Wait. What about pornographers makes them "bad guys"???
Porn is fully legal. Assuming the models aren't forced to have sex (which would make it rape, not porn), and they're not, like, 5 years old (or 15, if you buy the whole "teens can't ever have sex without it being coersion" line), it's not unethical. How can you compare "porn pushers" to mobsters?
I used to work for a porn site, programming on their content and developing HTML and CSS. They're just ordinary people trying to make a living. Porno isn't wrong. For fuck's sake, what is with America's puritanical attitude towards sex anyhow? Hit a 16-year-old, nothing happens. Have consensual sex with a 16-year-old, go to jail and get branded a "sex offender", as if you're some kind of rapist. Show kids a building blowing up, that's okay. Show kids a nipple and OMGOMGOMG JESUS PROTECT THEIR EYES. Seriously, WTF!?
I propose that the very notion that developers are starting to want 'more permissive' (read: 'more BSD-like') licences is false. If it were true, then most new projects would be released under the BSD licence, or into the public domain. However, the GPL is just as popular as ever, and the only people whining about the GPL3 are, basically, companies.
The fact that corporations (particularly MS, but others as well) don't like the GPL3 is a very heartening sign. These companies like nothing better than to make obscene amounts of profit off of the hard work of others, whilst giving nothing at all back. They hate the GPL3 because it's designed to protect coders from having their work stolen, pimped out, and locked away.
If this person thinks that the GPL 3 is "less permissive", then he's right-- if one is speaking from the perspective of a corporation eager to use GPLed code as a "free ride" and profit off of it, whilst locking it away on proprietary embedded devices and never letting users hack on them (Tivo, I'm looking at YOU!).
The GPL is "more permissive" from the perspective of free software coders, in that it gives them the freedom-- and thus the permission-- to release code without wondering if it will end up going to line the pockets of some rich embedded device maker.
There's a saying in some circles in America: "Don't be so 'open-minded' that your brain falls out". Likewise, the goal of the GPL3 is to "not be so 'permissive' that coders get screwed".
If someone tried to smack you across the face, or rape you, or otherwise assault you, and you said "NO" and defended yourself, I suppose the attacker/rapist could complain that you were "not being permissive enough". But that's your right. Likewise, it's the right of developers to not fear that corporations will use their code as a free meal ticket, whilst the original coders get nothing in return. If you don't care if people lock derivatives of your code away forever, release it under the BSD, or into the public domain. The GPL is about freedom to hack on things, freedom to change and update and distribute and reverse-engineer-- not freedom to find sneaky ways to proprietarize open code for financial gain.
Namely, games. I see nothing on their FAQ or Features pages about 3D support. Without that, games-- and several subclasses of applications (CAD programs, simulations, scientific visualisation programs, etc.) will fall flat on their face.
This is a noble effort, though, but what about the 3D?
I'm sorry, but the parenthood analogy falls flat on its face. If your children don't believe what you tell them, do you send them to a torture chamber for all eternity? If God is a parent, then he should be held to the same standards of decency as a good parent. God sends people to Hell for disbelieving in the story of Jesus. That is an infinite punishment for a finite "sin" (if, indeed, disbelieving a supernatural myth can be called a "sin"). If God is a "parent", he is a parent who throws his children into an oven if they stay up past their bedtime.
I hate Microsoft, but I have no doubt that these patents do exist, and that GNU/Linux systems do violate the patents. This isn't a problem with GNU/Linux, it's a problem with the patent system. With all the ridiculous software patents granted every year (and most/all are), there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that hundreds, if not thousands, of Microsoft's rubbishy patents are, in fact, violated by GNU/Linux systems.
Then again, the same goes for Apple, Google, Compaq, Dell... they all violate each others' patents, and when company X gets pissed off at company Y, they whip the patents out and sue. Patents are no longer used to "protect innovation", they're used as stockpiles of weapons to attack one's enemy-of-the-moment with.
This isn't so much evidence that MS is evil (honestly, do we need more evidence of that?), but rather evidence that the patent system is evil.
Speech recognition, handwriting recognition, species recognition... all of these suck, and will CONTINUE to suck, until strong AI is developed.
And by that time, there will be a lot more important problems to worry about than making a computer understand Bubba Sixpack who can't type-- such as keeping the robots from taking over the planet in a bloody war.
As we speak, suits in every single media company are now saying "If Disney does this and we don't, we'll fall behind on ad revenue!"
I expect this new ad-blocking-blocking to spread across the industry and become standard. I wouldn't be that surprised if they even persuaded (read: bribed) Congress to make it illegal to skip ads.
This guy criticised a service of the government's library, and got a nastygram/Cease-and-Desist. Perhaps this is an advance test of the feasibility of using lawyers to squash criticism of the government, much like how corporations often do the same?
The universe is clearly electrical in nature, which is why every "spacial anomaly" encountered in Star Trek history causes consoles to spark and power systems to fail.:)
If I want an OS that Just Works, I go with Mac OS X. If I want an OS to play video games, I go with Windows. If I want an OS that's open-source, I go with Debian, Ubuntu, OpenBSD or NetBSD. I've never understood the point of the commercial Linux distros. They're generally bigger and bloatier than the "free" distros, they don't make it any easier to play Windows games or run Windows apps, and they suffer from the same driver availability issues that most non-Windows OSes suffer from (due to asshole hardware vendors that only want to support one company, but still). About their only 'selling point' is that PHB types take them more seriously-- but, then again, PHB types take Windows seriously as a server OS, and if you wanted a serious server-grade Un*x, you might as well go with Solaris.
I believe that there should be a law against purposely and maliciously attacking someone who didn't attack you first. This applies to verbal attacks as well as physical attacks.
I must respectfully disagree. There are some "adults" who never quite grew up, who spend their time trying to hurt people just because it makes them laugh to see other people squirm. Free speech doesn't mean that it's okay to commit purposeful acts of cruelty towards other people.
Let's say a gay person lived in East Bumblefuck, Texas, surrounded by rednecks. Does the right to "free speech" give every ticked-off ex-boyfriend, former friend, or homophobic relative the right to put up a page saying "[name] is gay", and revealing other things about [name] that could get him beaten up or killed?
For whatever reason, among young American males, "gay" means "bad", much like "sucks" (as in "sucks dick") has passed from offensive slang into quasi-respectable common use to also mean "bad".
I can't think of another case where the name of a demographic group has been made into a common slang term with negative connotations. Some people use "to Jew" as a verb, but that's relatively rare. About the closest I can think of is "to gyp"-- i.e. to swindle like a Gypsy allegedly would.
But neither "to Jew" nor "to Gyp" have even close to the penetration (ha ha-- no pun intended) of the nearly-universal use of "sucks" to mean "bad" and the very common use of "gay" to mean "bad" (or "I didn't like it").
Imagine if people used the word "black" to mean "bad". And not just as in "black-hearted", but as in "Man, that play was so black", or "This pizza is black". Can you imagine the outrage? But nobody seems to care that "gay" is commonly used as an expression of disgust.
This is just another example of the deep-rooted homophobia of modern American culture.
These guys are concerned that people are going to expect content for free. Realise what this is saying. They are basically admitting "most of our customers are too uneducated/stupid to realise that we don't produce huge reams of professionally made content for free." They're essentially claiming that most of their audience don't know that it costs money to produce movies, or music, or software-- that people will come to "expect" such content for free.
This is very insulting, but is it true? Are most people that dumb?
It's possible for a 'fucking person' to be mean and nasty, or just to work for people who are mean and nasty. Some 'fucking people' are more innocent than others. This guy could have worked for just about any high-tech company, but he chose to work for Microsoft. That speaks volumes.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait. What about pornographers makes them "bad guys"???
Porn is fully legal. Assuming the models aren't forced to have sex (which would make it rape, not porn), and they're not, like, 5 years old (or 15, if you buy the whole "teens can't ever have sex without it being coersion" line), it's not unethical. How can you compare "porn pushers" to mobsters?
I used to work for a porn site, programming on their content and developing HTML and CSS. They're just ordinary people trying to make a living. Porno isn't wrong. For fuck's sake, what is with America's puritanical attitude towards sex anyhow? Hit a 16-year-old, nothing happens. Have consensual sex with a 16-year-old, go to jail and get branded a "sex offender", as if you're some kind of rapist. Show kids a building blowing up, that's okay. Show kids a nipple and OMGOMGOMG JESUS PROTECT THEIR EYES. Seriously, WTF!?
Safari for Windows?
Not a radical new 16-core desktop? Not a 19" Macbook Pro? Not a 30" iMac? Not an Apple-branded virtualisation solution?
Nooooo, SAFARI FOR WINDOWS>
I must ask here.... what the fuck!? Who would care about this announcement? And I say that as a Mac fan!
I propose that the very notion that developers are starting to want 'more permissive' (read: 'more BSD-like') licences is false. If it were true, then most new projects would be released under the BSD licence, or into the public domain. However, the GPL is just as popular as ever, and the only people whining about the GPL3 are, basically, companies.
The fact that corporations (particularly MS, but others as well) don't like the GPL3 is a very heartening sign. These companies like nothing better than to make obscene amounts of profit off of the hard work of others, whilst giving nothing at all back. They hate the GPL3 because it's designed to protect coders from having their work stolen, pimped out, and locked away.
If this person thinks that the GPL 3 is "less permissive", then he's right-- if one is speaking from the perspective of a corporation eager to use GPLed code as a "free ride" and profit off of it, whilst locking it away on proprietary embedded devices and never letting users hack on them (Tivo, I'm looking at YOU!).
The GPL is "more permissive" from the perspective of free software coders, in that it gives them the freedom-- and thus the permission-- to release code without wondering if it will end up going to line the pockets of some rich embedded device maker.
There's a saying in some circles in America: "Don't be so 'open-minded' that your brain falls out". Likewise, the goal of the GPL3 is to "not be so 'permissive' that coders get screwed".
If someone tried to smack you across the face, or rape you, or otherwise assault you, and you said "NO" and defended yourself, I suppose the attacker/rapist could complain that you were "not being permissive enough". But that's your right. Likewise, it's the right of developers to not fear that corporations will use their code as a free meal ticket, whilst the original coders get nothing in return. If you don't care if people lock derivatives of your code away forever, release it under the BSD, or into the public domain. The GPL is about freedom to hack on things, freedom to change and update and distribute and reverse-engineer-- not freedom to find sneaky ways to proprietarize open code for financial gain.
Do you know how many times my parents walked in on me when I was trying to masturbate at my computer?
Namely, games. I see nothing on their FAQ or Features pages about 3D support. Without that, games-- and several subclasses of applications (CAD programs, simulations, scientific visualisation programs, etc.) will fall flat on their face.
This is a noble effort, though, but what about the 3D?
I'm sorry, but the parenthood analogy falls flat on its face. If your children don't believe what you tell them, do you send them to a torture chamber for all eternity? If God is a parent, then he should be held to the same standards of decency as a good parent. God sends people to Hell for disbelieving in the story of Jesus. That is an infinite punishment for a finite "sin" (if, indeed, disbelieving a supernatural myth can be called a "sin"). If God is a "parent", he is a parent who throws his children into an oven if they stay up past their bedtime.
I hate Microsoft, but I have no doubt that these patents do exist, and that GNU/Linux systems do violate the patents. This isn't a problem with GNU/Linux, it's a problem with the patent system. With all the ridiculous software patents granted every year (and most/all are), there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that hundreds, if not thousands, of Microsoft's rubbishy patents are, in fact, violated by GNU/Linux systems.
Then again, the same goes for Apple, Google, Compaq, Dell... they all violate each others' patents, and when company X gets pissed off at company Y, they whip the patents out and sue. Patents are no longer used to "protect innovation", they're used as stockpiles of weapons to attack one's enemy-of-the-moment with.
This isn't so much evidence that MS is evil (honestly, do we need more evidence of that?), but rather evidence that the patent system is evil.
His name sounds middle-eastern! He HAS to be guilty.
</sarcasm>
Speech recognition, handwriting recognition, species recognition... all of these suck, and will CONTINUE to suck, until strong AI is developed.
And by that time, there will be a lot more important problems to worry about than making a computer understand Bubba Sixpack who can't type-- such as keeping the robots from taking over the planet in a bloody war.
Wait. The COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT? The act that was supposed to keep the kiddies away from Intarweb pr0n?
Wasn't that struck down, like, in the 1990s?
As we speak, suits in every single media company are now saying "If Disney does this and we don't, we'll fall behind on ad revenue!"
I expect this new ad-blocking-blocking to spread across the industry and become standard. I wouldn't be that surprised if they even persuaded (read: bribed) Congress to make it illegal to skip ads.
Or would it already be illegal via the DMCA???
This guy criticised a service of the government's library, and got a nastygram/Cease-and-Desist. Perhaps this is an advance test of the feasibility of using lawyers to squash criticism of the government, much like how corporations often do the same?
The universe is clearly electrical in nature, which is why every "spacial anomaly" encountered in Star Trek history causes consoles to spark and power systems to fail. :)
If I want an OS that Just Works, I go with Mac OS X. If I want an OS to play video games, I go with Windows. If I want an OS that's open-source, I go with Debian, Ubuntu, OpenBSD or NetBSD. I've never understood the point of the commercial Linux distros. They're generally bigger and bloatier than the "free" distros, they don't make it any easier to play Windows games or run Windows apps, and they suffer from the same driver availability issues that most non-Windows OSes suffer from (due to asshole hardware vendors that only want to support one company, but still). About their only 'selling point' is that PHB types take them more seriously-- but, then again, PHB types take Windows seriously as a server OS, and if you wanted a serious server-grade Un*x, you might as well go with Solaris.
I believe that there should be a law against purposely and maliciously attacking someone who didn't attack you first. This applies to verbal attacks as well as physical attacks.
I must respectfully disagree. There are some "adults" who never quite grew up, who spend their time trying to hurt people just because it makes them laugh to see other people squirm. Free speech doesn't mean that it's okay to commit purposeful acts of cruelty towards other people.
Let's say a gay person lived in East Bumblefuck, Texas, surrounded by rednecks. Does the right to "free speech" give every ticked-off ex-boyfriend, former friend, or homophobic relative the right to put up a page saying "[name] is gay", and revealing other things about [name] that could get him beaten up or killed?
Laws are always a bit heavy-handed, but still, it's good to see the authorities taking the first few baby-steps to combat bullying.
As someone wiser than me has pointed out, having to "grow a thick skin" shouldn't be the price of living in an information-based society.
My brother died from brain cancer.
...you insensitive clod.
If you crack a joke about brain cancer, I will PERSONALLY skullfuck you...
For whatever reason, among young American males, "gay" means "bad", much like "sucks" (as in "sucks dick") has passed from offensive slang into quasi-respectable common use to also mean "bad".
I can't think of another case where the name of a demographic group has been made into a common slang term with negative connotations. Some people use "to Jew" as a verb, but that's relatively rare. About the closest I can think of is "to gyp"-- i.e. to swindle like a Gypsy allegedly would.
But neither "to Jew" nor "to Gyp" have even close to the penetration (ha ha-- no pun intended) of the nearly-universal use of "sucks" to mean "bad" and the very common use of "gay" to mean "bad" (or "I didn't like it").
Imagine if people used the word "black" to mean "bad". And not just as in "black-hearted", but as in "Man, that play was so black", or "This pizza is black". Can you imagine the outrage? But nobody seems to care that "gay" is commonly used as an expression of disgust.
This is just another example of the deep-rooted homophobia of modern American culture.
These guys are concerned that people are going to expect content for free. Realise what this is saying. They are basically admitting "most of our customers are too uneducated/stupid to realise that we don't produce huge reams of professionally made content for free." They're essentially claiming that most of their audience don't know that it costs money to produce movies, or music, or software-- that people will come to "expect" such content for free.
This is very insulting, but is it true? Are most people that dumb?
So you're saying 'no company is perfect; therefore, all companies are equally bad'?
That sounds more like a theological argument than a rational one.
There's a significant difference between 'deserves to die' and 'worth me giving a damn about when they do die'.
Actually, I left the US.
It's possible for a 'fucking person' to be mean and nasty, or just to work for people who are mean and nasty. Some 'fucking people' are more innocent than others. This guy could have worked for just about any high-tech company, but he chose to work for Microsoft. That speaks volumes.