interesting detail but hardly odd i would say - there's a great difference between co-writing a script for a televison play and being a passive consumer of tv 'content' and advertising
haven't seen either nor am i likely to - gibson interests me for his writing style - not something that would transfer across particularly well to tv i imagine
...the really peculiar thing about me, demographically, is that I probably watch less than twelve hours of television in a given year, and have watched that little since age fifteen. (An individual who watches no television is still a scarcer beast than one who doesn't have an email address.) I have no idea how that happened. It wasn't a decision.
...
I suspect I have spent just about exactly as much time actually writing as the average person my age has spent watching television, and that, as much as anything, may be the real secret here.
Your point would seem to villify doctors as well, who make huge amounts of money (in the US at least), all from the illness, pain, and death around them. Doctors feed off the frailties and fears of humankind.
caveat : this is only a theory, however it seems to work for me
ok, the theory is that the combination of weak wrists + lots of typing can lead to rsi
if you want to keep using a computer, then the option that remains is to build up the strength of yr wrists
a good way to do that is by doing pushups
it is not however necessary to do them in a macho fashion - i.e. do as many as you can, as quickly as you can, in a row - if you try to do this you will exhaust yrself and be unable to and disinterested in doing them regularly
building yr wrist strength by doing pushups is most effective if you do them slowly and do small sets i.e do 2 slow pushups, rest, 2 more slow ones, rest, 2 more
even doing 6 pushups like this (3 sets of 2) will build up yr wrist and arm strength - find a combination that works well for you without too much strain
i do 2 sets of 7 pushups most every day and never feel twinges in my wrists any more - i am capable of doing 4, 6 or 8 sets but i find it unnecessary to do that many - 14 pushups in 2 sets of 7 is quite sufficient - but if you have trouble doing this many start with less
use hatha-yoga style breathing and breathe in while pushing up and breathe out while (slowly) coming down - it helps to focus on yr solar plexus (stomach area) and visualise this area as powering you up
side-effect warning - this will also build up yr upper arms and chest muscles - however you may consider this a feature and not a bug
i have you marked as a friend which indicates i have found yr comments interesting before and would have been interested to read this comment, but the effect of the all bold was like someone yelling, just like ALL CAPITALS - and thus i left it unread
The series of twelve lessons is aimed at giving the student a reasonably good introduction to the language. The student will be able to frame sentences relating to daily activities in life and thus will gain enough confidence to converse in Sanskrit though with a smaller vocabulary to begin with. The structure of the lessons is quite different from that of lessons found in conventional Sanskrit primers. It is hoped that the twelve lessons would provide enough details for the student to understand the basic grammar of Sanskrit and sentence formation rules.
i am still interested in hearing from ppl with actual experience in the language as to what they think are good resources - google is great but humans are still the best heuristic:)
(of passing interest : browsing some of the pronunciation guides on the net, i just discovered that guru is correctly pronounced with a very short first u - like the u in put or full; the second u is a full u)
In a full press release made available shortly after President Bush's recent speech attacking Denmark, the Administration outlined suspicions linking the Lego Corporation of Denmark to Al Quaida and the attack on the World Trade Centre.
Apparently, the attack was planned using a 43,000 lego brick scale model of the two towers. The Administration suspects direct involvement by Lego Corporation's scaled modelling experts and has now declared Lego products a Weapon of Mass (Modelling) Destruction. The Administration is now compiling a list of all people who have made substantial Lego purchases in the last few week and will be immediately calling them in for questioning and possible detention over the next few days.
Actually, the commentary on this GNU page is for all practical purposes irrelevant since it only properly addresses a version of the licence which has been superceeded. Apple made some significant changes to APSL to specifically address the reservations the open souce community had about their first attempt at an open source licence. I believe the authors of this comment need to rewrite it make it relevant to the current version of APSL, and if they don't, I suggest people stop referring to this out-dated material.
the above post is complete FUD. The analysis offered on the gnu site is completely up-to-date. Here is the proof which is completely verifiable, as opposed to bald assertions which turn out to be untrue in the parent comment.
- gnu apsl anlysis page last updated 2002/10/15 (shown at bottom of page) which specifically addresses remaining problems with apsl 1.2 (the latest release) and while it still provides comment on the initial problems with the 1.0 release, this comment is clearly referenced as referring to an older release for which later releases corrected only some of the problems (and probably the gnu analysis page played a large role in having these problems fixed).
so, in summary, please stop posting fud, and moderators please check a posters assertions before modding him or her up
In response to the title of yr reply, i ask who brought the ad hominem into the discussion? Certainly it was not i who introduced the word 'simpleton'. You called the teachers simpletons in your reply to the original post. My reply title simply suggested that if simpletons are ppl who make simplistic arguments, perhaps the word could be equally applied to yrself. I would not have seen fit to suggest such a thing if you had not already introduced an ad hominem attack into the discussion.
yr comment...you can type and yell for all of eternity and I will not believe it was the gun that was bad - does not seem to welcome further discussion as it seems that yr mind is not open to any other viewpoints, however i will make this one further reply and then end it here
Set a gun on a table and watch it. Let me know how many times it does something bad. The key word in the point you seem to be making here is does. You seem to be heavily biased towards temporal action. This is backed up by yr later statement It is always an action that is good or bad.
My answer to this is that the gun does not do bad things (how could it as it is inanimate?), simply the gun is an embodied action (the actions of designing and manufacturing the gun) and thus is bad.
I tried to make this point in my first post. An unshaped rock whether used to kill someone or not is not bad, as it had not been created to kill. A gun has been specifically created to kill. People who think that all killing is bad, therefore see a gun as intrinsically bad. I think the real crux of this argument is that not all ppl see killing as always bad and thus do not have the same reaction to the sight of a gun.
Most ppl do not have a problem with assigning moral value to created objects or ideas. Ppl freely talk about bad laws, and here on slashdot we frequently talk about bad software, usually of a proprietary nature. Sometimes in such a discussion ppl will come forward with the view of using 'the right tool for the job', which again overlooks the intrinsic moral failing of some created technology (such as proprietary software) which makes it unfit for use.
Buckminster Fuller wrote well about this subject. He argued that a lot of our technological activity is involved in the development of what he termed killingry. He preferred to work to develop technology which embodied his desire to enhance the living enviroment and quality of life of other ppl. This tech and mindset he called livingry. Guns and all weapons clearly fall in th first category, and ppl who are interested in enhancing joy and felicity in life have simply no interet in them.
But the gun... no, the gun is neither good nor bad.
i'm sorry but i am sick of seeing this pathetic argument put up and especially by ppl who seem to think that they are some kind of sophisticated philosopher - viz. yr So you calmly explained that her teachers are simpletons and don't understand the basics of philosophy.
where do you think guns come from? that they simply grow on trees? guns are invented, designed and manufactured by ppl, all of which are moral acts and hence the resulting technology can be judged as 'good or evil'
try reading (or rereading) 'the lord of the rings' one day and tell me whether you think jrr tolkien would have agreed with you that a manufactured (but inanimate) object ie the ring is evil or not.
to finish, yes a rock is neither good nor evil regardless of whether it has been used to kill a person - but an object that has been specifically created to inflict grievous bodily harm on a person can very easily be judged to be evil
why : free software's history has mostly been in the 'developed' world - here it is flourishing in spite of the fact that it is playing from a catch-up position
in these countries most of the places where it makes sense to use computers are already doing so and have been for a while - and most of these are using proprietary society
despite this, free software is making significant inroads
now factor in the world's (soon to be) most populous country turning down the free software path much earlier in it's computerisation process than the countries it is following - moreover a country where english is (fairly widely) known and which has a culture possibly unrivalled in it's ability to deal with abstract thought (witness the highly sophisticated ancient vedic and dravidian cultures and the contemporary reputation of indian programmers)
result : the free software movement - steady and stable and resolutely making progress gets a massive shot in the arm - india becomes an example to all other 'devloping countries' - the microsoft pyramid scheme starts to develop massive cracks in it's base
free software in india - well worth while keeping a watching brief on
You should try 12pt Verdana. Times is a sans-serifed font, and sans-serif has been proven to be harder to read on computer screens.
i agree with you about using verdana over times-roman for on screen reading
however i think you got yr explanation mixed up - verdana is sans-serif (sans is french for without), and times roman is a serif font - serifs are the little things that hang off letters (like at either end of the top crossbar of a capital T in times roman) - they make a typeface more readable on very high resolution media such as paper but tend to make the typeface too 'muddy' on coarse resoultion media (such as CRTs and LCDs)
anyways, i'm sure you know all this and just mistakenly typed the wrong term - cheers
Yes, but since Eiffel is French, it's called the Towers of Dien Bien Phu and bails out after 3 recursions.
more french bashing by (i assume) an american poster which is moderated up on a site which has a largely american readership
why is this constant painting of the french as cowards so supported by americans? is it perhaps because france is one of the few countries that doesn't kow-tow to american imperialism?
i try to seperate the actions of the american government from the general american ppl, believing that they are as much victims of the corrupt machinations of the said government as the rest of the world, however constant puerile slandering of non-americans such as this causes me difficulty in maintaining my discrimination
in case you were wondering : i am australian of anglo-saxon cultural background
in a way all this copy protection and 'user management' makes it much easier for us to deal with 'information overload'
by applying the simple rule of 'i will only give my attention and personal engagement to writing, music, art etc that is put out into the world freely and without trying to hook something back from me' one can vastly cut down on the amount of 'content' out there clamouring for your attention
one might even find that works created for reasons other than economic reward are often vastly superior and more stimulating than the vast sea of mediocre 'cookie-cutter-content' that constanly seeks to engulf us and dampen our own creative individuality
so simply apply the rule of 'not freely given, then not worthy of my attention' and like god in the hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy the mpaa and riaa will simply cease to exist as no-one any longer believes in them
how long is a reasonable time to set copyright? here's a suggestion - how about no period at all
yes - abolish copyright completely
as a poster noted earlier in this slashdot discussion, copyright is not a natural right belonging to authors that is being recognised by the government
it is instead a process by which the government seeks to encourage creation of material and transfer of that material into the public domain by rewarding 'creators' with a limited exclusive right to publish their works
i would argue that this incentive is no longer necessary in the modern world where there is a huge surplus of creativity and intelligence
truly creative ppl will always express their creative urges
we live in a world now where the wonderful creations of these truly creative ppl is mostly drowned out by 'cookie-cutter content' which is produced mainly for economic - i.e. copyright reward - reasons and not for reasons of responding to 'the muse'
in summary, trying to incentivise the creation of art and intellectual activity by economic reward has the opposite effect of rewarding mediocre 'content' that is created soley for economic gain, while the true art gets stifled and suffocated by the legal framework and control that was (originally) set up to nurture it
the 25 million shares i referenced in my parent comment represent 4% of bill gates's MS stock holdings - i.e. at the beginning of june he held close to 650 million shares
so that's the situation - a sell-off of 4% of his total stock holding inside 5 months - you be the judge of whether that's significant
25 oct -- 1 million 23 oct -- 1 million (actually just under) shares 22 oct -- 1 million 21 aug -- 10 million 4 jun -- 10 million
this is numbers of shares not dollar value - multiplying by $50 gives us a figure of roughly $1.25 billion (adding in the 2 million sold nov 1) - not chicken feed even for the likes of bill gates
interestingly his first sale of 10 million in june came just after the stock price rose above $50 - it had been flummoxing around in the low 40s for a while before that - at prices not seen since the early part of 1998
with no dividends ever paid and no prospect of further significant growth for MS - just a slow strangling of wealth from it's existing customers - MS seems like a pretty dubious buy to me - so no surprises that gates seems to think the same way
It is not necessary to include GNU software with a Linux distribution.
agreed, however almost the complete majority of os distributions using linux as the kernel heavily rely on GNU software including gcc - and i was responding to the original posters comment where he stated -
It's always seemed to me that GCC was the unsung hero of open source, and Linux in particular.
obviously, he is here referring to linux-kernel based systems that include and use gcc otherwise how could gcc be the unsung hero if it was not even present?
open source relates to a particular technocratic 'best-tool-for-the-job' philosophy - to use it in relation to a flagship project of a different philosophy (Free software) which, while holding mostly harmonious views, differs in the emphasis on certain priorities is just a little off-track - i was simply pointing that out, and saying that if you do want to give praise to gcc (as the original poster did) then you should word yr support properly
finally, to answer yr final paragraph
(By the way, Linus has always praised GCC, without which, he says, Linux would not have been possible. Linus does not, however, request that his kernel be called GNU/Linux.)
good for linus, i appreciate his tremendous contribution and his acknowledgement of the work of the shoulders he stood upon, and continues to stand upon - however i think yr point is irrelevant as no-one is asking that the kernel should be called GNU/Linux as you state - simply the request is that the overall os when it benefits greatly from GNU contributions should acknowledge that support
you seem to be a little confused on this point - i would suggest you visit the fsf site to check out their faq on this point
finally, i didn't want to pick a fight here - mostly we are all working together to build something of great philanthropical importance and ppl who use and support free software i count as my friends - my original post was simply to say that if you want to praise gcc, then best to refer to it as its creative team ask it to be - as free software and not open source - fairly straightforward point i think
It's always seemed to me that GCC was the unsung hero of open source, and Linux in particular.
i agree with you (about gcc not getting the credit it deserves) however i would have worded my support somewhat differently, viz.
It's always seemed to me that GCC was the unsung hero of free software, and GNU/Linux in particular.
As i'm sure you know, GCC is a GNU project and was originated by RMS - if we want it to attain more recognition, perhaps referring to it as its authors request would be a good start
Slashdot Mirror
interesting detail but hardly odd i would say - there's a great difference between co-writing a script for a televison play and being a passive consumer of tv 'content' and advertising
haven't seen either nor am i likely to - gibson interests me for his writing style - not something that would transfer across particularly well to tv i imagine
for those other slashdotters completely uninterested in tv land
from the biography notes on his official site -
Your point would seem to villify doctors as well, who make huge amounts of money (in the US at least), all from the illness, pain, and death around them. Doctors feed off the frailties and fears of humankind.
thanks, i couldn't have put it better myself
caveat : this is only a theory, however it seems to work for me
ok, the theory is that the combination of weak wrists + lots of typing can lead to rsi
if you want to keep using a computer, then the option that remains is to build up the strength of yr wrists
a good way to do that is by doing pushups
it is not however necessary to do them in a macho fashion - i.e. do as many as you can, as quickly as you can, in a row - if you try to do this you will exhaust yrself and be unable to and disinterested in doing them regularly
building yr wrist strength by doing pushups is most effective if you do them slowly and do small sets i.e do 2 slow pushups, rest, 2 more slow ones, rest, 2 more
even doing 6 pushups like this (3 sets of 2) will build up yr wrist and arm strength - find a combination that works well for you without too much strain
i do 2 sets of 7 pushups most every day and never feel twinges in my wrists any more - i am capable of doing 4, 6 or 8 sets but i find it unnecessary to do that many - 14 pushups in 2 sets of 7 is quite sufficient - but if you have trouble doing this many start with less
use hatha-yoga style breathing and breathe in while pushing up and breathe out while (slowly) coming down - it helps to focus on yr solar plexus (stomach area) and visualise this area as powering you up
side-effect warning - this will also build up yr upper arms and chest muscles - however you may consider this a feature and not a bug
did you mean to put yr reply in all bold?
i have you marked as a friend which indicates i have found yr comments interesting before and would have been interested to read this comment, but the effect of the all bold was like someone yelling, just like ALL CAPITALS - and thus i left it unread
this appears to be a good online course in sanskrit hosted at the IIT in madras
from the intro page
i am still interested in hearing from ppl with actual experience in the language as to what they think are good resources - google is great but humans are still the best heuristic
(of passing interest : browsing some of the pronunciation guides on the net,
i just discovered that guru is correctly pronounced
with a very short first u - like the u in put or full;
the second u is a full u)
anyone got links to a course in sanskrit,
or to begin with just a good sanskrit pronunciation guide?
In a full press release made available shortly after President Bush's recent speech attacking Denmark, the Administration outlined suspicions linking the Lego Corporation of Denmark to Al Quaida and the attack on the World Trade Centre.
Apparently, the attack was planned using a 43,000 lego brick scale model of the two towers. The Administration suspects direct involvement by Lego Corporation's scaled modelling experts and has now declared Lego products a Weapon of Mass (Modelling) Destruction. The Administration is now compiling a list of all people who have made substantial Lego purchases in the last few week and will be immediately calling them in for questioning and possible detention over the next few days.
Actually, the commentary on this GNU page is for all practical purposes irrelevant since it only properly addresses a version of the licence which has been superceeded. Apple made some significant changes to APSL to specifically address the reservations the open souce community had about their first attempt at an open source licence. I believe the authors of this comment need to rewrite it make it relevant to the current version of APSL, and if they don't, I suggest people stop referring to this out-dated material.
:
the above post is complete FUD. The analysis offered on the gnu site is completely up-to-date. Here is the proof which is completely verifiable, as opposed to bald assertions which turn out to be untrue in the parent comment.
Specifically
- latest version of the apsl is 1.2,
according to apple's own site here,
released on jan 4, 2001
- gnu apsl anlysis page last updated 2002/10/15
(shown at bottom of page)
which specifically addresses remaining problems
with apsl 1.2 (the latest release)
and while it still provides comment
on the initial problems with the 1.0 release,
this comment is clearly referenced
as referring to an older release
for which later releases corrected
only some of the problems
(and probably the gnu analysis page played a large
role in having these problems fixed).
so, in summary, please stop posting fud,
and moderators please check a posters assertions
before modding him or her up
article you want is here
In response to the title of yr reply, i ask who brought the ad hominem into the discussion? Certainly it was not i who introduced the word 'simpleton'. You called the teachers simpletons in your reply to the original post. My reply title simply suggested that if simpletons are ppl who make simplistic arguments, perhaps the word could be equally applied to yrself. I would not have seen fit to suggest such a thing if you had not already introduced an ad hominem attack into the discussion.
...you can type and yell for all of eternity and I will not believe it was the gun that was bad - does not seem to welcome further discussion as it seems that yr mind is not open to any other viewpoints, however i will make this one further reply and then end it here
yr comment
Set a gun on a table and watch it. Let me know how many times it does something bad.
The key word in the point you seem to be making here is does. You seem to be heavily biased towards temporal action. This is backed up by yr later statement It is always an action that is good or bad.
My answer to this is that the gun does not do bad things (how could it as it is inanimate?), simply the gun is an embodied action (the actions of designing and manufacturing the gun) and thus is bad.
I tried to make this point in my first post. An unshaped rock whether used to kill someone or not is not bad, as it had not been created to kill. A gun has been specifically created to kill. People who think that all killing is bad, therefore see a gun as intrinsically bad. I think the real crux of this argument is that not all ppl see killing as always bad and thus do not have the same reaction to the sight of a gun.
Most ppl do not have a problem with assigning moral value to created objects or ideas. Ppl freely talk about bad laws, and here on slashdot we frequently talk about bad software, usually of a proprietary nature. Sometimes in such a discussion ppl will come forward with the view of using 'the right tool for the job', which again overlooks the intrinsic moral failing of some created technology (such as proprietary software) which makes it unfit for use.
Buckminster Fuller wrote well about this subject. He argued that a lot of our technological activity is involved in the development of what he termed killingry. He preferred to work to develop technology which embodied his desire to enhance the living enviroment and quality of life of other ppl. This tech and mindset he called livingry. Guns and all weapons clearly fall in th first category, and ppl who are interested in enhancing joy and felicity in life have simply no interet in them.
But the gun ... no, the gun is neither good nor bad.
i'm sorry but i am sick of seeing this pathetic argument put up and especially by ppl who seem to think that they are some kind of sophisticated philosopher - viz. yr So you calmly explained that her teachers are simpletons and don't understand the basics of philosophy.
where do you think guns come from? that they simply grow on trees? guns are invented, designed and manufactured by ppl, all of which are moral acts and hence the resulting technology can be judged as 'good or evil'
try reading (or rereading) 'the lord of the rings' one day and tell me whether you think jrr tolkien would have agreed with you that a manufactured (but inanimate) object ie the ring is evil or not.
to finish, yes a rock is neither good nor evil regardless of whether it has been used to kill a person - but an object that has been specifically created to inflict grievous bodily harm on a person can very easily be judged to be evil
a parent-post-personally-abusive and corporate defensive posting gets moderated +5 interesting??!
microsoft's biggest nightmare in six words
India becomes a free software country
why : free software's history has mostly been in the 'developed' world - here it is flourishing in spite of the fact that it is playing from a catch-up position
in these countries most of the places where it makes sense to use computers are already doing so and have been for a while - and most of these are using proprietary society
despite this, free software is making significant inroads
now factor in the world's (soon to be) most populous country turning down the free software path much earlier in it's computerisation process than the countries it is following - moreover a country where english is (fairly widely) known and which has a culture possibly unrivalled in it's ability to deal with abstract thought (witness the highly sophisticated ancient vedic and dravidian cultures and the contemporary reputation of indian programmers)
result : the free software movement - steady and stable and resolutely making progress gets a massive shot in the arm - india becomes an example to all other 'devloping countries' - the microsoft pyramid scheme starts to develop massive cracks in it's base
free software in india - well worth while keeping a watching brief on
beautifully written - thanks for expressing the facts so cogently
:)
p.s. i'd skip the opening sorry next time
i agree with you about using verdana over times-roman for on screen reading
however i think you got yr explanation mixed up - verdana is sans-serif (sans is french for without), and times roman is a serif font - serifs are the little things that hang off letters (like at either end of the top crossbar of a capital T in times roman) - they make a typeface more readable on very high resolution media such as paper but tend to make the typeface too 'muddy' on coarse resoultion media (such as CRTs and LCDs)
anyways, i'm sure you know all this and just mistakenly typed the wrong term - cheers
more french bashing by (i assume) an american poster which is moderated up on a site which has a largely american readership
why is this constant painting of the french as cowards so supported by americans? is it perhaps because france is one of the few countries that doesn't kow-tow to american imperialism?
i try to seperate the actions of the american government from the general american ppl, believing that they are as much victims of the corrupt machinations of the said government as the rest of the world, however constant puerile slandering of non-americans such as this causes me difficulty in maintaining my discrimination
in case you were wondering : i am australian of anglo-saxon cultural background
wow, either that's a very good spoof site or american christians are even scarier than i thought
hope it's the former
cut yr rubber pollution in half (or prob even more) by changing over to a motorcycle
:
added benefits
experience the joy of sweeping through curves on two wheels as opposed to whaling through them on four
riding a motorcycle is so dangerous you will be forced into a state of active meditation everytime you get out on the road
in a way all this copy protection and 'user management' makes it much easier for us to deal with 'information overload'
by applying the simple rule of 'i will only give my attention and personal engagement to writing, music, art etc that is put out into the world freely and without trying to hook something back from me' one can vastly cut down on the amount of 'content' out there clamouring for your attention
one might even find that works created for reasons other than economic reward are often vastly superior and more stimulating than the vast sea of mediocre 'cookie-cutter-content' that constanly seeks to engulf us and dampen our own creative individuality
so simply apply the rule of 'not freely given, then not worthy of my attention' and like god in the hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy the mpaa and riaa will simply cease to exist as no-one any longer believes in them
how long is a reasonable time to set copyright? here's a suggestion - how about no period at all
yes - abolish copyright completely
as a poster noted earlier in this slashdot discussion, copyright is not a natural right belonging to authors that is being recognised by the government
it is instead a process by which the government seeks to encourage creation of material and transfer of that material into the public domain by rewarding 'creators' with a limited exclusive right to publish their works
i would argue that this incentive is no longer necessary in the modern world where there is a huge surplus of creativity and intelligence
truly creative ppl will always express their creative urges
we live in a world now where the wonderful creations of these truly creative ppl is mostly drowned out by 'cookie-cutter content' which is produced mainly for economic - i.e. copyright reward - reasons and not for reasons of responding to 'the muse'
in summary, trying to incentivise the creation of art and intellectual activity by economic reward has the opposite effect of rewarding mediocre 'content' that is created soley for economic gain, while the true art gets stifled and suffocated by the legal framework and control that was (originally) set up to nurture it
3 word summary -
no more copyright
(ever)
just to add some more perspective -
the 25 million shares i referenced in my parent comment represent 4% of bill gates's MS stock holdings - i.e. at the beginning of june he held close to 650 million shares
so that's the situation - a sell-off of 4% of his total stock holding inside 5 months - you be the judge of whether that's significant
more 'confidence' sales by bill gates
:
25 oct -- 1 million
23 oct -- 1 million (actually just under) shares
22 oct -- 1 million
21 aug -- 10 million
4 jun -- 10 million
this is numbers of shares not dollar value - multiplying by $50 gives us a figure of roughly $1.25 billion (adding in the 2 million sold nov 1) - not chicken feed even for the likes of bill gates
interestingly his first sale of 10 million in june came just after the stock price rose above $50 - it had been flummoxing around in the low 40s for a while before that - at prices not seen since the early part of 1998
with no dividends ever paid and no prospect of further significant growth for MS - just a slow strangling of wealth from it's existing customers - MS seems like a pretty dubious buy to me - so no surprises that gates seems to think the same way
links
register of MS insider trades
MS stock price chart - last 5 years
agreed, however almost the complete majority of os distributions using linux as the kernel heavily rely on GNU software including gcc - and i was responding to the original posters comment where he stated -
obviously, he is here referring to linux-kernel based systems that include and use gcc otherwise how could gcc be the unsung hero if it was not even present?
open source relates to a particular technocratic 'best-tool-for-the-job' philosophy - to use it in relation to a flagship project of a different philosophy (Free software) which, while holding mostly harmonious views, differs in the emphasis on certain priorities is just a little off-track - i was simply pointing that out, and saying that if you do want to give praise to gcc (as the original poster did) then you should word yr support properly
finally, to answer yr final paragraph
good for linus, i appreciate his tremendous contribution and his acknowledgement of the work of the shoulders he stood upon, and continues to stand upon - however i think yr point is irrelevant as no-one is asking that the kernel should be called GNU/Linux as you state - simply the request is that the overall os when it benefits greatly from GNU contributions should acknowledge that support
you seem to be a little confused on this point - i would suggest you visit the fsf site to check out their faq on this point
finally, i didn't want to pick a fight here - mostly we are all working together to build something of great philanthropical importance and ppl who use and support free software i count as my friends - my original post was simply to say that if you want to praise gcc, then best to refer to it as its creative team ask it to be - as free software and not open source - fairly straightforward point i think
cheers
i agree with you (about gcc not getting the credit it deserves) however i would have worded my support somewhat differently, viz.
It's always seemed to me that GCC was the unsung hero of free software, and GNU/Linux in particular.
As i'm sure you know, GCC is a GNU project and was originated by RMS - if we want it to attain more recognition, perhaps referring to it as its authors request would be a good start
Cheers