Well, trolio shithead, the poster's analogy is stupid and inaccurate. You are, in fact, making my point for me in the first part of your post.

But, here, let me educate you. Many companies make cars with ignition systems that have keys that can only be gotten from the manufacturer or companies licensed to make said keys. One can't simply go to the local hardware store and have a new key made.

What Apple is doing is not uncommon in other industries and misrepresenting the situation with a blatantly false analogy proves exactly nothing.

His analogy would be appropriate if Apple somehow made the iPhone incompatible with common 60 Hz, 110V wall current requiring instead special Apple current.

Apparently, your point was to demonstrate your ignorance, be a troll, and throw out some flaimbait. Congratulations on being so blatant about it.

BTW, it is stupid for people to be upset about this when the law bans them from unlocking their phones without the carriers permission. What is worse, paying extra for a cable or possibly having to pay hundreds of dollars for a whole new phone?

People buying over-priced cell phones that are locked to a carrier so if they decide to change carriers they may or may not be able to use their over-priced cell phones are now going to have to pay for over-priced cables.

Why is anyone surprised by this? Why does anyone other than those who own knockoff cables give a damn?

Except Ford doesn't sell gasoline and Texaco doesn't sell cars. Now, if you had something about aftermarket parts you might have had a valid analogy.

Sure, if you want to lie about it. The switch didn't fail. The switch worked perfectly. The switch was there to prevent detonation and it prevented detonation.

Your way of looking at it is just a straight out lie.

Except, the OP has already stated he doesn't have the skill to do as you suggest.

Plausible? The OP isn't a university professor nor a coder. He is neither qualified nor capable of giving a course on window manager design.

Then, as other has noted, the issue of the output of such a course.

And, what is described is not window manager design but window manager maintenance. IceWM has already been designed, this is just porting it to a newer version of Linux. How happy would you be if you paid for a course on window manager design thinking you would be able to design window managers at the end only to learn that you will only have one example that is already designed and you are supposed to do some maintenance programming? No discussion of how to actually design a window manager in a window manager course would result in charges of fraud and/or a high dropout rate.

And, who is going to offer the course, the OP who doesn't know how to code in the first place? Would you pay for course in Window Manager Design from someone who doesn't know how to design or code a window manager?

Unless one is standing right there, what is to prevent someone from removing the "condom", plugging the bare cable in, slurping all one's data off, then putting the "condom"?

That assumes you can convince a major corporation that it is in their best interest to fund development. Linux is a major server operating system. IceWM is a minor and little used window manager. There is a big difference.

There are reasons for corporations to support Linux, Apache, Mozilla, and some other projects. But, there is no reason for corporations to support the majority of projects because the corporations don't get anything out of it.

It is different than closed source software. You are conflating the utility of an application with the quality of the project.

If the developer of a closed source app can make enough of a profit selling an app, then the developer will continue to maintain and improve the app regardless of the size of the user base. With FLOSS even if a project has a large user base, it can and will die a slow and ugly death as soon as all the "sexy" code is written because the developer(s) will move on to more interesting projects. The primary exceptions to this is when a project is adopted by one or more companies who pay for developers to work on the project or the most of the changes in the project involve sexy code.

In short, if a closed source application is profitable, it will be maintained, even if it is of low quality and possibly low utility. Even useful, high quality, high utility FLOSS projects will be left to rot because the work that is left is boring and no one wants to work on it. If you want evidence, just look at the high profile projects that have had annoying little bugs that lasted for months or even years because hunting down the bug and fixing it would be boring.

In other words, he is not willing to pay the going rate to get the work done. Same difference.

You want them to do boring, tedious work. Hmmm. What could you do to make people want to do boring tedious work? I know, pay them!

Oh, wait, you want them to work for free? Now you know why 90% of FLOSS projects are crap. When all the sexy code is written and all that is left is the boring stuff, the coders leave to for the new hotness.

Oh sure, people will point to things like Linux, Apache, etc. but when you get down to it, most FLOSS projects end up as either abandonware or as rarely updated side projects with half-implemented features and unfixed bugs, let alone getting modern features.

So, if you are interested in maintaining or upgrading your favorite FLOSS project, you better be willing to pay for it.

Myself and my wife have both switched to e-cigs full time - myself for 6 months, her a bit more reluctantly and recently. The tobacco analog flavours are pretty nasty, but then I neve actually liked the taste of tobacco anyway - it's the act of smoking and nicotine itself I'm addicted to. Now she smokes a menthol mix, and I'm a fan of fruit flavours.

I've tried to quit many, many times during a 23 year cigarette habit. Patches, gum, straight cold turkey, Allan Carr, you name it, I probably tried it. Longest time was a year before stress got me smoking again. The day I had an e-cig, I've not had a single tobacco cig since. My phlegmy cough is gone, my sense of taste is much better, I don't reek of smoke (going back and smelling an old coat that I wore while smoking just smells rank - when you smoke, you don't realise HOW stinky you are to non smokers). I also feel better.

Nicotine itself is highly addictive, but in stimulant terms isn't much different to caffeine. It's the tar, carbon monoxide, benzene and all the other carcinogens as byproducts of combustion that are really terrible for your health.

We're still on the hunt for the perfect clearomizer that gives the right combination of warmth, vapour quantity and reliability (some tanks crack very easily), but generally it's been a very easy transition for me. My wife struggled at first as the amount of vapour wasn't enough for her in comparison, but a dual-coil seems to have fixed that, and we hand-mix the liquid as we both prefer a different mix of PG to VG. I am slowly tapering my nicotine mix down (currently at 8%, which is already pretty low). I'm still hoping to quit outright at some point.

Are they 100% safe? Don't know. Most studies have shown no risk, and the worst impact has been some inflammation in those with existing breathing conditions. Given the components of the liquid are all individually safe for consumption in other products, as long as you get it from a reliable supplier that doesn't use cheap chinese contaminated liquid, it should be pretty safe. It's certainly a lot safer than the known highly dangerous tobacco cigs. I'd have no problem with goverments ensuring product purity by regulation and enforcing age restrictions - all the sellers I know insist on 18+ only, and are entirely upfront about the dangers of nicotine.

Yet European legislation is lining up to class them as medicines, and defacto ban e-cigs, as they obviously don't have a health benefit in and of themselves - only in relation to the alternative. It seems ludicrous to try and ban a product that is at worst far less dangerous than cigarettes, when cigarettes themselves don't have to clear the same proposed hurdles.

It's not illegal to possess cash. Not even large amounts of cash. If he never saw drugs, he had no actual knowledge that anything illegal was going on. His incarceration wasn't about upholding the law, it was about making an example so that next person would know that he better cooperate with the feds.

LK

He's most likely talking about this case.
Hits description isn't 100% accurate but he's close enough.

http://www.slashdot.org/story/184153

LK