Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:They already "gave back" (Score 1) 266

by paulpach (#46741013) Attached to: Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Back To the Tech Industry

They do not deprive the countries of money. They deprive the governments. This is a _good thing_ as governments are notoriously more inefficient than private companies since they don't have any incentive for saving and investing, but to spend and buy votes for the next election.

Like how socialized medicine provides better care at a third of the cost of a system based on profits and insurance?

When comparing what to what? The American medical system is as far as it can be from free market without being socialized. Between RX, now mandated insurance, tax distortions, billion dollar FDA approval process, AMA certification (enforced by government), etc. it is all a big clusterfuck of inefficiencies and monopolies imposed by government. They just assume people are to stupid for their own good and then need a daddy government to treat the smallest infection.

Heck the cost of approving a new medicine is so high that government essentially ensured nobody can enter the market. This is why in my original post I said "Except when government is involved".

Compare that to healthcare that is not government controlled such as lasik and plastic surgery. Both the cost goes down every year and quality goes up.

Socialized medicine is a disaster everywhere. You often need to wait months for an appointment, lack of medical equipment is very common, people often end up going to emergency for small things only to wait hours because medics are treating true emergencies. This is something I speak from experience being from a country with socialized medicine. But please note I am not advocating the american system either.

But this went already far enough from the original topic, so I am out.

Comment: Re:They already "gave back" (Score 1, Flamebait) 266

by paulpach (#46740595) Attached to: Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Back To the Tech Industry

and they've done their best at tax avoidance depriving each country where they trade of valuable tax revenue

They do not deprive the countries of money. They deprive the governments. This is a _good thing_ as governments are notoriously more inefficient than private companies since they don't have any incentive for saving and investing, but to spend and buy votes for the next election.

Comment: They already "gave back" (Score 3, Insightful) 266

by paulpach (#46740151) Attached to: Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Back To the Tech Industry

I absolutely despise the phrase "giving back" when referring to charity, because it implies they took something.

Apple has already given back, every dollar they got was in exchange for either an app, iphone, ipad, laptop or something else that the customer got. They have already given something back for every penny they made. This goes for every single company selling products or services (Except when governments are involved)

I donate quite a bit every year for worthy causes without asking for anything in return, and I hate it when my efforts are diminished by calling them "giving back".

Charity is not "giving back", charity is charity, it is a company or individual willingly giving up profit in order to help someone. Ideally, the company benefits from the charity by getting good PR, so it becomes a win-win; it becomes an investment instead of charity, which makes it more sustainable and will hopefully cause it to repeat in the future.

As far as open source code goes, Apple does invest significantly in projects like llvm and webkit and the world is a better place because of it.

The idea that apple somehow owes me and you or the apache foundation is just entitlement mentality.
If you bought apple's products, it is because you think their product is worth more than the money you paid for it, otherwise you would not have gotten it. In that case, Apple owes you nothing.
If you did not buy apple's product, then what they do does not affect you. In this case, Apple owes you nothing.

If you want to encourage Apple to donate code or money, then highlight, applaud and buy products from companies that behave the way you want them to. If enough people vote with their money and show that charity pays off, then either apple will do it, or the companies you support will do it more thanks to your support.

Comment: Re:Which is why corporations are born criminals (Score 3, Insightful) 247

by paulpach (#46427899) Attached to: BP Finds Way To Bypass US Crude Export Ban

They're only breaking the spirit of the law, not the letter.

True. They are 'getting around' the law against exporting crude, by not exporting crude. It seems the law needs to be amended to define better what is considered exportable if they want to stop this.

Perhaps they should get rid of the ban altogether? Seriously, with the trade deficit spiraling out of control, it makes no sense at all to ban exports.
Rather than question BP for 'getting around' the law, we should question why we have such bad law in the first place.

Comment: Re:ANDROID != LINUX (Score 1) 487

by paulpach (#46395813) Attached to: Android Beats iOS As the Top Tablet OS

Don't believe.

There is NO Posix userspace on Android. Posix kernel land is locked/limited.

Why does it take 16 GB RAM to compile the Android tarball? That's some BEAUTIFUL community inclusion!

You realize linux is _just_ a kernel right? There is roughly the same amount of linux in an android handset than in say an ubuntu pc.

Whether you put some GNU components on top, Dalvik, or busybox, it is the exact same kernel: linux. In fact this is the reason why some people advocate calling most distributions GNU/Linux

Comment: Re:free software into law? (Score 2) 480

by paulpach (#46350045) Attached to: Interview: Ask Richard Stallman What You Will

Stallman has already advocated coercion: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

Thank you for the article, but it does not really address my question.

In that article he tries to convince people to chose GPL over LGPL for libraries. At most, the consequence here is that someone is unable to use the library in question because he does not agree with the terms.

What I am asking is different: I would like to know if he would make it a crime to use a proprietary license.

Comment: free software into law? (Score 3, Interesting) 480

by paulpach (#46348827) Attached to: Interview: Ask Richard Stallman What You Will

You argue that it is unethical for someone to distribute software in a way that limits any one of the 4 freedoms to users.

If you had the option, would you make it illegal to do so?

In other words, if you had the option would you make it so that software developers were forced by law to use a free software license? or would you leave the option to the developers and try to convince them (without coercion) that it is the right thing to do?

Comment: Re:Whats wrong with Windows Phone? (Score 1) 241

by paulpach (#46295769) Attached to: With 'Virgin' Developers, Microsoft Could Fork Android

I am a mobile app developer. I have ios, android and win surface tablets. I have nothing against any of these companies as I want my apps to work on all of them. But the surface is my least favorite one, and one I would never use for me. The usability is just bad over all. Here are some examples:

  1. I want to get a game, so I click on the store, and it prompts me to create an account. I spend 5 minutes setting up an account, and then it just goes to my account page with no obvious way to install the game, or even go back to the store. Go back to the start screen and click on the store again, and it just reopens the window in your account.
  2. Scrolling up and down with 2 fingers on the touchpad is hit and miss, Sometimes it registers as a scroll, but often It thinks I moved my first finger and registers as a moving the cursor ignoring the second finger.
  3. The default keyboard that comes with the surface has keys that you don't press, but touch. This means it has a full size keyboard that you cannot touch type in because you cannot feel the keys, WTF?
  4. There are essentially 3 desktops: the metro interface, the traditional win 7 desktop, and the full list of applications. It is not obvious how to switch between them, and much less how to move the apps between them. The slide from the borders thing is something you should not rely on, because someone needs to show it to you, there is no way a person would figure it out by himself.
  5. Say I want to uninstall an app, well, I would expect to tap and hold an app and click uninstall. I would expect to right click on an app and click uninstall. I would expect to drag it into some garbage can. But no, there is no obvious way to uninstall apps, it turns out you need to open settings and look for the installed apps, and then uninstall it from there.
  6. I am not a huge fan of the changing tiles, because sometimes you no longer recognize what they are. Say I am looking for the store, but the tile is currently displaying some information about some app in the store, then it takes longer for me to find the darned store.

I am a software developer (and darned good at it), I design my games with usability in mind, and constantly change them based on usability testing and feedback from users. People underestimate how hard it is to make interfaces that won't confuse people, bad developers will actually think the users are dumb and blame them. Microsoft desperately needs to do some usability testing on these tablets. They did a great job at making the UI look simple and beautiful, only to kill the magic with some really bad UI design problems.

Comment: Re:Pointless (Score 1) 380

by paulpach (#46239061) Attached to: Rand Paul Files Suit Against Obama Over NSA's Collection of Metadata

No. The executive does not have the power until the legislative passes a veto-proof law banning the power. It is supposed to work the opposite way, where a law needs to be approved by both the executive, legislative, and even then the judicial can still strike it down if it deems it unconstitutional.

OK, what is the remedy, and is that remedy provided for in the Constitution?

According to Jefferson, the states have the responsibility of defending themselves from abuses from the federal government by using nullification. This is what the 9th and 10th amendment are for.

Comment: Re:Pointless (Score 1) 380

by paulpach (#46233305) Attached to: Rand Paul Files Suit Against Obama Over NSA's Collection of Metadata

The Constitution provides a remedy for the Executive Branch violating laws, and it's not having the Legislative Branch go to the Judicial Branch. Congress should pass a veto-proof law clarifying its intention that universal wiretapping is against the law, and then if the Executive Branch persists, then start impeachment proceedings, where members of Congress act as judge and jury. Rand Paul's lawsuit is nothing but grandstanding -- similar to the conservative all-talk-no-results Republicans have been feeding their constituents for the past half-century, but this time it's libertarian all-talk-no-results. And unconstitutional to boot.

No. The executive does not have the power until the legislative passes a veto-proof law banning the power. It is supposed to work the opposite way, where a law needs to be approved by both the executive, legislative, and even then the judicial can still strike it down if it deems it unconstitutional. But that still fails because as the patriot act and many other laws demonstrate, the legislative branch passes (purposely) very vague laws that allow the executive to interpret whatever he wants out of it.

As it is, Boehner is Obama's puppet and might as well be on the same party. He even worked with Obama to kill a bill banning of the mass surveillance already. Trying to do _anything_ at all through the legislative branch would be truly pointless. This may not go anywhere, but it still has a much better shot than expecting both Boehner and Reid to even bring a bill to the floor.

Comment: Re:I agree with him.. (Score 1) 380

by paulpach (#46233059) Attached to: Rand Paul Files Suit Against Obama Over NSA's Collection of Metadata

but it is still ironic that the people that gave him the power, and started the surveillance state are not suing Obama for continuing it.

This makes no sense. Are you saying that you expect Bush to sue Obama for continuing the mass surveillance?

Perhaps you did not mean to put that "not" in there. In that case, you are confusing Bush with Rand Paul simply because they are republicans. In reality they are as far apart ideologically as can be. Not only that, but Rand Paul was not a senator when the mass surveillance started, and both him and his father opposed the patriot act from the very beginning.

Comment: Re:It's about tactics: GPL helps free software (Score 1) 1098

by paulpach (#46062055) Attached to: FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

It's not difficult to see which approach works best: Which OS has more contributors, *BSD or GNU/Linux?

All else being equal, you could argue that GPL encourages more contributions than BSD.
But there are a lot more forces at play here, that I suspect are having a bigger impact than the license:

  • LLVM design is more modular and easier to develop for. The barrier to entry for a developer is simply lower
  • GCC requires CLA (Contribution License Agreement). Linus Torvalds recently pointed out how broken CLA's are, and why they discourage contributions

Life's the same, except for the shoes. - The Cars

Working...