick your head in the sand and claim it sucks all you want, but only fellow dinosaurs are listening.
Because this is slashdot. It's hilarious reading these posts, it's moron after moron jumping in with ridiculous slams on MS (sorry... "M$") based on some incident whose facts they are blithely unaware. It's almost kind of sad how stupid they all look.
Why did the upgrade fail, I guess is what an intelligent person would ask. You haven't asked that. You've hilariously assumed it's.NET or Microsoft's fault.
As a matter of like for like, I'm going to assume it was because some Linux dweeb walked in and tripped over a network cable. Ergo, I now claim Linux dweebs are clumbsy oafs who should be banned from computer rooms.
This is called begging the question. You based your entire rant on this baseless, meaningless statement and treated it as a fact. It's not a fact. You can't prove it as a fact.
The rest of your post is just authoritative sounding posturing, you know it and I know it.
Do you have any solid facts about Windows failure rates in mission critical environments? Do you have any evidence this was caused by a.NET or Windows issue? Do you have any facts at all?
I can provide anectdotal evidence too, I work at one of the world's largest manufacturing companies and we have large Windows depenendencies on our floors. Never really been an issue.
In the end you're just another "M$ Windoze is the suxxor" poster.
Most of you are morons. Let me get this straight. TradElect is.NET based. TradElect failed. Ergo, Windo$e sucks, M$ sucks. and.N$T sucks, etc... You'd think you were technically illiterate morons or something who think that all or even most system failures are caused by the platform or programming language.
Let me explain computers to you. See, the developer uses a set of platforms, languages, integration components, etc.. to deliver his functionality to the end user. A failure at any level can cause the application to fail. It could be application logic, network issues, hardware issues, integration with third party systems, a dipship systems administrator, etc...
And yet the 90-105 IQ SlashDweeb set comes out in numbers with no data and says "lolz Windoze!.NET haha!". Crikey.
What utter bullshit. There are lots of mission critical business systems running on Windows and.NET. You just don't know what you're talking about, that's all.
One incident with unknown causes (I didn't see anything in the article about.NET or even Windows) used as a laughable excuse to "rock on" windows is a little silly.
They should teach it, but it should be in a "world religions" class and not taught as science as it's just a bunch of stories made by the ancients to explain things they didn't understand. So teach it in a class about make believe things people in the olden days believed.
The Bible, like it or not, has had a huge impact on the world and shouldn't be ignored. Really if you're not at least passingly familiar with the bible you're uneducated. So schools shouldn't just skip it altogether, they should teach it as a piece of literature, along with the Koran, the writings of Marx and Lenin, and other shit that has had a huge impact (good or bad) on history.
They are not required. Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement charges. So if you make a copy and they sue you, you can say (and prove) it was fair use. They are under no obligation to facilitate (via technical means) this copying. This is why DRM is perfectly fine in terms of the law. DMCA is the problem, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. It should be perfectly legal to crack DRM or any other technical protection.
Well, there goes my ability to watch any reruns of Seinfeld... starring a Microsoft shill & a racist.
You, sir, are a moron. I strongly suggest you go look up the word "shill" - it doesn't mean what you think it means. As for a "racist" - who cares. The guy made some idiotic comments in a night club. Wait, I know, it's a good opportunity for you to expound on how much of an anti-racist you are and at the same time mention racism and Microsoft in the same sentence. Double dweeb win!
The point being that the provider is under absolutely no mandate to facilitate or even allow that copying. And often allowing it is not in their best interests because people like free shit and it costs you nothing to distribute the content you don't own. So I have nothing against you making backup copies, but the fact is by "backup copies" most people mean (wink wink) free shit. Ergo, we have DRM which is a necessary evil.
You keep saying Microsoft "bought" this standard, but strangely there's no evidence of this except for a few isolated incidents. Ergo, your whole point is moot.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha. Yeah, they tried to "frame" him. No, you'd find "bumbling" like this in any murder trial of this scope. The simple fact is he paid for enough lawyer time that they found all this stuff, and stupid jurors don't understand how to reason and apply critical thinking to a problem.
Because a microchip requires no context to tell you exactly what it is. A 'chip' has all kinds of meanings.
There, that's clearer and I at least know what you're saying now. It's a fundamentally weak argument, though. This "social contract" is a rational construct I agree with in some areas. For example, government regulation of monopolies (real ones - oil, power, water, electricity, etc... not make believe ones like Microsoft, Google, Apple, whoever the competitors whine about). We, the people, will tear them asunder if they put undue hardship on us - the government protects them from that, and in return they have basic regulations concerning antitrust, price-fixing, etc...
I'm surprised, however, you'd bring it up in this context. Where does it end? The government protects my property rights, too, does that mean I have to let some asshole post a nazi sign in my front yard? Or that I can't kick someone out of my house for saying something I disagree with? Can an anti-gun lobbying group not prohibit firearms on their property because of the second amendment? The fact that the government provides basic protections doesn't give them the right to pick and choose which constitutional protections they enforce on private individuals and companies.
In other words, nobody buys your argument. It's not even a slippery slope, it's a straight fall to fascism. The government protects your shit, so you must do as it says. It's fun to be all hip and "anti-corporate", but the simple, undeniable truth is that free speech is guarantee of the government to the people, not something the government enforces on private entities.
Ayn? Never even read it. Your "point" is essentially indefensible either way. Also, nonsensical. I'm not really sure what you think "government precedes property rights" [sic] means, but it means absolutely nothing. "government" doesn't precede anything.
Youtube or any other entity can dictate their terms of service. The only thing the constitution is the government can't censor the people of the United States. These are facts, not Rand-esque ramblings, you fucking half-wit.
No, seriously. "government precedes property rights" - what the fuck does that mean? I can barely parse the sentence. Are you literally a retarded person?
How about that other crazy right for a private entity (Youtube) to decide what goes on its servers?
How about.. whatver YouTube finds unacceptable? They are, after all, a private company and can dictate what goes on their servers.
Oooh, can I be a lolly-minded pollyanna too? Can I get teary eyed at the lofty concept of "Freedom of Speech!". Is there any way I can double capitalize it to emphasisize how important it is?! I'm frantic here!
Jesus (Hey-soos) Christ (Christo). First, convicts lose some rights, whichever ones we want them to. Second, Youtube is a private company and can "censor" whatever the fuck they want.
You can have shared address space with multiple processes.
Yeah, that always works so seamlessly and easily, too. The fact is that for most tasks which require multiple paths of execution, threads are are still better for the majority of [these] computing tasks, as the grandparent mentions.
This isn't a sea shift, it's just an instance of process isolation being more beneficial in this case than the better efficiency of threaded applications.
I would say that if you need to share memory easily and efficiently, then threads are more robust.
Did that conversation go the way you thought it would?
Without copyright law, the GPL becomes meaningless. Those "big meanie software houses" can now download Linux and other GNU tools, make a whole bunch of changes, and tell the community to piss off. I mean, after all, they just copied some bits off the internet, right?
And you wouldn't have access to the proprietary software house's code. They just wouldn't give it to you. Instead of relying on copyright protections (which nobody does now anyway for proprietary software source code) they'd just lock it up tighter than a duck's ass. You would never get the source code to MSLinux.
The GPL absolutely requires copyright to work at its intended hippy-ass purpose.
You people are such fucking blatant hypocrites it just makes my ass itch.
Anytime someone copies your precious GPL software and uses it in a commercial product without following those asinine, byzantine GNU rules, you throw a little hissy fit. Information wants to be free, assholes, so I think MS should just appopriate the Linux codebase, embrase it, extend it, then extinguish it. I mean, by copying the Linux source bits they didn't steal anything, you can just make another copy, right assholes?
The harder you fight, the closer you are to driving a stake through the entire concept of the GPL and other similar shitty little commie licenses which put requirements on modifications.
I'm sorry, did you just make the hilarious mistake of using a legal definition of theft (in English law no less) to somehow demonstrate that you think it's OK to infringe on copyright? That's really cutesie and all, but the simple fact is that making available copyrighted material without right of copyright or downloading copyrighted materials is a crime. I'm too lazy to look it up, but there's a _whole_ lot of codes defining that.
In general - your point is moot. It's illegal. Most people with any kind of rational thinking skill think it should be illegal (though not to the extent it is currently, that's just RIAA/MPAA buying laws).
Define "suck". It sucks as an EDA platform and for batch computing, a domain where Linux is excellent. I wouldn't use it for hosting traditionally UNIX-ish services based on LAMP or similar, not that it would really suck as such. It sucks as a free hosting platform because, well, it isn't free and e.g. SQL Server 2008 is expensive.
I would use it as an enterprise application hosting platform. I would use it for a desktop. There are lots of areas where it doesn't suck. You can ignore the industry and stick your head in the sand and claim it sucks all you want, but only fellow dinosaurs are listening.
Because this is slashdot. It's hilarious reading these posts, it's moron after moron jumping in with ridiculous slams on MS (sorry... "M$") based on some incident whose facts they are blithely unaware. It's almost kind of sad how stupid they all look.
Why did the upgrade fail, I guess is what an intelligent person would ask. You haven't asked that. You've hilariously assumed it's .NET or Microsoft's fault.
As a matter of like for like, I'm going to assume it was because some Linux dweeb walked in and tripped over a network cable. Ergo, I now claim Linux dweebs are clumbsy oafs who should be banned from computer rooms.
Windows does suck
This is called begging the question. You based your entire rant on this baseless, meaningless statement and treated it as a fact. It's not a fact. You can't prove it as a fact.
The rest of your post is just authoritative sounding posturing, you know it and I know it.
Do you have any solid facts about Windows failure rates in mission critical environments? Do you have any evidence this was caused by a .NET or Windows issue? Do you have any facts at all?
I can provide anectdotal evidence too, I work at one of the world's largest manufacturing companies and we have large Windows depenendencies on our floors. Never really been an issue.
In the end you're just another "M$ Windoze is the suxxor" poster.
Let me explain computers to you. See, the developer uses a set of platforms, languages, integration components, etc.. to deliver his functionality to the end user. A failure at any level can cause the application to fail. It could be application logic, network issues, hardware issues, integration with third party systems, a dipship systems administrator, etc...
And yet the 90-105 IQ SlashDweeb set comes out in numbers with no data and says "lolz Windoze! .NET haha!". Crikey.
One incident with unknown causes (I didn't see anything in the article about .NET or even Windows) used as a laughable excuse to "rock on" windows is a little silly.
Yeah, because we all know vegetables can't make you sick.
The Bible, like it or not, has had a huge impact on the world and shouldn't be ignored. Really if you're not at least passingly familiar with the bible you're uneducated. So schools shouldn't just skip it altogether, they should teach it as a piece of literature, along with the Koran, the writings of Marx and Lenin, and other shit that has had a huge impact (good or bad) on history.
They are not required. Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement charges. So if you make a copy and they sue you, you can say (and prove) it was fair use. They are under no obligation to facilitate (via technical means) this copying. This is why DRM is perfectly fine in terms of the law. DMCA is the problem, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. It should be perfectly legal to crack DRM or any other technical protection.
You should watch Curb your Enthusiasm if you haven't. Basically R rated Seinfeld.
Well, there goes my ability to watch any reruns of Seinfeld ... starring a Microsoft shill & a racist.
You, sir, are a moron. I strongly suggest you go look up the word "shill" - it doesn't mean what you think it means. As for a "racist" - who cares. The guy made some idiotic comments in a night club. Wait, I know, it's a good opportunity for you to expound on how much of an anti-racist you are and at the same time mention racism and Microsoft in the same sentence. Double dweeb win!
The point being that the provider is under absolutely no mandate to facilitate or even allow that copying. And often allowing it is not in their best interests because people like free shit and it costs you nothing to distribute the content you don't own. So I have nothing against you making backup copies, but the fact is by "backup copies" most people mean (wink wink) free shit. Ergo, we have DRM which is a necessary evil.
You keep saying Microsoft "bought" this standard, but strangely there's no evidence of this except for a few isolated incidents. Ergo, your whole point is moot.