Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Microsoft Tweaks Browser Ballot As EU Deal Nears

howlingmadhowie Re:Consumer friendly? (187 comments)

Because the Chrome browser is fairly standards compliant?
What this whole thing is about is microsoft trying to use a fairly broken and proprietary version of htmtl, css and javascript to make it impossible for people to use the web without using internet explorer.

more than 4 years ago
top

Danish DRM Breaker Turns Himself In To Test Backup Law

howlingmadhowie Re:this is brave (466 comments)

it is really a most stunning abuse of law. something like this:
"hello, i'm a private company and i misled my customers into buying a product telling them it was product A (a film) when it was actually product B (encrypted data). Because i totally screwed up and made it trivial for the customer to transform product B (what i sold them) into product A (what they wanted to buy) in the privacy of their own homes, can you make this a criminal offense punishable by up to 5 years in prison? KTHXBYE"

more than 4 years ago
top

Hacker McKinnon To Be Extradited To US

howlingmadhowie Re:Good grief! - Bend Over! (571 comments)

no, but it does tell you something about the lack of criminal energy involved. if i left my front door open and came back home to find someone in my flat, i doubt i'd alarm the police, provided i could get the trespasser to leave by myself and was pretty certain that nothing had been stolen or broken.

the thing is, most of us have a gut feeling that mckinnon doesn't really deserve more than a slap on the wrist and to be told to go to bed early without pudding. what he did should have been regarded as a schoolboy's prank---he guessed the passwords of some poorly sites to search for information about UFOS. he didn't actually damage anything and he didn't actually inconvenience anyone himself. had he deleted or modified information, then that would be a different thing. your line "free to do whatever they like" is a very poor strawman, as the fact is that he didn't damage anything.

more than 4 years ago
top

Less Than Free

howlingmadhowie Re:Why does anyone want internet GPS anyway? (330 comments)

fortunately, we are still able to switch it off and still get from A to B. the problem is complete when it becomes impractical to live and work without using the technology you mentioned. at that stage we will have a microsoft-style monopoly.

as long as i can still get from A to B using a book of maps or my memory, i won't need google to plot the route for me and accompany me along the way. it is however (almost) impossible to create and edit .doc files using a (non-existent) specification and a text editor.

what this really needs to make it horrible is for google to add a function to trace social undesirables and have their positions updated in real time in google maps. then the government could spin it to be the duty of every parent to use google maps to protect their children from drug addicts, murderers and the like.

more than 4 years ago
top

GNOME 3 Delayed Until September 2010

howlingmadhowie Re:Well at Least... (419 comments)

i thought wave is foss. you don't stop developing foss just because you work for a company.

more than 4 years ago
top

OS X Update Officially Kills Intel Atom Support

howlingmadhowie Re:No biggie (610 comments)

once more i will try to explain the difference. you have often said "apple should not be required to actively support hardware they do not make" to which i reply "i don't think they should either, that is not what we are arguing about here". but there is a world of difference between "not actively supporting hardware" and "actively and deliberately modifying a product so it won't run on that hardware". is this now clear?

what people here are accusing apple of is deliberately modifying osx so that it will no longer run on intel atom processors. if this is the case (and from what i can tell, there appears to be no conclusive evidence either way), then apple has done something that is not nice to the people who use osx on intel atom equipped computers. if this is not the case, then this is little more than bad luck.

more than 4 years ago
top

OS X Update Officially Kills Intel Atom Support

howlingmadhowie Re:No biggie (610 comments)

You say it's a strawman, and for some odd reason you get modded insightful for it. But please, humour me: how, exactly, is it a strawman to point out that Apple sells hardware, and is under no obligation to ensure that the software it creates specifically for that hardware works on 3rd party hardware?

because that's not what i'm complaining about, and i don't think anybody here is. it is a strawman to say that we are arguing that. we aren't. we are arguing that it is not nice of apple to intentionally modify their product so that it won't work on intel atom processors. we do not expect apple to ensure that their software works on intel atom processors, and i don't think anybody here as argued that, but i may be wrong.

of course, it is not clear that apple has deliberately changed osx binaries so they won't run on intel atom processors. they may just need some instructions which intel atom doesn't implement, in which case it would be quite nice for apple to say "btw, we changed our compiler to optimise for this and that, so intel atom no longer works." rather than leave others in the lurch. of course disassembling the update should soon reveal if this is true or not, or if apple has introduced some code to deliberately make sure os x doesn't run on intel atom processors.

more than 4 years ago
top

OS X Update Officially Kills Intel Atom Support

howlingmadhowie Re:No biggie (610 comments)

There's no legitimate reason--ethical, legal or otherwise--that Apple should be obligated to continue supporting a processor they don't use in any of their own products.

And once again i must repeat myself. nobody is asking apple to do this. you are arguing a strawman here.

more than 4 years ago
top

OS X Update Officially Kills Intel Atom Support

howlingmadhowie Re:No biggie (610 comments)

How are they obligated to ensure that their product continues to work on a processor that they do not support? Why are they obligated to ensure the OS X hackintosh community can continue installing OS X on Atom-powrred netbooks?

they aren't and they aren't. but that's not what this argument is about.

the problem is that it is a generally not nice thing to do. many people (i am not one of them, as i would not sully my hands with os x) have quite happily installed os x on intel atom powered products and (presumably) enjoyed using the hardware with this operating system. for apple to deliberately disable their systems from working is just not nice. what harm is it doing apple? why do they have to say to these (presumably hundreds if not thousands of people) "we don't like what you're doing so we're going to make sure you can't!"? it's just small-minded, egocentric behaviour which would get a reprimand if a child did it.

more than 4 years ago
top

OS X Update Officially Kills Intel Atom Support

howlingmadhowie Re:No biggie (610 comments)

and although i repeat what hundreds have said before me, you are creating a strawman. nobody wants apple to support intel atom processors and there is no way their eula can tell me what to do with an osx cd in my own home. people who buy an osx cd and install the software on their own netbooks have done nothing morally wrong.

they are perfectly allowed to disable support for whatever they want to. i'm not saying (and i don't think anybody is saying) that apple doesn't have the right to do that. what others are saying is that it is morally questionable for apple to do so.

there is a reason why many here have mentioned intent. if apple has deliberately disabled os x from running on intel atom processors, then in the minds of most here we have a very different situation from the one if os x no longer ran on intel atom processors because of some technical reason.

in general we are arguing morals here, not law. legally i doubt that apple has done anything wrong. morally there is a very strong case to be made (which you have in no way countered) that apple has done something morally wrong.

more than 4 years ago
top

Go, Google's New Open Source Programming Language

howlingmadhowie Re:Google search "Go" (831 comments)

one small point. C, java, python and ruby were all invented and named before people started googling for stuff.

this is something shuttleworth gets right with ubuntu development names. googling for 'karmic umts' is pretty likely to find results you want.

more than 4 years ago
top

EU Wants To Redefine "Closed" As "Nearly Open"

howlingmadhowie Re:How hard is it? (239 comments)

i think that's false, unless you cast pi as an int. :)

more than 4 years ago
top

New DoD Memo On Open Source Software

howlingmadhowie Re:This is very odd... (146 comments)

The government has always acted in its own interests.

oh, citation needed big time. maybe this is true in some communist/fascist dictatorships, but i really do like to believe (and i see evidence that supports this belief) that in first-world countries with constitutions and functioning legal systems, the government is mostly a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

more than 4 years ago
top

Internet Archive Puts 1.6M E-Books On OLPC Laptops

howlingmadhowie Nay-Sayers (106 comments)

Dear me, there are a lot of nay-sayers posting here. I wonder why? I can't inherently see something terrible about providing a large number of books for the world's poorest, yet the comments here would have me believe that it is hopeless, and everybody has an anecdote about why there's no point in even trying.

so why are the astroturfers out en force for this story?

anyway, i say good on the olpc project for trying to bring knowledge to the poor, the underprivileged, the down-trodden, the economically abused and the politically silenced. i still hope that we will someday look back on this project and think that it was a major stepping stone in our journey towards human rights, education and dignity for all.

more than 4 years ago
top

Brian Aker Responds To RMS On Dual Licensing

howlingmadhowie Re:Here's what Stallman, et al, said (212 comments)

One was because it is under GPLv2 without the "or later" option, so cannot mix with GPLv3 code. That a pretty irrelevant point, though, because the problem lies entirely with GPLv3's lack of compatibility wity other free licenses, such as GPLv2.

in what way does that make the point irrelevant? the problem still exists. just because you see a way of apportioning blame does not make the problem go away.

more than 4 years ago
top

Nokia Sues Apple For Patent Infringement In iPhone

howlingmadhowie Re:Two way street (367 comments)

no, no and a thousand times no. patents are (were) not about ideas. they are (were) about implementations of ideas. everybody can have a good idea. until they make a working implementation of it, that idea is worth nothing.

more than 4 years ago
top

World of Goo Creators Try Pick-Your-Price Experiment

howlingmadhowie Re:Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda (216 comments)

well, as we all should know by now, pirating is only about teh money. that's the only reason anybody ever pirates anything: because they want to rob other people. it never has anything to do with sharing with friends, or convenience, or a desire to have something now and not wait 6 months until it becomes available legally. no, if you pirate you are a criminal and you hate america ... (i could go on like this all day)

more than 4 years ago
top

Why Won't Apple Sell Your iTunes LPs?

howlingmadhowie Re:Can anyone think of a reason? (306 comments)

are you seriously trying to suggest that at some stage in apple headquarters the following conversation took place?

A: yeah, i've got this cool idea of having LPs on iTunes
B: oh, okay. what will be in them?
A: well, songs and some images and maybe some texts
B: okay, sounds like a good idea.
A: shall we charge a band extra for it?
B: yes, let's charge 10000 dollars, because this will prevent bad content from being offered as LPs

about 5 years ago
top

Major Snow Leopard Bug Said To Delete User Data

howlingmadhowie Re:Can you take legal action? (353 comments)

i'd say the lack of legal accountability for software is a historical accident. if you wanted to, you could say that computers were developed in two areas: firstly very expensive mainframes and workstations from ibm and the like and secondly toy computers from sinclair, commodore, tandy and the rest. with the first class of computer you certainly did get guarantees from the manufacturer that everything would work and you could get on their case if something terrible happened. with the second class this would have seemed ridiculous.

this of course does lead to the ridiculous situation as you described where apple and microsoft vie over the title of the best operating system in the world where in the licensing agreement phrases can be found like "This software is fit to do absolutely nothing. If you use it and something goes wrong it's your fault".

strangely FOSS seems to strengthen their case, the ideal of FOSS being that anybody who's sufficiently skilled and patient should be able to roll their own operating system or text editor or whatever oh and here's this stuff someone else made when they sat down one day and tried to write a piece of software for music notation---do with it what you will. i think if regulation were imposed on software for the home pc market it could turn out to be legally difficult to treat FOSS and proprietary software differently. certainly if ms or apple were forced to write in their eulas that "this software is an operating system and it promises to fulfill certain requirements *long list of requirements*", their astro-turfers would go crazy discrediting FOSS for not having these clauses in the GPL or whatever license.

about 5 years ago

Submissions

Journals

howlingmadhowie has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?