It's the boiling frog principle. You never start off with anything major, or you'll get an enormous backlash in response. But if you introduce the slippery slope, then it's only a matter of time before you end up at the bottom.
For example, instead of requiring real names off the bat, Blizzard could have started off mandating a valid credit card before being able to log into the forums. They could then continue to push towards the goal of requiring the use of the poster's real name for the next several years in small increments, and after a while, people will accept it.
Fortunately, the US is a democracy, and nobody's around long enough to do permanent damange. That, and having a polarized two-party system, nobody's really able to do anything even in power. Of course, when the goal of both parties is the same (to expand Federal powers), then that point is moot.
Back when motor vehicles first became an industry, there were no laws, no licenses, no tests, no education. It wasn't until the Model T took off, resulting in a lot of cars on the road and a lot of people dying from accidents, that a driver's license became mandatory for drivers.
Computers is very much still a wild west. Though most of us have been programming them for upwards of 20 years, usage itself didn't really take off until the past ten years.
Do a search (on Google or your engine of choice) for "word on wine".
One of the top results is a thread on the Ubuntu forums asking whether MS Word works via Wine. The majority of the responses fall into: "Why use MS Office when you can use OpenOffice?" Only a few informative posts actually answer the question with experiences on using MS Word through Wine.
If that's the kind of support people get from the community, then it's no wonder Linux can't gain desktop mindshare.
I mean, nobody even thinks of saying, "Why use OpenOffice when you can use MS Office" when people ask how to install OpenOffice on Windows.
Support is abysmal for Linux, not because of ease (or lack thereof) of use or marketshare, but because the advanced users whom novices will go to for help will try to to push an agenda on the novice. And nobody likes having somebody else's agenda pushed on them. Windows power users, however will advocate free open source, free closed source, or non-free closed source depending on the users' needs and what can satisfy those needs the best. There are still a few Microsoft fanboys left, but as Microsoft doesn't have all the solutions to every problem, they're not stuck in the "MS or bust" mindset that the FOSS users are.
Considering that the crucial patents for TrueType have expired, the point is moot. Because open formats and standardization is popular right now (due to the many companies competing over the same area, and their recognition that fragmentation is a bad thing for all except one player involved), it's highly unlikely for new de-facto standards to arise from proprietary, closed, or otherwise patent-encumbered systems.
Consider it a lesson learned (not that the people in charge really do learn, but that's what this situation is right now), that software patents are not a good thing to be included in a standard. The key is to encourage open, patent-unencumbered standards; and to actively discourage closed and patent-encumbered systems from becoming a part of a standard going forward. For example, it would be smart to actively discourage the inclusion of patent-encumbered technologies in the HTML5 standard (i.e. include a clause whereby the inclusion of patented technology would immediately make it non-standards-compliant).
Truth be told, it's an impossible ideal. In reality, standards shouldn't be burdened by such a restriction. They should, and can incorporate patent-encumbered elements if and only if patent holders relinquish the right to enforce the patents for anything conforming to the standard (i.e. patent holders can still ask for money from entities producing products that don't follow the standard).
There's a lot of rhetoric being thrown around from both sides. Both proponents and opponents have made exaggerated, outrageous, and sometimes untrue claims. Sure, the proponents have "science" on their side, but the reality of science is that it is filled with uncertainties and acknowledge numerous unaccounted variables. It's not to say that the science becomes invalid, but that the issue isn't as black and white as both sides would like to think.
It's easy to point to somebody else's house and say it's messy, but you really ought to clean up your own house before doing so.
I think that's the whole point. The military spends all this money developing so-called "non-lethal" technologies, and it's still not perfect. On the other hand, the much cheaper and no R&D necessary solution of rubber using bullets could probably have the same effect with a slightly higher collateral injury rate. The only difference is that soldiers have to aim with rubber bullets, rather than just spray into a crowd, which is what this heat ray allows. So effectively, all that money went into developing something to let soldiers be lazier, and to let less skilled people use. It's another technology just like the taser.
Depends on the end that you seek. If you want to see Facebook to DIAF, you probably would want this guy to win. On the other hand, if you want Facebook to be better about privacy and such, then neither outcome would be beneficial to you.
It's defensible in the same sense that the RIAA suing 83-year old dead grandmas that have never touched a computer in their lives is defensible.
It's perfectly legal. The RIAA can bring whomever they want to court, even deceased people (they can sue the estate). It's their lawyers, and they can have their lawyers do whatever they want their lawyers to do.
But if you do try to defend them, then you have no defense against our collective opinion that you're a douche.
If, for example, somebody discovers a gold nugget on an asteroid that is the size of a house and can relatively cheaply bring it to the Earth, it would cause the gold markets to crash real hard.
This isn't true, because the value of gold is also partially faith-based. Gold by itself isn't particularly valuable. It's not terribly scarce, and it doesn't have too many uses. But because it's shiny, it historically had value (when people valued shiny things). And it's mostly due to that tradition that the value of gold remains where it is. Otherwise, in a purely rational market, gold wouldn't be worth crap, as you really can't use it to produce much.
So if a huge nugget of gold (the size of a house) suddenly fell to the ground, one person would suddenly be extremely rich, but the value of everybody else's gold wouldn't be affected.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it couldn't be any worse.
It's the boiling frog principle. You never start off with anything major, or you'll get an enormous backlash in response. But if you introduce the slippery slope, then it's only a matter of time before you end up at the bottom.
For example, instead of requiring real names off the bat, Blizzard could have started off mandating a valid credit card before being able to log into the forums. They could then continue to push towards the goal of requiring the use of the poster's real name for the next several years in small increments, and after a while, people will accept it.
Fortunately, the US is a democracy, and nobody's around long enough to do permanent damange. That, and having a polarized two-party system, nobody's really able to do anything even in power. Of course, when the goal of both parties is the same (to expand Federal powers), then that point is moot.
Back when motor vehicles first became an industry, there were no laws, no licenses, no tests, no education. It wasn't until the Model T took off, resulting in a lot of cars on the road and a lot of people dying from accidents, that a driver's license became mandatory for drivers.
Computers is very much still a wild west. Though most of us have been programming them for upwards of 20 years, usage itself didn't really take off until the past ten years.
Give it some time.
Do a search (on Google or your engine of choice) for "word on wine".
One of the top results is a thread on the Ubuntu forums asking whether MS Word works via Wine. The majority of the responses fall into: "Why use MS Office when you can use OpenOffice?" Only a few informative posts actually answer the question with experiences on using MS Word through Wine.
If that's the kind of support people get from the community, then it's no wonder Linux can't gain desktop mindshare.
I mean, nobody even thinks of saying, "Why use OpenOffice when you can use MS Office" when people ask how to install OpenOffice on Windows.
Support is abysmal for Linux, not because of ease (or lack thereof) of use or marketshare, but because the advanced users whom novices will go to for help will try to to push an agenda on the novice. And nobody likes having somebody else's agenda pushed on them. Windows power users, however will advocate free open source, free closed source, or non-free closed source depending on the users' needs and what can satisfy those needs the best. There are still a few Microsoft fanboys left, but as Microsoft doesn't have all the solutions to every problem, they're not stuck in the "MS or bust" mindset that the FOSS users are.
It's like taking a bit fo news, spinning it 180 using the propoganda machine, then spinning it 180 again with another propoganda machine.
Yeah they will.
Then they'll turn around and put it on /b/
I have a feeling demand for these types of jobs are going to increse 4-fold in a few days.
Yeah, pics or it didn't happen.
Studies do not produce fact. They only produce a slice of fact. Which way you slice is up to you.
Considering that the crucial patents for TrueType have expired, the point is moot. Because open formats and standardization is popular right now (due to the many companies competing over the same area, and their recognition that fragmentation is a bad thing for all except one player involved), it's highly unlikely for new de-facto standards to arise from proprietary, closed, or otherwise patent-encumbered systems.
Consider it a lesson learned (not that the people in charge really do learn, but that's what this situation is right now), that software patents are not a good thing to be included in a standard. The key is to encourage open, patent-unencumbered standards; and to actively discourage closed and patent-encumbered systems from becoming a part of a standard going forward. For example, it would be smart to actively discourage the inclusion of patent-encumbered technologies in the HTML5 standard (i.e. include a clause whereby the inclusion of patented technology would immediately make it non-standards-compliant).
Truth be told, it's an impossible ideal. In reality, standards shouldn't be burdened by such a restriction. They should, and can incorporate patent-encumbered elements if and only if patent holders relinquish the right to enforce the patents for anything conforming to the standard (i.e. patent holders can still ask for money from entities producing products that don't follow the standard).
There's a lot of rhetoric being thrown around from both sides. Both proponents and opponents have made exaggerated, outrageous, and sometimes untrue claims. Sure, the proponents have "science" on their side, but the reality of science is that it is filled with uncertainties and acknowledge numerous unaccounted variables. It's not to say that the science becomes invalid, but that the issue isn't as black and white as both sides would like to think.
It's easy to point to somebody else's house and say it's messy, but you really ought to clean up your own house before doing so.
I think that's the whole point. The military spends all this money developing so-called "non-lethal" technologies, and it's still not perfect. On the other hand, the much cheaper and no R&D necessary solution of rubber using bullets could probably have the same effect with a slightly higher collateral injury rate. The only difference is that soldiers have to aim with rubber bullets, rather than just spray into a crowd, which is what this heat ray allows. So effectively, all that money went into developing something to let soldiers be lazier, and to let less skilled people use. It's another technology just like the taser.
The author recommends coating clothes with a layer of iron-laced dye to reflect the attacks. The author is obviously an amateur.
All the pros know tin is the only good metal for keeping EM waves out.
*ducks*
Looks like a missile fly didn't register its flight plan in time and flew too close to your head.
Yeah, if you're not careful, you might get sued by the RIAA!
That's because software is design. It's code that tells the machine what to do, not the actual machine doing the job.
Software's covered by copyrights. You can't patent it just like you can't patent a story or a color scheme.
To be followed closely by the iReFuse, which Just Doesn't Work (TM).
Afterwards which should they realize the conclusion is erroneous, they usually find somebody or something else to blame.
Depends on the end that you seek. If you want to see Facebook to DIAF, you probably would want this guy to win. On the other hand, if you want Facebook to be better about privacy and such, then neither outcome would be beneficial to you.
I think is talking about Roy Moore's monument of the 10 commandments.
Statue of limitations indeed!
It's defensible in the same sense that the RIAA suing 83-year old dead grandmas that have never touched a computer in their lives is defensible.
It's perfectly legal. The RIAA can bring whomever they want to court, even deceased people (they can sue the estate). It's their lawyers, and they can have their lawyers do whatever they want their lawyers to do.
But if you do try to defend them, then you have no defense against our collective opinion that you're a douche.
Damn, and here I was, holding out that it would be December 21st, 2012.
Unless of course, they don't have an easy fix.
There's always an easy fix: duct tape.
Actually, in this case, it'd be electrical tape. And since electrical tape is black, people wouldn't even notice!
I'm a bit confused. So when you do this, would the iPhone get stuck to the antenna, or your tongue to the iPhone?
Food, clean water, tools, feminine hygiene products, useful information.
One of these things is not like the other. One of these things doesn't belong...
Considering that there are trace amounts of cocaine on every bill, I can see why you like doing this.
Otherwise, I'm not sure I'm up for wiping my ass with something even dirtier.
If, for example, somebody discovers a gold nugget on an asteroid that is the size of a house and can relatively cheaply bring it to the Earth, it would cause the gold markets to crash real hard.
This isn't true, because the value of gold is also partially faith-based. Gold by itself isn't particularly valuable. It's not terribly scarce, and it doesn't have too many uses. But because it's shiny, it historically had value (when people valued shiny things). And it's mostly due to that tradition that the value of gold remains where it is. Otherwise, in a purely rational market, gold wouldn't be worth crap, as you really can't use it to produce much.
So if a huge nugget of gold (the size of a house) suddenly fell to the ground, one person would suddenly be extremely rich, but the value of everybody else's gold wouldn't be affected.