Slashdot Mirror

After typing my lengthy post :( I re-read all your messages and I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought you were arguing about diversification resulting in everyone taking the same portfolio, when in fact you were arguing about diversification vs non-diversification. I agree with everything you say (if you are talking about diversification vs non-diversification (i.e. on the non-optimal part of the risk-return curve)). If that is indeed the case, which I think it is, you can ignore the top part of my message :) But you can read the botton part though.

If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change, but the risk decreses, so everyone must do it, unless they hate money. (bolded by me)

I forgot my finance stuff but I just doublechecked and I think that is not correct. The expected return can be increased by taking a higher risk. The typical risk-return graph is a parabola, and what you are talking about is the OPTIMAL position, which is ONE POINT on the graph. However, one can take other positions depending on whether they want higher returns for higher risk. Check out these two positions: one risk averse and the other more risky. (Check out the source page for more pictures near the botton).

What you are talking about is if you were on the bottom part of the curve (the green part), in which case you can diversify away risk without losing returns. Or YOU may have particular preference and you might be talking about the intersection of the CML line as shown here. BUT once you are on the optimal part of the curve (the blue part), people can take any position on that curve. I may take a position further to the right on the blue curve. It will be SUB-OPTIMAL but I will get HIGHER RETURN for HIGHER RISK.

Now, if you just cared about the OPTIMAL portfolio then one would you are saying. But doing so will just mean that you will get the market returns (i.e. the average stock market return). *I* might want a higher return. I might want a return higher than the stock market return. What if I want 20% return on the stock market (while the market return is 8%)? In these cases, one would take higher risks which will result in higher returns.

If what you say were right then everyone would take the same position. Yet you see people taking very risky positions. All because they are giving up risk for return.

(As a side note, I'm strongly risk-averse so I would actually take your position which is the optimal position. I was just using myself as an example of a risky person :) )

----

So the managers should ignore individual preferences of the shareholders.

I don't think that theory of finance is true. Compensation for management is tied to performance (i.e. returns). So, management is influenced by the stockholders. I think what people overlook is the fact that the owners feel that they PERSONALLY own the company. Therefore, they place demands on the company. So if an investor wants higher returns, or lower risks, or whatever, they demand it. The finance theory calls for these people to sell their stock and then invest in another company with higher return, or lower risk, or whatever they wanted. In practice I don't think that happens. What happens is that the stockholders push their desires onto the company (rather than pick another company with their desire).

As long as management compensation is tied to performance (which is done to align the interests to that of the shareholders), it will always be like this. After all, who decides if or when to fire the executives? The shareholders. If shareholders want less risky products

After typing my lengthy post :( I re-read all your messages and I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought you were arguing about diversification resulting in everyone taking the same portfolio, when in fact you were arguing about diversification vs non-diversification. I agree with everything you say (if you are talking about diversification vs non-diversification (i.e. on the non-optimal part of the risk-return curve)). If that is indeed the case, which I think it is, you can ignore the top part of my message :) But you can read the botton part though.

If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change, but the risk decreses, so everyone must do it, unless they hate money. (bolded by me)

I forgot my finance stuff but I just doublechecked and I think that is not correct. The expected return can be increased by taking a higher risk. The typical risk-return graph is a parabola, and what you are talking about is the OPTIMAL position, which is ONE POINT on the graph. However, one can take other positions depending on whether they want higher returns for higher risk. Check out these two positions: one risk averse and the other more risky. (Check out the source page for more pictures near the botton).

What you are talking about is if you were on the bottom part of the curve (the green part), in which case you can diversify away risk without losing returns. Or YOU may have particular preference and you might be talking about the intersection of the CML line as shown here. BUT once you are on the optimal part of the curve (the blue part), people can take any position on that curve. I may take a position further to the right on the blue curve. It will be SUB-OPTIMAL but I will get HIGHER RETURN for HIGHER RISK.

Now, if you just cared about the OPTIMAL portfolio then one would you are saying. But doing so will just mean that you will get the market returns (i.e. the average stock market return). *I* might want a higher return. I might want a return higher than the stock market return. What if I want 20% return on the stock market (while the market return is 8%)? In these cases, one would take higher risks which will result in higher returns.

If what you say were right then everyone would take the same position. Yet you see people taking very risky positions. All because they are giving up risk for return.

(As a side note, I'm strongly risk-averse so I would actually take your position which is the optimal position. I was just using myself as an example of a risky person :) )

----

So the managers should ignore individual preferences of the shareholders.

I don't think that theory of finance is true. Compensation for management is tied to performance (i.e. returns). So, management is influenced by the stockholders. I think what people overlook is the fact that the owners feel that they PERSONALLY own the company. Therefore, they place demands on the company. So if an investor wants higher returns, or lower risks, or whatever, they demand it. The finance theory calls for these people to sell their stock and then invest in another company with higher return, or lower risk, or whatever they wanted. In practice I don't think that happens. What happens is that the stockholders push their desires onto the company (rather than pick another company with their desire).

As long as management compensation is tied to performance (which is done to align the interests to that of the shareholders), it will always be like this. After all, who decides if or when to fire the executives? The shareholders. If shareholders want less risky products

After typing my lengthy post :( I re-read all your messages and I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought you were arguing about diversification resulting in everyone taking the same portfolio, when in fact you were arguing about diversification vs non-diversification. I agree with everything you say (if you are talking about diversification vs non-diversification (i.e. on the non-optimal part of the risk-return curve)). If that is indeed the case, which I think it is, you can ignore the top part of my message :) But you can read the botton part though.

If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change, but the risk decreses, so everyone must do it, unless they hate money. (bolded by me)

I forgot my finance stuff but I just doublechecked and I think that is not correct. The expected return can be increased by taking a higher risk. The typical risk-return graph is a parabola, and what you are talking about is the OPTIMAL position, which is ONE POINT on the graph. However, one can take other positions depending on whether they want higher returns for higher risk. Check out these two positions: one risk averse and the other more risky. (Check out the source page for more pictures near the botton).

What you are talking about is if you were on the bottom part of the curve (the green part), in which case you can diversify away risk without losing returns. Or YOU may have particular preference and you might be talking about the intersection of the CML line as shown here. BUT once you are on the optimal part of the curve (the blue part), people can take any position on that curve. I may take a position further to the right on the blue curve. It will be SUB-OPTIMAL but I will get HIGHER RETURN for HIGHER RISK.

Now, if you just cared about the OPTIMAL portfolio then one would you are saying. But doing so will just mean that you will get the market returns (i.e. the average stock market return). *I* might want a higher return. I might want a return higher than the stock market return. What if I want 20% return on the stock market (while the market return is 8%)? In these cases, one would take higher risks which will result in higher returns.

If what you say were right then everyone would take the same position. Yet you see people taking very risky positions. All because they are giving up risk for return.

(As a side note, I'm strongly risk-averse so I would actually take your position which is the optimal position. I was just using myself as an example of a risky person :) )

----

So the managers should ignore individual preferences of the shareholders.

I don't think that theory of finance is true. Compensation for management is tied to performance (i.e. returns). So, management is influenced by the stockholders. I think what people overlook is the fact that the owners feel that they PERSONALLY own the company. Therefore, they place demands on the company. So if an investor wants higher returns, or lower risks, or whatever, they demand it. The finance theory calls for these people to sell their stock and then invest in another company with higher return, or lower risk, or whatever they wanted. In practice I don't think that happens. What happens is that the stockholders push their desires onto the company (rather than pick another company with their desire).

As long as management compensation is tied to performance (which is done to align the interests to that of the shareholders), it will always be like this. After all, who decides if or when to fire the executives? The shareholders. If shareholders want less risky products

After typing my lengthy post :( I re-read all your messages and I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought you were arguing about diversification resulting in everyone taking the same portfolio, when in fact you were arguing about diversification vs non-diversification. I agree with everything you say (if you are talking about diversification vs non-diversification (i.e. on the non-optimal part of the risk-return curve)). If that is indeed the case, which I think it is, you can ignore the top part of my message :) But you can read the botton part though.

If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change, but the risk decreses, so everyone must do it, unless they hate money. (bolded by me)

I forgot my finance stuff but I just doublechecked and I think that is not correct. The expected return can be increased by taking a higher risk. The typical risk-return graph is a parabola, and what you are talking about is the OPTIMAL position, which is ONE POINT on the graph. However, one can take other positions depending on whether they want higher returns for higher risk. Check out these two positions: one risk averse and the other more risky. (Check out the source page for more pictures near the botton).

What you are talking about is if you were on the bottom part of the curve (the green part), in which case you can diversify away risk without losing returns. Or YOU may have particular preference and you might be talking about the intersection of the CML line as shown here. BUT once you are on the optimal part of the curve (the blue part), people can take any position on that curve. I may take a position further to the right on the blue curve. It will be SUB-OPTIMAL but I will get HIGHER RETURN for HIGHER RISK.

Now, if you just cared about the OPTIMAL portfolio then one would you are saying. But doing so will just mean that you will get the market returns (i.e. the average stock market return). *I* might want a higher return. I might want a return higher than the stock market return. What if I want 20% return on the stock market (while the market return is 8%)? In these cases, one would take higher risks which will result in higher returns.

If what you say were right then everyone would take the same position. Yet you see people taking very risky positions. All because they are giving up risk for return.

(As a side note, I'm strongly risk-averse so I would actually take your position which is the optimal position. I was just using myself as an example of a risky person :) )

----

So the managers should ignore individual preferences of the shareholders.

I don't think that theory of finance is true. Compensation for management is tied to performance (i.e. returns). So, management is influenced by the stockholders. I think what people overlook is the fact that the owners feel that they PERSONALLY own the company. Therefore, they place demands on the company. So if an investor wants higher returns, or lower risks, or whatever, they demand it. The finance theory calls for these people to sell their stock and then invest in another company with higher return, or lower risk, or whatever they wanted. In practice I don't think that happens. What happens is that the stockholders push their desires onto the company (rather than pick another company with their desire).

As long as management compensation is tied to performance (which is done to align the interests to that of the shareholders), it will always be like this. After all, who decides if or when to fire the executives? The shareholders. If shareholders want less risky products

Interesting link about it: http://www.cs.duke.edu/%7Ecarla/mars.html

I set up yum recently on Red Hat 8.0 and pointed it to the appropriate repositories - a free way to get backported security fixes for 8.0. A shame that Red Hat never mentioned this as an option in their e-mail to all the RHN subscribers...

I haven't tried it myself, as I just booted into Windows to update my iPod, but check out this.

I also just purchased a Rio Karma, which works perfectly under Linux using ethernet, using a Java based program that comes with it.

Best of luck.

First of all, anonymity does not exist. Someone somewhere always know it was you that released the code.

Not true. You can anonymously mail a disk. You can anonymously connect to a public wireless access point. You can dial in to a free ISP from a payphone.

And yeah, there are all sorts of internet relays where a number of people would have to keep logs and cooperate in order to build a chain back to you.

It is also laughably easy to walk up to almost any random house and plug a modem into the external phone connection. That is obviously illegal, but I really couldn't help being dumbfounded by how trivial it would be when I opened the box outside my own house to fix a problem. Anyone could just walk up with a plain screwdriver and attach a tape recorder or even an IR or radio remote access link. It's insane, external phone jacks should have some sort of lock on them, even if it's just a crappy lock.

Show me an example of offending code which was released anonymous in the last few years.

The only cases of "offending source code" I can think of lately are Elcomsoft/Adobe which was sold commercially, DeCSS which I don't think Jon attempted to be anonymous about, and the iTunes code also by Jon, which we was most certainly not anonymous about.

Hell, how often are virus writers caught? About the only case I can think of offhand is some idiot who had the virus phone home to his own computer.

Lets turn your question around - can you find even a single case of anyone being held liable at all for public domain code?

Secondly, the BSD license guarantees escape from liability, releasing something in the public domain does not.

I doubt it. There's liability that you can never disclaim away, such as for malicious criminal intent, but I don't see how BSD is any more able to disclaim liability then public domain. You can include the exact same sort of disclaimer like this code does:

Copyright
This code is placed in the public domain.

Warranty
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL ARBORTEXT OR ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Anyone is free to remove that disclaimer and further distribute it, but they have created their own derivative version.

And as screwed up as out legal systenm is, there is still a strong link between liability and having some ownership or other beneficial intrest in something. Public domain code is owned by the public, the author no longer has any interests in the code at all. He cannot personally benefit from it in any way whatsoever. BSD is potentially more dangerous because you own the copyright on that code. By retaining ownership (and the benefits of that ownership) some forms of liability may attach to that ownership and some liabilities may attach to those benefits.

But I'm not aware of any liability case connected to either ublic domain code or BSD code.

-

Who have a history of GPL ignoring: busybox gpl hall of shame

Also of intrest: this lkml thread

Not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University has a few programs that touch on what you've mentioned. Check out the site, including the graduate programs and the centers, such as
The DeWitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism

Not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University has a few programs that touch on what you've mentioned. Check out the site, including the graduate programs and the centers, such as
The DeWitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism

yup.

I understood your form problem, but I just don't have it. This screenshot, which I just took under Safari on Haaretz' website, has some form components with Hebrew characters. It looks perfectly fine to me; the control's labels are properly aligned and correspond to the controls, and the controls themselves display the Hebrew text just fine--even mixing the Latin and Hebrew character sets within the list. If there was a specific site you were having a problem with, I would be happy to check it out and file a bug report with Apple if the problem persists, but otherwise, I suspect the system you were on is misconfigured, or I am simply not understand the issue you were experiencing.

Everyone seems to be missing the point. The libraries are selling the books rather than putting them on the shelves!

They do this because of commercial pressure. If everyone donated their old CDs and videos to the library, it would be unnecessary to rent or buy any of the older ones; you could borrow them. Somehow the people who want to corrupt the system, apparently publishers, have gotten control over the libraries. Have your ever noticed that the CDs and videos in the library are never the latest albums and movies? Certainly by now some family has decided not to let their children watch "Finding Nemo" any more times.

Everyone posting is so willingly believing that all the donated books are ones no one would want to check out of a library. But that's not so. For example, there are many books I would donate if I knew I could check them out later.

However, the librarians of the Multnomah County Central Library (in Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.) have told me that putting a book in their system costs $30, and somehow it is cheaper to buy a new one! Over the years I have often mentioned the illogic in this. But all of them continue parroting the same line.

Consider the doctrine of first sale, in which you are allowed to do anything you want with your legally purchased copyrighted material, if you do not make a copy. Publishers have corrupted the doctrine of first sale so that copying into RAM to listen it or view it has been considered an illegal copy.

I maintain the EM85XX/Bravo D1 Hacking Page (maintain in the loosest sense of the word, it severely needs to be updated), so I've run into this before. One of the manufacturer's has attempted compliance though - Kiss. They made the source for the modified uClinux kernel they use available once, but now I can't find it on their website...it is still available here, though. Now whether any of the mfgr's are complying in full by not using GPL code in other parts of the firmware (i.e. init, mpegplayer.bin, fileplayer.bin, etc.) is another question entirely.

my personal favourite though still remains the rpm-based yum. truly, a package management system for the lazy!

and your other point about fedora... ya, it had a slow (buggy) start, but don't give up on it, give it some time and see how it does. personally, i think it is going to be a huge success in a year's time.

From what I'm reading it seems that if you simply connect to Kazzaa you get kicked, doesn't even bother checking what you're doing. I can't wait untill they start doing this for BitTorrent. Because we all know that anything that can be used for something illegal has no possible legal use

Comfortable with Debian, and knowing about Fedora's apt wannabe yum, I figured installing packages would be sinch. wrong.

1. Yum (as a package format) is just as robust as apt-get
2. You make it sound like RedHat hacked YUM together to compete with apt-get, but in fact it originated in Yellow Dog.
3. Use apt-get if you dislike Yum.
4. YOU FAIL IT.

You are correct, however, that there are jack for Fedora packages, and I agree, is it too much to ask to have a decent Firebird package?

Yes, they need a court order, but the standard for getting one is vastly reduced. Further, combine this with roving wiretaps, and you find that if they have a warrent on a friend of yours, they can tap your phone without an additional warrent, and still be completely legal. This is scary scary stuff.

That goes to show that pretty bright minds are working on Free Software, doesn't it? And suggests what could be a very interesting (though probably quite busy) Slashdot interviewee... I will admit I'm curious to know what drew him to that level of participation in Free Software.

I was pleased to note that dissenting views on whether string theory was science were presented, and even brief discussion of what constitutes science.

(I saw the man once in Park City, Utah -- no, he wouldn't remember me -- busy with a PowerBook, and at the time helping launch another noteworthy open project, the UC Davis Math Archive.)

Slashdot editors?

Thanks for your detailed reply. You certainly have more balls than the twit who marked my post as "troll."

Justin Moore's report doesn't really prove your point -- see his summary at the end, and notice the low number of other entertainment industries represented in his survey. I think that's another case of the Slashdot writeup overhyping and misinterpreting the source article.

Additionally, I find surveys that show that music pirates buy more CDs to be useless. If one is a file sharing enthusiast, there's the motivation to say that one buys more CDs, even if it's an anonymous survey, because it's hugely self-serving. One is liable to say whatever one thinks will help one's cause. Of course, it would be nice for everybody if it were true, as with the astronomical explosion in music piracy that's occurred over the past year, CD sales would be enjoying an unprecedented change in the good direction.

But several other links you provided were compelling, particularly the Business Week article. Thanks.

For what it's worth, I have nothing personal to rationalize either. Like you, I dislike blind reactionism, as you put it. A little knowledge goes a long way, and despite your uncalled-for "you're just wrong" statement, you are a shining star among typical Slashdotters.

What is laughable is that Eugenia still had those old RPM dependency hell issues. You would have thought they would have been solved by now, or that somebody would have created a decent desktop based on a base distribution with decent package management tools.

She was trying to install third party Shrike RPM (Shrike == RH9). Packages built for different distributions should not be expected to work, and generally will not work, no matter whether you're running Debian, Gentoo or FC.

Fedora with some very nice package management (this is old page, Fedora up2date doesn't use RHN, but instead supports both apt and yum repositories) tools.

http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/

The only reason anyone cares about doing computerized voting is because the companies that make voting machines want us to care. After the 2000 debacle, Diebold and others jumped on the opportunity to tell us how screwed up our voting system is and that voting with their crappy Windows CE and Access database would somehow solve the problem. The problems surrounding Florida and the 2000 election really had little to do with dangling chads and more to do with voter fraud and disenfranchisement. More about disenfranchised voters here and here.

The corporations that seek to make millions upon millions of dollars selling computerized voting machines are feeding our cultural desire for everything to be fast and computerized. They know we don't want to wait two or three days to have all the votes tallied by volunteers - that's just backwards. We need to use computers to do all that counting because that's what computers do well - counting that is. As usual we are solving the wrong problem with the wrong solution. There is no reason we can't vote with pencil and paper and have our votes counted and with proper exit polling we would know the winner of the horse race the same day. In a close race the results may not be certain for a couple of days, is that so aweful to wait 2 or 3 days to find out the winner and be certain he/she is in fact the winner.

We are so fickle in this country and have such a short attention span that we become easy prey for the corporations that seek to make millions and millions of dollars selling districts these inferior voting machines/computers that simply don't work and seem to invite fraud. Can we have a healthy democracy if we don't have a voting system that is accurate and can be trusted? I don't understand people who so quickly toss democracy into the gutter for the sake of convenience or a false sense of security, I think it's insulting to all the men and women who have died to protect our democracy. Let's get the voting process right in this country or we are going to be in serious trouble very quickly. All the people that were pissed after the 2000 debacle may not just sit on their hands next time and so oh well.

Read more about this topic here here and here. This is a serious problem that we can't just sit by and watch play itself out - get involved.

Oops, that would be the torrent if you want the source. The binary torrent is:

http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/yarrow-binary-i386-i so.torrent

I don't quite know how bittorrent works, but I've installed it today (just for this purpose) and the client can't seem to connect to the "tracker". I can download the .torrent file easily enough, but the client fails consistantly.

Is there a possible mirror/secondary tracker available that anyone knows about? It seems that the tracker becomes a single point of failure in an otherwise distributed system...

The error is "connection refused", so it seems like the tracker's host is down. Note that I have opened the necessary ports (6881 - 6999)...

In all, it looks like an updated RedHat 9 to me, but since I've not yet tried anything since 7.3, I figured it'd make a good second Linux box (my main Linux box runs RedHat 6.2, heavily modified/upgraded, but with no GUI).

Bittorrent Link

Alternatively:
btdownloadcurses.py --max_upload_rate 350 --url http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/yarrow-binary-i386-i so.torrent

A few installation screenshots

Second, go check out Fedora.

Third, where you used to say 'up2date', start saying 'apt-get' or 'yum'.

Once you start using apt-get (or yum) for Red Hat *cough* I mean Fedora like you used to use up2date, you'll be grinning so hard, your face will cramp. :)

Chant the mantra baby, chant the mantra. "apt-get is good, apt-get is great, apt-get is good, apt-get is great...".

I think Yum may be the future for up2date-style functionality for free.

Don't forget that the federal government has mandated that public libraries implement web censorware, and some libraries refuse to turn off the filter even for adults.

Nice try. In the case US vs. ALA decided by the US Supreme Court June 23, 2003...

...the Solicitor General "assured" the Court that if an adult wanted unfettered access to the Internet in a public library, he could ask to have the filters removed, and the library could remove them. Again, while no single opinion commanded a majority on the Court, at least five of the Justices who concurred in the judgment relied at least partly on this condition in reaching their decisions, and prophesied the possibility of a different result if the statute is not administered consistent with its terms.

So, if what you are saying is true, then these policies are illegal and a test case will have them declared so in the courts.

Seeing a conspiracy where there is none only blinds you to the others that may exist...Don't lean on arguments that aren't even true.

Many public libraries, required to install censorware by the U.S. government, have instituted a policy of never turning off the filter, even for adults carrying proof of age.

Sorry, but I call your bluff. In the case US vs. ALA decided by the US Supreme Court June 23, 2003...

...the Solicitor General "assured" the Court that if an adult wanted unfettered access to the Internet in a public library, he could ask to have the filters removed, and the library could remove them. Again, while no single opinion commanded a majority on the Court, at least five of the Justices who concurred in the judgment relied at least partly on this condition in reaching their decisions, and prophesied the possibility of a different result if the statute is not administered consistent with its terms.

So, if what you are saying is true, then these policies are illegal and a test case will have them declared so in the courts.

Don't set up such obvious strawmen, baby, or I'll just burn 'em right down...

I guess it's not quite Ice 9 though.

On the chameleon link the smallest chameleon pic won't come up. In case anyone wants to see it, here is another link:Tiny Chameleon (bibliofile.mc.duke.edu)

Isn't oak a DNS server?
Anyway I found epylog good.

If the GPL is invalid, then while SCO was redistributing Linux (and still continued to do so after bringing suit), the company was infringing copyright, because nothing other than the GPL gives SCO the privilege to do that. If SCO gets the GPL on Linux declared illegal, watch kernel contributors with deep pockets sue SCO for copyright infringement.

In some jurisdictions, bringing a frivolous lawsuit is the crime of barratry. Even in states without tough anti-barratry laws, "pump and dump" is still securities fraud.

What a great looking piece of software! Much nicer than iTunes.

Check out A Logic Filesystem from this year's Usenix conference. It is a filesystem with precisely these capabilities.

What if we replaced "Linux" with "Windows" in the Forbes article. By making that change (and a few others), we get this article

A sample:

For several months, officials from the Microsoft Licensing Department have been quietly pushing Cisco and Broadcom for a resolution. According to Microsoft Licensing Department Executive Director Bradley Kuhn, the foundation is demanding that Cisco and Broadcom either a) rip out all the Microsoft code in the router and use some other operating system, or b) make their code available to Microsoft.

And if they balk? Kuhn raises the threat of legal action. "We defend the rights protected by the MS-EULA license," he says. "We have legal teeth, so if someone does not share with us, we can make them obey the rules."

-jdm

From the same site, the torrent for sources

Jonah Hex

This isn't exactly mandrake related, but Fedora test3 was also released. The torrent link is here

Should have OO 1.1, kernel 2.4.22, gnome 2.4 and some other fun stuff

Consider GE, which instituted an internet mentoring program (Word doc) for its top executives, including former CEO Jack Welch.

What GE did need, however, was a system to train its top management in the wonders of the Internet. It didn't do much good to preach the values of e-business if the people making the big decisions in the corporation didn't know how to use the tool.

To alter the situation, GE started a mentoring program for nearly 1,000 senior executives. Younger members of the GE staff, proficient in the ways of the new electronic world, were assigned to teach a senior executive how to use the Internet.

I'm even more disturbed by the other movie at this site.

I just watched it like 50 times and I still dont' get it... Crab... suction pipe... underwater circular saw... what the hell is it? It's like the crab equivalent of the zapruder film.

Back.. and to the left.

Tux Catchup.

I use WREQ. I like the fact that it can generate statistics, which allows you to evaluate your productivity. It's highly customizable.

wreq

I searched responses and saw no mention of it. We use it. It works well.

It's called yum.

I use it on all of my machines. It works very nicely.

yum update openssh

Should work in the next release.

In the mean time Download UM.

i can barely wait for the action figures...