Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Because everybody is too swept up in party politics to care about content and actually fixing things. It's much more fun to be part of a rivalry.
Seriously, this bill was bad, but too many people here on Slashdot are incapable of seeing how. It AUTHORIZES mass data collection and surveillance, just puts some extra parameters around it. Shouldn't our goal be to shut down mass data collection and surveillance?
That's funny, because the Republicans tell me the exact same thing - a vote for a third party is a vote for a Democrat. Tell me more about how the Democrats are better than the Republicans on government spying, warrantless wiretapping, stop-and-frisk programs, interstate border checkpoints and cash seizures. Hint: they're not. They both want to datamine everything you do online. They both want to fill prisons with non-violent criminals while letting the violently insane mix into society as if there's nothing wrong with them. They both want to pretend drug addictions don't exist, and let those suffering from real addiction only find help from their dealer. I was to believe the Democrats were going to "Change" all that, but they're exactly the same. Saying is not the same as doing. By electing the same old shit, we're never going to see voting reform, term limits or districting reform. By electing the same old shit, we're never going to see any real issues addressed, just those that the two parties know are divisive enough to polarize the electorate and guarantee their reelection.
You have only proven my point by claiming a vote for a third party is a vote for a Republican. I still get told all the time that it's my fault a Democrat was elected Governor of Virginia because I voted for a third party. The fact is, many people only vote Democrat or Republican because they don't want "the other guy" to win. The only way to fix that is to institute something like instant run-off voting, but Democrats and Republicans won't allow that. They won't even allow third party candidates to join them in a public debate.
A vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. Anything else is a vote for the status quo, and a vote to continue the distractions that only serve to empower the two parties
I picked one up yesterday. I like the form factor. It's not as bulky as my MOTOACTV, but it still seems to have a lot of usefulness. Some of the things missing out of the gate include the ability to do voice input if you're on anything but Windows Phone 8.1, the ability to load music on it and use it without your phone for a run (with bluetooth headphones - something my MOTOACTV can do), and I really wish it had NFC so I can use it for mobile payments.
As for the first two gripes, those may get fixed with a future software update. The last one I guess I'll have to get over. I can use my phone.
All in all, it seems Microsoft may finally be thinking outside the box. Not everyone wants a microtablet on their wrist, and with the right software updates, this thing could be just as capable.
Indeed - the U.S. Navy still has a pretty big presence in Scotland. It's how I ended up with a half brother there.
Where's the other half gone?
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
There are two on Google Play — DOSBox Turbo and "DOSBot". Both charge a fee — DOSBox Turbo is $3.99; DOSBot is $0.99. The developer of DOSBot says on his Google Play entry that he will not release the source code of his application because it's not GPL, even though it's derived from source released under GPL v2 — this is definitely a violation of the license. The developer of DOSBox Turbo is refusing to release the source for his application unless you pay the $3.99 to "buy" a license of it.
The same developer explicitly states that the "small" fee (although one might argue that $3.99 is pretty expensive for an OSS Android app) is to cover the cost of development. Unless I'm misreading the text of GPL v2, a fee can only be charged to cover the cost of the distribution of a program or derived work, not the cost of development. And, of course, it doesn't cost the developer anything for someone to log in to Google Play and download their app. In fact, from what I can tell, there's a one-time $25 fee to register for Google Checkout, after which releasing apps is free.
Where do you draw the line on this? What do you do in this kind of situation?"
Link to Original Source