Since you've been unable to show us any specific example of your alleged problems and instead expect us to believe you "just because", yeah, chances are you made it all up just to troll.
Except that Mono is *also* under the GPL. No, it's not about ideology, it's simply some slashdotters have a vendetta against Microsoft that they'll follow even against common sense.
A number of applications that rely on.Net that don't work properly. There's nothing you can do to fix them except wait for the developers to fix their poorly-written app.
Explain to me how "open source" translates as "free-as-in-beer."
Simple. If I have a piece of Open Source software, I'm allowed to give it away for free if I want to. Not so with patents, which give a third party the right to demand payments from my users without my (or their) explicit consent.
Most people already have an h.264 license. However, if you use x264 and don't have an h.264 license (pretty much impossible these days unless you run Linux), then yes, you probably owe them like a dollar or something. But they aren't going to go after you for this.
So? it's still illegal, with all the problems that entails.
And this still falls under the category of paying for the tools you use. I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. This is especially true if you make money using those tools.
Well, I'd say that if I'm paying for the tools I use, I should be paying the one that made them, not some corporate dipshit that managed to patent some math through obfuscation by lawyerese. But that's just me.
Yeah, copying Windows is such a wonderful idea. If you work really really hard at it you'll get... a "Windows clone". Yeah, not exactly earth-shattering. But what you'll most likely end up with instead is a "half-assed Windows clone", which is as bad as it sounds.
And worrying about home users is an utter waste of time if you care about adoption rates, as Apple has shown for the past two decades. Face it, 'shiny' may attract you and a very small community, but what most people care about is being able to reliably run the apps they need for their day-to-day activities, and a shiny new UI won't do a thing for that.
For most business apps, most of the performance problems come from bad designs, not unoptimized code. And while the quality of the design is, for the most part, orthogonal to the level of abstraction in the language, the large amounts of boilerplate code and the crypticness that's so typical of low-level code makes it *much* easier for a lousy design to go unnoticed.
Good C/C++ code may be faster than good Python, but good Python is many orders of magnitude more common than good C/C++.
its just another famous asshole getting targeted because he is famous (or infamous) I'd chalk it up to another Tiger Woods getting busted for cheating, Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office from an intern, John Edwards banging his photographer, etc...
Except for the proof that all those happened, while in this case the "proof" was so flimsy it was deemed not even worth investigating, let alone convict him for it.
The guy probably did do something wrong
And that's almost certainly because you want him to be, because it fits your worldview better than admitting the whole thing was BS from the start.
Someday in the future if he is a rapist he'll attempt it again, especially after getting away with it - you guy's can come back here then and read all the silly comments about conspiracy and wonder how the government could have let this happen to some poor innocent woman
I wonder if, when the whole investigation is dropped because the accusations were baseless to begin with, you'd come back here and read all the silly comments calling him an "asshole" and a "rapist" and wonder how they'd be so quick to assassinate his character without even the tiniest evidence for it. Oh, wait, that's what actually happened and you persist in believing him a criminal, go figure.
Seriously, what kind of developer would even notice a $5 charge?
The kind that makes his work available to all for free.
Not that this is a huge problem for them, mind you, as they can easily host their software elsewhere and it'll still Just Work(tm), unlike Apple's (far more expensive) iThingie walled garden, but not everyone develops browser extensions with a commercial purpose and for those that don't, the difference between $0 and $5 is much larger than that between $5 and $10.
Except that if they wanted to "avoid becoming part of the circus" they could go anywhere else, there'd be no reason to move to the US or Israel without a secondary benefit to do so such as payment for a job well done by the US government.
It's a win for corrupt governments everywhere. US 1, justice 0.
Did the problems you experienced with ATI cards on Linux occur with the Open Source driver, or did you (oh-so-mistakenly) believe "propietary = better" and tried the steaming pile of trash that's the Closed Source ones?
And yes, there is a right to privacy. However, it is excercised only for people in private places, houses in plain view from a public street don't, can't, and shouldn't count, and seeing otherwise intelligent people argue for such a thing is frankly depressing.
Isn't the decision to remove some photos a private agreement between Google and the people who ask for their photos to be removed?
Yup, and as such a matter concerning only Google and said person.
How is a third party, whether acting like an asshole or not, standing up for his own rights by interfering in that private agreement?
He's not interfering in that agreement as he's not bound by it, being neither a Google employee nor the party that requested the takedown in the first place.
Huh. And what happens to people's desire for a complete and detailed database of public places rather than one filled with holes "just because"? what happens to the feelings of photographers everywhere that wish to excercise their hobby, their profession, without harrassment from total strangers? why is it only one side that gets to screw over the others' feelings and sentiments? and why does it have to be the one that doesn't have the law on their side?
Ohh, that's right. Because it's the one you agree with.
surely locals have the right to request their homes not be broadcast to the entire world?
No, they don't, and that's why projects like this are needed. To remind people that fucking over photographers with paranoia and idiotic boogeymen is NOT a right, and shouldn't be in any society that calls itself Free.
But it is the ethical man's duty to determine whether it's right or wrong, and if the former defend him against the system that wishes to punish him.
Equating 'legal' with 'ethical' as so many around here do is the single most retarded thing in the field of Ethics and has been known as such since the ancient greeks.
Same reason innocent people were dragged to Guantanamo to be tortured, same reason the shootings of innocents are not published by the media but considered 'classified' information and hidden under wraps, same reason the US government is allowed to spy on you for any reason whatsoever and not tell anyone about it.
My suggestion? next time you hear the phrase "national security", grab some vaseline.
Face it, the balance between truth and propaganda in the US has gone *down*, not up, since the Twin Towers incident all in the name of "national security". Trusting the government and it alone to push the balance further towards truth is foolish in extreme.
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
The funniest thing about America's Army is how clearly it showed that the only thing separating the "good guys" from the "bad guys" is which side of the fence were you born into.
Hardly intentional given its source, but I always got a chuckle out of how well it parallels real life military propaganda.
Does this really leave any doubt ? Anything you disagree with ?
Yeah. Everything.
It's painfully obvious from your post you've never studied either Ethics or Theology and are basing your whole opinion on caricatures of each ideology propagated by the mass media as well as abusing horribly biased examples just to further your own preconceptions. So, study both fields, perhaps some Logic as well and *then* come back.
1. Creative Nomad (before the iPod) -- oversized, horrible interface, and a slow computer interface
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
The fact that you personally didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't innovative.
2. Smartphone -- before the iPhone, which phone had a standards compliant browser and usable media software. Are you really seriously going to say that the standard Palm, BlackBerry, or WinMo device was anyhere near as usable as the iPhone in 2007?
See above. Many people liked back then, as they do now, the interface of WinMo and BlackBerry devices. I'm not one of them, but I don't consider the iPhone 'usable' either.
3. PressPlay -- subscription music, before iTunes, where could you *buy* mainstream music by the song and have unlimited rights to burn them to a CD?
Key word being "mainstream". Which doesn't denote innovation of any kind, merely better negotiation skills compared to those that *did* innovate.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you've been unable to show us any specific example of your alleged problems and instead expect us to believe you "just because", yeah, chances are you made it all up just to troll.
Except that Mono is *also* under the GPL. No, it's not about ideology, it's simply some slashdotters have a vendetta against Microsoft that they'll follow even against common sense.
A number of applications that rely on .Net that don't work properly. There's nothing you can do to fix them except wait for the developers to fix their poorly-written app.
Fixed that for you.
Explain to me how "open source" translates as "free-as-in-beer."
Simple. If I have a piece of Open Source software, I'm allowed to give it away for free if I want to. Not so with patents, which give a third party the right to demand payments from my users without my (or their) explicit consent.
Most people already have an h.264 license. However, if you use x264 and don't have an h.264 license (pretty much impossible these days unless you run Linux), then yes, you probably owe them like a dollar or something. But they aren't going to go after you for this.
So? it's still illegal, with all the problems that entails.
And this still falls under the category of paying for the tools you use. I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. This is especially true if you make money using those tools.
Well, I'd say that if I'm paying for the tools I use, I should be paying the one that made them, not some corporate dipshit that managed to patent some math through obfuscation by lawyerese. But that's just me.
Yeah, copying Windows is such a wonderful idea. If you work really really hard at it you'll get... a "Windows clone". Yeah, not exactly earth-shattering. But what you'll most likely end up with instead is a "half-assed Windows clone", which is as bad as it sounds.
And worrying about home users is an utter waste of time if you care about adoption rates, as Apple has shown for the past two decades. Face it, 'shiny' may attract you and a very small community, but what most people care about is being able to reliably run the apps they need for their day-to-day activities, and a shiny new UI won't do a thing for that.
For most business apps, most of the performance problems come from bad designs, not unoptimized code. And while the quality of the design is, for the most part, orthogonal to the level of abstraction in the language, the large amounts of boilerplate code and the crypticness that's so typical of low-level code makes it *much* easier for a lousy design to go unnoticed.
Good C/C++ code may be faster than good Python, but good Python is many orders of magnitude more common than good C/C++.
its just another famous asshole getting targeted because he is famous (or infamous) I'd chalk it up to another Tiger Woods getting busted for cheating, Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office from an intern, John Edwards banging his photographer, etc...
Except for the proof that all those happened, while in this case the "proof" was so flimsy it was deemed not even worth investigating, let alone convict him for it.
The guy probably did do something wrong
And that's almost certainly because you want him to be, because it fits your worldview better than admitting the whole thing was BS from the start.
Someday in the future if he is a rapist he'll attempt it again, especially after getting away with it - you guy's can come back here then and read all the silly comments about conspiracy and wonder how the government could have let this happen to some poor innocent woman
I wonder if, when the whole investigation is dropped because the accusations were baseless to begin with, you'd come back here and read all the silly comments calling him an "asshole" and a "rapist" and wonder how they'd be so quick to assassinate his character without even the tiniest evidence for it. Oh, wait, that's what actually happened and you persist in believing him a criminal, go figure.
There's no "I hate your ideas and would prefer them silenced" moderation option here on Slashdot, so mods have to make do with what there is.
Seriously, what kind of developer would even notice a $5 charge?
The kind that makes his work available to all for free.
Not that this is a huge problem for them, mind you, as they can easily host their software elsewhere and it'll still Just Work(tm), unlike Apple's (far more expensive) iThingie walled garden, but not everyone develops browser extensions with a commercial purpose and for those that don't, the difference between $0 and $5 is much larger than that between $5 and $10.
Except that if they wanted to "avoid becoming part of the circus" they could go anywhere else, there'd be no reason to move to the US or Israel without a secondary benefit to do so such as payment for a job well done by the US government.
It's a win for corrupt governments everywhere. US 1, justice 0.
Did the problems you experienced with ATI cards on Linux occur with the Open Source driver, or did you (oh-so-mistakenly) believe "propietary = better" and tried the steaming pile of trash that's the Closed Source ones?
And it's quite likely that the open source drivers will not be as capable or high performance as the proprietary drivers.
Let me guess: you've never used ATI cards, right?
Why not? it's costly.
And yes, there is a right to privacy. However, it is excercised only for people in private places, houses in plain view from a public street don't, can't, and shouldn't count, and seeing otherwise intelligent people argue for such a thing is frankly depressing.
Isn't the decision to remove some photos a private agreement between Google and the people who ask for their photos to be removed?
Yup, and as such a matter concerning only Google and said person.
How is a third party, whether acting like an asshole or not, standing up for his own rights by interfering in that private agreement?
He's not interfering in that agreement as he's not bound by it, being neither a Google employee nor the party that requested the takedown in the first place.
Huh. And what happens to people's desire for a complete and detailed database of public places rather than one filled with holes "just because"? what happens to the feelings of photographers everywhere that wish to excercise their hobby, their profession, without harrassment from total strangers? why is it only one side that gets to screw over the others' feelings and sentiments? and why does it have to be the one that doesn't have the law on their side?
Ohh, that's right. Because it's the one you agree with.
surely locals have the right to request their homes not be broadcast to the entire world?
No, they don't, and that's why projects like this are needed. To remind people that fucking over photographers with paranoia and idiotic boogeymen is NOT a right, and shouldn't be in any society that calls itself Free.
But it is the ethical man's duty to determine whether it's right or wrong, and if the former defend him against the system that wishes to punish him.
Equating 'legal' with 'ethical' as so many around here do is the single most retarded thing in the field of Ethics and has been known as such since the ancient greeks.
National Security.
Same reason innocent people were dragged to Guantanamo to be tortured, same reason the shootings of innocents are not published by the media but considered 'classified' information and hidden under wraps, same reason the US government is allowed to spy on you for any reason whatsoever and not tell anyone about it.
My suggestion? next time you hear the phrase "national security", grab some vaseline.
Keep adjust your balance, a little at a time
You mean like the past 9 years?
Face it, the balance between truth and propaganda in the US has gone *down*, not up, since the Twin Towers incident all in the name of "national security". Trusting the government and it alone to push the balance further towards truth is foolish in extreme.
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
-- Nathan Poe
The funniest thing about America's Army is how clearly it showed that the only thing separating the "good guys" from the "bad guys" is which side of the fence were you born into.
Hardly intentional given its source, but I always got a chuckle out of how well it parallels real life military propaganda.
Does this really leave any doubt ? Anything you disagree with ?
Yeah. Everything.
It's painfully obvious from your post you've never studied either Ethics or Theology and are basing your whole opinion on caricatures of each ideology propagated by the mass media as well as abusing horribly biased examples just to further your own preconceptions. So, study both fields, perhaps some Logic as well and *then* come back.
Subjective opinion is subjective.
It wasn't a huge innovation, but it was a damned good implementation on a mobile device.
You're living proof of why willfully ignorant Linux fanboys are worse than the most ardent Apple yuppie fanboy.
I think my point should be obvious.
1. Creative Nomad (before the iPod) -- oversized, horrible interface, and a slow computer interface
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
The fact that you personally didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't innovative.
2. Smartphone -- before the iPhone, which phone had a standards compliant browser and usable media software. Are you really seriously going to say that the standard Palm, BlackBerry, or WinMo device was anyhere near as usable as the iPhone in 2007?
See above. Many people liked back then, as they do now, the interface of WinMo and BlackBerry devices. I'm not one of them, but I don't consider the iPhone 'usable' either.
3. PressPlay -- subscription music, before iTunes, where could you *buy* mainstream music by the song and have unlimited rights to burn them to a CD?
Key word being "mainstream". Which doesn't denote innovation of any kind, merely better negotiation skills compared to those that *did* innovate.