Uhm, who cares? Programmers don't have some unalienable right to make money.
Look at it this way: if the demand for a particular piece of software is high enough, somehow it will get written. Either some volunteer picks it up or some group or corporation that needs it badly enough will hire a professional programmer to do the job.
This may slow down innovation a bit in the short run (I think it won't), but the long-term benefits are obvious: a perpetually
growing code repository that people can use to improve upon.
Who's the reviewer targeting here? At first glance it appears to be windows users who he wants to tell about the merits of Evolution and Linux en passant. But then he starts dropping names like CVS and fetchmail, apparently expecting his audience to know about them or at least be able to pick up their function from context. I.e. he can't be targeting Windows users.
So that suggests he's targeting people who are using Linux already. But then, if this is just an Evolution review for Linux users, why throw in the Outlook comparison and Windows snides? And why no mention of popular Linux MUAs like Mutt.
While on the topic of features Outlook (well, all e-mail clients really) desperately needs, I'd like to mention making it easy to reply directly beneath the text you are replying to.
I've just seen too many discussions end in confusion, because people quote an entire message and reply above it, missing half of the points they should have replied to and making it impossible to have a structured conversation when quoting more than the 2 previous messages.
Are they really? The pc my father bought last month was just as expensive as the one he bought three years ago. Granted, it's a lot faster/shinier/quieter, but his demands have increased accordingly.
Now I'm living in the Netherlands (Europe, for the geographically impaired) and this PCs getting cheaper trend may not have hit us yet, but until it does I won't be easily convinced that it even exists.
So, if WinXP is 1) open source and 2) non-commercial, then no features/additions/etc. will ever be cut and therefore it will bloat forever until it explodes into one big, beautiful explosion of XP-ness. Reality actually starts to make sense now...
[Which illustrates a difference between open and closed source: with closed source, you actually have a date that you have to meet and produce a product. To make that date, sometimes you have to cut features/additions/etc.]
No, which illustrates the difference between commercial and non-commercial software. Commercial software has deadlines, because commercial software needs to make money before the company producing it goes out of business. Non-commercial software doesn't have this problem and therefore may not have deadlines (it may have deadlines due to other reasons though).
Well, not strictly an example of the type you ask for, but only if you remember that it is the genes that are pushing for survival, not the individuals that carry them.
Due to a recent power outage, I've had to shut down a server running a process that had been running for ages calculating something. The job it was doing would have been done in a few days, I think, but I had to shut it down before the UPS ran out of juice.
That's nothing! I once had a computer that was demolished to make way for a hyperspacial bypass seconds before finishing the program it had been running for millions of years.
"You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! ---Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur-king, you and all your silly English knnnniggets. Thppppt!"
IMHO, the originator of the transaction bears the responsibility. If someone in CO places a bet or views pornography, then they have in fact moved and placed the transaction in CO, regardless of where the transaction is "fulfilled".
In my opinion it should be the other way around: the place where the transaction is fulfilled should have jurisdiction. This will prevent a company (or anyone running a website) from having to deal with every jurisdiction on earth, because someone might access their site from that jurisdiction.
I would like to see the next version of the GPL including a clause granting FSF the right to sue on behalf of the copyrightholder(s.)
And then nobody would use the GPL anymore (well, at least I wouldn't and everyone knows my opinions are the right ones;). What you're proposing would basicly give the FSF rights on software they might have had nothing to do with. If the original author cares enough he could always sue, possibly with support from the FSF.
Could you please stop analyzing Hailstorm? Once people realize it's some sort of glorified identd+finger we'll never get them to give up their privacy!
Here's a framework that I tend to follow when explaining to people what this AI thing I'm studying is supposed to be:
"Blah, blah, blah, so that's what AI is all about."
They will now dig up the only related info they can find in their puny brains: science fiction. So give them time and wait for the inevitable
- "So what do you think of evil robots quack quack..."
Your first impuls will be to start talking Asimov, laws of robotics and all. Suppress it, it's no fun! In stead, play on their worst fears...
"Yes, robots are the next logical evolutionairy step. I suspect we will go through a transition period featuring cybernetic organisms after which the world will be solely dominated by machines. This is where I'm directing all my research efforts... and it looks promising. Mwuhahahaha...."(fade out)
Then, when they're properly scared and humiliated they will recognise your authority and divert their attention back to things more suited to their abilities... like tying their shoelaces.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm, who cares? Programmers don't have some unalienable right to make money.
Look at it this way: if the demand for a particular piece of software is high enough, somehow it will get written. Either some volunteer picks it up or some group or corporation that needs it badly enough will hire a professional programmer to do the job.
This may slow down innovation a bit in the short run (I think it won't), but the long-term benefits are obvious: a perpetually growing code repository that people can use to improve upon.
</non-sequiturs>
Who's the reviewer targeting here? At first glance it appears to be windows users who he wants to tell about the merits of Evolution and Linux en passant. But then he starts dropping names like CVS and fetchmail, apparently expecting his audience to know about them or at least be able to pick up their function from context. I.e. he can't be targeting Windows users.
So that suggests he's targeting people who are using Linux already. But then, if this is just an Evolution review for Linux users, why throw in the Outlook comparison and Windows snides? And why no mention of popular Linux MUAs like Mutt.
I'm left confused.
Dear Jamie Kellner,
I'm sorry for stealing your ads. I hereby return them to you on the tape enclosed with this letter. Hoping you can ever forgive me, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
T. van Erven
While on the topic of features Outlook (well, all e-mail clients really) desperately needs, I'd like to mention making it easy to reply directly beneath the text you are replying to.
I've just seen too many discussions end in confusion, because people quote an entire message and reply above it, missing half of the points they should have replied to and making it impossible to have a structured conversation when quoting more than the 2 previous messages.
Are they really? The pc my father bought last month was just as expensive as the one he bought three years ago. Granted, it's a lot faster/shinier/quieter, but his demands have increased accordingly.
Now I'm living in the Netherlands (Europe, for the geographically impaired) and this PCs getting cheaper trend may not have hit us yet, but until it does I won't be easily convinced that it even exists.
So, if WinXP is 1) open source and 2) non-commercial, then no features/additions/etc. will ever be cut and therefore it will bloat forever until it explodes into one big, beautiful explosion of XP-ness. Reality actually starts to make sense now...
[Which illustrates a difference between open and closed source: with closed source, you actually have a date that you have to meet and produce a product. To make that date, sometimes you have to cut features/additions/etc.]
No, which illustrates the difference between commercial and non-commercial software. Commercial software has deadlines, because commercial software needs to make money before the company producing it goes out of business. Non-commercial software doesn't have this problem and therefore may not have deadlines (it may have deadlines due to other reasons though).
Most above average, some really, really stupid. Change your ideas about the idea behind AVERAGE.
Well, not strictly an example of the type you ask for, but only if you remember that it is the genes that are pushing for survival, not the individuals that carry them.
Due to a recent power outage, I've had to shut down a server running a process that had been running for ages calculating something. The job it was doing would have been done in a few days, I think, but I had to shut it down before the UPS ran out of juice.
That's nothing! I once had a computer that was demolished to make way for a hyperspacial bypass seconds before finishing the program it had been running for millions of years.
alancox@aol.com. Somehow that makes me laugh funny.
1. Ignore
2. Confront
3. Avoid (by leaving)
Its mail client, unlike Microsoft Outlook, is very easy to use and secure.
Its security can only be tested by large scale deployment. Calling it secure now would be a bit premature.
Evolution 1.0 will do for open-source what the Segway has already done for the field of personal transportation.
Uhm, like what? Create a lot of hipe? (If that was a joke, you should have used a smiley.)
In defense of the French and their accents:
"You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! ---Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur-king, you and all your silly English knnnniggets. Thppppt!"
...but are you full of love?
IMHO, the originator of the transaction bears the responsibility. If someone in CO places a bet or views pornography, then they have in fact moved and placed the transaction in CO, regardless of where the transaction is "fulfilled".
In my opinion it should be the other way around: the place where the transaction is fulfilled should have jurisdiction. This will prevent a company (or anyone running a website) from having to deal with every jurisdiction on earth, because someone might access their site from that jurisdiction.
Perhaps he meant Questions & Assurance. :)
would be a really practical way of handling this, especially since your using CVS anyway, right?
I would like to see the next version of the GPL including a clause granting FSF the right to sue on behalf of the copyrightholder(s.)
;). What you're proposing would basicly give the FSF rights on software they might have had nothing to do with. If the original author cares enough he could always sue, possibly with support from the FSF.
And then nobody would use the GPL anymore (well, at least I wouldn't and everyone knows my opinions are the right ones
Unfortunately ipchains doesn't seem to handle thousands of deny rules very well.
Take a look at this post to the debian-security mailing list for another script and some insights.
Could you please stop analyzing Hailstorm? Once people realize it's some sort of glorified identd+finger we'll never get them to give up their privacy!
Another way to put this would be:
shrink-wrap licenses: default copyright + extra restrictions
GPL: default copyright - some restrictions
I've never done much programming in assembly, so I'm curious: could you give (an) example(s) of a problem that's harder to debug in asm than in C?
On a related note: everyone sued for carrying patented genesequences. (Can you tell I'm depressed?)
... make fun of them!
Here's a framework that I tend to follow when explaining to people what this AI thing I'm studying is supposed to be:
"Blah, blah, blah, so that's what AI is all about."
They will now dig up the only related info they can find in their puny brains: science fiction. So give them time and wait for the inevitable
- "So what do you think of evil robots quack quack..."
Your first impuls will be to start talking Asimov, laws of robotics and all. Suppress it, it's no fun! In stead, play on their worst fears...
"Yes, robots are the next logical evolutionairy step. I suspect we will go through a transition period featuring cybernetic organisms after which the world will be solely dominated by machines. This is where I'm directing all my research efforts... and it looks promising. Mwuhahahaha...."(fade out)
Then, when they're properly scared and humiliated they will recognise your authority and divert their attention back to things more suited to their abilities... like tying their shoelaces.
Next episode: making them tie your shoelaces.