Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
But that is _not_ what GP was saying:
"That's 3.8% after Valve improved the OpenGL version using what they'd learned from Linux. It's 20% going from DirectX Windows to OpenGL Linux. That's pretty close to massive, considering the vast amounts of work and money MS has poured into developing DirectX and Windows in general."
Looks like a ( A+C ) > ( B + D ) comparison, especially since he is pointing to the fact that MS develops _both_ windows and directx. ie, the whole stack.
The reason why it makes sense to compare searching algorithms, for example, it's because you have on objective result that you need to produce, and in those terms compare the actual procedure to see which one was faster/cheaper/prettier in getting _at the same result_.
same thing with game engines: render scene/level, measure fps. If a series of if-then else statements on a cluster of TI calculators ends up being slower, the idiosyncracies of that particular implementation don't do anything against the fact that that particular implementation _sucks_.
finally, and this is where you show that you are nothing more than a fucking racist redneck bigot, the track record of the us in terms of human rights abuse is of epic proportions, and the one in ecuador is actually pretty timid compared even to other latinamerican countries (which, by the way, have terrible human rights violations records mostly due to military dictatorships in the seventies put in place with support and blesssings from your fucking paragons of democracy the US of A).
so fuck off. everybody knows what this is really about, and you making shit up is not going to change that fact.
If i have loud sex in my apartment, i can not say that it is a violation of privacy when my neighbor complains about the noise. I can not complain about him recording it from the privacy of his own home, either.
If the opposite were true, you would have to get permission of everyone that happens to be in hearing range of your phone whenever the phone's microphone is on, like when making a call, or recording an audio note.
If the opposite were true, you would have to get permission from anybody that appears in the background of a picture taken in public space.
"Awareness" on the part of those persons has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The opposite would be evidently idiotic.
There is no additional requirement whatsoever, no requirement of record, interest, promise, manifestation of will, nothing. that can all be implicit, and is the base of contemporary civil law.
"debts" basically mean "any monetary obligation" and that includes pretty much everything, so this whole thread is completely nonsensical.
In very simple terms, the problem in terms of criminal theory is that these people committed acts that were not typified as crimes under the legal systems that was in force when they were committed, so their prosecution _and conviction_ had a tremendous impact in the modern understanding of the legality principle, which is a fundamental concept in any criminal law system, and in criminal law theory.
But independently of that particular solution, the fact that technological development makes some particular form of social institution or enterprise obsolete is not the problem. If the invention of the wheel made some forms of transportation obsolete, considerations about the preservation or future or pre-wheel forms of transportation should not be valid arguments in discussions about development and deployment of the wheel.
In other words....it doesn't matter. The problem right now is not how are we going to secure that there are incentives for people to invent stuff, but that the mechanisms that we do have in place, that were never created with that intention but also work as incentive structures, are becoming unacceptable threats to the public interest and freedom.
First we need to stop the escalation into police states that the extension of these mechanisms is bringing about, THEN we should let the people that are trying to make money inventing stuff work out how they are going to actually make any.
In other words: the "technological development" argument is moot. it is not going to happen, period. So don't use it to respond to my complaints about my lost freedoms, because i'm being monitored, censored, persecuted, fined and incarcerated NOW, and you want me to worry about the potential profit problem of some corporation in some undefined future. get your priorities right.
As a subsidiary argument, you can reconsider the reasons that were argued in its time for the implementation of IP protection. it was never "let's secure a revenue stream for the author", it was much more a thing of "let's secure the integrity of the produced media for the future, by preventing unauthorized sub-par copies to be made and distributed". That line of thought rests, however, on the direct correlation between cheap copy and low quality copy that digital media makes obsolete.
Specifically because with open source software, you are able to *see* what is being sent. So yes, obviously it should generate less outrage.
even if that's not easy enough, Ubuntu has a very easy to use graphical package-manager that can do it for you, to the same effect. Checking your email on any OS is harder than installing/removing packages in ubuntu (and most modern linux distros, for that matter)