Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment You are all fools (Score 1) 217

I've said it from the start and I'll repeat it now:

The FCC's interest in "net neutrality"(1) was never about what you wanted, it was *always* about gaining control of the internet. When you have the power of regulation over something, you have all the power in the world at the barrel of a gun.
By trying to support their efforts, every single one of you was dooming the internet.

The USG frequently tries to fear monger online, always accusing others of militarizing the internet, when in fact they are the ones doing it. They started monitoring your phone calls in the early nineties, but of course it must have been because of 911. Go back to sleep you retarded fucks.

It's my fucking tragedy to live on a planet, in this meat suit that is all about tribes and sharing experiences with other meat suits, with a bunch of asshole Elois like you all. Worst of it, probably if you are capable of comprehending what I've just said you are the best of the best here. I live in an impressionist's landscape utopia, surrounded and crowded by the people of walmart.

Maybe some day I'll live in a community where people care about Freedom, Liberty, truth and exploring the universe (with science). We could have been traveling the stars, meeting others and re-inventing ourselves by now. Instead we squander and hold ourselves back with our archaic infighting to protect the power and privileged few.

1. Net neutrality has never been a problem. The internet is about freedom, this includes the freedom to make contracts with other parties that benefits both sides and the freedom to not make contracts that don't benefit you. The only problem is that it's not easy to dump comcast when it's your only option in some shit town. Fix that instead. Get the USG out of the internet regulation business. You're all victims of problem, reaction, solution.

The USG needs to be cut to about 1/1000th of it's current size. I believe something happen soon because the monetary system is unsustainable.

Comment Re:What kind? (Score 1) 115

There is no requirement for DRM on Steam. It's a distribution platform first and formaost, and there are DRM-free games on Steam. Steam also has DRM that publishers can use (and which really isn't that bad or intrusive). Steam also distributes games with all the worst DRM: horrible, horrible stuff.

Contrast this with Good Old Games, owned by the very same CD Projekt Red. There you get a promise of "no DRM of any kind ever". They distribute many games which originally had DRM in some cracked (but licensed) form, so stuff like "look up this word in the manual" is bypassed. They're just as good as Steam at patch management.

Steam is tolerable. It's good points outweigh its problems. But GOG is great. It's made of win and awesome. It's like the best pirate BBS from back in the day, where every game worked better thanks to the cracks, except it's all legal and licensed, and reasonably priced. Naturally, they're having a hard time attracting publishers, but the financial success of the Witcher titles might get some notice.

GoG: No linux :(

Comment Re:How much are they worth? (Score 1) 156

Except in the case of bitcoin, the intrinsic value is zero.

Nobody wants a bitcoin for it's own sake, everyone wants bitcoin because of what you can buy with it.

Real things have intrinsic values. Money has intrinsic value. Currencies don't. Bitcoin is a currency. Dollar is a currency. All paper moneys are currencies.

Comment Re:Precisely (Score 1) 1098

Stop having a tantrum because you don't agree with what license people pick for their software. Yes, it sucks for you that because these libraries are GPL you can actually see them, want to use them, but feel conflicted because you don't want to abide by their copyright.

Boo fucking hoo. Cry me a river.
If those APIs were proprietary and closed, you wouldn't even know about them. The saying ignorance is bliss was invented for people like you.

Comment Re:Precisely (Score 1) 1098

This is exactly the problem with the GPL. Its advocates want everything to be free, and are giddy about the possibility of bringing suit against people who so much as linked to a GPL'd library and forcing their work to be GPL.

I bet you there aren't many GPL suits. Nobody wants to force someone's work to be GPL, how often has this even happened? They just want you to stop violating their copyright. Can you do that?

It's viral, and not in a good way.

Hah, did microsoft pay you to write this?

I'm not about to defend the practices of certain large corporations. But in education and medicine, institutional rules over IP forbid many people I know of from even linking to a GPL'd library. For us, if it's GPL'd then it is off limits.

That's because the institutions know their intentions don't fit with abiding by the GPL. Maybe it's their intentions that are the problem, and not somebody else who spends their time writing cool GPL software.

Also, having a friendly non-adversarial relationship with industry is useful and will result in much broader use of your software.

So? is that your goal? A lot of people could give a flying fuck about what you consider 'industry' or broad use. They like their software like their women, quality over quantity and STDs.

For most FOSS projects

Stop right there. There is no such thing as Free Open Source. These are mutually exclusive terms.

, exposure and reaching a critical mass of contributors is crucial. The BSD is inherently helpful in this case. The GPL just scares people off, because it asserts control over code you haven't even written just because you decided to use something that happened to have a GPL license.

Mate, you spew nonsense faster than a cow farts. If I write a piece of GPL code, in no way does it "assert control over code I haven't written." You're on the wrong side of the bullshit line and we're going to have to stuff some hot grits down your panties.

So, no, Stallman, I disagree and furthermore I condemn your argument as unproductive, wrong, and unhelpful. You might have ground to stand on if LLVM were closed source but it's open - in fact, it's under a more permissive license than the GPL.

Finally! Yes the BSD license is more permissive. You managed to make a sentence without fraud, fabrication or lies. I'm proud of you.

Comment Re:Sorry man, but not everyone agrees with you (Score 1) 1098

Some developers like the whole BSD thing, which gives more freedom to the person who uses and implements the software, rather than the original developer.

Actually, with the GPL as the software user, you are free to do anything you like with it. As long as you distribute the source when required. Implying the software user is restricted is dishonest.

Submission + - Ask Slashdot: How can I convince my boss of the benefits of division of labour?

7-Vodka writes: I work as an engineer for a multinational company. For two years my group was divided in half to focus on separate products. My group exploited division of labour by subdividing into smaller functional teams. This greatly improved our quality of work, output and morale. Meanwhile the other group flattened out, making everyone jack-of-all-trades and interchangeable. Now the other group is going to swallow us whole and intend to dismember our functional teams. How can I best analyze the situation to explain why having formal specialization was so beneficial to us?
Obviously, there's a limited time window to make my case. Do I need a crash course in economics and management?

Slashdot Top Deals

The faster I go, the behinder I get. -- Lewis Carroll