As an honest question (from someone who, not that it matters, runs both slackware at home and xp at work), what's with the obsession with boot time? Can anyone explain why the free software community is so obsessed with this metric? I understand that embedded devices are better when they boot immediately - nobody wants to have to wait to make toast - but to boot a computer?
Boot time is the only time the computer is on when you can't switch to a browser while waiting for it to do something you want done, but aren't interested in the process. You can do that with copying, torrenting, uncompressing, compiling, encrypting, etc, but not boot.
It's not surprising that these crime maps would show this result - the places that police officers are most likely to be, are the places where the most crime is "found".
Are you implying police officers commit the most crimes?
The ironic justification for all the process was that the customer did not feel the old agile environment was providing good value for their development dollars.
This sounds more like the customer knows too much. The methodology is not their problem, and they're not the ones who know better, by definition. If they were, they would do it themselves. Just tell them a wizard did it and to STFU.
Anyone ever complained to the factory that the engine should be 0.3 mm to the left in their car?
The idea of copyright is to encourage the development of creative works by giving the creator a temporary monopoly on distribution rights in order to recover their investment.
Not sure why this guy got modded Troll. Case in point, I got the most recent BSG DVDs and tried to play them on everything I had. VLC didn't work beyond the root screen. Windows Media Player failed. Intervideo DVD player crashed every time. It wasn't until I loaded the K lite codec full that I could get it to play...and only on the Media Player Classic frontend.
I have an Ice Age 2 DVD that won't play on anything except my custom-compiled mplayer. Doesn't even work with the same version on Windows.
While my initial thought is "Shame on those people who subverted the democratic process" I can't help but think.. "Shame on the faulty system with such a stupid loophole." Did they subvert the democratic process? Kinda. But did they do things within the boundries of their law? Apparently so.
Hungarian law requires half of all MP's to be present to make any vote legit. I imagine it would have helped here.
The argument that you lose something physical when I do that does not change the fact that its still an artificial restriction.
If I figure out how to copy your car for free, with equipment available pretty much everywhere, making thousands of copies almost as fast as making a single copy, should I be verboten to do so by reinterpreting existing laws to keep the factories' profit margins?
I had a longer post written, but then I realized you've got a gmail.com address obfuscated up there. Clearly you think the benefits are worth any real or imagined loss of privacy.
- Gmail moves the data off of the end-user's computer. Far, far too many Outlook setups (especially in small businesses) store everything locally, with no backup -- one hard drive crash away from all that archived email gone.
Sysadmins not doing backup is one thing, but how is surrendering all your data because it's convenient better?
Now, I think the industry is behaving like a rabies dog but they're within their rights to disallow us to copy their material without giving them a krona.
No, they're not. They're trying to sell air based on laws that originally regulated a privileged few among themselves. In the days where not everyone could afford a 'copying machine' it was perfectly okay. Things have changed, laws essentially didn't. I, for one, oppose any law that criminalizes a significant portion of the population without any benefit whatsoever in return. Intellectual Property doesn't exist. Get over it.
Freedom is to being able to NOT BUY INTO THEIR SHIT. Accept their rules since it's in fact codified, but refuse to participate in transactions with them unless you're offered a FAIR DEAL and things YOU ACTUALLY WANT.
I accept their rules as soon as they stop writing new ones when not enough people are breaking the existing ones.
Doesn't the GPLv3 have a statement similar to this?
AFAIK the GPL3 says you have to open up your patents along with the source. It does not mention challenging the patents of others.
Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.
What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
Is this compatible with any other open source licences?
I was half-expecting someone to push the button, and it turns out that the joker had lied, and the button actually blows up _your_ boat, (or both boats) not the other guys.
That's an option, yes, but nobody raises that question in the film, so they fucked up that explanation as well. It would have been so much more elegant to say "I don't want to blow myself up" and let Batman save everyone than that artificial stupidity on both boats.
Realistic outcome if you're too slow: "Let's vote!" "Okay, I have a pen and a pa-" *BOOM*
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, how about we stop eating the BS they feed us and doing a little analytical thinking for ourselves for a change? Anyone?
You must be new here.
As an honest question (from someone who, not that it matters, runs both slackware at home and xp at work), what's with the obsession with boot time? Can anyone explain why the free software community is so obsessed with this metric? I understand that embedded devices are better when they boot immediately - nobody wants to have to wait to make toast - but to boot a computer?
Boot time is the only time the computer is on when you can't switch to a browser while waiting for it to do something you want done, but aren't interested in the process. You can do that with copying, torrenting, uncompressing, compiling, encrypting, etc, but not boot.
Also, because you shouldn't have to wait.
Don't most people just sleep or hibernate their computer these days anyway?
I dual boot Gentoo and Vista. And ditching either one is not an option.
It's not surprising that these crime maps would show this result - the places that police officers are most likely to be, are the places where the most crime is "found".
Are you implying police officers commit the most crimes?
No joke, there are places where this is believable.
The ironic justification for all the process was that the customer did not feel the old agile environment was providing good value for their development dollars.
This sounds more like the customer knows too much. The methodology is not their problem, and they're not the ones who know better, by definition. If they were, they would do it themselves. Just tell them a wizard did it and to STFU.
Anyone ever complained to the factory that the engine should be 0.3 mm to the left in their car?
It's not about filtering your child and horse porn, pervert.
So now someone's a pervert for wanting to get rid of the possibility of censorship at least at browser level? Thinkofthechildren at its finest.
Makes me wonder how many good ideas are ruined by poor implementation.
You just described the history of computing.
But why are they dining in purgatory that makes no sense.
Greek mythology, not Christian.
Sounds like a "yes it does have a severe data integrity issue" to me.
It's already been discussed. Basically, if you write a small file, rename it before the data reaches the disk, and power down, you lose.
People have been known to lose GNOME and Firefox config files for instance.
Hopefully our politicians are as forward thinking as you.
HAHAHA! OH WOW.
Tonight we dine in /dev/null
The idea of copyright is to encourage the development of creative works by giving the creator a temporary monopoly on distribution rights in order to recover their investment.
Thank you for proving my point.
Not sure why this guy got modded Troll. Case in point, I got the most recent BSG DVDs and tried to play them on everything I had. VLC didn't work beyond the root screen. Windows Media Player failed. Intervideo DVD player crashed every time. It wasn't until I loaded the K lite codec full that I could get it to play...and only on the Media Player Classic frontend.
I have an Ice Age 2 DVD that won't play on anything except my custom-compiled mplayer. Doesn't even work with the same version on Windows.
While my initial thought is "Shame on those people who subverted the democratic process" I can't help but think.. "Shame on the faulty system with such a stupid loophole." Did they subvert the democratic process? Kinda. But did they do things within the boundries of their law? Apparently so.
Hungarian law requires half of all MP's to be present to make any vote legit. I imagine it would have helped here.
'Enterprise Solution' tastes pretty damn foul all by itself.
Because it doesn't really mean anything if you're not playing buzzword bingo.
is this where the improbability drive comes in?
Only if you can figure out exactly how improbable it is.
Really? I'm posting this comment from a workstation running a commercial UNIX. I'm using a Mac.
Heh. +1 pedant.
It has lost most of the characteristics people identify as Unix though.
The argument that you lose something physical when I do that does not change the fact that its still an artificial restriction.
If I figure out how to copy your car for free, with equipment available pretty much everywhere, making thousands of copies almost as fast as making a single copy, should I be verboten to do so by reinterpreting existing laws to keep the factories' profit margins?
I had a longer post written, but then I realized you've got a gmail.com address obfuscated up there. Clearly you think the benefits are worth any real or imagined loss of privacy.
My internet persona is not a company.
- Gmail moves the data off of the end-user's computer. Far, far too many Outlook setups (especially in small businesses) store everything locally, with no backup -- one hard drive crash away from all that archived email gone.
Sysadmins not doing backup is one thing, but how is surrendering all your data because it's convenient better?
When a friend told me he was closing a beta phase my first question was "Is it more stable than gmail?"
If only more projects worked that way...
Does it matter if it's beta when it's still the best and most reliable free email service around?
Now, I think the industry is behaving like a rabies dog but they're within their rights to disallow us to copy their material without giving them a krona.
No, they're not. They're trying to sell air based on laws that originally regulated a privileged few among themselves. In the days where not everyone could afford a 'copying machine' it was perfectly okay. Things have changed, laws essentially didn't. I, for one, oppose any law that criminalizes a significant portion of the population without any benefit whatsoever in return. Intellectual Property doesn't exist. Get over it.
Freedom is to being able to NOT BUY INTO THEIR SHIT. Accept their rules since it's in fact codified, but refuse to participate in transactions with them unless you're offered a FAIR DEAL and things YOU ACTUALLY WANT.
I accept their rules as soon as they stop writing new ones when not enough people are breaking the existing ones.
Doesn't the GPLv3 have a statement similar to this?
AFAIK the GPL3 says you have to open up your patents along with the source. It does not mention challenging the patents of others.
Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.
What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
I'm not sure though, feel free to correct me.
FTFL:
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
Is this compatible with any other open source licences?
I was half-expecting someone to push the button, and it turns out that the joker had lied, and the button actually blows up _your_ boat, (or both boats) not the other guys.
That's an option, yes, but nobody raises that question in the film, so they fucked up that explanation as well. It would have been so much more elegant to say "I don't want to blow myself up" and let Batman save everyone than that artificial stupidity on both boats.
Realistic outcome if you're too slow:
"Let's vote!" "Okay, I have a pen and a pa-" *BOOM*