So you're saying that if I belong to a community that I should be *FORCED* to help them, even if I don't want to? Yeah, that's a good idea.
Yes, it is. Although I think *forced* is a little strong. *encouraged* would be better. Communities only work because members contribute back to them. If everyone did so, even in an almost insignificant way, it would work better than the way they are, with some 'members' merely leeching off of it. Take/.'s meta-moderation system as an example. If everybody did it once in a while, those 'while's would be farther in between.
If someone wants to be a member of a community, then they must obey the community's code of conduct. I don't see any problem with that.
I'm in contention with the community's code of conduct, not whether it should be obeyed or not.
Why do you feel that it's OK for the proprietary guys to enforce conditions on people who want to use their code, but that it's not OK for the free software guys to do the same?
Never said I liked what they do either. Developers can do what they want with their code. That's their choice. I just think it would be nice to positively encourage them to give others that wish to use it more choice in how they do so. That is all.
Not to have any personal dig, as this appears (unfortunately) to be the prevalent opinion, but that is equally an incredibly arrogant and to me saddening point of view.
It is my understanding that some of the principles trying to be upheld by the free software movement is that of a community. A place that is friendly and helps out one another.
"Don't like it, don't use it" doesn't fall into this category at all, and i think it a shame that people use it so often. It's not nice and it's not helpful.
The whole point of open source, in my mind, is that it's there for others to use. If they feel they can't use it because of the license, then that seems to indicate the license is flawed. If the code is out there, and someone has been nice enough to release it then i shouldn't have to write my own all over again. "they could just make their code open source too?" Well what if it's some commercial company with something they need to keep proprietary because of competitors? Not that that should matter, they should be allowed the choice anyway (some people call this thing 'choice', 'freedom').
Point is, one doesn't want anyone to take advantage of the open source code without giving back to it in some way. That would be unfair.
So perhaps we need a compromise. If someone wants to use the code for free, then they have to release theirs for free as 'payment' - just as it is now. But perhaps add another option: If someone wants to use the code, but not release theirs, then let their 'payment' be a small fee for it - just like proprietary licensing. that sound fair to me, a bit nicer too, and I came up with it in 5 minutes...
of course you can have error bounds greater than the measurement itself. Means you have a really unreliable measurement, but still...
poor example, but think about measuring 0.3mm with only a standard ruler, accurate to the mm. i can say it's about 0.3mm, but measuring it with only my ruler, i could probably say it was ±0.50mm, truthfully. that gives me 0.3mm ±167% (0.5/0.3 *100 - it's probably how they do it with their numbers)...
I'm not going to be a/. pessimist and go searching for the loopholes. Sometimes it pays to be an optimist, and I reckon Yahoo et al. are going to need all the encouragement they can get to convince record exec's that this is a Good Idea (TM).
Then we might see some decent music being released unrestricted!
If you're using GMail, you're likely logged in to Google every time you do a search. Why should I do that? No, of course I don't stay logged in any more than it is necessary.
clear all your google cookies in between? change your IP address? they potentially could still know it was you!
I wonder if the judge realised the irony in allowing Sony to give out free downloads of DRM-laden music files to people who's computer(s) they made vunerable with their DRM software...
Despite the poorly worded title, the UK govt. isn't about to ask you to submit every single key you ever generate. It just wants the ability to 'force' you to hand over the keys if and when it asks for them.
Granted, this causes problems of it's own. I mean, I don't keep a list of every key i've used...
Unfortunately, they probably can't do it. There was no good reason why the powerbook 12" had fewer features than the others, except that perhaps they just couldn't fit them all in to that small a space.:(
A lot of people seem to be arguing over the 'easiness' of switching search engines.
I think this original comment made a good point, but mistakingly placed it under the easiness arguement. That is this:
It may well be easy to change the default search engine, BUT it is easier not to bother.
So the point is actually one of convenience. It is more convenient not to change the browser's default search engine, and nothing short of asking preference on first run is going to change that.
Well surely, in that case, you'd think there wouldn't be a problem, because soon there would arrive hardware that can play both discs. Sorted!
Who wants to take bets on whether it'll happen anytime soon, though? I mean, it's in the interests of the consumer! That counts for something... right?
...and I could wander down my local high-street slaughtering everyone I saw. Or maybe highjack a plane and fly it into the Whitehouse. Doesn't mean I should...
Doesn't make sense to delay the release of a product to put more features in it, when you can just add them on later in the form of an expansion pack for a huge wad of more $$$!
The trick is to make it just good enough, so that people will want and buy it in the first place, but just incomplete enough as to make the expansion packs really worth getting to the point of being essential for complete fulfilment.
Best case in point that I can think of off the top of my head is Rollercoaster Tycoon. Good game (if you like that sort of thing), so definitely worth getting, but if you go back to the original after using the expansion pack(s), you'll realise just how limited the original was...
Slashdot Mirror
Take
I'm in contention with the community's code of conduct, not whether it should be obeyed or not.
Never said I liked what they do either.
Developers can do what they want with their code. That's their choice.
I just think it would be nice to positively encourage them to give others that wish to use it more choice in how they do so.
That is all.
Dude!
I wanna be a kid again!
Well, I for one bow down to our new Lego robot overlords...
Not to have any personal dig, as this appears (unfortunately) to be the prevalent opinion, but that is equally an incredibly arrogant and to me saddening point of view.
It is my understanding that some of the principles trying to be upheld by the free software movement is that of a community. A place that is friendly and helps out one another.
"Don't like it, don't use it" doesn't fall into this category at all, and i think it a shame that people use it so often. It's not nice and it's not helpful.
The whole point of open source, in my mind, is that it's there for others to use. If they feel they can't use it because of the license, then that seems to indicate the license is flawed. If the code is out there, and someone has been nice enough to release it then i shouldn't have to write my own all over again.
"they could just make their code open source too?" Well what if it's some commercial company with something they need to keep proprietary because of competitors? Not that that should matter, they should be allowed the choice anyway (some people call this thing 'choice', 'freedom').
Point is, one doesn't want anyone to take advantage of the open source code without giving back to it in some way. That would be unfair.
So perhaps we need a compromise.
If someone wants to use the code for free, then they have to release theirs for free as 'payment' - just as it is now.
But perhaps add another option: If someone wants to use the code, but not release theirs, then let their 'payment' be a small fee for it - just like proprietary licensing.
that sound fair to me, a bit nicer too, and I came up with it in 5 minutes...
of course you can have error bounds greater than the measurement itself. Means you have a really unreliable measurement, but still...
:)
poor example, but
think about measuring 0.3mm with only a standard ruler, accurate to the mm.
i can say it's about 0.3mm, but measuring it with only my ruler, i could probably say it was ±0.50mm, truthfully.
that gives me 0.3mm ±167% (0.5/0.3 *100 - it's probably how they do it with their numbers)...
hope that makes sense?
How many websites you use have a "log me in automatically" checkbox, ticked by default?
Bet it's most.
How many average users do you suppose won't bother/remember to uncheck it?
were good old boys drinking whisky and rye?
...is up on the apple website:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc06/
(so long as it works) win-win!
meh. i don't care.
still running ppc, Qiii and openttd work just fine,
i'm happy!
do penguins purr? :O
In Soviet Russia, the DRM restricts you!
Is the music industry starting to see sense?
/. pessimist and go searching for the loopholes. Sometimes it pays to be an optimist, and I reckon Yahoo et al. are going to need all the encouragement they can get to convince record exec's that this is a Good Idea (TM).
I'm not going to be a
Then we might see some decent music being released unrestricted!
clear all your google cookies in between?
change your IP address?
they potentially could still know it was you!
*runs off to shops to buy tin foil*
I don't have that (£) key on my keyboard.
it's probably there somewhere.
try [alt]+a number key of some sort, if it isn't a [shift]+number combination...
more wisdom for you:
it's GBP, not UKP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBP
I wonder if the judge realised the irony
in allowing Sony to give out free downloads of DRM-laden music files
to people who's computer(s) they made vunerable with their DRM software...
erm.
RTFA
Despite the poorly worded title, the UK govt. isn't about to ask you to submit every single key you ever generate.
It just wants the ability to 'force' you to hand over the keys if and when it asks for them.
Granted, this causes problems of it's own. I mean, I don't keep a list of every key i've used...
's correct.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/178100.html
Unfortunately, they probably can't do it. :(
There was no good reason why the powerbook 12" had fewer features than the others, except that perhaps they just couldn't fit them all in to that small a space.
Eventually, though...
A lot of people seem to be arguing over the 'easiness' of switching search engines.
I think this original comment made a good point, but mistakingly placed it under the easiness arguement. That is this:
So the point is actually one of convenience. It is more convenient not to change the browser's default search engine, and nothing short of asking preference on first run is going to change that.Orders your sections into nice PDF bookmarks, too.
Please remain calm, change is sometimes good.
++good, infact.
Well surely, in that case, you'd think there wouldn't be a problem, because soon there would arrive hardware that can play both discs. Sorted!
Who wants to take bets on whether it'll happen anytime soon, though?
I mean, it's in the interests of the consumer! That counts for something... right?
Ctrl+PgDn / Ctrl+PgUp still worked (does same thing).
Nevertheless, yes nice to have the 'normal' ones back too.
...and I could wander down my local high-street slaughtering everyone I saw. Or maybe highjack a plane and fly it into the Whitehouse.
Doesn't mean I should...
Ignorance is not an excuse.
Doesn't make sense to delay the release of a product to put more features in it, when you can just add them on later in the form of an expansion pack for a huge wad of more $$$!
The trick is to make it just good enough, so that people will want and buy it in the first place, but just incomplete enough as to make the expansion packs really worth getting to the point of being essential for complete fulfilment.
Best case in point that I can think of off the top of my head is Rollercoaster Tycoon. Good game (if you like that sort of thing), so definitely worth getting, but if you go back to the original after using the expansion pack(s), you'll realise just how limited the original was...