"It's[sic] about 300 pounds, camped out in front of the TV, and won't have sex with me!"... unless you dropped a 't' off the beginning, the court would probably just question your logic...
The GP was pointing out the ridiculousness of the MPAA pay out, not criticize the USA... I'm not even American and I could see that... are you lot getting a tad sensitive?
Except, the mods mod posts that clearly aren't funny as funny and 'funny' posts as interesting... You're essentially relying on our most capricious resource to be non-capricious.
One would hope, that such applications would not be solely relying on the paint remaining intact for its entirety to provide protection but add Yet Another Layer of Protection (YALP) to the more robust and active systems available.
There are substantial numbers of building that have been standing for longer than 50 - 60 years which is the projected lifetime of nuclear plants world wide. Sure, don't expect the buildings to last 1000 years, but 200 would be reasonable...
I would prefer the 'deadman switch' type scenario. And forget the ring to tell you your settings have been changed, most theaters have a big screen for displaying information.
No, I want to start running cars closer to the average needed size. Boot is not so big? Put the groceries in the back seat. Need to take a load of rubbish to the dump? Hire a suitable vehicle. Family + 4? Buy a suitable vehicle. I'm not asking for legislation that everyone have these vehicles, just that they think before buy that second/third massive car (vehicle ownership is increasing...) and ask is there a better solution? Sheesh! I'm just pointing out that they can have a fair use out there, so no need to decry them as a wasted cause before they are out. I'm encouraging a lifestyle change, not a restriction...
Except, car ownership is increasing, family sizes are decreasing(at least in western cultures -- and they are putting pressure on the rest of the world to do the same). They are buying cars for every occassion except effectiveness anyway; people are moving closer to schools despite still driving them those 2 - 5 blocks (Australian experience warning), and public buses are being run empty. I have no problem with people buy the most practical for their families purposes, but having 3 prestige vehicles needs to be peer pressured out of existence. Admittedly, owning a 100mpg vehicle could be simply that.
Fairly indicative of a misuse of vehicles. I'd doubt that they adjusted for tradesmen vehicles
that only carry 2 people like the venerated ute and the like, but even with them being included, I'd hazard that the occupancy would not rise far past 2 people/vehicle.
As for being ugly, the main problem for the masses, isn't that it is ugly but that it is outside conventional expectation. I certainly don't think it is ugly, but my reaction was that it was impractical. Having thought a bit about my own use for vehicles, I'd say it is not truly impractical for me... but I can't help think that it would be. The vehicles that fit into the suv categories are almost always ugly, but fit into convention. Heck, most vehicles are effectively oblongs stacked together! That ain't pritty! The appeal is in the impression that they can be versitile as the boxes that inspired (heh) them. The second metric of beauty would be flowing lines, I reckon, which complements symetry.
That 'practical' may not be... I'm under the impression *most* passenger vehicles carry 1 to 2 people for most of their journeys. I'll try hunt down that to being evidence; my own anecdotes as a taxi driver suggests that most trips carry a maximum of 3 people or jump to 6 or more (I drive a 10 seater vehicle). Most of my jobs are for single person jobs and watching the cars around me I'd hazard that that is true for private vehicles as well. (Y'get a feel for it after you've been doing it a while -- which can be wrong.) The exceptions are families going to school, and south east asian residents visting Australia.
Next, you'll be telling people that everything around them is radioactive...! Go to your room! When you are ready to stop being reasonable about energy, you can join the rest of the human race
The injustice is in not being allowed to fix a system you paid for/obtained legally. That is written into the licenses.
Passive EOL, sure. When companies actively EOL products... that is mean-spirited and touches on stealing back products. When program files get corrupted and you can't get your data out because the latest version doesn't work with your old version... there is something inherently wrong there.
I agree that the distribution is a different story, and my preference is for sharing and collaboration. It is the fuel for scientific knowledge, and I see no reason it should not be used in other areas of life.
People have also spoken and they want their 'security', which so far has been a farce. Shall we stop trying for reason and continue with idiocy because 'the people have made their choice'? No, we will continue to argue for sensibility and the better systems... I still don't understand why people(currently I'm eye balling your posts) are passionate about a philosophy one doesn't put anything into, except money. I truly don't understand.
It is obvious we will not be persuading one another, so I'm going to leave the debate there and forfeit any points perhaps gained.(Okay, that may be wishful thinking as well. )
Your argument reminds me of a radio show where the host was questioning a Chinese citizen about the use of the internet. The Chinese man was saying "... China is free! Using the internet in China is free* . You can do anything you like on the internet, as long as you don't query these matters the government decides is bad for you...."
Not all of the FOSS proponents are trying to make proprietary software illegal, but we do wish it to be fair. As I see, it does not currently seem to be fair.
There are movements for these things, you are not looking in the right places... and because of the nature of the product they tend to be local. Secondly, they are either products that cost x to reproduce, or services of supply of a relatively dangerous energy. Software, once it is created, costs minimally to reproduce. And yes, the programmers deserve to make a living, which is why I pay for my software. It is called getting value for money.
The 'third world' children aren't always building houses/infrastructure from mud; they have viable but poor societies. They lack opportunities not capabilities. Did you see the Brazilian experiment? They lacked educational tools, not electricity, buildings or clothes. No doubt some were hungrier than most at your local school, but then some are and that is why I'm of to help at a food van tonight...
As for not being an impedance to independence, do we really need to trot out RMS's printer story again? Or observe what happens to the people using paid for proprietary software that is being 'EOL'ed? I had no problem with proprietary software until it stopped me doing what I wanted. Proprietary software is not evil of necessity, I agree, but it is the easiest way to make money -- particularly off the vulnerable.
Why is there a movement for proprietary software? Matching pound for pound? If it was a grass-roots, I might find it in my heart to ferret out a support flag. As it seems to mostly be pro-corporate, I don't think they need my help.:)
Woah up. As an Australian, I have been listening to USA (as well as our own) legalese bring down laws that suggest if you don't have anything to hide, it doesn't matter who observes your actions. I'm all for privacy, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander; yes?
I know the rhetoric of the free software movement. Its just that its blown out of the water by one very simple fact. Most people don't know HOW to program.
Which is blown out of the water with this 'fact': virtually anyone can LEARN. It goes further than that as the types of programs intended for the OLPC program are encouraging people to become 'life long learners'. Sure, not every single box is going to become the cornerstone of a programming genius, but the more people that understand the process, the more can contribute in an effective way.
Can proprietary systems do the same job? Yes, they can, but there are proviso that in the long term undermine the goal of independence. Proprietary is up to the job of teaching! It is not up to the job of being an example of 'real to life' solutions. Honestly, having glanced at Sugar I would love to see it ported to Windows just to have it run in Australian schools. But then, I'd love for Australia not not be dependent on a monoculture.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's[sic] about 300 pounds, camped out in front of the TV, and won't have sex with me!" ... unless you dropped a 't' off the beginning, the court would probably just question your logic...
The GP was pointing out the ridiculousness of the MPAA pay out, not criticize the USA... I'm not even American and I could see that... are you lot getting a tad sensitive?
You're a scientist, aren't you?
Except, the mods mod posts that clearly aren't funny as funny and 'funny' posts as interesting... You're essentially relying on our most capricious resource to be non-capricious.
One would hope, that such applications would not be solely relying on the paint remaining intact for its entirety to provide protection but add Yet Another Layer of Protection (YALP) to the more robust and active systems available.
There are substantial numbers of building that have been standing for longer than 50 - 60 years which is the projected lifetime of nuclear plants world wide. Sure, don't expect the buildings to last 1000 years, but 200 would be reasonable...
I would prefer the 'deadman switch' type scenario. And forget the ring to tell you your settings have been changed, most theaters have a big screen for displaying information.
No, I want to start running cars closer to the average needed size. Boot is not so big? Put the groceries in the back seat. Need to take a load of rubbish to the dump? Hire a suitable vehicle. Family + 4? Buy a suitable vehicle. I'm not asking for legislation that everyone have these vehicles, just that they think before buy that second/third massive car (vehicle ownership is increasing...) and ask is there a better solution? Sheesh! I'm just pointing out that they can have a fair use out there, so no need to decry them as a wasted cause before they are out. I'm encouraging a lifestyle change, not a restriction...
I should add that you are correct that it doesn't fit the rules. Can't argue with that.
Except, car ownership is increasing, family sizes are decreasing(at least in western cultures -- and they are putting pressure on the rest of the world to do the same). They are buying cars for every occassion except effectiveness anyway; people are moving closer to schools despite still driving them those 2 - 5 blocks (Australian experience warning), and public buses are being run empty. I have no problem with people buy the most practical for their families purposes, but having 3 prestige vehicles needs to be peer pressured out of existence. Admittedly, owning a 100mpg vehicle could be simply that.
Okay, got some links that suggest passenger occupancy rate is ~1.13
Fairly indicative of a misuse of vehicles. I'd doubt that they adjusted for tradesmen vehicles that only carry 2 people like the venerated ute and the like, but even with them being included, I'd hazard that the occupancy would not rise far past 2 people/vehicle.
As for being ugly, the main problem for the masses, isn't that it is ugly but that it is outside conventional expectation. I certainly don't think it is ugly, but my reaction was that it was impractical. Having thought a bit about my own use for vehicles, I'd say it is not truly impractical for me... but I can't help think that it would be. The vehicles that fit into the suv categories are almost always ugly, but fit into convention. Heck, most vehicles are effectively oblongs stacked together! That ain't pritty! The appeal is in the impression that they can be versitile as the boxes that inspired (heh) them. The second metric of beauty would be flowing lines, I reckon, which complements symetry.
That 'practical' may not be... I'm under the impression *most* passenger vehicles carry 1 to 2 people for most of their journeys. I'll try hunt down that to being evidence; my own anecdotes as a taxi driver suggests that most trips carry a maximum of 3 people or jump to 6 or more (I drive a 10 seater vehicle). Most of my jobs are for single person jobs and watching the cars around me I'd hazard that that is true for private vehicles as well. (Y'get a feel for it after you've been doing it a while -- which can be wrong.) The exceptions are families going to school, and south east asian residents visting Australia.
Next, you'll be telling people that everything around them is radioactive...! Go to your room! When you are ready to stop being reasonable about energy, you can join the rest of the human race
And it looks like they are using Ubuntu brown!
The injustice is in not being allowed to fix a system you paid for/obtained legally. That is written into the licenses.
Passive EOL, sure. When companies actively EOL products... that is mean-spirited and touches on stealing back products. When program files get corrupted and you can't get your data out because the latest version doesn't work with your old version... there is something inherently wrong there.
I agree that the distribution is a different story, and my preference is for sharing and collaboration. It is the fuel for scientific knowledge, and I see no reason it should not be used in other areas of life.
People have also spoken and they want their 'security', which so far has been a farce. Shall we stop trying for reason and continue with idiocy because 'the people have made their choice'? No, we will continue to argue for sensibility and the better systems... I still don't understand why people(currently I'm eye balling your posts) are passionate about a philosophy one doesn't put anything into, except money. I truly don't understand.
It is obvious we will not be persuading one another, so I'm going to leave the debate there and forfeit any points perhaps gained.(Okay, that may be wishful thinking as well. )
fair enough
Your argument reminds me of a radio show where the host was questioning a Chinese citizen about the use of the internet. The Chinese man was saying "... China is free! Using the internet in China is free* . You can do anything you like on the internet, as long as you don't query these matters the government decides is bad for you...."
* speech, in context, not beer
Not all of the FOSS proponents are trying to make proprietary software illegal, but we do wish it to be fair. As I see, it does not currently seem to be fair.
There are movements for these things, you are not looking in the right places... and because of the nature of the product they tend to be local. Secondly, they are either products that cost x to reproduce, or services of supply of a relatively dangerous energy. Software, once it is created, costs minimally to reproduce. And yes, the programmers deserve to make a living, which is why I pay for my software. It is called getting value for money.
The 'third world' children aren't always building houses/infrastructure from mud; they have viable but poor societies. They lack opportunities not capabilities. Did you see the Brazilian experiment? They lacked educational tools, not electricity, buildings or clothes. No doubt some were hungrier than most at your local school, but then some are and that is why I'm of to help at a food van tonight...
As for not being an impedance to independence, do we really need to trot out RMS's printer story again? Or observe what happens to the people using paid for proprietary software that is being 'EOL'ed? I had no problem with proprietary software until it stopped me doing what I wanted. Proprietary software is not evil of necessity, I agree, but it is the easiest way to make money -- particularly off the vulnerable.
Why is there a movement for proprietary software? Matching pound for pound? If it was a grass-roots, I might find it in my heart to ferret out a support flag. As it seems to mostly be pro-corporate, I don't think they need my help. :)
Twitters ethics aside, it is a valid comment...
Woah up. As an Australian, I have been listening to USA (as well as our own) legalese bring down laws that suggest if you don't have anything to hide, it doesn't matter who observes your actions. I'm all for privacy, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander; yes?
Which is blown out of the water with this 'fact': virtually anyone can LEARN. It goes further than that as the types of programs intended for the OLPC program are encouraging people to become 'life long learners'. Sure, not every single box is going to become the cornerstone of a programming genius, but the more people that understand the process, the more can contribute in an effective way.
Can proprietary systems do the same job? Yes, they can, but there are proviso that in the long term undermine the goal of independence. Proprietary is up to the job of teaching! It is not up to the job of being an example of 'real to life' solutions. Honestly, having glanced at Sugar I would love to see it ported to Windows just to have it run in Australian schools. But then, I'd love for Australia not not be dependent on a monoculture.
if he doesn't it means he is insane...
Am I the only one wondering why the lawyers need to 'hide' their conversations from the NSA? I mean, what do they have to hide?
I've gone with twitter et al are corporate shills of some sort, as even teenagers get bored of pretending to be this kind of scum all the time.
Its not latin therefore greek to me...