Canonical and Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth has announced that Ubuntu will move away from the traditional X.org display environment to Wayland — an alternative display server. Shuttleworth said, "We're confident we’ll be able to retain the ability to run X applications in a compatibility mode, so this is not a transition that needs to reset the world of desktop free software. Nor is it a transition everyone needs to make at the same time: for the same reason we'll keep investing in the 2D experience on Ubuntu despite also believing that Unity, with all its GL dependencies, is the best interface for the desktop. We'll help GNOME and KDE with the transition, there's no reason for them not to be there on day one either"
Dude, seriously. Nothing bothers me like women who have a princess complex and want to be given all of the deference for none of the cost. I have no problem treating women as equals, they are equals, but with that comes opening doors for yourself, sharing bills, registering for the draft (which should happen but doesn't), competing for lifeboats and all the rest. You can't have equality and special treatment both.
Yep, that's as annoying to us as men who can't tell that all women don't have the same preferences must be to them;)
I'll play devil's advocate here. If you don't know what she wants, you're probably not paying enough attention. I've found that when a woman reacts that way (or its various flavors), looking back generally shows that she did give the answer - in many ways, over a long period of time. If you're not paying attention to her, you'll miss it -- the "you don't know me" blow-up is the last step of a chain reaction, not the first sign of a problem.
RIM - along with every other carrier - has likely always made that available. What was in question was access to the contents of internal enterprise emails, which RIM itself does not have access to. And it still hasn't [as far as anyone knows] granted this access.
Might I recommend BlackBerry? To my knowledge, there is no such control when it comes to the specific applications you install (though of course, service providers can make service level changes... but that's no different from your dumb phone)
Also, I just happened to recall that I know this guy who makes a great SSH client for it...:D
I can see his point. Developers of open source projects are a much more limited resource than developers of proprietary projects. If you have 10 roughly equivalent projects in the free market, generally speaking they will have teams of approximately the same size, bought and paid for. In such a case, 10 projects = 10x the developers working on those projects.
Conversely, If you have 10 forks, you will almost never get 10x as many developers. Except for one or two, each fork will have fewer developers than the other projects and than the original project. You start by splitting your development resources to begin with; then new developers have a choice of two or more projects to join.
Maybe some will be so moved by the philosophy of one of the forks that they'll join when they originally had no intention of it. The net result is that you have fewer people maintaining and improving each fork than you would have had without a fork.
All that applies in a more general sense - if a project does follow a path where ti gets forked multiple times. However, I don't think that's the scenario here. I suspect Oracle will eventually be the only open office contributor in the long run while the rest of the interested community (and future new participants) focuses on LibreOffice.
My local news web site probably has viewership of less than 100,000/day - insignificant by your numbers, and yet they provide community members with [sometimes] valuable information.
If we measured success by the percentage of all internet traffic received, you'd have a handful of "successful" sites while the rest would be capturing less than 1%. Instead, they're measuring by revenue which seems to make just a bit more sense - since they're in it for the money and not for being able to boast numbers.
Indeed. The kind of person that would be willing to legitimately get passed a paywall would quite likely be willing to donate, should a button be tastefully integrated into the main site.
Maybe I have a too much faith in humanity, but I like to think this would be the case...
I disagree - not because of lack in faith in humanity, but because the benefit is much reduced. Instead of getting an ad- and (hopefully) third-party-ad-host-tracking-free experience, such a donation would only make the donor feel better while getting nothing tangible in returns. That means that you're limited strictly to the people paying for altruistic reasons, which reduces your pool of donors considerably from the already-small pool of people willing to pay for a subscription.
When you delete a category, all products should either revert to a default category, no category, or move to an archive. That's a database question, not business logic. W
A rule like that can only come from a business requirement in the first place -- or did the developer or DBA arbitrarily make that decision?
plus they'd have to remove the "interface" and "implements" keywords from the Java language -- before somebody tries to get the lawsuit dismiss on the basis of Oracle "making available"...;)
Microsoft is turning into a really big fish in a really big pond; the problem is that pond is in Minnesota. You can't throw your weight around when you don't have a strong presence in every aspect of your market anymore.
Also, throwing your weight around if you're a big fish in a big pond will cause the water to slosh over the edges -- leaving you flopping around in dirty, stinking mire until you die a slow, painful, and gasping death.
No, upon the judge finding it invalid the government will start treating it as invalid. It was invalid all along.
I think GP's point was that *until it is invalidated* by the court, it is recognized by the patent system as a valid patent - including for collection of licensing fees. If nobody ever challenges it, it will be viewed as valid until it expires.
Side-thought: I'm not sure if licensing fees have to get refunded after a patent is invalidated -- if not, they should. Might slow down some of the "obvious" patents...
So long as you call taxation "punishment", it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the topic.
In the context under discussion, I have a hard time seeing it as anything but punishment. When the government says "If you have more than X in the bank, we're going to take Y percent of it -- but if you have less than X, we'll take none of it", it's punishment for those who have the money taken.
That would be everyone, seeing as the US has a democratic government.
I've a hard time replying to this one. On the one hand, yes -- if the elected representatives of the people decide that it is right and just to take money from those who earn more than they do, they have the right to do so because this is a democracy/republic.
However, following the same logic, if those same representatives vote to outlaw abortion under all circumstances or ban gay marriages via constitutional amendment, they are equally within their rights.
In none of these cases does "within their rights" mean "the right thing to do".
When it comes to things that are sad, people earning 10s or 100s of millions a year having to "get by" on only 5% of that would be a long, long way down the list.
If we remove their right to keep what they earn, then what incentive to earn it? That reminds me of the tax situation years back: if you make a jump in income bracket by one dollar, you end up taking home significantly less of your money than you would have had you not earned that last dollar.
The only thing this does is give people incentive to either a) not earn the money [since they can't keep it], or b) find ways to hide what they've earned, thus ensuring that the government gets even less than it otherwise would have.
Is this like you go into the grocery store and eat a few twinkies and the manager bum rushes you and makes you pay? Or, is this like picking up a discarded paper on the ferry and the guy at the news stand demanding you pay him for it?
Um, neither? I thought it was like... viewing a web site that doesn't have a pay wall or even require registration.
The fact is the top 1% used to pay 60% so their share of the taxes has been cut in half.
Citation? Remember we're talking about total tax dollars received here, not income tax
The fact is that the top 10% have over 95% of the wealth so they SHOULD be paying 95% of all taxes.
This has little to do with tax on annual income. Further: you're saying that mere act of having a lot of "wealth" should be punishable by giving it to the government? For that matter, who gets to define "a lot" and what the threshold is?
It's a sad state of affairs when there's a need to defend somebody wanting to keep substantially more of his own income than he gives to the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair point
Canonical and Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth has announced that Ubuntu will move away from the traditional X.org display environment to Wayland — an alternative display server. Shuttleworth said, "We're confident we’ll be able to retain the ability to run X applications in a compatibility mode, so this is not a transition that needs to reset the world of desktop free software. Nor is it a transition everyone needs to make at the same time: for the same reason we'll keep investing in the 2D experience on Ubuntu despite also believing that Unity, with all its GL dependencies, is the best interface for the desktop. We'll help GNOME and KDE with the transition, there's no reason for them not to be there on day one either"
Dude, seriously. Nothing bothers me like women who have a princess complex and want to be given all of the deference for none of the cost. I have no problem treating women as equals, they are equals, but with that comes opening doors for yourself, sharing bills, registering for the draft (which should happen but doesn't), competing for lifeboats and all the rest. You can't have equality and special treatment both.
Yep, that's as annoying to us as men who can't tell that all women don't have the same preferences must be to them ;)
I'll play devil's advocate here. If you don't know what she wants, you're probably not paying enough attention. I've found that when a woman reacts that way (or its various flavors), looking back generally shows that she did give the answer - in many ways, over a long period of time. If you're not paying attention to her, you'll miss it -- the "you don't know me" blow-up is the last step of a chain reaction, not the first sign of a problem.
I read slashdot... I dont have to worry about this.
I dunno, I just updated my status to say how I'm all broken up about it...
Crazy, right?
RIM - along with every other carrier - has likely always made that available. What was in question was access to the contents of internal enterprise emails, which RIM itself does not have access to. And it still hasn't [as far as anyone knows] granted this access.
Also, I just happened to recall that I know this guy who makes a great SSH client for it... :D
I can see his point. Developers of open source projects are a much more limited resource than developers of proprietary projects. If you have 10 roughly equivalent projects in the free market, generally speaking they will have teams of approximately the same size, bought and paid for. In such a case, 10 projects = 10x the developers working on those projects.
Conversely, If you have 10 forks, you will almost never get 10x as many developers. Except for one or two, each fork will have fewer developers than the other projects and than the original project. You start by splitting your development resources to begin with; then new developers have a choice of two or more projects to join.
Maybe some will be so moved by the philosophy of one of the forks that they'll join when they originally had no intention of it. The net result is that you have fewer people maintaining and improving each fork than you would have had without a fork.
All that applies in a more general sense - if a project does follow a path where ti gets forked multiple times. However, I don't think that's the scenario here. I suspect Oracle will eventually be the only open office contributor in the long run while the rest of the interested community (and future new participants) focuses on LibreOffice.
If we measured success by the percentage of all internet traffic received, you'd have a handful of "successful" sites while the rest would be capturing less than 1%. Instead, they're measuring by revenue which seems to make just a bit more sense - since they're in it for the money and not for being able to boast numbers.
paying £40 a Murdoch to watch
40/Murdoch? Cheap at half the price!
Indeed. The kind of person that would be willing to legitimately get passed a paywall would quite likely be willing to donate, should a button be tastefully integrated into the main site.
Maybe I have a too much faith in humanity, but I like to think this would be the case...
I disagree - not because of lack in faith in humanity, but because the benefit is much reduced. Instead of getting an ad- and (hopefully) third-party-ad-host-tracking-free experience, such a donation would only make the donor feel better while getting nothing tangible in returns. That means that you're limited strictly to the people paying for altruistic reasons, which reduces your pool of donors considerably from the already-small pool of people willing to pay for a subscription.
This impacts fewer than a dozen, mostly small developers, none of which are in the top 10 applications on Facebook Platform.
This is great press, but really doesn't affect anybody except for a handful of people so we can do it without concern for repercussions.
When you delete a category, all products should either revert to a default category, no category, or move to an archive. That's a database question, not business logic. W
A rule like that can only come from a business requirement in the first place -- or did the developer or DBA arbitrarily make that decision?
No more or less than any other plugin architecture; or even executing third party code at all. If you don't trust the provider, don't install it.
However, my girlfriend hand
Where I come from, we call that Mary Palm and her Five Sisters -- but you're right, girlfriend-hand is much easier to say.
(Ballmer, not Jobs, obviously)
Are you saying The Steve [Jobs] doesn't know about chairs? Perhaps you haven't heard of the "iChair"? I didn't think so, you ignorant lout.
plus they'd have to remove the "interface" and "implements" keywords from the Java language -- before somebody tries to get the lawsuit dismiss on the basis of Oracle "making available"... ;)
Microsoft is turning into a really big fish in a really big pond; the problem is that pond is in Minnesota. You can't throw your weight around when you don't have a strong presence in every aspect of your market anymore.
Also, throwing your weight around if you're a big fish in a big pond will cause the water to slosh over the edges -- leaving you flopping around in dirty, stinking mire until you die a slow, painful, and gasping death.
Just sayin'.
No, upon the judge finding it invalid the government will start treating it as invalid. It was invalid all along.
I think GP's point was that *until it is invalidated* by the court, it is recognized by the patent system as a valid patent - including for collection of licensing fees. If nobody ever challenges it, it will be viewed as valid until it expires.
Side-thought: I'm not sure if licensing fees have to get refunded after a patent is invalidated -- if not, they should. Might slow down some of the "obvious" patents...
So long as you call taxation "punishment", it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the topic.
In the context under discussion, I have a hard time seeing it as anything but punishment. When the government says "If you have more than X in the bank, we're going to take Y percent of it -- but if you have less than X, we'll take none of it", it's punishment for those who have the money taken.
That would be everyone, seeing as the US has a democratic government.
I've a hard time replying to this one. On the one hand, yes -- if the elected representatives of the people decide that it is right and just to take money from those who earn more than they do, they have the right to do so because this is a democracy/republic.
However, following the same logic, if those same representatives vote to outlaw abortion under all circumstances or ban gay marriages via constitutional amendment, they are equally within their rights.
In none of these cases does "within their rights" mean "the right thing to do".
When it comes to things that are sad, people earning 10s or 100s of millions a year having to "get by" on only 5% of that would be a long, long way down the list.
If we remove their right to keep what they earn, then what incentive to earn it? That reminds me of the tax situation years back: if you make a jump in income bracket by one dollar, you end up taking home significantly less of your money than you would have had you not earned that last dollar.
The only thing this does is give people incentive to either a) not earn the money [since they can't keep it], or b) find ways to hide what they've earned, thus ensuring that the government gets even less than it otherwise would have.
Then you look beyond the list of titles Pojut came up with off the top of his head. They're out there...
IT MANAGERS blah blah blah NETWORK BACKBONE blah blah blah THE CLOUD blah blah blah THE ENTERPRISE blah blah blah.
Is this like you go into the grocery store and eat a few twinkies and the manager bum rushes you and makes you pay? Or, is this like picking up a discarded paper on the ferry and the guy at the news stand demanding you pay him for it?
Um, neither? I thought it was like ... viewing a web site that doesn't have a pay wall or even require registration.
But I see how you could have gotten confused.
The fact is the top 1% used to pay 60% so their share of the taxes has been cut in half.
Citation? Remember we're talking about total tax dollars received here, not income tax
The fact is that the top 10% have over 95% of the wealth so they SHOULD be paying 95% of all taxes.
This has little to do with tax on annual income. Further: you're saying that mere act of having a lot of "wealth" should be punishable by giving it to the government? For that matter, who gets to define "a lot" and what the threshold is?
It's a sad state of affairs when there's a need to defend somebody wanting to keep substantially more of his own income than he gives to the government.