If you're talking in a mobile phone, it doesn't look like you're recording, and people will probably give you the benefit of a doubt. If - on the other hand - you have a head-mounted camera, it looks like you may be recording all the time. (Which he also was, so the perpetrators' misgivings about being filmed were not only easier to understand, they were also correct.)

RTFA yourself. Images are being recorded all the time. The images published on the website were saved because they weren't overwritten. That's different from 'not being recorded'.

To me it seems the Mann guy acted like a moron, but I wasn't there, and there's only one source for the story.

One thing that bothers me about his story is the way he touts the 'paper written by his doctor'. The camera is obviously not mounted there for medical purposes, so in what way is it significant that the paper is written by a doctor? It seems Mann uses the doctor-title rather than the contents of the paper to try to trump us into believing it is significant.

Of course, what bothers me most is how he walks around visiting and filming in various places where he shouldn't, just because he himself has designed the glasses so they can't be removed. That the camera is non-removable does not make it OK.

It would be nice if someone could design an EMP generator, mount it in a non-removable fashion to their body, and then go visit this Mann chap, and dissuade any protests from him by touting a paper from a hockey goalie.

A bit too trigger happy. Sorry about that.

You're wrong. There is a pattern even in the single-shot experiment.

Should developers also just plan to ignore Xbox 360?

At least during work hours.

I don't read it that way. I read it as:
(i) An implementation doesn't necessarily have to use MS patents, and even if it does, those patents aren't necessarily enforceable.
(ii) MS can't guarantee that an implementation doesn't infringe on third parties' claims.
... followed by some (standard?) legalese that the document only covers the things that the document actually covers.

While writing this, I had to backtrack to find the legal document, and noticed your other posts about MONO. Are you just trolling?

Interesting. You're putting the blame on the people who have to fight uphill.

It's a lot more difficult to organize enough voters to be heard when you don't have a fat wallet behind you.

Anybody want a slightly used middle of a game? Willing to trade for a new ending.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not advocating anything. I just pointed out a (huge) flaw in the original analogy.

With that said, I'll try to answer anyway.

I'll avoid the 'should' and just say that I'm pretty sure it would be more of a question of 'What is enforceable', rather than some ethical discussion/decision.

Hardly. People enjoy food. People enjoy cooking. Provided there was no major cost involved in producing a recipe at that level of detail, I'd happily make and share recipes with anyone who would want them.

Now, please leave the analogy. It is flawed.

Well.. The analogy does have its flaws. There's nothing stopping you from playing whatever music you like on your own guitar.

The analogy would be a lot more similar to what we're originally discussing if there was a cheap microwave we could feed the recipe into, which would then cook us a meal from the recipe - a LOT better than you typically could cook it yourself.

(Provided you also invested enough money in gourmet peripherals, such as gold-plated power cables, you could fool yourself into thinking the meal was actually as good as if made by the chef himself.)

If you have read the 'readme' and still not found the solution to the problem because it was in the 'README' or vice versa, then you know it can be a problem. I honestly don't see how a case-sensitive file system is beneficial to users. It just gives an extra dimension to make things less clear. Anyone care to explain the benefits?

..which also describes your post perfectly.

Say what? The linked article proposes using return values (that will be ignored) instead of exceptions. If you wanted to discredit the use of try/catch, you need to find a better link.

(Or is the article supposed to be ironic? It looks genuine. If not, a big whoosh on me...)

I'm curious, is there any mode or plugin except the "It's open source, make it yourself"-plugin to make Vi/Vim/Emacs support 'intelligent search/replace' or other quick refactorings? By that, I don't mean regexps, I mean that the editor actually has deeper knowledge of the language you're editing, and can help you change the name of a type in a specific namespace, without touching any methods or variables or other strings in the code that happen to have the same name as the type. Or change the method name on this particular type, but not the methods with the same names on other types, etc. Over an entire project with multiple sub-projects.

To me, (and probably anyone who refactors code), this is a huge time-saver compared to standard search/replace. Also, I imagine this would be hard to implement as a plugin to Vi/Vim/emacs if you let the tool chain be totally replaceable links - e.g. how do you determine which files are part of the project and need to be looked through, if you can use any one of a pretty large number of tools that can do the work of 'make'?

(I may be wrong. I used emacs/make etc. on SunOS until the early 90s, then moved on to Windows in mid/late 90's, and am now moving back to the *nix-world again, so I've been out of the loop for quite some time. Maybe this type of functionality is now standard in Vi/Vim/emacs too...)

Basically, an IDE sets a standard that makes it possible to ignore some of the most basic problems and instead concentrate on solving higher-level problems. I think this is a good thing (tm). I also don't value 'understanding the build process' that highly. I've been around enough that I happen to understand it (should probably qualify that with a 'most of the time'), but I'm not sure that it's been all that useful since I started using IDEs. Most of the time the build broke before, it was because I did something stupid in the makefile. An IDE typically handles all that for you. I do not miss editing makefiles.

Nonononono. 'WINE', not 'Whine'.

The other guys in the thread were trying to establish CERN as a 'mature public Linux installation in Europe' - i.e. one that Gartner missed - not claim that CERN migrated from windows to Linux. Check elrous0's post at the beginng of the thread. Quoting: "Well, ARE there any 'sizable deployments of Linux on the desktop' in Europe". The part about migration is only mentioned in your post.