I had assumed that what I needed to do was create a new buffer (vim uses the same term), but the "Buffers" menu showed no "new buffer" option -- C-x b is listed as "Select named buffer", and demands once more that I type the name of something. It nowhere mentions that typing a non-existent name (or indeed, typing a name incorrectly) will instead create a buffer.
As with every time I try emacs, I agree with the way it seems to be organized in terms of keybindings and functions, on a conceptual level, a lot more than I agree with vim (vim always seems to be written with keybindings in mind, and various commands are named after what key they are most commonly bound to; emacs seems downright sane in comparison), but as with every time I try emacs, I can't help but be struck every two seconds with the thought: "For something that claims all over the place to be self-documenting, this sure does a piss-poor job of telling you how to do things or what does what"
But I've gotten further along than I have in previous attempts to use emacs, so I'll likely be in #emacs (I'll/join as soon as I hit "submit", even if it is just to idle)
at least in VIM, random typing can accidentally put you in a useful mode. Emacs starts in some sort of.... okay, I typed "useless scratchpad thing" here, then went to see if anything had changed since last I tried it. What fun! Here goes "Attempt #4 at actually using emacs"
$ sudo apt-get install emacs22 $ emacs
Oh look, I'm in a GUI this time. Hm, I expected to get a useless scratchpad thing, but it looks like instead I'm in some sort of crudely-made slapped together temporary menu that they'll replace with something more sensible in the final version.
Oh well, there's a standard "new file" button in the corner, I'll click that.
Alright, now the bottom of the window says "Find file: ~/"... okay, I guess that wasn't it, I'll try through the menu instead. File... "Visit new file"? Are you serious? Okay, fine, they're hippies, whatever.. I'll just click it. oh, "find file" again.. I don't want to find a file, I want a new file.
Yeah, I get it, I'll stop playing dumb now. It's using 1970s technology or something so it needs a filename before it can edit anything. "emacs foo" opens as expected, lets me type normally and clicking the save button saves.
Now how do I use the console? man emacs/console nope../terminal nope..
I'll force it: DISPLAY= emacs
press C-h for help.. and C-h actually works this time! Though only once.. better than last time though. May actually be usable, I'll give it credit.
Emacs works better than it did last time I tried it. Still looks like crap, but it seems to be working, for the most part.
Step 1) Use "vendor lock-in" to prevent the use of competitor's phones Step 2) Don't allow any "allowed" phone to have features such as requiring confirmation to switch to high-priced "roaming" towers Step 3) Claim that it's the responsibility of consumers to do something which should be a basic feature of any phone Step 4) Profit!
me neither! Also, I seem to get a lot fewer emails from my friends and relatives than I used to, but they probably just stopped using e-mail because of all the spam. But that's beside the point- I haven't gotten any spam in months, so the filter must be working perfectly!
"No, I won't even hear your arguments, because if you were right, that would mean that the other side's entire case, and indeed business model in general, doesn't make sense."
GPL does not predefine how it "has to be" handled. GPL predefines how it "may be handled to avoid a lawsuit."
During a dispute, a court (or, always more likely, the parties involved) are always able to pick some other way to resolve things.
The GPL is not "viral" any more than using the copyright symbol on the title page of a book is viral. It doesn't magically cause rights to appear or vanish, it only tells people what rights exist and what you'd be willing to accept.
Did everyone with a facebook account not notice this months ago, or did they really think that their random facebook friends really did love using DirectMediComCo for their Viagra prescription?
If they don't provide the source code, then they don't get copyright protection. You don't need to sue them, they just can't sue anybody else for distributing their software. ("This guy's been selling bootleg copies of my program!" "I was selling copies of his program on June 10th. At that time, there was no source code available." -- either the company releases source code or they can't sue the guy. Yes, the company could claim source code was available, but that's just ordinary lying in court and can't be held against a law)
this is pretty much the same way the GPL works, but in reverse. The GPL says "if you violate the GPL, go right ahead, but if you do, nothing else gives you the right to distribute the software, so you'd be violating copyright." Copyright law COULD say "If you don't want to distribute the source code, go right ahead, but nothing else gives you the right to deny others the right to distribute the software, so you wouldn't get any protection from copyright"
I've long been a proponent of "no copyright without source code." Copyright exists with the idea that eventually, everything will be public. If you never intend to make the source code public, you should get no copyright protection. Ideally, this would follow every step of the chain- and if poor record-keeping is your folly, there's no reason for society to reward you with extra rights for it.
Ask them. It's been well documented that all this complaining about P2P stuff started when executives were faced with the prospect of telling their shareholders that they failed to meet their projected profit increases. ie: For decades they'd been making more and more money every year, then suddenly when technology created hundreds of other ways to entertain people overnight, they didn't make as much more as they were expecting. (That is: they actually DID make more than the previous years. A lot more, by any sane standard, but not as much more as they had hoped).
They spun around, looking for someone to blame, and rather than noting inconvenient things like increased competition from other media or changes in the way people were spending their time, they heard about Napster, which allowed previous non-customers/non-consumers to jump out of their little section of the Venn-diagram and into the section "non-customer/consumer". They pounced, and pretty much ever since have still been trying to explain to their shareholders that only making four-billion more than last year instead of ten-billion more is because of evil 18th-century sea-fairing thieves.
So if there wasn't a GPL, and Microsoft stole this code (as they did), and Novell (having no GPL to turn to for an easier solution) sued, and as part of the settlement Microsoft was forced to release the related code, would that make copyright / the court system / Novell viral?
1,000,000 companies send 1 mail each day to 1,000,000 people. 12% of those people have responded to at least one. That's still 1,000,000 * 1,000,000 * number-of-days to shift the decimal point in the conversion rate.
Slashdot Mirror
I had assumed that what I needed to do was create a new buffer (vim uses the same term), but the "Buffers" menu showed no "new buffer" option -- C-x b is listed as "Select named buffer", and demands once more that I type the name of something. It nowhere mentions that typing a non-existent name (or indeed, typing a name incorrectly) will instead create a buffer.
As with every time I try emacs, I agree with the way it seems to be organized in terms of keybindings and functions, on a conceptual level, a lot more than I agree with vim (vim always seems to be written with keybindings in mind, and various commands are named after what key they are most commonly bound to; emacs seems downright sane in comparison), but as with every time I try emacs, I can't help but be struck every two seconds with the thought: "For something that claims all over the place to be self-documenting, this sure does a piss-poor job of telling you how to do things or what does what"
But I've gotten further along than I have in previous attempts to use emacs, so I'll likely be in #emacs (I'll /join as soon as I hit "submit", even if it is just to idle)
at least in VIM, random typing can accidentally put you in a useful mode.
Emacs starts in some sort of.... okay, I typed "useless scratchpad thing" here, then went to see if anything had changed since last I tried it. What fun! Here goes "Attempt #4 at actually using emacs"
$ sudo apt-get install emacs22
$ emacs
Oh look, I'm in a GUI this time. Hm, I expected to get a useless scratchpad thing, but it looks like instead I'm in some sort of crudely-made slapped together temporary menu that they'll replace with something more sensible in the final version.
Oh well, there's a standard "new file" button in the corner, I'll click that.
Alright, now the bottom of the window says "Find file: ~/"... okay, I guess that wasn't it, I'll try through the menu instead.
File... "Visit new file"? Are you serious? Okay, fine, they're hippies, whatever.. I'll just click it.
oh, "find file" again.. I don't want to find a file, I want a new file.
Yeah, I get it, I'll stop playing dumb now. It's using 1970s technology or something so it needs a filename before it can edit anything. "emacs foo" opens as expected, lets me type normally and clicking the save button saves.
Now how do I use the console? /console /terminal
man emacs
nope..
nope..
I'll force it:
DISPLAY= emacs
press C-h for help.. and C-h actually works this time! Though only once.. better than last time though. May actually be usable, I'll give it credit.
Emacs works better than it did last time I tried it. Still looks like crap, but it seems to be working, for the most part.
I did not say "disable roaming".
Step 1) Use "vendor lock-in" to prevent the use of competitor's phones
Step 2) Don't allow any "allowed" phone to have features such as requiring confirmation to switch to high-priced "roaming" towers
Step 3) Claim that it's the responsibility of consumers to do something which should be a basic feature of any phone
Step 4) Profit!
me neither! Also, I seem to get a lot fewer emails from my friends and relatives than I used to, but they probably just stopped using e-mail because of all the spam. But that's beside the point- I haven't gotten any spam in months, so the filter must be working perfectly!
if one always had the simple and easy option of not participating in a transaction just because it wasn't fair, it would be a fair transaction.
I tend to; however,
the "fair market value" is set by transactions in a fair market.
because I consider the use of adblock to be immoral content theft.
I just wish there was an ad-deprioritizer. I'd use that over an ad-blocker any day.
"No, I won't even hear your arguments, because if you were right, that would mean that the other side's entire case, and indeed business model in general, doesn't make sense."
Well, yeah, that's the point.
I'm pretty sure I paid more than the fair market value for everything covered by DRM that I've ever "owned"
That's quite a threat. We'd better take this guy seriously.
GPL does not predefine how it "has to be" handled. GPL predefines how it "may be handled to avoid a lawsuit."
During a dispute, a court (or, always more likely, the parties involved) are always able to pick some other way to resolve things.
The GPL is not "viral" any more than using the copyright symbol on the title page of a book is viral. It doesn't magically cause rights to appear or vanish, it only tells people what rights exist and what you'd be willing to accept.
Did everyone with a facebook account not notice this months ago, or did they really think that their random facebook friends really did love using DirectMediComCo for their Viagra prescription?
hamster dance.
If they don't provide the source code, then they don't get copyright protection. You don't need to sue them, they just can't sue anybody else for distributing their software. ("This guy's been selling bootleg copies of my program!" "I was selling copies of his program on June 10th. At that time, there was no source code available." -- either the company releases source code or they can't sue the guy. Yes, the company could claim source code was available, but that's just ordinary lying in court and can't be held against a law)
this is pretty much the same way the GPL works, but in reverse.
The GPL says "if you violate the GPL, go right ahead, but if you do, nothing else gives you the right to distribute the software, so you'd be violating copyright."
Copyright law COULD say "If you don't want to distribute the source code, go right ahead, but nothing else gives you the right to deny others the right to distribute the software, so you wouldn't get any protection from copyright"
that's not how copyright works.
yep, that's the idea. This is a good thing.
I've long been a proponent of "no copyright without source code."
Copyright exists with the idea that eventually, everything will be public. If you never intend to make the source code public, you should get no copyright protection.
Ideally, this would follow every step of the chain- and if poor record-keeping is your folly, there's no reason for society to reward you with extra rights for it.
Ask them. It's been well documented that all this complaining about P2P stuff started when executives were faced with the prospect of telling their shareholders that they failed to meet their projected profit increases. ie: For decades they'd been making more and more money every year, then suddenly when technology created hundreds of other ways to entertain people overnight, they didn't make as much more as they were expecting. (That is: they actually DID make more than the previous years. A lot more, by any sane standard, but not as much more as they had hoped).
They spun around, looking for someone to blame, and rather than noting inconvenient things like increased competition from other media or changes in the way people were spending their time, they heard about Napster, which allowed previous non-customers/non-consumers to jump out of their little section of the Venn-diagram and into the section "non-customer/consumer". They pounced, and pretty much ever since have still been trying to explain to their shareholders that only making four-billion more than last year instead of ten-billion more is because of evil 18th-century sea-fairing thieves.
For every person with a great idea to talk about, there's another one with the same idea who didn't waste time talking about it.
Attempting an implementation is the best way to find problems.
So if there wasn't a GPL, and Microsoft stole this code (as they did), and Novell (having no GPL to turn to for an easier solution) sued, and as part of the settlement Microsoft was forced to release the related code, would that make copyright / the court system / Novell viral?
GPL isn't any more viral than copyright. The only difference is that the GPL says "But I won't bother suing you if you release your code, too"
1,000,000 companies send 1 mail each day to 1,000,000 people. 12% of those people have responded to at least one. That's still 1,000,000 * 1,000,000 * number-of-days to shift the decimal point in the conversion rate.
unsubscribing works, if you've ever done business with the company before. People seem to forget that.
Or you could just not forward such spam.