my radio is on 24/7 playing almost exclusively copyrighted material, but i'm aware i shouldn't be doing it. i do it because it's cheaper, faster, easier, more convenient, etc... i'll never understand people that try to make it sound right with faulty arguments.
firefox is free software and therefore belongs to the world. this also fits right into the european mindset, but that's not the reason why firefox is becoming popular.
okay, you also have to mention that it is almost impossible to buy a magazine without getting a cd with firefox on it. firefox is seen as the default browser and the reasons mentioned tend to be things like:
it's a lot safer than ie and it protects you from viruses and malware and stuff
it's faster than ie
it's not as primitive as ie
apart from the first reason, these reasons are debatable (this just goes to show that a lot of people will believe anything they're told--see apple).
however, look at the moment when firefox took off. microsoft is regarded as a very american company which is doing to the world pretty much what america is doing to iraq. it's not just web browsers. look at the sales figures for something like afri-cola (german version of coca-cola), which have increased, what, 500% since the iraq war.
europe is not as wantonly pro america as it used to be. slowly a concept like "being proud of being a european" is emerging. for example, the first flight of the A380 was a moment when this feeling became clear for a lot of us. the result is a huge swing towards free software (see france).
firefox is used in europe because of the iraq war. by waging this war in iraq, america has lost a lot of goodwill, and a lot of people in europe have been trying to avoid supporting american companies.
so you're saying your right not to be inconvenienced by removing a flyer from your windscreen is more important than other people's right to free speach?
i remember when i first got broadband i spent a lot of time downloading videos from youtube and video.google because i wanted to watch them. now i don't bother--it's easier just to dial in and watch them.
no, youtube is not a commercial, profit-making venture for the people putting the clips up. this would be like saying recording sound-bites from songs on cd and distributing them at no cost to friends is also a commercial, profit-making venture because the people who make the cds get money from it.
what he's saying is that without hugely abusing other people's rights (monitoring internet traffic, installing drm software to control everybody's computers totally) it is technically impossible to stop.
a total break-down of copyright and a free-for-all on all intellectual property is here infinitely better than the alternative.
if i remember correctly, sweden, like most european countries, has something called proportional representation. this means that if 35% of people in a constituency vote for a party, that party will get 35% of the seats in the government. america, like britain, has a first-past-the-post system in which if you get the most votes in a constituency, you get to be the member of government for that constituency.
correct me if i'm wrong, i don't know much about american politics.
not quite. the theoretical possibility of someone looking at the code is not particularly comforting. the good thing is, people actually do. let's say there are 100 million firefox users worldwide. now if only a thousandth of one percent actually looked at the code, it would still be 100 eyes outside mozilla/google/whoever totally unattaced to the company looking at the product and helping to fix things or warn us of problems and malign features.
the point of open-source software is not that you personally look at the code (this is aimed at the parent) just as the point of doctors is not that you personally are one.
nope. the whole point of a monopoly and proprietary formats is that you're not screwed. before another company stands a chance, it doesn't just have to build something better, it has to build something better, install it on all computers worldwide and convert all existing documents to the new format. otherwise nobody can move to a different piece of software.
and seeing as the monopoly office suite is made by the same people who make the operating system, it would be trivial for them to not allow a competitor's products to run.
imagine you had one car manufacturer who made 99% or all cars. they do not produce navigation systems, so there is a thriving market for these and many companies compete in this market. then one day the car manufacturer decides to include a navigation system with its cars and make it use a subtly different sort of map. suddenly, everybody who buys a new car already has a navigation system and so doesn't need to spend money on one from another company. gradually, the maps you get in the shops fit the navigation system most people have (the one from the car manufacturer) and cannot be read properly on navigation systems from other manufacturers. all other manufacturers go bankrupt and the car manufacturer now has control of the market.
to understand why the car manufacturer did this is difficult. what does a car manufacturer gain by controlling the navigation system market? very little. however microsoft had a huge amount to lose by not controlling the web browser. the writing was on the wall that the web browser could become the perfect vehicle for distributed applications and microsoft had to make sure that only happened on its terms.
i know it would be a dangerous precedent, but could it be possible to block all comments which contain the word 'nigger'? it's really been getting out of hand in the last few weeks and is costing a lot of mod points.
i'd be interested in hearing the pros and cons for zfs. i get the impression, there's so much fanboiism on both sides, that the facts of the matter tend to get obscured.
i don't find it amazing but rather encouraging. the olpc is an educational project aiming to help third-world countries to free themselves from the continuing problems caused by the oppression through the first world. it's really quite heart-warming to see the position of the average slashdotter.
this sort of comment show how nonsensical the headline is. the mindset of the typical osx user is exactly the same as the mindset of the typical windows user. nobody who has understood what stallman has been going on about for the last 20 years can take your post seriously.
i was reminded about the strength of the command line recently when i needed to fix a computer i had no access to except over another person. getting them to open a terminal and then type commands was so much quicker than having to navigate them through various menus.
personally i prefer the look of gnome/kde to osx. however, that is because i do not trust osx. as someone who has used linux for a while, i can only use osx from a terminal as i do not understand and have no intention of learning to understand apple's policy for the gui.
let's be honest about this, the reason people are buying apples is because of product placement in hollywood and on the tv. the "average person" does not conceive of windows as inferior, that is after all what a computer is. an apple is just a computer used by a sexually attractive person on smallville or similar. the fact that it uses a different operating system is irrelevant to the average person.
the average person does not know enough to make an informed decision between osx and windows (as if the average person knows what osx is).
the "average user" (by which you mean the person who has bought osx) doesn't have a chance of uploading over ftp using a gui. i'm quite happy to recommend ftp for companies for internal data servers. it is after all pretty operating system agnostic. looks like osx just doesn't fit the bill (again).
where i live in germany, apple suffers from a bad image. there products are regarded as toys stupid people buy in order to appear superior. gnu/linux (by which i mean ubuntu) is on the other hand regarded as subversive and the future of computing. consequently i know many teenagers who have changed to ubuntu and don't go near windows or osx or other pieces of proprietary software. do they understand what stallman's 4 freedoms are about? probably not, but they still use ubuntu.
well, you can convert to a version of rtf, but there are many, many different versions, and microsoft's version of rtf changes subtly with each release of word.
Slashdot Mirror
my radio is on 24/7 playing almost exclusively copyrighted material, but i'm aware i shouldn't be doing it. i do it because it's cheaper, faster, easier, more convenient, etc... i'll never understand people that try to make it sound right with faulty arguments.
okay, you also have to mention that it is almost impossible to buy a magazine without getting a cd with firefox on it. firefox is seen as the default browser and the reasons mentioned tend to be things like:
- it's a lot safer than ie and it protects you from viruses and malware and stuff
- it's faster than ie
- it's not as primitive as ie
apart from the first reason, these reasons are debatable (this just goes to show that a lot of people will believe anything they're told--see apple).however, look at the moment when firefox took off. microsoft is regarded as a very american company which is doing to the world pretty much what america is doing to iraq. it's not just web browsers. look at the sales figures for something like afri-cola (german version of coca-cola), which have increased, what, 500% since the iraq war.
europe is not as wantonly pro america as it used to be. slowly a concept like "being proud of being a european" is emerging. for example, the first flight of the A380 was a moment when this feeling became clear for a lot of us. the result is a huge swing towards free software (see france).
my prediction: in 5 years 75% of new phones will run android. google is not messing about here.
oh we're getting off-topic here.
the ipod got popular because of product placement and because it was white at a time when most mp3-players were black or silver.
maybe i'll get modded troll for this, but...
firefox is used in europe because of the iraq war. by waging this war in iraq, america has lost a lot of goodwill, and a lot of people in europe have been trying to avoid supporting american companies.
so you're saying your right not to be inconvenienced by removing a flyer from your windscreen is more important than other people's right to free speach?
i remember when i first got broadband i spent a lot of time downloading videos from youtube and video.google because i wanted to watch them. now i don't bother--it's easier just to dial in and watch them.
no, youtube is not a commercial, profit-making venture for the people putting the clips up. this would be like saying recording sound-bites from songs on cd and distributing them at no cost to friends is also a commercial, profit-making venture because the people who make the cds get money from it.
what he's saying is that without hugely abusing other people's rights (monitoring internet traffic, installing drm software to control everybody's computers totally) it is technically impossible to stop.
a total break-down of copyright and a free-for-all on all intellectual property is here infinitely better than the alternative.
if i remember correctly, sweden, like most european countries, has something called proportional representation. this means that if 35% of people in a constituency vote for a party, that party will get 35% of the seats in the government. america, like britain, has a first-past-the-post system in which if you get the most votes in a constituency, you get to be the member of government for that constituency.
correct me if i'm wrong, i don't know much about american politics.
not quite. the theoretical possibility of someone looking at the code is not particularly comforting. the good thing is, people actually do. let's say there are 100 million firefox users worldwide. now if only a thousandth of one percent actually looked at the code, it would still be 100 eyes outside mozilla/google/whoever totally unattaced to the company looking at the product and helping to fix things or warn us of problems and malign features.
the point of open-source software is not that you personally look at the code (this is aimed at the parent) just as the point of doctors is not that you personally are one.
nope. the whole point of a monopoly and proprietary formats is that you're not screwed. before another company stands a chance, it doesn't just have to build something better, it has to build something better, install it on all computers worldwide and convert all existing documents to the new format. otherwise nobody can move to a different piece of software.
and seeing as the monopoly office suite is made by the same people who make the operating system, it would be trivial for them to not allow a competitor's products to run.
imagine you had one car manufacturer who made 99% or all cars. they do not produce navigation systems, so there is a thriving market for these and many companies compete in this market. then one day the car manufacturer decides to include a navigation system with its cars and make it use a subtly different sort of map. suddenly, everybody who buys a new car already has a navigation system and so doesn't need to spend money on one from another company. gradually, the maps you get in the shops fit the navigation system most people have (the one from the car manufacturer) and cannot be read properly on navigation systems from other manufacturers. all other manufacturers go bankrupt and the car manufacturer now has control of the market.
to understand why the car manufacturer did this is difficult. what does a car manufacturer gain by controlling the navigation system market? very little. however microsoft had a huge amount to lose by not controlling the web browser. the writing was on the wall that the web browser could become the perfect vehicle for distributed applications and microsoft had to make sure that only happened on its terms.
opera is a norwegian company. norway is not a part of the eu
i know it would be a dangerous precedent, but could it be possible to block all comments which contain the word 'nigger'? it's really been getting out of hand in the last few weeks and is costing a lot of mod points.
i'd be interested in hearing the pros and cons for zfs. i get the impression, there's so much fanboiism on both sides, that the facts of the matter tend to get obscured.
or in my case, if you want a database, web, ftp, ssh, subversion server which doesn't use up that much space or electricity...
i don't find it amazing but rather encouraging. the olpc is an educational project aiming to help third-world countries to free themselves from the continuing problems caused by the oppression through the first world. it's really quite heart-warming to see the position of the average slashdotter.
the gpl is about protecting user rights. if you want to screw the user over, that's your decision, just don't expect the gpl to help you.
this sort of comment show how nonsensical the headline is. the mindset of the typical osx user is exactly the same as the mindset of the typical windows user. nobody who has understood what stallman has been going on about for the last 20 years can take your post seriously.
i was reminded about the strength of the command line recently when i needed to fix a computer i had no access to except over another person. getting them to open a terminal and then type commands was so much quicker than having to navigate them through various menus.
personally i prefer the look of gnome/kde to osx. however, that is because i do not trust osx. as someone who has used linux for a while, i can only use osx from a terminal as i do not understand and have no intention of learning to understand apple's policy for the gui.
let's be honest about this, the reason people are buying apples is because of product placement in hollywood and on the tv. the "average person" does not conceive of windows as inferior, that is after all what a computer is. an apple is just a computer used by a sexually attractive person on smallville or similar. the fact that it uses a different operating system is irrelevant to the average person.
the average person does not know enough to make an informed decision between osx and windows (as if the average person knows what osx is).
the "average user" (by which you mean the person who has bought osx) doesn't have a chance of uploading over ftp using a gui. i'm quite happy to recommend ftp for companies for internal data servers. it is after all pretty operating system agnostic. looks like osx just doesn't fit the bill (again).
where i live in germany, apple suffers from a bad image. there products are regarded as toys stupid people buy in order to appear superior. gnu/linux (by which i mean ubuntu) is on the other hand regarded as subversive and the future of computing. consequently i know many teenagers who have changed to ubuntu and don't go near windows or osx or other pieces of proprietary software. do they understand what stallman's 4 freedoms are about? probably not, but they still use ubuntu.
well, you can convert to a version of rtf, but there are many, many different versions, and microsoft's version of rtf changes subtly with each release of word.