Issue w/ RMS is that he believes that software should not have owners. In other words, if you spend your time & effort creating software, you should not have ownership of it, but instead, people should be free to do w/ your software whatever they like. It's a perverted definition of freedom, just as Communism was a perverted definition of Democracy (Remember 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea', 'People's Republic of China', 'German Democratic Republic', 'People's Democratic Republic of Yemen'?) If one doubts me, read his essay on the GNU site 'Why software should not have owners'
RMS' symbolizes 'freedom' in the same way that those countries symbolized 'Democratic People's Republics'.
That's actually wrong. In RMS's version the people aren't free to do "whatever they like" with your software, that's what the BSD license grants. I count being able to modify and distribute without disclosing modifications as part of "whatever they like"
You seem to make the assumption that all that code would be written anyway, regardless of any earning potential as free code for everyone.
I guess that's the reason GPL software is the best in every category...
Just as a side thought, how exactly were they supposed to make money on that?
Why should Microsoft care whose free browser is gonna be run on their platform?
I agree with this.
The only thing Google is running on is advertisement revenue.
The second someone decides another search engine is better, google is pretty much dead.
Apple is a fad that's dying slowly.
Hipsters loved Apple, and people followed. But now it's becoming outdated.
Apple kept floating through the bad times because people in specialized professional environments preferred them.
But now there's a lot of bad sounds about them cause they've crippled some of the most popular software packages for professionals, and windows versions are actually catching up or even better than the Apple ones. (Mainly video and audio software.)
Plus the fact that a lot of people are sick and tired of their Apple gear breaking so easily.
I can understand if a sub 800 dollar Acer laptop breaks, but a macbook pro should take a lot more abuse just for the price.
I work in a place which used to prefer Apple. Now everytime a machine breaks, we get a PC as a replamecement, cause only 1 person in the whole place thinks Macs are great.
Actually I Think you're joking.
Most software programming projects that actually succeed don't need someone who's the most skilled in programming. They need someone who can solve problems. And that is not dependent on their programming background.
The problem is, people don't seem to see the difference between "gender equality" compared to "gender specific rights".
Equality means, women are not allowed to be offended by things that men are not offended by. And vice versa.
That's equality. If men are riled up by things women think are okay, it's not equality.
Equality means women are held to the same standard that men are. And vice versa.
The worst offender is the "parent" card. If you're not up to the task, don't do it. Who gives a flying "insert non offending word". If you're not up to the task, you're not.
If you have a kid, it doesn't change the way your competence is measured (atleast it shouldn't). The last part means a child is not supposed to be considered a plus for you if you underperform. (and performance is compared to your workmates, not some general statistic. And this goes both for males and females. You getting fired should not have anything to do with your personal breeding)
I know there's a history of preferring men over women. This still doesn't you make entitled to demands. If you want EQUALITY you take the jokes, and fire them back. (hint, if males are not offended and you are, it's not an EQUALITY problem)
If you want gender specific rights, stop talking about equality. For example, breast feeding has nothing to do with equality. The first time i see an actual man (born as one) able to do that, i'll bow down and kiss the sky.
Yes and no.
Equalizer use is dictated by the equipment and space.
It is not just used for flaws in signal handling, but eliminating or elevating frequencies that are causing trouble or not being played back loud enough in the room,
Different speakers also have different characteristics on certain frequencies and volumes.
In some spaces the sound might be just fine, in others you have to eliminate frequencies that cause resonation with elements in the chosen space.
Most highend systems do hidden EQ changes that are not configurable to compensate for the actual speakers and amplifiers.
If you have a decent soundsystem, the EQ can be the difference between a really shitty playback compared to a really good one.
Atleast if you play music really loudly OR silently.
And i omitted all the live playback situations (monitor speaker/microphone feedback etc)
The whole setting needs just one technician hauling a wheeled case full of explosives to the arena,
And yeah, tell me the DHS or any other agencies know enough about moving lights and pyrotechnics to be able to tell the difference betweeen a dangerous explosive vs part of the show equipment.
Agree with you, works every time.
Sometimes I have to explain what i'm doing, but usually nobody bothers me going in fast with a bundle of cables.
I admit, usually I am working at the venue but the bouncers don't know that.
At one point I worked for a company that did most of the night club A/V installations and maintenance in the region. Usually it was enough to mention the company name, and they would let you in to sections of the restaurant that weren't open at that hour, alone.
And when you walked out with insanely expensive equipment, you just had to tell them it was for regular maintenance. No questions asked.
And no, the staff didn't know me.
If you don't comply with the police, pretty much.
Personally i've broken too many laws to be a saint. But still not complying with police is about the dumbest thing you can do , if you're not sure you can get away with it. Even if you're totally innocent, noncompliance means guilt or atleast something worthy of investifgation
So you think it's better that they endanger themselves and others when some lunatic resists arrest, rather than taze them?
Resisting arrest is a decision made by the individual. It isn't about right or wrong. That can be sorted out later.
But if you decide to physically resist an arrest, you're pretty much fucked. Even if you otherwise didn't commit a crime, you did so in resisting
In the event of someone resisting arrest, there is no such thing as excessive force. The officers have no idea if she has a gun or other weapons. Is she doesn't, there's no need to throw a fit.
Actually, I know a couple of guys making a living simply by replacing iPhone screens.
It's the most fragile phone I've seen considering the market penetration.
Am I the only one who drove only 3 kilometers to work today, and left my car in the sun for 8 hours?
Make a hybrid car, and cover it with solar panels for additional recharging.
Many people use their car just for driving to their workplace and back, maybe stopping at a store on the way home. And as far as I know, electric cars use little or no electricity while not using the engine ( so no electric current draw). So no trouble getting through traffic jams with your loaded battery. And IF your battery runs out, you always have your backup combustion engine ready to work. Using energy from braking and the sun your battery will be charging.
And even on longer trips, you're probably going to be driving when the sun is up, so your battery is charging a bit.
In my opinion a lot of normal traffic is between home and workplace, which normally means your car is in the sun most of the day.
Even in countries like mine, where the sun shines through the day only for about 1/4th of the year, it would be a huge saving in fossile fuel usage.
Yes, there are problems with this idea, but i think they're not so difficult to solve compared to a lot of other ideas like Cold fusion or dealing with greenhouse gasses.
First of all, the main problem is aesthetics.
The indrusty is going to have to come up with a way to make the solar panels look good or "not-there", and make them more resistant to outside damage.
Batteries are always a problem, but the technology is getting better.
Battery technology will be getting better, and not only because of portable computers and cell phones, but because ALMOST everything runs on electricity these days.
Solarpanel tech is expensive. BUT if these cars were mass produced, it wouldn't be a problem.
Through mass production everything is cheaper. And through this mass production, there would be an incentive for every car company to better the technology. Why would anyone waste their time on niche technology, that's even more expensive and uneffidient than their current technology. At least when it's bringing in profits.
In my opinion, governments should fund this new tech, and put harsh taxes on polluting technologies. The fact that most governments don't give tax breaks to green tech makes me believe the bullshit about oil companies bribing people.
So the only major problem seems to be the Oil companies who have too much money.
I can't think of any excuse why properly made hybrid cars wouldn't work, except for the greed of the oil companies.
Over and out
So you would be willing to pay at least double the money for a product that was produced in a non sweatshop company, compared to the cheaper product of same quality produced by a sweatshop company?
Most people wouldn't, UNLESS you made big signs above the ones that were produced by taking advantage of people with little or no choice.
Think about the PS3 that everyones been rambling about.
If Sony suddenly decided to use slave labor in order to sell it for 300$, who would give a shit? Unless some people started making a big deal out of it, and even then i think most people wouldn't care.
And the real question is, which one of you hypocrites is ready to pay double for your consumer electronics?
I say yes to child and sweatshop labor 'cause i'm a realist, and don't give a damn about people who are making my dvd-players.
The awful truth is that you also don't care.
Everybody's interested until you tell them they're gonna have to pay double for that MP3-player they're going to buy. Or even more by several multipliers.
After that, child labor ain't so bad. EXCPET if those big moneymaking corporations use it. And who do you think buys their products, happy to see that the prices have dropped so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Issue w/ RMS is that he believes that software should not have owners. In other words, if you spend your time & effort creating software, you should not have ownership of it, but instead, people should be free to do w/ your software whatever they like. It's a perverted definition of freedom, just as Communism was a perverted definition of Democracy (Remember 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea', 'People's Republic of China', 'German Democratic Republic', 'People's Democratic Republic of Yemen'?) If one doubts me, read his essay on the GNU site 'Why software should not have owners'
RMS' symbolizes 'freedom' in the same way that those countries symbolized 'Democratic People's Republics'.
That's actually wrong. In RMS's version the people aren't free to do "whatever they like" with your software, that's what the BSD license grants. I count being able to modify and distribute without disclosing modifications as part of "whatever they like"
You seem to make the assumption that all that code would be written anyway, regardless of any earning potential as free code for everyone. I guess that's the reason GPL software is the best in every category...
Just as a side thought, how exactly were they supposed to make money on that? Why should Microsoft care whose free browser is gonna be run on their platform?
I agree with this. The only thing Google is running on is advertisement revenue. The second someone decides another search engine is better, google is pretty much dead. Apple is a fad that's dying slowly. Hipsters loved Apple, and people followed. But now it's becoming outdated. Apple kept floating through the bad times because people in specialized professional environments preferred them. But now there's a lot of bad sounds about them cause they've crippled some of the most popular software packages for professionals, and windows versions are actually catching up or even better than the Apple ones. (Mainly video and audio software.) Plus the fact that a lot of people are sick and tired of their Apple gear breaking so easily. I can understand if a sub 800 dollar Acer laptop breaks, but a macbook pro should take a lot more abuse just for the price. I work in a place which used to prefer Apple. Now everytime a machine breaks, we get a PC as a replamecement, cause only 1 person in the whole place thinks Macs are great.
Mainly because no one would be using it
Actually I Think you're joking. Most software programming projects that actually succeed don't need someone who's the most skilled in programming. They need someone who can solve problems. And that is not dependent on their programming background.
The problem is, people don't seem to see the difference between "gender equality" compared to "gender specific rights". Equality means, women are not allowed to be offended by things that men are not offended by. And vice versa. That's equality. If men are riled up by things women think are okay, it's not equality. Equality means women are held to the same standard that men are. And vice versa. The worst offender is the "parent" card. If you're not up to the task, don't do it. Who gives a flying "insert non offending word". If you're not up to the task, you're not. If you have a kid, it doesn't change the way your competence is measured (atleast it shouldn't). The last part means a child is not supposed to be considered a plus for you if you underperform. (and performance is compared to your workmates, not some general statistic. And this goes both for males and females. You getting fired should not have anything to do with your personal breeding) I know there's a history of preferring men over women. This still doesn't you make entitled to demands. If you want EQUALITY you take the jokes, and fire them back. (hint, if males are not offended and you are, it's not an EQUALITY problem) If you want gender specific rights, stop talking about equality. For example, breast feeding has nothing to do with equality. The first time i see an actual man (born as one) able to do that, i'll bow down and kiss the sky.
Yes and no. Equalizer use is dictated by the equipment and space. It is not just used for flaws in signal handling, but eliminating or elevating frequencies that are causing trouble or not being played back loud enough in the room, Different speakers also have different characteristics on certain frequencies and volumes. In some spaces the sound might be just fine, in others you have to eliminate frequencies that cause resonation with elements in the chosen space. Most highend systems do hidden EQ changes that are not configurable to compensate for the actual speakers and amplifiers. If you have a decent soundsystem, the EQ can be the difference between a really shitty playback compared to a really good one. Atleast if you play music really loudly OR silently. And i omitted all the live playback situations (monitor speaker/microphone feedback etc)
The whole setting needs just one technician hauling a wheeled case full of explosives to the arena, And yeah, tell me the DHS or any other agencies know enough about moving lights and pyrotechnics to be able to tell the difference betweeen a dangerous explosive vs part of the show equipment.
Agree with you, works every time. Sometimes I have to explain what i'm doing, but usually nobody bothers me going in fast with a bundle of cables. I admit, usually I am working at the venue but the bouncers don't know that. At one point I worked for a company that did most of the night club A/V installations and maintenance in the region. Usually it was enough to mention the company name, and they would let you in to sections of the restaurant that weren't open at that hour, alone. And when you walked out with insanely expensive equipment, you just had to tell them it was for regular maintenance. No questions asked. And no, the staff didn't know me.
If you don't comply with the police, pretty much. Personally i've broken too many laws to be a saint. But still not complying with police is about the dumbest thing you can do , if you're not sure you can get away with it. Even if you're totally innocent, noncompliance means guilt or atleast something worthy of investifgation
So you think it's better that they endanger themselves and others when some lunatic resists arrest, rather than taze them? Resisting arrest is a decision made by the individual. It isn't about right or wrong. That can be sorted out later. But if you decide to physically resist an arrest, you're pretty much fucked. Even if you otherwise didn't commit a crime, you did so in resisting
Actuallu, resisting law enforcement officials is illegal in most countries. And if you don't comply, are they just supposed to let you leave?
In the event of someone resisting arrest, there is no such thing as excessive force. The officers have no idea if she has a gun or other weapons. Is she doesn't, there's no need to throw a fit.
Actually, I know a couple of guys making a living simply by replacing iPhone screens. It's the most fragile phone I've seen considering the market penetration.
Am I the only one who drove only 3 kilometers to work today, and left my car in the sun for 8 hours? Make a hybrid car, and cover it with solar panels for additional recharging. Many people use their car just for driving to their workplace and back, maybe stopping at a store on the way home. And as far as I know, electric cars use little or no electricity while not using the engine ( so no electric current draw). So no trouble getting through traffic jams with your loaded battery. And IF your battery runs out, you always have your backup combustion engine ready to work. Using energy from braking and the sun your battery will be charging. And even on longer trips, you're probably going to be driving when the sun is up, so your battery is charging a bit. In my opinion a lot of normal traffic is between home and workplace, which normally means your car is in the sun most of the day. Even in countries like mine, where the sun shines through the day only for about 1/4th of the year, it would be a huge saving in fossile fuel usage. Yes, there are problems with this idea, but i think they're not so difficult to solve compared to a lot of other ideas like Cold fusion or dealing with greenhouse gasses. First of all, the main problem is aesthetics. The indrusty is going to have to come up with a way to make the solar panels look good or "not-there", and make them more resistant to outside damage. Batteries are always a problem, but the technology is getting better. Battery technology will be getting better, and not only because of portable computers and cell phones, but because ALMOST everything runs on electricity these days. Solarpanel tech is expensive. BUT if these cars were mass produced, it wouldn't be a problem. Through mass production everything is cheaper. And through this mass production, there would be an incentive for every car company to better the technology. Why would anyone waste their time on niche technology, that's even more expensive and uneffidient than their current technology. At least when it's bringing in profits. In my opinion, governments should fund this new tech, and put harsh taxes on polluting technologies. The fact that most governments don't give tax breaks to green tech makes me believe the bullshit about oil companies bribing people. So the only major problem seems to be the Oil companies who have too much money. I can't think of any excuse why properly made hybrid cars wouldn't work, except for the greed of the oil companies. Over and out
So you would be willing to pay at least double the money for a product that was produced in a non sweatshop company, compared to the cheaper product of same quality produced by a sweatshop company?
Most people wouldn't, UNLESS you made big signs above the ones that were produced by taking advantage of people with little or no choice.
Think about the PS3 that everyones been rambling about.
If Sony suddenly decided to use slave labor in order to sell it for 300$, who would give a shit?
Unless some people started making a big deal out of it, and even then i think most people wouldn't care.
And that is called Hypocrisy
And the real question is, which one of you hypocrites is ready to pay double for your consumer electronics?
I say yes to child and sweatshop labor 'cause i'm a realist, and don't give a damn about people who are making my dvd-players.
The awful truth is that you also don't care.
Everybody's interested until you tell them they're gonna have to pay double for that MP3-player they're going to buy.
Or even more by several multipliers.
After that, child labor ain't so bad. EXCPET if those big moneymaking corporations use it.
And who do you think buys their products, happy to see that the prices have dropped so much.