Nope, fair use applies to trademarks as well as copy rights. With Linux you already have the right to distribute and you do have the right to use the composite name. In order for fair use to apply to a trademark 1) The name must be necessary when referring to athe product, 2) You must use the minimum amount of the name possible, 3) There cannot exist a potential for consumer confusion.
GNU/Linux satisfies all three of these, and I and many others will continue to use that term... the correct term, regardless of what some petty jackass thinks.
And not every article about doing something cool with hardware needs a "not everything has to be made to run linux" comment. It was fun for whoever did it, and that's reason enough.
Nope. Still not unbreakable. Distibution of the keys is still the weakness. Human error is still the weakness. Proper generation of the the key is the weakness. If you assume that a) the key was generated correctly b) the key was distibuted securely, and c) the key never falls into the hands of anyone other than the intended recipient (and this includes interception and copying) then you can claim that it's unbreakable. But you can't assume those criteria are true hence it is not unbreakable.
They can disagree all they want, however, in a court case, and I'm not looking up a precedent, they will likely lose. Linux is freely distributable, GNU tools are freely distibutable, distibuting an OS as GNU/Linux is calling it what it is. It is not renaming the kernel, or the rest of the OS and you'll never win in court calling something what it is. If I packaged a Coke with a Subway sub, and called the package Coke/Subway sub, that's a perfectly legal use of trademarks. Had I the time, and I really cared I'd create my own distro and label it GNU/Linux. Let him come after me for a non-existent trademark violation.
Any encryption scheme has weak points, at least two before it is even used, the sender and the reciever.
can't be easily reversed, then I think they might as well claim it's unbreakable as you can say something like "the key can't be found even if every atom of silicon on earth was used as a transistor, and was used as one until the sun burns out"
This is a true statement, you can claim something to be unbreakable if current tools can't decrypt it but:
Remember, public key crypto is only believed to be secure, since no one's been able to figure out how to factor large numbers quickly. It doesn't mean they never will.
this is the key, just because we can't now, doesn't mean the technology won't ever exist. And that's the key reason why no code could ever truly claim to be unbreakable. Practically unbreakable is the best you can do. Any other claim is marketing-speak.
Bad example. That's saying that any wild claim by anyone about any field could be true, simple because once (although I'm sure a few others could be found) something that appeared to be a wild claim was found to be true. Strictly speaking you are correct, there is a tiny, but non zero chance that any wild claim could be true,... in most cases. That goes for any claim wild or not.
However, we're dealing with something that is well understood and in a field where there isn't a lot of gray area. Really tough to crack it may be, but that isn't unbreakable. There are no unbreakable codes. The best that you can hope for is a code that can't currently be broken algorithmically with current tools because the power isn't there to do so in a pragmatic amount of time.
Tough. His contribution to the OS is only one part of the whole. He can't make a blanket decision like that. If someone wants to give credit to what makes Linux an OS they are free to do so. If he wants to persist in being an ass about it, then the operating system can easily just be called GNU. Or GNU with the Linux kernel, which can simply be abbreviated as... suprise GNU/Linux.
It shouldn't matter. The sellers SHOULD have to return it to the makers. I didn't buy the software from MS I bought it from Best Buy. It's up to the software producers to handle returns from the retail outlets. Why should I have to wait weeks for a refund? I want my money back at MY convenience when I buy an unsatisfactory item.
For the record, the name is "Linux," not "GNU/Linux." Might want to refer to Torvalds's trademark for further details on that point.
Err wrong pal. GNU/Linux is the OS, for the record. The kernel alone is Linux and the kernel alone doesn't contain as many filesystems as the OS as a whole, one notable one that springs to mind with no research is HFS.
It was a joke. There's no such thing as very constant. Something is either constant or not, there are no degrees. The speed of light is nearly constant.
Err, I'm certainly not bahing.NET, I haven't playied with it enough to really form an opinion. However, your argument doesn't hold water. Of course your applications are smaller in.NET. You're making almost exclusive use of shared libraries. I can do the same in Linux, as far as a mash of libraries not working well together, that's unsupported FUD. The size of a program is not a good indicator by itself, static or shared libraries, and the skill of the coder involved play a large role, as I'm sure other factors (which aren't coming to me at four in the morning) do as well.
You're right though,.NET in it's intended domain is well done. But of course it would be. It's not religous dogma, it's fact. MS bullied around Java until they could rip it off and implement it on their systems ala C# and.NET. Even not being a Windows guy, I'm willing to admint that C# is great it's well integrated in the environment, but let's face facts... it's Java. It's typical MS business practice, break a third party tool until they can entrench users in using the MS version. It works, it's immoral, but it works.
It's actually the reverse with me, I'm more careful with others money than my own. Of course my explanation to you would be "I'm an engineer, my credit rating has NOTHING to do with my job". For jobs that don't require contact with the companies finances, it shouldn't be allowed. For jobs that do,... I have mixed feelings. Certainly a corporation has no business in your private life.
Why should a single person who has never missed a payment, never been late, never screwed anyone over by not paying back borrowed money and has a 12-month nest egg that he has painstakingly assembled be treated the same as the majority of people who live pay check to pay check, overspend their income, and do not act with restraint and discipline?
Credit ratings are in fact accurate. If you have bad credit it is because you are not creditworthy or trustworthy in financial matters.
When you are applying for a loan, fine. When you are applying for a job, no you shouldn't be treated any different. More importantly, a bad credit rating does not imply that you are untrustworthy in financial matters, for starters, you don't know what the circumstances were, and secondly that's how you handled your money, not others.
so it's whichever company you decide to apply for a job at's responsibility to help you build your credit
Err yeah, you see because if you have a paycheck, you can pay your bills. Denying someone a job because they have bad credit is ridiculous. How are they supposed to correct it if no one will give them work.
I don't necessarily disagree with you about reform but:
1. define enforce? someone else has to violate your patent claim in order for you to maintain it? 2. if patents exist, which I claim they shouldn't though they could be pragmatic if use correctly, the point is for the patent holder to have time to make money from it, a limited monopoly, if they choose to ally with certain companies so be it 3. see above 4. not sure what you're getting at here, I'm assuming duration extensions, which I agree with, but what is a fixed amount of time to submit? 5. they are supposed to be doing this, which is why it cost so much to get something patented
Can't tell if that's sarcasm or not. Don't have an opinion on Columbus, but just in case deciding that the civil war was fought over slavery is nonsense, that was a complete aside, although a good one. The north wasn't mad that slavery existed, slavery was a pr tool to rally people behind their side. Hell, abolitionists were considered more or less scum by everyone, of course that's not what you read in school history books.
Huh? What kind of logic is that. I'll pay the least amount I can for what I want. If online is cheaper and more convenient I'll order there. Otherwise I'll get it from a local retailer. It usually boils down to selection for me. If a local place has it I'll buy it there because it's more convenient, assuming that I am too eager for the item than to wait and pay less.
Ummm, because the states rights aspect of our government is important to balance. A monarchy like federal government is exactly what the framers of the Constitution did NOT want.
Jeez, you should consider yourself lucky the North won the civil war, since that's what the conflict was about.
I agree, for readily available items. Books however I tend to order, not only does B&N give free shipping for two or more items, more esoteric books can be harder to track down. And Barnes and Noble is awful for any type of technical book.
Slashdot Mirror
GNU/Linux satisfies all three of these, and I and many others will continue to use that term... the correct term, regardless of what some petty jackass thinks.
Zelda was fun, but best (console)rpg ever. Not a chance FFIII, Chrono Trigger, Lufia2. Zelda wasn't that good compared to the greats.
And not every article about doing something cool with hardware needs a "not everything has to be made to run linux" comment. It was fun for whoever did it, and that's reason enough.
Nope. Still not unbreakable. Distibution of the keys is still the weakness. Human error is still the weakness. Proper generation of the the key is the weakness. If you assume that a) the key was generated correctly b) the key was distibuted securely, and c) the key never falls into the hands of anyone other than the intended recipient (and this includes interception and copying) then you can claim that it's unbreakable. But you can't assume those criteria are true hence it is not unbreakable.
They can disagree all they want, however, in a court case, and I'm not looking up a precedent, they will likely lose. Linux is freely distributable, GNU tools are freely distibutable, distibuting an OS as GNU/Linux is calling it what it is. It is not renaming the kernel, or the rest of the OS and you'll never win in court calling something what it is. If I packaged a Coke with a Subway sub, and called the package Coke/Subway sub, that's a perfectly legal use of trademarks. Had I the time, and I really cared I'd create my own distro and label it GNU/Linux. Let him come after me for a non-existent trademark violation.
can't be easily reversed, then I think they might as well claim it's unbreakable as you can say something like "the key can't be found even if every atom of silicon on earth was used as a transistor, and was used as one until the sun burns out"
This is a true statement, you can claim something to be unbreakable if current tools can't decrypt it but:
Remember, public key crypto is only believed to be secure, since no one's been able to figure out how to factor large numbers quickly. It doesn't mean they never will.
this is the key, just because we can't now, doesn't mean the technology won't ever exist. And that's the key reason why no code could ever truly claim to be unbreakable. Practically unbreakable is the best you can do. Any other claim is marketing-speak.
However, we're dealing with something that is well understood and in a field where there isn't a lot of gray area. Really tough to crack it may be, but that isn't unbreakable. There are no unbreakable codes. The best that you can hope for is a code that can't currently be broken algorithmically with current tools because the power isn't there to do so in a pragmatic amount of time.
Tough. His contribution to the OS is only one part of the whole. He can't make a blanket decision like that. If someone wants to give credit to what makes Linux an OS they are free to do so. If he wants to persist in being an ass about it, then the operating system can easily just be called GNU. Or GNU with the Linux kernel, which can simply be abbreviated as... suprise GNU/Linux.
It shouldn't matter. The sellers SHOULD have to return it to the makers. I didn't buy the software from MS I bought it from Best Buy. It's up to the software producers to handle returns from the retail outlets. Why should I have to wait weeks for a refund? I want my money back at MY convenience when I buy an unsatisfactory item.
For the record, the name is "Linux," not "GNU/Linux." Might want to refer to Torvalds's trademark for further details on that point.
Err wrong pal. GNU/Linux is the OS, for the record. The kernel alone is Linux and the kernel alone doesn't contain as many filesystems as the OS as a whole, one notable one that springs to mind with no research is HFS.
how leet should Linux users be before they can install an MS Access equivalent? On Windows, you can do it with a few clicks
Yes and the few click method generally leaves security holes wide enough to drive a bus through. That method is obviously working.
It was a joke. There's no such thing as very constant. Something is either constant or not, there are no degrees. The speed of light is nearly constant.
I'm sorry I have to comment: very constant? ;)
You're right though,
Yes and my hammer, a concept invented a ridiculously long time ago, is still the right tool for the job when I want to drive a nail.
It's actually the reverse with me, I'm more careful with others money than my own. Of course my explanation to you would be "I'm an engineer, my credit rating has NOTHING to do with my job". For jobs that don't require contact with the companies finances, it shouldn't be allowed. For jobs that do,... I have mixed feelings. Certainly a corporation has no business in your private life.
Why should a single person who has never missed a payment, never been late, never screwed anyone over by not paying back borrowed money and has a 12-month nest egg that he has painstakingly assembled be treated the same as the majority of people who live pay check to pay check, overspend their income, and do not act with restraint and discipline?
Credit ratings are in fact accurate. If you have bad credit it is because you are not creditworthy or trustworthy in financial matters.
When you are applying for a loan, fine. When you are applying for a job, no you shouldn't be treated any different. More importantly, a bad credit rating does not imply that you are untrustworthy in financial matters, for starters, you don't know what the circumstances were, and secondly that's how you handled your money, not others.
so it's whichever company you decide to apply for a job at's responsibility to help you build your credit
Err yeah, you see because if you have a paycheck, you can pay your bills. Denying someone a job because they have bad credit is ridiculous. How are they supposed to correct it if no one will give them work.
.... seriously this should be a privacy issue. People with bad credit NEED jobs to get out of the hole they've dug. Give me a break.
1. define enforce? someone else has to violate your patent claim in order for you to maintain it?
2. if patents exist, which I claim they shouldn't though they could be pragmatic if use correctly, the point is for the patent holder to have time to make money from it, a limited monopoly, if they choose to ally with certain companies so be it
3. see above
4. not sure what you're getting at here, I'm assuming duration extensions, which I agree with, but what is a fixed amount of time to submit?
5. they are supposed to be doing this, which is why it cost so much to get something patented
The whole thing pretty much stinks as is though.
Sorry, I'm pissed at both of them. Using a legal loophole to do something immoral doesn't absolve them of responsibility. It's that simple.
Can't tell if that's sarcasm or not. Don't have an opinion on Columbus, but just in case deciding that the civil war was fought over slavery is nonsense, that was a complete aside, although a good one. The north wasn't mad that slavery existed, slavery was a pr tool to rally people behind their side. Hell, abolitionists were considered more or less scum by everyone, of course that's not what you read in school history books.
Huh? What kind of logic is that. I'll pay the least amount I can for what I want. If online is cheaper and more convenient I'll order there. Otherwise I'll get it from a local retailer. It usually boils down to selection for me. If a local place has it I'll buy it there because it's more convenient, assuming that I am too eager for the item than to wait and pay less.
Jeez, you should consider yourself lucky the North won the civil war, since that's what the conflict was about.
I agree, for readily available items. Books however I tend to order, not only does B&N give free shipping for two or more items, more esoteric books can be harder to track down. And Barnes and Noble is awful for any type of technical book.