I'll go on the record - the OLPC will never see the serious light of day. It's a pipe dream. Not only is it not feasible, it's not the best way to spend the money or effort. There are constant wars over much of the continent, ethnic cleansings, starvation, etc... You want to make a real difference in Africa? Spend the money on a massive birth control campaign including condoms, birth control pills, whatever can be done to stop the deluge of new, suffering little kids born into a crappy life. Or spend the money on actual teachers and basic educational equipment.
Some little piece of crap laptop isn't going to save Africa.
So wait, you mean I need to know C to use all those handly kernel and C library system calls? Didn't think so.
C is here to stay, but it's something where fewer and fewer C developers will be needed. And web apps are advancing in usability rapidly. AJAX is the first step, Silverlight is going to rock people's world. As soon as Microsoft wisens up and releases it for Linux, it's game on.
Best available choice for... OS, compilers, and a few specialized applications? I wouldn't call that a huge class. I think you'd be insane to write your run of the mill Windows or even Linux GUI app in C. C isn't dead, but it's certainly declining in usefulness. It's too expensive to maintain and develop large systems in C.
C is a niche language. Cobol is still around, and will be for a long time too - doesn't make it particularly relevent to most people. It's useful in a few specialized fields, but if you're Joe Average C developer from 10 years ago you've probably had to move on.
Good lord, shut up idiot. This is a capitalist country. If you're such a damn philanthropist why don't you just keep enuogh money to eat and have a house, then give the rest away to charity? I know why. Because you're a typical ridiculous corporation hater.
Your assumption is, well, 100% wrong. The flaw in your reasoning is in assuming OLPC is a viable product or charitable endeavor. It isn't. And you all seem to think the OLPC is such a superior product, and it's..haha... only $100 right? How can Intel compete, then?
Oooh, good point! I mean, much better to awe and marvel at the OLPC which DOESN'T FREAKING EXIST. Oh, and OLPC is basically a dream built on a bunch of ridiculous assumptions that aren't true in the real world.
But you all keep harping about how much better the "OLPC" is. Gee, which has a higher chance of seeing the light of day - a real product by a US company or a make believe product with a few prototypes which requires a massive bunch of subsidies and a huge market to keep it going. What a joke.
Wait.. You don't seriously think there is such a thing as a $100 OLPC do you? You're drinking that laughable kool-aid?
The fact is that Negropante's ridiculous plan involves him cornering the entire marker and receiving massive subsidies. There is no $100 OLPC so I really wish people would quit lying and bring up that red herring. There is a somewhere way over $100 OLPC that's supposed to be heavily subsidized by the governments and by the people in the US who will theoretically buy the OLPC and "donate" money to subsidize it.
So wait. You bring out the "but, but I need to know it to get a job!" argument, but then go on to cry that Windows starter edition isn't good enough. And I seem to notice that Windows comes bundled with PC's and that those PC's don't cost any more than it would to build your own PC without Windows. So...what's your point again other than wanting something and not being willing to pay the price the seller has for it?
If I want to get a job as a lawyer, I have to spend $50-100k to go to school, you don't hear people whining about that. Get a different job if you can't learn from the OS that came installed on your PC or you can't deal with starter edition, or get a job in Linux even though you conveniently asked us not to mention it because it blows your "argument" (arguwhined) out of the water.
"Look, I'm levitating! Don't bring the table I'm standing on into the argument!"
Uhh, wow. Dumbest. Post. Ever. Every one of your points is just silly. You act as though they should just offer up money for any old exploit, then you go through an inane exercise to address their points with your own asinine play by play. I want the 30 seconds of my life it took to dismiss this post as being retarded back.
His argument is retarded. The idea of "creditright", which is make believe, derives solely from the right to dictate copyright. One derives from the other, end of story.
Theft does not require physical property. All propery is government granted in that the only right you have to keep it is if the government keeps your neighbor from killing you for it. Making a distinction between IP and physical property makes no sense on any level.
On a practical level, Brazil may have done the right thing. It's simply stupid to think they won't pay a price for what they've done, though, or that any country has some inherent righteous ability to invalidate any kind of patent.
An extradition treaty is meaningless. A US citizen has constitutional protections and theoretically can't be extradited for something that isn't a crime in the US. For example, suppose we _did_ have a treaty with Iran. Extraditing someone for "blasphemy" would be patently ridiculous, and should be enough to incite the shit to hit the fan in this country.
Haha. Truly stunning turn of logic, that. What if the terrorists get really smart and use reverse psychology on us? "We, uhh, really want the hardline conservatives to win!"
Of course, that's retarded. In a logical world what the terrorists say or think about our policies and decisions has no meaning, and should be completely ignored. Because they support something doesn't mean it's a bad policy or decision. I'm sure they're hellfire against the US dropping a nuclear bomb on their holy sites, does that mean we should do it? After all apparently by your "logic" their wishes and the things they oppose should inform our decisions.
They are thieves, this part is simple. However it's probably justified thievery in this case. I don't hold it against them as long as they tried, in good faith, to negotiate a deal with Merck first.
See, the problem with your analogies is that they're simply wrong. Let me give you a better analogy. Merck finds some basic research that looks promising that can provide a one-shot complete cure to HIV. However, it will cost $10 billion to develop. They think for a minute... "hmm.. if we do this, will we get our money back? Last time, Brazil fucked us. Nah, fuck it - let's spend the money on a new heartburn medication, some new floppy dick medicine, and maybe a few small changes in formulation to some of our crazy pills".
Again - Brazil may have been justified in this, but it's not clear cut that they can just take what they want because people are dying from a (sorry) preventable disease and they don't want to pay the bill.
Hmm.. Trenchant insight there. Maybe because, I don't know, people are dying? And "creating your own drug" isn't something you just sit down for a few days, months, or even years and do?
I'm not saying it's just OK to confiscate drug formulations, pharmaceuticals is one of the very few areas where patents are generally a good thing, but in some cases it may be a legitimate national response. I'm sure they measured the consequences and are willing to pay the price from the fallout.
Amen to that. Most of the zombies around here don't really know what's going on with MS, but they are really pushing out some hard core cool shit lately. ASP.NET AJAX, Enterprise Library 3.0 and the several blocks it includes, WCF/WF/WPF trifecta from.NET 3.0, each of which is truly ahead of _anything_ else in their domain, all the stuff coming with Orcas, etc... Let's see some open source zombie crank out the equivelent of an EL3.0 enabled, WCF web service that supports WS-I + WS-Security Kerberos extensions, and runs a state machine based workflow and has SQL server persistence. They can't. A good MS developer could crank out a basic skeleton implementation within 8 hours of work.
I always like reading Slashdot articles about the latest Perl module or little widget toolkit from Google, it amuses me. In the meantime, the Microsoft stuff they constantly bash is light years ahead and far more integrated and easier to use than all the random open source shit you can download and try your luck at. If you work in a large company or can afford to use MS's stuff, there's really nothing like it.
Again, you don't understand. "...not an infringement of copyright...".
All that "law" means is that you can do it and they can't punish you. They don't have to _enable_ you do exercice fair use, meaning it's not some "right".
Right on, T-SQL is one example where Gotos are still useful, and preferable to some alternatives. Unfortunately most of the robot-programmers cranked out of the university system nowadays were indoctrinated that "goto=bad" so will go through all kinds of ridiculos, unreadable or even inefficient contortios to try to avoid them.
Gotos are useful in a few limited situations. The problem is with people like you who took what your professor said as gospel and now everyone regurgitates the "goto bad!" mantra like a bunch of trained chimps. The original poster is right, and is undoubtedly a better programmer than most of the people poo-pooing his comment.
I know it was an attempt at humor, but lest people not realize it - apparently you're using some new-fangled version of C with exceptions? Amazing! Let's call it...C++? But wait, that wouldn't be C now would it.
You don't have any of these "rights" you speak of except in your imagination. Fair use is a doctrine and a defense against copyright infringment suits. It's not some God Given Right like you seem to be convinced it is. You most certainly don't have any "platform" rights, that is just laughable. And I don't see how it's the studio's responsibility to protect something you purchase, though I'm a little more in agreement with you there.
Oooh, grand sounding pronouncements on soulds and whatnot. What a foolish load of crap. You do know that Microsoft designs OS's for small devices and small footprints, right? Are you ignorant enough to actually think MS can't release a version of Windows (call it XP-lite or something) that could easily run in 256M?
For a nerd with an anti-MS obsession, you really shouldn't underestimate your enemy.
Slashdot Mirror
Some little piece of crap laptop isn't going to save Africa.
C is here to stay, but it's something where fewer and fewer C developers will be needed. And web apps are advancing in usability rapidly. AJAX is the first step, Silverlight is going to rock people's world. As soon as Microsoft wisens up and releases it for Linux, it's game on.
Best available choice for... OS, compilers, and a few specialized applications? I wouldn't call that a huge class. I think you'd be insane to write your run of the mill Windows or even Linux GUI app in C. C isn't dead, but it's certainly declining in usefulness. It's too expensive to maintain and develop large systems in C.
C is a niche language. Cobol is still around, and will be for a long time too - doesn't make it particularly relevent to most people. It's useful in a few specialized fields, but if you're Joe Average C developer from 10 years ago you've probably had to move on.
Good lord, shut up idiot. This is a capitalist country. If you're such a damn philanthropist why don't you just keep enuogh money to eat and have a house, then give the rest away to charity? I know why. Because you're a typical ridiculous corporation hater.
Your assumption is, well, 100% wrong. The flaw in your reasoning is in assuming OLPC is a viable product or charitable endeavor. It isn't. And you all seem to think the OLPC is such a superior product, and it's..haha... only $100 right? How can Intel compete, then?
But you all keep harping about how much better the "OLPC" is. Gee, which has a higher chance of seeing the light of day - a real product by a US company or a make believe product with a few prototypes which requires a massive bunch of subsidies and a huge market to keep it going. What a joke.
The fact is that Negropante's ridiculous plan involves him cornering the entire marker and receiving massive subsidies. There is no $100 OLPC so I really wish people would quit lying and bring up that red herring. There is a somewhere way over $100 OLPC that's supposed to be heavily subsidized by the governments and by the people in the US who will theoretically buy the OLPC and "donate" money to subsidize it.
If I want to get a job as a lawyer, I have to spend $50-100k to go to school, you don't hear people whining about that. Get a different job if you can't learn from the OS that came installed on your PC or you can't deal with starter edition, or get a job in Linux even though you conveniently asked us not to mention it because it blows your "argument" (arguwhined) out of the water.
"Look, I'm levitating! Don't bring the table I'm standing on into the argument!"
Uhh, wow. Dumbest. Post. Ever. Every one of your points is just silly. You act as though they should just offer up money for any old exploit, then you go through an inane exercise to address their points with your own asinine play by play. I want the 30 seconds of my life it took to dismiss this post as being retarded back.
His argument is retarded. The idea of "creditright", which is make believe, derives solely from the right to dictate copyright. One derives from the other, end of story.
On a practical level, Brazil may have done the right thing. It's simply stupid to think they won't pay a price for what they've done, though, or that any country has some inherent righteous ability to invalidate any kind of patent.
An extradition treaty is meaningless. A US citizen has constitutional protections and theoretically can't be extradited for something that isn't a crime in the US. For example, suppose we _did_ have a treaty with Iran. Extraditing someone for "blasphemy" would be patently ridiculous, and should be enough to incite the shit to hit the fan in this country.
Of course, that's retarded. In a logical world what the terrorists say or think about our policies and decisions has no meaning, and should be completely ignored. Because they support something doesn't mean it's a bad policy or decision. I'm sure they're hellfire against the US dropping a nuclear bomb on their holy sites, does that mean we should do it? After all apparently by your "logic" their wishes and the things they oppose should inform our decisions.
Yeah, that would be as silly as "if you vote for the Democrats, the terrorists win!" rhetoric. It would never convince the savvy masses.
So it sounds like Brazil did try in good faith to negotiate a deal, in which case I think what they did is fine.
See, the problem with your analogies is that they're simply wrong. Let me give you a better analogy. Merck finds some basic research that looks promising that can provide a one-shot complete cure to HIV. However, it will cost $10 billion to develop. They think for a minute... "hmm.. if we do this, will we get our money back? Last time, Brazil fucked us. Nah, fuck it - let's spend the money on a new heartburn medication, some new floppy dick medicine, and maybe a few small changes in formulation to some of our crazy pills".
Again - Brazil may have been justified in this, but it's not clear cut that they can just take what they want because people are dying from a (sorry) preventable disease and they don't want to pay the bill.
I'm not saying it's just OK to confiscate drug formulations, pharmaceuticals is one of the very few areas where patents are generally a good thing, but in some cases it may be a legitimate national response. I'm sure they measured the consequences and are willing to pay the price from the fallout.
I always like reading Slashdot articles about the latest Perl module or little widget toolkit from Google, it amuses me. In the meantime, the Microsoft stuff they constantly bash is light years ahead and far more integrated and easier to use than all the random open source shit you can download and try your luck at. If you work in a large company or can afford to use MS's stuff, there's really nothing like it.
All that "law" means is that you can do it and they can't punish you. They don't have to _enable_ you do exercice fair use, meaning it's not some "right".
Right on, T-SQL is one example where Gotos are still useful, and preferable to some alternatives. Unfortunately most of the robot-programmers cranked out of the university system nowadays were indoctrinated that "goto=bad" so will go through all kinds of ridiculos, unreadable or even inefficient contortios to try to avoid them.
Gotos are useful in a few limited situations. The problem is with people like you who took what your professor said as gospel and now everyone regurgitates the "goto bad!" mantra like a bunch of trained chimps. The original poster is right, and is undoubtedly a better programmer than most of the people poo-pooing his comment.
I know it was an attempt at humor, but lest people not realize it - apparently you're using some new-fangled version of C with exceptions? Amazing! Let's call it...C++? But wait, that wouldn't be C now would it.
You don't have any of these "rights" you speak of except in your imagination. Fair use is a doctrine and a defense against copyright infringment suits. It's not some God Given Right like you seem to be convinced it is. You most certainly don't have any "platform" rights, that is just laughable. And I don't see how it's the studio's responsibility to protect something you purchase, though I'm a little more in agreement with you there.
For a nerd with an anti-MS obsession, you really shouldn't underestimate your enemy.