How often does a developer need to do a clean build? If your build flow is set up right, not very often. Especially not often when the developer is in the critical code/compile/fix-compile-errors or compile/run/debug/fix loops which are where the compile times are important. There are even build flows/tools that let you not ever do a clean build, by storing versioned object files. And if your codebase is large enough, hopefully you're using dynamic linking which means that the link step isn't too long either.
Constitutional rights themselves do not directly prescribe a specific method of governance. A constitution establishes a government and provides a framework for the government to operate in. The people (or their elected representatives) then decide what specific things the government should do within that framework. Public safety as a generality clearly falls within the bounds of that framework. The specific manner in which it is implemented is certainly up for debate and constitutional test against the other constitutional rights, but you can't make the argument that it's not the government's job to provide for public safety (which is a public good). Well, you can argue that, but for your argument to have any merit you would have to believe that Somalia is a better model for public safety than the U.S. (where instead of government, local warlords are in charge of public safety).
The entire foundation upon which government rests is the voluntary giving up of certain individual rights, property, and/or money in exchange for the common good. The common good includes public safety. Public safety is certainly allowed and even promoted in the framework set up by the U.S. constitution.
A couple weeks ago, all the anti-U.S. people on Slashdot said that Syria had no chemical weapons, and that the evidence was made up by the U.S. government as some sort of conspiracy. Or maybe that the U.S. deliberately sold the chemical weapons to Syria, I forget why.
Now that there's yet more evidence of chemical weapons in Syria, what's the latest out of the anti-U.S. crowd? I don't think anyone predicted that Russia would ultimately end up with these weapons. Are they still fake? Is this still a set up by the U.S., even now that these U.S.-produced weapons are going to end up in Russia? I suppose the latter is plausible (Syria is really screwing the U.S. by sending our chemical weapons to Russia), but it all seems pretty far-fetched to me.
Did you read the article? MS cannot comply with the requirements list because Google has not provided them with the information and documentation necessary to do so.
The leader in this picture is setting the direction of the group. That cannot be delegated. If it were delegated, the person who did the delegating of that job would not be the leader; the person it was delegated to would be the leader. You could argue that the delegater would be considered a "manager" for finding a good leader. But I would argue that such a manager is only needed for a few brief periods in the project. Most of the rest of the project requires a leader.
How can you start up a signed kernel if you can't provide said signed kernel with the encryption key that it looks for at boot time, which was to be provided by the secure bootloader that you replaced with your own (becasue the secure bootloader will obviously fail to boot your custom kernel)?
Okay, fine. A feature film is a heck of a lot more than a hours-long fairy tale from hundreds of years ago.
And if time is a good reason, why cant we do what we like with Disney's older works, I mean it's from dozens of years ago.
No, you have completely missed the point of my post. Time has absolutely nothing to do with it. Disney is selling a specific retelling of these fairy tales, complete with their own animation, characters, dialog, music, lyrics. That's what you can't take (for free). Like I said in the original post, if you want to sell your own version of Beauty and the Beast (which is one of those hundreds-of-years-old fairy tales), that's totally fine - or at least I would support that. But want to rip a DVD copy of Disney's version? Better pay them for their animation, characters, dialog, music, and lyrics.
Yeah, exactly - I mean, look at all the stuff Disney did that's a total rip-off, like the animations, 3D models, voices, music, dialog and lyrics. I can't believe they just took that from the days of yore that Slashdot longs for.
/sarcasm
A feature film is a heck of a lot more than a 5-minute fairy tale from hundreds of years ago. I'm so sick of everyone saying "Disney ripped off this and that". Sure, almost all of their movies are adaptations or based on or directly taken from old fairy tales. But that's not the point. No one is paying money to hear a 5-minute fairy tale told by a traveling bard. If you think that's what Disney is doing, go ahead and start up your own traveling storytelling company that tells 5 minute stories, and start raking in the profits.
Next time someone on Slashdot complains that Microsoft updates the Exchange and AD suite every couple years for supposedly "no good reason" and expects people to pay for it, I'm going to point them to your post and have you defend MS from a security and maintenance standpoint, okay? Also, I'm pretty sure MS offers paid support contracts exactly like what you describe.
Also, your argument is a total strawman. We're talking about Exchange, the best and best-supported non-cloud email service in the last 15 years. If that ever changes, you might have a point, but it doesn't right now and hasn't for the entirety of this "cloud revolution." You can't throw out generic "the cloud is better" arguments that might apply to some random crap software and hope they stick to something like Exchange and AD.
The OP was addressing cloud security. If a company runs an internal email server, it doesn't care what Microsoft or Google do with cloud security, since it's not using their cloud services. Securing its email system falls pretty much on the company, not the cloud provider. A part of that security is the security of the software itself, so of course I would still want Exchange security updates, but other than that, I don't give a crap how good the security of those cloud services are. I only care how good my own company's network security is.
Also, I fail to see how being stuck with a closed source proprietary product is any worse than being stuck with a software-as-a-service provider.
Why do I care what investments anyone is making in cloud security if I buy Exchange and run it on my own local email server? In that case I would only care about what investments my own company is making in security, not what Microsoft or Google are doing.
When applied to music, the hordes of Imaginary Property people scream that musicians should give away their recorded bits for free (since they can't be owned anyway) and make revenue on live performances. Software-as-a-service with a subscription fee is the exact analog of a live performance for software. You want to use the software, you pay for the live performance.
I guess I don't see why the Imaginary Property crowd isn't ecstatic about this. Companies have realized that trying to restrict who owns their software bits is stupid, because someone will just pirate it. So instead, they aren't doing that anymore, and they are charging only if you actually use their service. Wasn't this the goal of the Imaginary Property crowd - no censorship on bits? (Or was it that they wanted music for free?)
Please, Imaginary Property crowd, now tell me how this is broken.
You are reading way too much into it. The fact that the "defect" that they put into their cracked game itself has to do with piracy is likely simply a hilarious meta-reference to piracy of games in general. They could easily have just had the game stop working after a certain amount of time, or had a giant pink scorpion show up and devour your in-game studio and its employees, or whatever. If you're discounting this entire experiment on the basis that in your opinion, their cracked, bugged copy of the game is inaccurate, you're the one who is the fool.
No, you've completely misunderstood what I said. I did not argue that due process be suspended for this individual for all time. Now that they have him, he gets due process.
While he was being pursued, the Boston police would have been justified in shooting and killing him. Many people on Slashdot seemed to be outraged that this could happen and were equating the use of force while apprehending this criminal to drone strikes and invasions of privacy. That is what is completely wrong.
This person is a suspect for the marathon bombings, but was a clear and present danger to the public and to the police during the pursuit, and the police would have been justified in using violence against him. Of course they didn't want to kill him, because they want to question him. But he did not deserve a no-violence arrest because of his actions during the arrest.
The Slashdot knee-jerk reaction that this criminal (yes, criminal, not suspect) deserved to be apprehended with no use of force is incorrect.
The criminal shot at and threw pipe bombs at the police as he was being pursued. He has a right to due process for the marathon bombings, but not for the crimes of shooting and bombing cops while being pursued (and the pursuit was justified, due to a preponderance of evidence against him for the marathon bombings). He was a clear and present danger during the pursuit and committed those crimes against the police while they were attempting to arrest him. If he wanted a guarantee of no violence to himself, like so many Slashdotters like you think he deserved, he should have not basically caused himself to be caught red-handed shooting at and bombing cops - he should have surrendered. But he did not do so.
A $200 pocket phone can do a lot of things a full desktop PC couldn't do a decade ago.
A $200 pocket phone still cannot do a lot of things a full desktop PC could do a decade ago.
Most people have very minimal needs.
I would say "Most people's needs are minimal." The distinction is very important. Most people have some computing needs that cannot be met by touch-only input and a slow processor (i.e. smartphone and/or tablet).
There are even some people who have many computing needs that cannot be met by devices like that.
I think the percentage of people who can meet all of their computing needs with a smartphone and/or tablet, and who will not ever need a notebook or desktop computer, is still low enough that calling Microsoft Windows dead is just silly.
Did you look at the content of that table instead of just the title? There is no data for Apple listed in that table. (Presumably because worldwide, Apple is not among the top 5 vendors of PCs). The only data for Apple is in the second table, which I'll quote the title of for you:
Top 5 Vendors, United States PC Shipments, First Quarter 2013 (Preliminary) (Units Shipments are in thousands)
There is no worldwide data for Apple sales in either report. Both reports contain worldwide data for non-Apple PCs, but that's not what we were talking about, were we?
There is a different report, by Gartner, that says U.S. Mac sales were up 7.4%, but a) that's not the IDC report and b) it's not worldwide data, it's for the U.S. market only:
Slashdot Mirror
How often does a developer need to do a clean build? If your build flow is set up right, not very often. Especially not often when the developer is in the critical code/compile/fix-compile-errors or compile/run/debug/fix loops which are where the compile times are important. There are even build flows/tools that let you not ever do a clean build, by storing versioned object files. And if your codebase is large enough, hopefully you're using dynamic linking which means that the link step isn't too long either.
I don't think you know how government works.
Constitutional rights themselves do not directly prescribe a specific method of governance. A constitution establishes a government and provides a framework for the government to operate in. The people (or their elected representatives) then decide what specific things the government should do within that framework. Public safety as a generality clearly falls within the bounds of that framework. The specific manner in which it is implemented is certainly up for debate and constitutional test against the other constitutional rights, but you can't make the argument that it's not the government's job to provide for public safety (which is a public good). Well, you can argue that, but for your argument to have any merit you would have to believe that Somalia is a better model for public safety than the U.S. (where instead of government, local warlords are in charge of public safety).
The entire foundation upon which government rests is the voluntary giving up of certain individual rights, property, and/or money in exchange for the common good. The common good includes public safety. Public safety is certainly allowed and even promoted in the framework set up by the U.S. constitution.
A couple weeks ago, all the anti-U.S. people on Slashdot said that Syria had no chemical weapons, and that the evidence was made up by the U.S. government as some sort of conspiracy. Or maybe that the U.S. deliberately sold the chemical weapons to Syria, I forget why.
Now that there's yet more evidence of chemical weapons in Syria, what's the latest out of the anti-U.S. crowd? I don't think anyone predicted that Russia would ultimately end up with these weapons. Are they still fake? Is this still a set up by the U.S., even now that these U.S.-produced weapons are going to end up in Russia? I suppose the latter is plausible (Syria is really screwing the U.S. by sending our chemical weapons to Russia), but it all seems pretty far-fetched to me.
Every time there's a story about copyright infringement, some pro-piracy apologist makes this same damn argument and it gets +5 Insightful.
Obligatory meme reference: http://www.quickmeme.com/Old-Economy-Steven/?upcoming
Did you read the article? MS cannot comply with the requirements list because Google has not provided them with the information and documentation necessary to do so.
The leader in this picture is setting the direction of the group. That cannot be delegated. If it were delegated, the person who did the delegating of that job would not be the leader; the person it was delegated to would be the leader. You could argue that the delegater would be considered a "manager" for finding a good leader. But I would argue that such a manager is only needed for a few brief periods in the project. Most of the rest of the project requires a leader.
I saw this picture recently and it sums it up nicely: http://media.lolwall.co/c/2013/04/boss-vs-leader_264722-624x.jpeg
How can you start up a signed kernel if you can't provide said signed kernel with the encryption key that it looks for at boot time, which was to be provided by the secure bootloader that you replaced with your own (becasue the secure bootloader will obviously fail to boot your custom kernel)?
Some of these "fairy tales" are quite long.
Okay, fine. A feature film is a heck of a lot more than a hours-long fairy tale from hundreds of years ago.
And if time is a good reason, why cant we do what we like with Disney's older works, I mean it's from dozens of years ago.
No, you have completely missed the point of my post. Time has absolutely nothing to do with it. Disney is selling a specific retelling of these fairy tales, complete with their own animation, characters, dialog, music, lyrics. That's what you can't take (for free). Like I said in the original post, if you want to sell your own version of Beauty and the Beast (which is one of those hundreds-of-years-old fairy tales), that's totally fine - or at least I would support that. But want to rip a DVD copy of Disney's version? Better pay them for their animation, characters, dialog, music, and lyrics.
Yeah, exactly - I mean, look at all the stuff Disney did that's a total rip-off, like the animations, 3D models, voices, music, dialog and lyrics. I can't believe they just took that from the days of yore that Slashdot longs for.
/sarcasm
A feature film is a heck of a lot more than a 5-minute fairy tale from hundreds of years ago. I'm so sick of everyone saying "Disney ripped off this and that". Sure, almost all of their movies are adaptations or based on or directly taken from old fairy tales. But that's not the point. No one is paying money to hear a 5-minute fairy tale told by a traveling bard. If you think that's what Disney is doing, go ahead and start up your own traveling storytelling company that tells 5 minute stories, and start raking in the profits.
The cognitive dissonance here is amazing. All of the posts in support of Google included at least one, if not multiple, of the following items:
Next time someone on Slashdot complains that Microsoft updates the Exchange and AD suite every couple years for supposedly "no good reason" and expects people to pay for it, I'm going to point them to your post and have you defend MS from a security and maintenance standpoint, okay? Also, I'm pretty sure MS offers paid support contracts exactly like what you describe.
Also, your argument is a total strawman. We're talking about Exchange, the best and best-supported non-cloud email service in the last 15 years. If that ever changes, you might have a point, but it doesn't right now and hasn't for the entirety of this "cloud revolution." You can't throw out generic "the cloud is better" arguments that might apply to some random crap software and hope they stick to something like Exchange and AD.
The OP was addressing cloud security. If a company runs an internal email server, it doesn't care what Microsoft or Google do with cloud security, since it's not using their cloud services. Securing its email system falls pretty much on the company, not the cloud provider. A part of that security is the security of the software itself, so of course I would still want Exchange security updates, but other than that, I don't give a crap how good the security of those cloud services are. I only care how good my own company's network security is.
Also, I fail to see how being stuck with a closed source proprietary product is any worse than being stuck with a software-as-a-service provider.
Why do I care what investments anyone is making in cloud security if I buy Exchange and run it on my own local email server? In that case I would only care about what investments my own company is making in security, not what Microsoft or Google are doing.
When applied to music, the hordes of Imaginary Property people scream that musicians should give away their recorded bits for free (since they can't be owned anyway) and make revenue on live performances. Software-as-a-service with a subscription fee is the exact analog of a live performance for software. You want to use the software, you pay for the live performance.
I guess I don't see why the Imaginary Property crowd isn't ecstatic about this. Companies have realized that trying to restrict who owns their software bits is stupid, because someone will just pirate it. So instead, they aren't doing that anymore, and they are charging only if you actually use their service. Wasn't this the goal of the Imaginary Property crowd - no censorship on bits? (Or was it that they wanted music for free?)
Please, Imaginary Property crowd, now tell me how this is broken.
If you think that the main point of this stunt was to proclaim about how piracy ruins game studios, have fun! Plonk.
You are reading way too much into it. The fact that the "defect" that they put into their cracked game itself has to do with piracy is likely simply a hilarious meta-reference to piracy of games in general. They could easily have just had the game stop working after a certain amount of time, or had a giant pink scorpion show up and devour your in-game studio and its employees, or whatever. If you're discounting this entire experiment on the basis that in your opinion, their cracked, bugged copy of the game is inaccurate, you're the one who is the fool.
No, you've completely misunderstood what I said. I did not argue that due process be suspended for this individual for all time. Now that they have him, he gets due process.
While he was being pursued, the Boston police would have been justified in shooting and killing him. Many people on Slashdot seemed to be outraged that this could happen and were equating the use of force while apprehending this criminal to drone strikes and invasions of privacy. That is what is completely wrong.
This person is a suspect for the marathon bombings, but was a clear and present danger to the public and to the police during the pursuit, and the police would have been justified in using violence against him. Of course they didn't want to kill him, because they want to question him. But he did not deserve a no-violence arrest because of his actions during the arrest.
The Slashdot knee-jerk reaction that this criminal (yes, criminal, not suspect) deserved to be apprehended with no use of force is incorrect.
The criminal shot at and threw pipe bombs at the police as he was being pursued. He has a right to due process for the marathon bombings, but not for the crimes of shooting and bombing cops while being pursued (and the pursuit was justified, due to a preponderance of evidence against him for the marathon bombings). He was a clear and present danger during the pursuit and committed those crimes against the police while they were attempting to arrest him. If he wanted a guarantee of no violence to himself, like so many Slashdotters like you think he deserved, he should have not basically caused himself to be caught red-handed shooting at and bombing cops - he should have surrendered. But he did not do so.
A $200 pocket phone can do a lot of things a full desktop PC couldn't do a decade ago.
A $200 pocket phone still cannot do a lot of things a full desktop PC could do a decade ago.
Most people have very minimal needs.
I would say "Most people's needs are minimal." The distinction is very important. Most people have some computing needs that cannot be met by touch-only input and a slow processor (i.e. smartphone and/or tablet).
There are even some people who have many computing needs that cannot be met by devices like that.
I think the percentage of people who can meet all of their computing needs with a smartphone and/or tablet, and who will not ever need a notebook or desktop computer, is still low enough that calling Microsoft Windows dead is just silly.
Did you look at the content of that table instead of just the title? There is no data for Apple listed in that table. (Presumably because worldwide, Apple is not among the top 5 vendors of PCs). The only data for Apple is in the second table, which I'll quote the title of for you:
Top 5 Vendors, United States PC Shipments, First Quarter 2013 (Preliminary) (Units Shipments are in thousands)
There is no worldwide data for Apple sales in either report. Both reports contain worldwide data for non-Apple PCs, but that's not what we were talking about, were we?
Well the IDC data saying Mac sales were down 7.5% is for the U.S. market only as well. So forget point b) above, as both reports are for U.S. data.
No, that's just incorrect - here are the actual reports.
The IDC report says Mac sales were down 7.5%:
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24065413#.UWZPFVfJLz9
There is a different report, by Gartner, that says U.S. Mac sales were up 7.4%, but a) that's not the IDC report and b) it's not worldwide data, it's for the U.S. market only:
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2420816