I think it's less "convincing" users, it's more that developers aren't aboard the bandwagon. I didn't install Silverlight until a website I visited used it, and I'm a.NET developer. This will probably drive a good chunk of it.
Silverlight 1.0 handles video streaming fine; unless the PIC's website is idiotically coded, it should work fine on Moonlight.
Worst case, go get it from SVN and it'll work fine. (I'm well aware how stupid that advice is, but hey--that's how the open-source world likes to roll, and I don't personally have the time or the interest to package the current working SVN trunk just for something like this.)
It's not encouraging that the committee's website will stick to this proprietary format, which is mainly designed to kill JavaScript and launch Microsoft's conquest of the free and open Internet.
Wrong, wrong, fucking wrong.
If Microsoft wanted to "kill JavaScript", then why exactly is it heavily used by ASP.NET? Why is jQuery being packaged with new releases of ASP.NET?
If Microsoft was trying to "conquer the free and open Internet" (it's never been free and only rarely and in brief periods been open), then why would the Silverlight spec be openly available?
It's still free to access, and Moonlight will work on Linux and OS X. Macs with PPC won't do it, no, but there's kind of a point where you ignore outdated computers anyway.
No, you stupid fucktard, you can choose to use Silverlight if you want to use that website. They set the requirements for their own site--you don't like it, go elsewhere.
You do know that Obama has next to nothing to do with the PIC, right? Hell, I don't like the guy (voted "none of the above" because both candidates sucked), but making a mountain out of a molehill is stupid as shit.
I don't see why Flash would be better. Both the Flash and Silverlight formats are open standards.
They're calling them wrongly, too. Godwin's Law simply states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." It says nothing about the appropriateness of the comparison.
That said, Godwin said (correctly, I think) that making comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis robs valid comparisons of their meaning. In this case, I would say that it's a little bit of a stretch to equate the two...but, unsettlingly, I had to think about it for a second to make that decision, where in most cases of Godwinning it's a no-brainer.
If OO.o says in its license that other companies cannot charge for it, then other companies cannot charge for it. You can "agree" to pay for it, but they cannot enforce payment.
The only question is, does OO.o's license say that?
That's from the Declaration of Independence, smart guy. And the Declaration of Independence doesn't have any legal standing.
Our society's values have never been based on the notion of equality for everyone. Ever. They have been based on the equality of potential, if anything at all.
Their definition - where 'their' is the person licensing the code. Just because they are words which can be used in contexts different from those implied by the licenser, doesn't mean that they are incorrect definitions. In the context of the GPL, they are the correct definitions.
And they are not the definitions I am using because it is, as far as I'm concerned, an irrelevant distinction. For me, "use" by necessity involves distribution.
It's not immoral, because no one is forcing you into that position. You have to willingly submit to the terms in order to be bound by them... i.e. no one is forcing you to distribute code under the GPL, unless you take their GPL'd code and willingly incorporate it into your own.
Setting aside for a moment that the Stallmans of the open source world would in a heartbeat force everybody to do precisely that if it were up to them, there is a difference between "compulsory" and "immoral." The idea that you somehow have the right to dictate terms over something you had no hand in creating is immoral (or at the very least unethical) regardless of whether it's forced or not.
Please note that I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to do so. I am saying that it is immoral and unethical. They disagree. That's fine. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them and it doesn't mean I shouldn't advocate avoidance of GPL licensing.
Under their definitions of "use" and distribute, perhaps. Not under the definitions I use from a utilitarian point of view as a developer; to me there is no difference. My "use" of the library is to distribute it to my consumers.
And that's not what the GPL says, BTW. Well, it is, but it's not the whole story. The GPL says that the same terms must also infect any code that links to it. Hence the immoral aspect of it and why I advocate against it.
I've read the GPL repeatedly. I've had discussions on the ethics of the GPL with a lawyer friend of mine on a number of occasions. He's drafting a modification of the CDDL for me that covers web services (similar to the Affero changes to the GPL, minus the bullshittery of the GPL itself) for me now. I know a hell of a lot more about the GPL--and the history of the GPL, the history of the FSF, and the aims of the FSF--than most Slashdotters. I know very well that the GPL covers distribution. For fuck's sake, it says so in the preamble. But for virtually everything I and most developers use libraries for, distribution is usage. Saying "but you can use it, you just can't distribute it" is disingenuity.
I have no problems with conservation. I take public transport rather than driving when I'm going around my local area (I live in a semi-rural area but in a college town, so the public transport works for getting around). If I purchase a house in the near future, I'll be doing so with an eye toward a decent location for getting some traction in solar power.
That said, I am not going around telling others what they should be doing when it comes to living their lives. Gore is. And he isn't walking the walk. Buying carbon offset? Who gives a damn? The carbon offset program is a joke; many companies selling them do absolutely nothing. (And even if they were--that's carbon-sequestering capacity the company could be using to sequester more carbon if Gore wasn't generating so much.)
If you listen to the green ideologues, they point out--correctly, I'm not arguing with the truthfulness of this statement--that anything even remotely close to current U.S. consumption levels aren't sustainable. Gore's rich, so he should get a pass for having a bigger house? Personally, I don't mind at all how big of a house he has--or, rather, I wouldn't if he wasn't exhorting that others should do what he's half-heartedly doing himself. You put your money where your mouth is or you shut the hell up. Gore isn't. It's great that he's slightly reducing his usage, sure, but he's still not walking the walk.
Oh, and I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh in my life. Thanks for playing, fuckwit.
Had any of the third parties been worthwhile, I would have. I said "either" because the third parties were irrelevant due to how unreasonable they are. Nader is an idiot. McKinney is insane. Barr is less crazy than most Libertarians, but still a nut and still supporting things I do not. Baldwin and the rest of the Constitution Party make the Republican neoconservatives look tame.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's less "convincing" users, it's more that developers aren't aboard the bandwagon. I didn't install Silverlight until a website I visited used it, and I'm a .NET developer. This will probably drive a good chunk of it.
Silverlight 1 is the video streaming stuff. That actually should work fine...
It's an open standard. You can go write your own implementation of it if you like.
It is free--zero cost. It's not Stallman-free, but Stallman is an idiot.
It's as inclusive as any web software is.
Conclusion: you're a fucking tool.
"More robust standard"? Defend that, please. Keep in mind that both are openly available specs and neither have openly available video codec specs.
Even on Linux, Moonlight (the Silverlight implementation by the Mono guys) is probably better; it can hook ffmpeg directly for codecs it can't grok.
Silverlight's arguably much better tech than Flash. Calling it "shoddy" reveals a lack of understanding.
(Don't get me wrong, both Silverlight and Flash suck. But Silverlight really does suck less.)
Silverlight 1.0 handles video streaming fine; unless the PIC's website is idiotically coded, it should work fine on Moonlight.
Worst case, go get it from SVN and it'll work fine. (I'm well aware how stupid that advice is, but hey--that's how the open-source world likes to roll, and I don't personally have the time or the interest to package the current working SVN trunk just for something like this.)
It's not encouraging that the committee's website will stick to this proprietary format, which is mainly designed to kill JavaScript and launch Microsoft's conquest of the free and open Internet.
Wrong, wrong, fucking wrong.
If Microsoft wanted to "kill JavaScript", then why exactly is it heavily used by ASP.NET? Why is jQuery being packaged with new releases of ASP.NET?
If Microsoft was trying to "conquer the free and open Internet" (it's never been free and only rarely and in brief periods been open), then why would the Silverlight spec be openly available?
Get a clue.
It's still free to access, and Moonlight will work on Linux and OS X. Macs with PPC won't do it, no, but there's kind of a point where you ignore outdated computers anyway.
No, you stupid fucktard, you can choose to use Silverlight if you want to use that website. They set the requirements for their own site--you don't like it, go elsewhere.
You do know that Obama has next to nothing to do with the PIC, right? Hell, I don't like the guy (voted "none of the above" because both candidates sucked), but making a mountain out of a molehill is stupid as shit.
I don't see why Flash would be better. Both the Flash and Silverlight formats are open standards.
That's the plan Obama has. They have to be moved into the States, at which point they must legally be tried.
Godwin's Law is an observational one. The "you lose, hur hur" shit is ancillary and stupid.
They're calling them wrongly, too. Godwin's Law simply states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." It says nothing about the appropriateness of the comparison.
That said, Godwin said (correctly, I think) that making comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis robs valid comparisons of their meaning. In this case, I would say that it's a little bit of a stretch to equate the two...but, unsettlingly, I had to think about it for a second to make that decision, where in most cases of Godwinning it's a no-brainer.
True. Perhaps I should have put "you're full of shit" instead. ;)
If OO.o says in its license that other companies cannot charge for it, then other companies cannot charge for it. You can "agree" to pay for it, but they cannot enforce payment.
The only question is, does OO.o's license say that?
Of course not. It's GPL.
[citation needed]
That's from the Declaration of Independence, smart guy. And the Declaration of Independence doesn't have any legal standing.
Our society's values have never been based on the notion of equality for everyone. Ever. They have been based on the equality of potential, if anything at all.
And, of course, a human being has no natural rights of any nature.
Gooplesoft.
Their definition - where 'their' is the person licensing the code. Just because they are words which can be used in contexts different from those implied by the licenser, doesn't mean that they are incorrect definitions. In the context of the GPL, they are the correct definitions.
And they are not the definitions I am using because it is, as far as I'm concerned, an irrelevant distinction. For me, "use" by necessity involves distribution.
It's not immoral, because no one is forcing you into that position. You have to willingly submit to the terms in order to be bound by them... i.e. no one is forcing you to distribute code under the GPL, unless you take their GPL'd code and willingly incorporate it into your own.
Setting aside for a moment that the Stallmans of the open source world would in a heartbeat force everybody to do precisely that if it were up to them, there is a difference between "compulsory" and "immoral." The idea that you somehow have the right to dictate terms over something you had no hand in creating is immoral (or at the very least unethical) regardless of whether it's forced or not.
Please note that I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to do so. I am saying that it is immoral and unethical. They disagree. That's fine. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them and it doesn't mean I shouldn't advocate avoidance of GPL licensing.
Under their definitions of "use" and distribute, perhaps. Not under the definitions I use from a utilitarian point of view as a developer; to me there is no difference. My "use" of the library is to distribute it to my consumers.
And that's not what the GPL says, BTW. Well, it is, but it's not the whole story. The GPL says that the same terms must also infect any code that links to it. Hence the immoral aspect of it and why I advocate against it.
Yours do seem to be getting modded up, yes.
I've read the GPL repeatedly. I've had discussions on the ethics of the GPL with a lawyer friend of mine on a number of occasions. He's drafting a modification of the CDDL for me that covers web services (similar to the Affero changes to the GPL, minus the bullshittery of the GPL itself) for me now. I know a hell of a lot more about the GPL--and the history of the GPL, the history of the FSF, and the aims of the FSF--than most Slashdotters. I know very well that the GPL covers distribution. For fuck's sake, it says so in the preamble. But for virtually everything I and most developers use libraries for, distribution is usage. Saying "but you can use it, you just can't distribute it" is disingenuity.
I have no problems with conservation. I take public transport rather than driving when I'm going around my local area (I live in a semi-rural area but in a college town, so the public transport works for getting around). If I purchase a house in the near future, I'll be doing so with an eye toward a decent location for getting some traction in solar power.
That said, I am not going around telling others what they should be doing when it comes to living their lives. Gore is. And he isn't walking the walk. Buying carbon offset? Who gives a damn? The carbon offset program is a joke; many companies selling them do absolutely nothing. (And even if they were--that's carbon-sequestering capacity the company could be using to sequester more carbon if Gore wasn't generating so much.)
If you listen to the green ideologues, they point out--correctly, I'm not arguing with the truthfulness of this statement--that anything even remotely close to current U.S. consumption levels aren't sustainable. Gore's rich, so he should get a pass for having a bigger house? Personally, I don't mind at all how big of a house he has--or, rather, I wouldn't if he wasn't exhorting that others should do what he's half-heartedly doing himself. You put your money where your mouth is or you shut the hell up. Gore isn't. It's great that he's slightly reducing his usage, sure, but he's still not walking the walk.
Oh, and I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh in my life. Thanks for playing, fuckwit.
Had any of the third parties been worthwhile, I would have. I said "either" because the third parties were irrelevant due to how unreasonable they are. Nader is an idiot. McKinney is insane. Barr is less crazy than most Libertarians, but still a nut and still supporting things I do not. Baldwin and the rest of the Constitution Party make the Republican neoconservatives look tame.
"Doesn't matter which" my ass.
Disagreeing with you isn't trolling, buddy.