The software will predict the actions of paramilitary groups, ethnic factions, terrorists and criminal groups, while aiding commanders in devising strategies for stabilizing areas before, during and after conflicts.
I've got a simpler solution that can be implemented today. As a US citizen (which I am) I can realize that it's none of my goddamn business what other 'areas' do.
OTOH, Katrina sucked. But I doubt any policy maker will listen to such software, because they barely listen to their constituents anymore.
One day, we'll look back at PC security of today and laugh at the crap one had to go through just to not have your typical PC go down in flames. ...Could be tomorrow if you downloaded an.iso tonight.
What you say sounds good, but in these days trade is the ultimate diplomatic tool and you would be a fool not to voice your opinion with your money because that's the only thing people listen to any more.
I'd say that since we are talking about a GPL infringement, and not BSD, it would be evidence that MS is not involved. They won't touch GPL code out of fear.
I'd rather not think about the government selling the monopoly on ideas...
If even worded a different way, but once we go and state it that way it seems
there is a slippery slope there that I as a libertarian would rather avoid.
Ever think that to have something intelligent become more intelligent a severe motivational factor is necessary, such as having fears about it's own existence. Maybe not death but stagnation, obsolescence, misgivings about its own value to society which would make it over look that fact that it might be making something that can replace it?
So would there be any kind of mandate on what you could charge for a bundle of software based on the IP tax you declared las tax year?
Don't get me wrong I like the idea but there would be the issue of people saying that their IP isn't worth beans but charging an arm and a leg for it... Seems not quite right to me... but then they can't sue for much when some one reverse engineers their code... seems like it has it's own checks and balances... not bad I guess...
This is anecdotal to be sure, but close to home for me personally so I am not worried.
As long as China will play a fair ball-game economically, the world will win.
"The market is showing that their ways won't work much longer, and they'll end as the next Novell if they aren't careful."
Wouldn't this be about the best thing we could hope for? I mean if MS went to a BSD base and then did backward support
of all the crusty Windows stuff on it (much the same way Novell does backwards support through Linux), wouldn't that be a step in the right direction of becoming open through legitimate (and agreeable to them) means?
Not that I have a lot of experience with standards (my group's leader at work has written a new ISO standard and it's going through the process right now), but that is NOT the way the company I work at handles standards. Of course the company I work at has a longer history that MS and mostly deals with machinery safety standards, which you can not mess around with. But all the same an ISO standard is an ISO standard, you should respect the process and make a good standard, and respect your peers in the industry when they bring up issues. I don't think MS has the respect for ISO's authority at all, and until they do, I don't think ISO should pay one wit of attention to them. Same goes for OSI (that's strange... did any one realize the are different sides of the same coin... so to speak) and MS's shared-source licenses.
A simple analogy: I teacher does not teach to a student who thinks they have nothing to learn. Nor does a good teacher allow said student to interrupt class. That student should be on their own if they don't want to participate in a constructive way. Alone in a corner. Cleaning the erasers.
That's my take on it. Of course someone will prove my analogy wrong, but it's more fun that way... fire away!
Don't forget the embedded spectrum, which likes Ingo's -rt patch. Which is currently being merged into the kernel.
I actually think that its at the heart of why Linus has given Ingo the go-ahead to do the CFS scheduler, because ultimately the CFS and -rt scheduler will be one and the same, or CFS layered ontop of -rt.
What this means is more usage of the vanilla kernel for embedded devices instead of the 'other' real time Linux derivatives such as RT Linux from FSM labs and the RTAI patch.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe this sums it up.
I'm sure in the world you live in would be immoral to let your children live.
Good thing your world and the real world are two different things.
I think Japan is moving to OSS (if not FOSS) as well.
I seem to remember something else from Japan that Microsoft might find.... interesting.
At least it won't be as hard for MS to not bundle shit (like web browsers and media players) with the OS. Should make the EU happy.
I've got a simpler solution that can be implemented today. As a US citizen (which I am) I can realize that it's none of my goddamn business what other 'areas' do. OTOH, Katrina sucked. But I doubt any policy maker will listen to such software, because they barely listen to their constituents anymore.
I don't know why you would pay to have skype as it's already well supported. But those others I can see.
thinkpad-acpi: enable more hotkeys, add input device support to hotkey subdriver
Woot!
+1 moral fiber
Why do we need a teloco to allow us to do this? DIY is always better.
You don't think the issue has anything to do with the most popular os?
One day, we'll look back at PC security of today and laugh at the crap one had to go through just to not have your typical PC go down in flames. .iso tonight.
...Could be tomorrow if you downloaded an
Linus is an asshole.
But he's an asshole in a good way.
What you say sounds good, but in these days trade is the ultimate diplomatic tool and you would be a fool not to voice your opinion with your money because that's the only thing people listen to any more.
I'd say that since we are talking about a GPL infringement, and not BSD, it would be evidence that MS is not involved. They won't touch GPL code out of fear.
She would actually fit the role pretty well...
I think if you would have read the books your ideas about the Sentinels would be different.
'rent' on monopoly licensing can now be extracted
I'd rather not think about the government selling the monopoly on ideas...
If even worded a different way, but once we go and state it that way it seems
there is a slippery slope there that I as a libertarian would rather avoid.
Ever think that to have something intelligent become more intelligent a severe motivational factor is necessary, such as having fears about it's own existence. Maybe not death but stagnation, obsolescence, misgivings about its own value to society which would make it over look that fact that it might be making something that can replace it?
So would there be any kind of mandate on what you could charge for a bundle of software based on the IP tax you declared las tax year?
Don't get me wrong I like the idea but there would be the issue of people saying that their IP isn't worth beans but charging an arm and a leg for it... Seems not quite right to me... but then they can't sue for much when some one reverse engineers their code... seems like it has it's own checks and balances... not bad I guess...
This is anecdotal to be sure, but close to home for me personally so I am not worried.
As long as China will play a fair ball-game economically, the world will win.
"The market is showing that their ways won't work much longer, and they'll end as the next Novell if they aren't careful."
Wouldn't this be about the best thing we could hope for? I mean if MS went to a BSD base and then did backward support of all the crusty Windows stuff on it (much the same way Novell does backwards support through Linux), wouldn't that be a step in the right direction of becoming open through legitimate (and agreeable to them) means?
Not that I have a lot of experience with standards (my group's leader at work has written a new ISO standard and it's going through the process right now), but that is NOT the way the company I work at handles standards. Of course the company I work at has a longer history that MS and mostly deals with machinery safety standards, which you can not mess around with. But all the same an ISO standard is an ISO standard, you should respect the process and make a good standard, and respect your peers in the industry when they bring up issues. I don't think MS has the respect for ISO's authority at all, and until they do, I don't think ISO should pay one wit of attention to them. Same goes for OSI (that's strange... did any one realize the are different sides of the same coin... so to speak) and MS's shared-source licenses.
A simple analogy: I teacher does not teach to a student who thinks they have nothing to learn. Nor does a good teacher allow said student to interrupt class. That student should be on their own if they don't want to participate in a constructive way. Alone in a corner. Cleaning the erasers.
That's my take on it. Of course someone will prove my analogy wrong, but it's more fun that way... fire away!
Don't forget the embedded spectrum, which likes Ingo's -rt patch. Which is currently being merged into the kernel.
I actually think that its at the heart of why Linus has given Ingo the go-ahead to do the CFS scheduler, because ultimately the CFS and -rt scheduler will be one and the same, or CFS layered ontop of -rt. What this means is more usage of the vanilla kernel for embedded devices instead of the 'other' real time Linux derivatives such as RT Linux from FSM labs and the RTAI patch.
or the increased quality...
"inconsistent with our corporate policy"
Yea normally Microsoft is the one demanding the money, not giving it.