What inspires such wanton disregard for a legitimately great tool?
I'm not disregarding them. I use them regularly. But...
I never tell my end users how anything works, so why would I even begin explaining their application is running in an emulator?...I'm not an end user. Perhaps you use a virtual machine I don't (always possible), but I've not seen a good, effective virtual machine solution for J. Random User on Linux.
A clickable shortcut and the end-user is using their windows app just like the every other app. Let the productivity begin!
Virtual machines are stupid and difficult for normal users to comprehend and use. This makes them decidedly sub-optimal--and you still need to buy a Windows license to do it.
Some of these languages are just beyond concepts I can describe. C# has to be the worst lanugage ever. Delegates, Properites.
C# is an excellent language for what it's intended to do: relatively rapid application development and deployment. Anyone who claims that that's not a huge market is deluding themselves or is likely to rant about how "we don't need" that.
How freaking lame, and they are just copying Java. Much in the same respect that DirectX started copying OpenGL after 8.0. My oh my how some of the 3D state techniques started looking the same.
Actually, C# is Visual Basic with a more C-like syntax. It's also a little more picky about certain behaviors. C# is a vast improvement on Java (no stupid demarcation between stack and heap types, no idiotic arbitrary rules such as "one public class per file", which should make you-the-C++-weenie quite happy, etc.); it's Java with most of the problems fixed.
Interoperability with other platforms. Costing an arm and a leg. Incredible amounts of CPU time and memory necessary to do its job (compared to something like Zimbra).
Zimbra kicks Exchange's arse up and down the road.
Strawman argument. You lose. Or would you care to try again? Why should a developer's rights be curtailed when it comes to something he himself created?
The analogy of stabbing someone is completely retarded, and you either know it or are, quite frankly, deranged.
A) WMA does have better audio quality than MP3, by a factor of 1.5 to 2 times. And this is a good thing as all decoding chips in portable music players all have WMA support, unless it is crippled like the iPod. So you can throw your songs in WMA at 64 or 128 and have almost twice the fidelity of an MP3, especially when you add in better variable bit rate support, etc.
Proof please? I've never seen this substantiated. Also, how do you quantify "better audio quality" numerically?
Just don't tell me where to shove it and tell me not to use the GFDL because I don't follow your religion that Creative Commons is the most awesome thing in the world.
Name just one difference between the proposed GFDL version and CC-BY-SA that actually matters in practical usage on Wikipedia. Hell, name just one difference between the current GFDL version and CC-BY-SA that actually matters in practical usage on Wikipedia.
As a user of software, I have certain rights which exist precisely because software exists. I have a right to enjoy the use of that software; a right to study the operation of that software; a right to share that software with my neighbour; and a right to adapt that software to my own specific requirements. I also have the right to delegate the exercise of any of these rights to a person whom I trust; and I have the right to employ reasonable force against any person who seeks to deprive me of these rights.
So answer me this, fucko: Why do developers not have the right to control the use of their creations? What makes your right as a user supercede their rights as a creator?
Or are you just wanking rhetorical and have less-than-a-clue about this?
It doesn't matter why... just that I do. The rest is legal semantics and squabbling over details that is for a hard core evangelist of the GFDL, which I'm not. I just am stating that I prefer the license, and apparently you don't. So what? But I still have legal standing even if every other Wikipedia editor/contributor insists on the switch. And I know I'm not the only one who prefers the GFDL over CC-BY-SA.
You licensed your contributions under GFDL 1.2 or later. Therefore, you do not have legal standing, and Jimbo Wales can tell you to blow a goat.
(And yes, in a discussion it does matter why you prefer it when the two are the same license, save for the fact that you don't understand either of them well enough to have an informed opinion on it. Just stop talking, you'll look less moronic.)
First of all, not contributing them towards the libc's is sociopathic behaviour (I want only my app to benefit, everyone else go suck bricks sidewise through a thin straw).
This is ludicrous. He wrote them because the ones out there weren't good enough. Others can write their own. There is nothing sociopathic about closed source software, no matter how much you may wish it to be.
(It is probably in the realm of sociopathy, as we're using the term, to go after people who reverse engineer your compiled binaries, but that's entirely different from not giving them your code. If they can extract what they need from what you have chosen given them, good for them. It is always wise to remember that while the GPL and the Free Software movement are in favor of unlimited user rights, a developer choosing to exert his own rights is not wrong.)
You're not in the target demographic of the Mac. I'm not going to say what the target demographic actually is other than that it's the people for which the best applications for their jobs have traditionally been on the Mac.
I question whether this is true still today. The only piece of "artsy" software I can think of that's Mac-only is Final Cut, and frankly I prefer Premiere.
Macs are worse than Winboxes. Either I'm going to go with an open-source OS, or I'm going to go with the OS everyone uses. An OS with little market share and few programs I'm going to use. That's a recipe for success right there.
That said--WoW sucks. A lot. EVE does not. This is good news.
Slashdot Mirror
UUCP. BBSes.
As he said in another post, he met her because they both had time-sharing on the same mainframe.
Ron Paul's 20% earned him zero delegates.
He is unimportant.
What inspires such wanton disregard for a legitimately great tool?
...I'm not an end user. Perhaps you use a virtual machine I don't (always possible), but I've not seen a good, effective virtual machine solution for J. Random User on Linux.
I'm not disregarding them. I use them regularly. But...
I never tell my end users how anything works, so why would I even begin explaining their application is running in an emulator?
A clickable shortcut and the end-user is using their windows app just like the every other app. Let the productivity begin!
Still buying a Windows license...
What part of "new versions" eluded you?
Also, Crossover != WINE.
Virtual machines are stupid and difficult for normal users to comprehend and use. This makes them decidedly sub-optimal--and you still need to buy a Windows license to do it.
QuickBooks via WINE - done deal.
I decompiled it with Dis#. It's clean.
Some of these languages are just beyond concepts I can describe. C# has to be the worst lanugage ever. Delegates, Properites.
C# is an excellent language for what it's intended to do: relatively rapid application development and deployment. Anyone who claims that that's not a huge market is deluding themselves or is likely to rant about how "we don't need" that.
How freaking lame, and they are just copying Java. Much in the same respect that DirectX started copying OpenGL after 8.0. My oh my how
some of the 3D state techniques started looking the same.
Actually, C# is Visual Basic with a more C-like syntax. It's also a little more picky about certain behaviors. C# is a vast improvement on Java (no stupid demarcation between stack and heap types, no idiotic arbitrary rules such as "one public class per file", which should make you-the-C++-weenie quite happy, etc.); it's Java with most of the problems fixed.
[i]dont fucking tell me Exchange is lousy,[/i]
Interoperability with other platforms. Costing an arm and a leg. Incredible amounts of CPU time and memory necessary to do its job (compared to something like Zimbra).
Zimbra kicks Exchange's arse up and down the road.
Plenty of academics cannot spell well, and rucs_hack has indicated a medical reason why (dyspraxia).
I know plenty of Ph.D.'s who can't spell well anyway.
Strawman argument. You lose. Or would you care to try again? Why should a developer's rights be curtailed when it comes to something he himself created?
The analogy of stabbing someone is completely retarded, and you either know it or are, quite frankly, deranged.
A) WMA does have better audio quality than MP3, by a factor of 1.5 to 2 times. And this is a good thing as all decoding chips in portable music players all have WMA support, unless it is crippled like the iPod. So you can throw your songs in WMA at 64 or 128 and have almost twice the fidelity of an MP3, especially when you add in better variable bit rate support, etc.
Proof please? I've never seen this substantiated. Also, how do you quantify "better audio quality" numerically?
Just don't tell me where to shove it and tell me not to use the GFDL because I don't follow your religion that Creative Commons is the most awesome thing in the world.
Name just one difference between the proposed GFDL version and CC-BY-SA that actually matters in practical usage on Wikipedia. Hell, name just one difference between the current GFDL version and CC-BY-SA that actually matters in practical usage on Wikipedia.
Just one.
As a user of software, I have certain rights which exist precisely because software exists. I have a right to enjoy the use of that software; a right to study the operation of that software; a right to share that software with my neighbour; and a right to adapt that software to my own specific requirements. I also have the right to delegate the exercise of any of these rights to a person whom I trust; and I have the right to employ reasonable force against any person who seeks to deprive me of these rights.
So answer me this, fucko: Why do developers not have the right to control the use of their creations? What makes your right as a user supercede their rights as a creator?
Or are you just wanking rhetorical and have less-than-a-clue about this?
It doesn't matter why... just that I do. The rest is legal semantics and squabbling over details that is for a hard core evangelist of the GFDL, which I'm not. I just am stating that I prefer the license, and apparently you don't. So what? But I still have legal standing even if every other Wikipedia editor/contributor insists on the switch. And I know I'm not the only one who prefers the GFDL over CC-BY-SA.
You licensed your contributions under GFDL 1.2 or later. Therefore, you do not have legal standing, and Jimbo Wales can tell you to blow a goat.
(And yes, in a discussion it does matter why you prefer it when the two are the same license, save for the fact that you don't understand either of them well enough to have an informed opinion on it. Just stop talking, you'll look less moronic.)
First of all, not contributing them towards the libc's is sociopathic behaviour (I want only my app to benefit, everyone else go suck bricks sidewise through a thin straw).
This is ludicrous. He wrote them because the ones out there weren't good enough. Others can write their own. There is nothing sociopathic about closed source software, no matter how much you may wish it to be.
(It is probably in the realm of sociopathy, as we're using the term, to go after people who reverse engineer your compiled binaries, but that's entirely different from not giving them your code. If they can extract what they need from what you have chosen given them, good for them. It is always wise to remember that while the GPL and the Free Software movement are in favor of unlimited user rights, a developer choosing to exert his own rights is not wrong.)
Whoosh, it went over your head.
(Hint: Hellboy sucked, Pan's Labyrinth didn't. See the "two del Toros" joke yet?)
You continually gloss over events like Unit 731, but harp on America's ills.
I hate to pull the redneck card, but GTFO.
A plutonium bomb had been tested at what is now White Sands Missile Range, dipshit. We knew that one worked. There was no "testing" involved.
Hmmm, how about a provision to punish senators from driving off bridges in Chappaquiddick?
Have you seen that bridge these days, man? You couldn't drive off the thing if you wanted to.
I think they were probably talking about SYSTRAN, not Babelfish itself.
You're not in the target demographic of the Mac. I'm not going to say what the target demographic actually is other than that it's the people for which the best applications for their jobs have traditionally been on the Mac.
I question whether this is true still today. The only piece of "artsy" software I can think of that's Mac-only is Final Cut, and frankly I prefer Premiere.
Macs are worse than Winboxes. Either I'm going to go with an open-source OS, or I'm going to go with the OS everyone uses. An OS with little market share and few programs I'm going to use. That's a recipe for success right there.
That said--WoW sucks. A lot. EVE does not. This is good news.
Not to mention that their music isn't all bad.
So...pay for the utility you garner from it?
Can you do that with cell phone recorders?
Ouch. Owned by Mr. Beckerman.
Side note: I was unfortunately unable to attend the speech you gave this Monday at my school, Mr. Beckerman, but I heard very good things!