Do advertisements "know" when they are adblocked? Otherwise, it's the same as not looking at them, which is what most people do anyway. If so, perhaps adblock could do something about that?
Anyway - none of this really matters. Proprietary software model is dead anyway, so it really doesn't matter if something like this happens now or a year later. The future is open no matter what. You can fight it as much as you can, but that's the way it's going to be. Better just admit it now and not waste any energy fighting it.
Yeah. Proprietary software is dead! Along with incandescent lightbulbs, the English system, walking, and fossil fuels!
Yes, religion has some effects on U.S governments policies, but that is a given considering laws are made by people and religion is a huge part in many people's beliefs.
In "Separation of Church and State", "Church" refers to a group, not a set of beliefs. Laws will always be based on beliefs, and many of them will be religious or semi-religious (not based on any solid facts). The idea that we should have freedom of speech is not a scientific law, or mathematic property.
Laws should be made by an elected government, not a religious group-controlled government. That is separation of Church and State, and the U.S. has it.
Note: I am not saying religion be forced upon people. Just that some religious beliefs do and always will play a part in even the most secular government.
The only way to correct for something like this is through taxation etc, where the law can be applied and force better behaviour.
Good idea. I propose a "impolite tax", "bad driver tax", "poor taste in food penalty", "not following majority religion citation", "not agreeing with [insert person/group] tax", "ugly car tax", "excessive odor tax", "not belonging to x political party tax", and a "stupid tax". That way we can make everyone have good behavior.
He didn't have to publicly supply a way to bypass security. That is endangering everyone unnecessarily. First he should have contacted the airport security officials privately about it. If they did nothing, he should have then announced that he had found a way to bypass security, but not given any specifics. If they still did nothing, he should have publicly reported the problem.
It's like someone showing burglars into your home to show you that you have a security problem, before they even tell you.
Perhaps in the future it can be consolidated into a single block of code, but I think the context sensitivity required would be quite bad. I type differently and use words here I would not consider using for a work related document.
I hadn't thought of that, but it doesn't seem like a huge issue. Are you really accidentally going to type an entirely context inappropriate word by accident? Certainly, you could type "waht" rather than "what" or "rediculous" rather than "ridiculous", but not "t3h l33tzor haxxor" rather than "very skilled".
The dictionary as it stands now is a VERY good start for windows Firefox users at least, am I right in my belief that a global dictionary is already available for every text field on the mac?
Yes. It works for every application using standard OS X text fields with no effort on the part of the programmer (unless they want to customize it). Unfortunately, Firefox does not use standard OS X text fields, so this leaves you with two dictionaries. Although, it probably wouldn't be too hard for the Firefox developers to sync words added to the two dictionaries, since the ones for the OS X dictionary are stored in a simple ascii list.
The mohs scale is not logarithmic. The progression of actual hardness does not follow a set pattern. Look at the wikipedia article. 9 is twice as hard as 8.
That is a poor analogy, takes the issue entirely out of scale, and ignores the fact that I was not opposing the use of the GPL.
What I was pointed out was that the non copyleft licenses are essentially compatible with all other licenses. The GPL is not, and as such can cause problems (e.g. compatibility with the GPLv3).
I said it was interesting to note. Not that it proved anything. It was mainly intended to show that the U.S.'s higher crime rate wasn't necessarily caused by less restrictive gun control laws.
Anti-Microsoft people are fools who have some unfounded notion that Microsoft is evil. Microsoft might make some poor software, but they aren't evil.
As far as I'm aware, most of the anti-GPL people are open source advocates who oppose the restrictions. Companies like Microsoft aren't anti-GPL, it just doesn't fit with their business model.
Without copyright there could still be closed sourced software. Licensing would be have to be fully software controlled, which is never foolproof, but they can't sue everyone now anyway. Nothing about public domain makes you give away source code, nor does it restrict how the software works.
As far as the "freedom to tinker", I find shared source license interesting. Is there any license that requires you to buy a license for the software, but then gets you the code for it for you to use (not distribute), for any purpose? Also, perhaps, allowing you to distributed "fixes" or "additions" under any license you like that lets other owners of the software use you addition?
Microsoft's seem to be either distributable or restricted to where you aren't allowed to mess with the code, only look at it.
Why would allowing a government controlled militia be in the Bill of Rights? First of all, the Bill of Rights is there to ensure the people's rights, not the governments functions. Second of all, why would a government deny itself an army? As far as I'm aware, the founders hadn't had problems with Britain being extremely pacifistic.
I think Linus is a good coder and project manager, but we shouldn't expect him to "show the way" in issues of principle/vision. He's an engineer, not a "freedom fighter".
Personally, I would rather use and help create software made by engineers and good project managers, not some "holier than thou" demagogue who thinks he's fighting for freedom and denounces anyone with a different viewpoint as "unethical" or "antisocial". Software performance is infinitely more important than the politics surrounding licensing and some guy's personal beliefs.
That said, I think that people with a view like Linus set a far better long term path than those like Stallman. The GNU project has made good software, but the focus it places on fighting a nonexistent enemy is silly. The desire to make good software is going to "show the way" in the OSS world, not Free Software idealism.
There is nothing in GPLv2 or GPLv3 that prevents a Linux distribution from containing various programs under various licenses, just as Linux distributions today contain code under GPLv2, BSD, MIT, and other licenses.
One thing to remember is that of those licenses, GPL is the only one that causes trouble. The rest have virtually no restrictions. Now, there are other copyleft licenses, but many of them are essentially GPL clones.
What's interesting to note is that areas which respect the second amendment have less murders than areas with governments that ignore the Constitution and ban all guns.
A large percentage of murders are organized crime related, and there is no way to stop criminals with significant resources from accessing guns. Much of the rest of murders are crimes of passion, which in most cases don't require sophisticated weaponry.
I am not sure if you are including this in GIS stuff, it seems like you were more referring to location/statistical information, but what I would like to see is high resolution satellite/fly over images. There is some good public domain stuff, but it doesn't come near to the quality of the images in Google Earth or the bird's eye view in Microsoft Virtual Earth. Google Earth is okay, but the interface isn't as nice as it could be and the restrictions on using the images can be problematic.
Eventually, we're going to move to processors that dynamically create MicroCores (TM), as they function. MicroCores will exist in another dimension such that they can endlessly multiply without taking up any space.
These systems will allow Windows Panorama (codename: Holstein) to run, although not with the new SuperTransparentyandFlashyandGooeyWoohoo interface, of course.
They have very large gas tanks. A civilian Hummer H1 has a 50 gallon tank (an average car has around 15-18), and is made to work with auxiliary tanks. I wouldn't be surprised if military Humvees had a significantly larger tank.
Beyond that, it is a lot easier to carry around gas than electricity in a specialized vehicle.
Those engines are designed for totally different things. Your Mustang doesn't have near the low RPM torque the Hummer has, not that most Hummer owners ever use that.
I agree. Unlike machines, people have no bias and would never commit fraud. Those computers though, they're constantly working against us for their own motives.
Slashdot Mirror
Do advertisements "know" when they are adblocked? Otherwise, it's the same as not looking at them, which is what most people do anyway. If so, perhaps adblock could do something about that?
Yeah. Proprietary software is dead! Along with incandescent lightbulbs, the English system, walking, and fossil fuels!
Oh, wait...
No.
Yes, religion has some effects on U.S governments policies, but that is a given considering laws are made by people and religion is a huge part in many people's beliefs.
In "Separation of Church and State", "Church" refers to a group, not a set of beliefs. Laws will always be based on beliefs, and many of them will be religious or semi-religious (not based on any solid facts). The idea that we should have freedom of speech is not a scientific law, or mathematic property.
Laws should be made by an elected government, not a religious group-controlled government. That is separation of Church and State, and the U.S. has it.
Note: I am not saying religion be forced upon people. Just that some religious beliefs do and always will play a part in even the most secular government.
Good idea. I propose a "impolite tax", "bad driver tax", "poor taste in food penalty", "not following majority religion citation", "not agreeing with [insert person/group] tax", "ugly car tax", "excessive odor tax", "not belonging to x political party tax", and a "stupid tax". That way we can make everyone have good behavior.
He didn't have to publicly supply a way to bypass security. That is endangering everyone unnecessarily. First he should have contacted the airport security officials privately about it. If they did nothing, he should have then announced that he had found a way to bypass security, but not given any specifics. If they still did nothing, he should have publicly reported the problem.
It's like someone showing burglars into your home to show you that you have a security problem, before they even tell you.
Yes. It works for every application using standard OS X text fields with no effort on the part of the programmer (unless they want to customize it). Unfortunately, Firefox does not use standard OS X text fields, so this leaves you with two dictionaries. Although, it probably wouldn't be too hard for the Firefox developers to sync words added to the two dictionaries, since the ones for the OS X dictionary are stored in a simple ascii list.
It would be smarter if it didn't use a whole new dictionary in addition to the ones users inevitable have for other applications.
The mohs scale is not logarithmic. The progression of actual hardness does not follow a set pattern. Look at the wikipedia article. 9 is twice as hard as 8.
Cubic zirconia has about the same hardness as sapphire.
That is a poor analogy, takes the issue entirely out of scale, and ignores the fact that I was not opposing the use of the GPL.
What I was pointed out was that the non copyleft licenses are essentially compatible with all other licenses. The GPL is not, and as such can cause problems (e.g. compatibility with the GPLv3).
I said it was interesting to note. Not that it proved anything. It was mainly intended to show that the U.S.'s higher crime rate wasn't necessarily caused by less restrictive gun control laws.
I like the freedom of the BSD license too, but the GPL is better if you want access to all derived software.
Ideology really shouldn't come into the question.
Anti-Microsoft people are fools who have some unfounded notion that Microsoft is evil. Microsoft might make some poor software, but they aren't evil.
As far as I'm aware, most of the anti-GPL people are open source advocates who oppose the restrictions. Companies like Microsoft aren't anti-GPL, it just doesn't fit with their business model.
Without copyright there could still be closed sourced software. Licensing would be have to be fully software controlled, which is never foolproof, but they can't sue everyone now anyway. Nothing about public domain makes you give away source code, nor does it restrict how the software works.
As far as the "freedom to tinker", I find shared source license interesting. Is there any license that requires you to buy a license for the software, but then gets you the code for it for you to use (not distribute), for any purpose? Also, perhaps, allowing you to distributed "fixes" or "additions" under any license you like that lets other owners of the software use you addition?
Microsoft's seem to be either distributable or restricted to where you aren't allowed to mess with the code, only look at it.
Why would allowing a government controlled militia be in the Bill of Rights? First of all, the Bill of Rights is there to ensure the people's rights, not the governments functions. Second of all, why would a government deny itself an army? As far as I'm aware, the founders hadn't had problems with Britain being extremely pacifistic.
That said, I think that people with a view like Linus set a far better long term path than those like Stallman. The GNU project has made good software, but the focus it places on fighting a nonexistent enemy is silly. The desire to make good software is going to "show the way" in the OSS world, not Free Software idealism.
What's interesting to note is that areas which respect the second amendment have less murders than areas with governments that ignore the Constitution and ban all guns.
A large percentage of murders are organized crime related, and there is no way to stop criminals with significant resources from accessing guns. Much of the rest of murders are crimes of passion, which in most cases don't require sophisticated weaponry.
I am not sure if you are including this in GIS stuff, it seems like you were more referring to location/statistical information, but what I would like to see is high resolution satellite/fly over images. There is some good public domain stuff, but it doesn't come near to the quality of the images in Google Earth or the bird's eye view in Microsoft Virtual Earth. Google Earth is okay, but the interface isn't as nice as it could be and the restrictions on using the images can be problematic.
Eventually, we're going to move to processors that dynamically create MicroCores (TM), as they function. MicroCores will exist in another dimension such that they can endlessly multiply without taking up any space.
These systems will allow Windows Panorama (codename: Holstein) to run, although not with the new SuperTransparentyandFlashyandGooeyWoohoo interface, of course.
They have very large gas tanks. A civilian Hummer H1 has a 50 gallon tank (an average car has around 15-18), and is made to work with auxiliary tanks. I wouldn't be surprised if military Humvees had a significantly larger tank.
Beyond that, it is a lot easier to carry around gas than electricity in a specialized vehicle.
Those engines are designed for totally different things. Your Mustang doesn't have near the low RPM torque the Hummer has, not that most Hummer owners ever use that.
The first one. Have you noticed all of those commercials and signs for all of those things? Recording a short audio clip is a lot easier than that.
I agree. Unlike machines, people have no bias and would never commit fraud. Those computers though, they're constantly working against us for their own motives.
He didn't violate the Constitution, as those people were not citizens.
Now, I feel that they should get a fair trial, but that is not guaranteed by the Constitution.