Sign of the times. Back in the day at least they gave us a blue screen, now we're stuck with black
Or like Neil Young put it
Out of the blue and into the black
You pay for this, but they give you that
And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black.
If you base it on what people already have, you essentially give them and incentive to spend everything they get to keep their wealth low so they get more basic income.[
I think you misunderstood the parent. Currently, if you have much wealth, you can invest in stocks etc. to get more wealth without really working for it. If you have little or no wealth and you have a badly paid job (or two) you are busy satisfying your basic needs usually you don't have enough to save something to get out of that treadmill. Hence the current distribution model is based on what you already have and it favours the rich.
A terabyte, according to RIAA estimates, is about $2.7million which is about 16 years of Cuba's total GNP.
Please check your math: Cuba's GNP in 2005 was $11.2 billion and I think it went up since.
Or everything-and-its-cat now depending on systemd.
It is interesting that you bring up systemd in a GPL discussion. Their was some discussion about how the IPC infrastructure of systemd can effectively be used to circumvent the GPL by providing a GPL wrapper to a GPL library/program that provides a RPC interface and then use this interface from a non-free program remotely. Since no direct linking is involved, this is actually legal, and the a legal way to prevent this is licensing the code under the AGPL
I don't want to support, or otherwise be involved with, GPL enforcement. It sounds to me like it's the creator of a piece of software dictating exactly what I can and can't do with it.
Wrong, the GPL only refers to the distribution of the software, and here the only requirement is that you pass on all the freedoms that were given to you when you received the software. For what you actually use the software this is completely up to you, in fact restricting the use of the software (e.g. "non-commercial only" or "no military use") is incompatible with the GPL.
The right for somebody to create closed-source derivatives is something that should be protected. Not protecting it is merely the act of taking away freedom.
Here you contradict yourself, because by distributing a closed-source derivative of some free software is taking away the freedom to create a derivative from your modified version.
Right, but the same applies to Russia too. Russia is pretending to bomb ISIS "terrorists" in Syria, and yet for every hundred bombing raids it's done only one has actually been against ISIS and ISIS territory. The other strikes have hit everything from al Qaeda off-shoots, which we'd probably agree is fair play, through to Kurds and Turkmenis who just want to be left the fuck alone in their particular pocket of Syria just because they also oppose Assad.
AFAIK the Russians never bombed the Kurds, Turkey however did, Turkey also closed the border for Kurds when Kobani was under ISIS attack. There is an interesting analysis about why ISIS survives. Short version: Because the Turks support them in many ways.
They pulled drivers for "obsolete* GPUs from the Linux kernel, making all of those cards broken, mine included.
That's not true, older AMD cards are supported by the open source driver, and for these older, pre-OpenGL 4.0 cards the mesa implementation is actually quite good, and since it is open source it will probably be maintained for a very long time.
It is true, however, that they pulled support for the Radeon 4XXXHD series from their Catalyst driver too soon, before the mesa implementation was in a good shape.
One of my primary suspects for the difference is the video card - how well optimized are the Linux drivers?
Actually, it is has been shown that on the same hardware (with NVidia card) for Metrox Redux it is just a question of SSAA being on or off.
[Citation Needed]
My cold fusion work only when I run the experiment in my shed with no one watch too
Obviously, it's quantum physics, by monitoring the experiment you change the outcome
It has everything to do with copyright law. It's what the company is using in order to claim that they have a right to keep information from the court.
No, even if they would show the code, it wouldn't become magically free software or public domain. What they claim here is that they want to keep a trade secret.
All scholarship is, to some extent, built on prior work — but this is especially true in scientific research. Consider James P. Allison, the winner of this year’s Lasker-DeBakey prize in clinical medical research. His work helped clarify one way cancer cells hide from the immune system. [...] Dr. Allison’s work is surely impressive. But [...]it relied on work conducted by 7,000 scientists at 5,700 institutions over a hundred-year period. Yet only he was recognized.
and
The prize industry contributes to a deeper problem in scientific research: We throw resources at a privileged few who have already achieved enormous fame.
Instead
[...] we could break up big prizes and give out many smaller awards. This may be more effective in supporting science [...]
Don't pretend they can just show up and ask questions.
Obviously not, but firstly, Assange was in the UK since August 2010 when the case was already open, and he only entered the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012. That makes nearly two years to question him in London without the complications to ask Ecuador for permission, and then they had three years to ask Ecuador for permission and only did so this year in June when the time for three of the allegations started to run out.
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
