Here's the thing...when the 6 astonauts died in the last shuttle accident it was too bad. Terrible.
But...it was no more terrible than 6 anonymous people dieing in an accident on the interstate. Its the same thing morally.
In people's minds though, its worse...and it is, but mainly because of the loss of equipment.
No. It's because those astronauts were "important", they were celebrities, media heroes. At least during a mission. People feel that they "know" someone they repeatedly see on TV, even if it's one-sided, and thus they care more about Jennifer Lopez having a cold than someone they don't know dying of cancer.
but the terms are such that no Linux distributor will agree to them.
Untrue. SuSE does include Sun's JDK 1.4.2 in their distribution.
They will not give up their rights to patch the software, as it leaves them entirely at the mercy of Sun.
That's bullshit. There is no fundamental necessity to be able to patch software to include it as a binary.
(iii) states that you can't ship any replacements for the software. Where does that put GCJ and Classpath, which Red Hat has spent a ton of effort on. Can Python be considered a competing component?
That's what I meant with "paranoid misinterpretation". The point of the clause is to assure that people don't distribute patches, which might result in incompatible JREs. If they didn't want true replacements for the JRE to exist, they could easily prevent parallel implementations - instead, they encourage them.
That's pure FUD. Every Java distribution so far has come with a license that says it's free, indefinitely, and can be redistributed for free. Sun can NOT retrocatively change these licenses to include a license fee. It's no different than the GPL in that respect. Do you also say that one should not use GPLd software because the GNU guys may "decide they're going to charge a $4.99 fee"?
Let's stop the FUD and get concrete. Here's the relevant part of the actually quite short and easily understandable (relative to other legalspeak) license for Java 1.5:
B. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and restrictions and exceptions set forth in the Software README file, including, but not limited to the Java Technology Restrictions of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software, (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.
So WHERE EXACTLY do you see something that forbids redistribution or makes it impossible for a "non-commerical" Linux distro, other than license fundamentalism? Why do you think a commercial distro would not have to worry about such things? Debian's statements on the topic are pretty stupid, based on paranoid misinterpretation of the license terms. Finally, what about the option of, if you dislike Sun's license terms, using a (gasp!) OTHER Java implementation such as IBM's?
You might have a point about music, but what about movies? Even discarding the insane salaries top actors get, making a movie, especially the kind most of us love, with lotsa special effects, requires a shitload of money. You'd rather have this than the LOTR trilogy?
Where does that leave non-denominationals or Muslims in Germany? Not to mention any number of other smaller relgions?
As I wrote:...and some of the others. The jewish community and some pretty small christian churches (e.g. Unitarians) DO get the state-collected tax. There are some beaurocratic requirements that any reasonably well-organized religion should be able to fulfill. Some of them intentionally don't apply.
When I say "a monopoly of sorts" I do not mean a literal monopoly. What I mean is that the church considers itself tied to the broader society and the ethnic group.
I think a better expression would be "default church" or religion, one that people belong to by tradition rather than faith, and which gets followers and attention simply because it's present everywhere and fulfills many social functions.
The current term used is 'Ecclessia,' which is a large denomination that ostensibly serves as the main church for an ethnicity.
What about Germany, where the population is about one third catholic and one third Lutheran protestant, with both denominations getting equal support by the state (and some others as well)?
In European countries one church is usually given a monopoly of sorts; it is state funded and presumes to count all members of the dominant ethnic group as members.
You couldn't be more wrong. France has a very strict separation of church and state. In Germany, there is religious education in schools and special church taxes, but these are not restricted to one church at all, the church tax (which is really just a convenient method of collecting member fees) is used by quite a number of different christian churches as well as the jewish community. In Italy and Spain, there is a special tax that everyone has to pay, but everyone can decide whether to give it to the state, any of a number of religious groups or even organizations such as amnesty international.
You can run Ethernet over Cat5, Cat5e, Cat6, coax (10Base2, 10Base5), single-mode/multi-mode fiber, and probably lots of other media types.
And your point concerning the statement "Most ethernet cable used today is UTP." is what exactly?
I just see too many people talking about "ethernet cable" when there is no such thing.
Sure there is. As you say yourself, it comes in a lot of different varieties, and, as the grandparent poster said, the most commonly used ones are UTP.
When your life (or the life of another innocent) is being threatened, and you are capable and willing to use a weapon to protect yourself (or that other innocent), but don't have one or have an inferior one, that is not a good thing.
Debatable. A perfectly well-meaning defender with a gun can still turn a mugging into a bloodbath.
And if the one doing the threatening isn't in fact a hradenend criminal but just a guy with an alcohol problem or a short temper, then it IS a good thing for him not to have a gun.
Here in the U.S., gun laws vary widely by state. There is a strong correlaton between gun laws and crime: those states with strong gun control laws have higher violent crime rates, while those where law abiding citizens have access to the best available tools of self-defense have lower violent crime rates.
Assuming that is indeed true, what about the much lower violent crime rates in some other countries with much stricter gun control laws? And even where correlation exist and is not illusory, it does not equal causation.
I know it isn't since it is acting at another layer, but for all purposes how is it different from tcpip?
It is specifically designed to faciliate the distribution of very large files to a large number of people. And nearly all the very large files that a lot of people are interested in are copyrighted commercial movies or games.
I think if it was bundled with a browser websites would start using this for load balancing. People that love/. Would start torrent/mirroring it.....
No, they wouldn't because the protocol is useless for distributing files smaller than about 1 MB.
The best, most conservative evidence of the day says that human impact on global warming is negligible, and that, therefore, we really don't need to do anything at all.
The most conservative, as in "produced by those with a politically conservative agenda", or "giving the lowest results" - definitely. But that's not necessarily the "best" evidence in scientific terms, and in fact the majority of the science community thinks other, less "conservative" evidence is a lot better.
It's not a question of whether we're "allowed" to change the environment. It's not really a moral issue. The real question is whether the changes we are causing are dangerous to our own survival.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the thing...when the 6 astonauts died in the last shuttle accident it was too bad. Terrible.
But...it was no more terrible than 6 anonymous people dieing in an accident on the interstate. Its the same thing morally.
In people's minds though, its worse...and it is, but mainly because of the loss of equipment.
No. It's because those astronauts were "important", they were celebrities, media heroes. At least during a mission. People feel that they "know" someone they repeatedly see on TV, even if it's one-sided, and thus they care more about Jennifer Lopez having a cold than someone they don't know dying of cancer.
Could have been a kind soul with a subscription (or even the article submitter) who tipped him off in advance.
Who says the site owner and the person who submitted the article are the same?
Quite similar to the other programmer's plight:
Upon watching the result of running the program, the programmers says:
"Waitasec, the computer is doing exactly what I said (in the program) it should... but not what I meant!"
Oh, what wouldn't we all give for that DWIM command...
Most likely, it considered the very fact that it had not been able to check the availability of updates for X hours to be worrisome.
but the terms are such that no Linux distributor will agree to them.
Untrue. SuSE does include Sun's JDK 1.4.2 in their distribution.
They will not give up their rights to patch the software, as it leaves them entirely at the mercy of Sun.
That's bullshit. There is no fundamental necessity to be able to patch software to include it as a binary.
(iii) states that you can't ship any replacements for the software. Where does that put GCJ and Classpath, which Red Hat has spent a ton of effort on. Can Python be considered a competing component?
That's what I meant with "paranoid misinterpretation". The point of the clause is to assure that people don't distribute patches, which might result in incompatible JREs. If they didn't want true replacements for the JRE to exist, they could easily prevent parallel implementations - instead, they encourage them.
That's pure FUD. Every Java distribution so far has come with a license that says it's free, indefinitely, and can be redistributed for free. Sun can NOT retrocatively change these licenses to include a license fee. It's no different than the GPL in that respect. Do you also say that one should not use GPLd software because the GNU guys may "decide they're going to charge a $4.99 fee"?
Let's stop the FUD and get concrete. Here's the relevant part of the actually quite short and easily understandable (relative to other legalspeak) license for Java 1.5:
B. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and restrictions and exceptions set
forth in the Software README file, including, but not limited to
the Java Technology Restrictions of these Supplemental Terms, Sun
grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without
fees to reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that (i) you
distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as
part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the
Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software,
(iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace
any component(s) of the Software, (iv) you do not remove or alter any
proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only
distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects
Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement,
and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from
and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or
expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any
claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results
from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.
So WHERE EXACTLY do you see something that forbids redistribution or makes it impossible for a "non-commerical" Linux distro, other than license fundamentalism? Why do you think a commercial distro would not have to worry about such things? Debian's statements on the topic are pretty stupid, based on paranoid misinterpretation of the license terms. Finally, what about the option of, if you dislike Sun's license terms, using a (gasp!) OTHER Java implementation such as IBM's?
Your memory is apparently not as good as you think it is. Java was released as Java in early 1995.
You might have a point about music, but what about movies? Even discarding the insane salaries top actors get, making a movie, especially the kind most of us love, with lotsa special effects, requires a shitload of money. You'd rather have this than the LOTR trilogy?
Where does that leave non-denominationals or Muslims in Germany? Not to mention any number of other smaller relgions?
...and some of the others. The jewish community and some pretty small christian churches (e.g. Unitarians) DO get the state-collected tax. There are some beaurocratic requirements that any reasonably well-organized religion should be able to fulfill. Some of them intentionally don't apply.
As I wrote:
What the USA currently gets from Iraq is irrelevant. What matters is that Iraq is number 2 on the list of the countries with the largest total oil reserves, with No. 1 (Saudi Arabia) being already firmly bought by the US, and No. 3 (Iran) being the next on the list to be "liberated".
Trivia: Largest fundametalist murderer of all time: Adolph Hitler , death total 3.2 to 3.8 million over 1933-1945.
Hitler was not at all religiously motivated, and the numbers are much higher.
Sort of, and even more, this takes only place for the two main confessions.
If you're talking about Germany: not true, see Wikipedia.
When I say "a monopoly of sorts" I do not mean a literal monopoly. What I mean is that the church considers itself tied to the broader society and the ethnic group.
I think a better expression would be "default church" or religion, one that people belong to by tradition rather than faith, and which gets followers and attention simply because it's present everywhere and fulfills many social functions.
The current term used is 'Ecclessia,' which is a large denomination that ostensibly serves as the main church for an ethnicity.
What about Germany, where the population is about one third catholic and one third Lutheran protestant, with both denominations getting equal support by the state (and some others as well)?
In European countries one church is usually given a monopoly of sorts; it is state funded and presumes to count all members of the dominant ethnic group as members.
You couldn't be more wrong. France has a very strict separation of church and state. In Germany, there is religious education in schools and special church taxes, but these are not restricted to one church at all, the church tax (which is really just a convenient method of collecting member fees) is used by quite a number of different christian churches as well as the jewish community. In Italy and Spain, there is a special tax that everyone has to pay, but everyone can decide whether to give it to the state, any of a number of religious groups or even organizations such as amnesty international.
The greek one, for starters: incest, infanticide, patricide galore.
Really? What is "ethernet cable"?
A cable used for Ethernet.
You can run Ethernet over Cat5, Cat5e, Cat6, coax (10Base2, 10Base5), single-mode/multi-mode fiber, and probably lots of other media types.
And your point concerning the statement "Most ethernet cable used today is UTP." is what exactly?
I just see too many people talking about "ethernet cable" when there is no such thing.
Sure there is. As you say yourself, it comes in a lot of different varieties, and, as the grandparent poster said, the most commonly used ones are UTP.
But they have purple cows!!!
When your life (or the life of another innocent) is being threatened, and you are capable and willing to use a weapon to protect yourself (or that other innocent), but don't have one or have an inferior one, that is not a good thing.
Debatable. A perfectly well-meaning defender with a gun can still turn a mugging into a bloodbath.
And if the one doing the threatening isn't in fact a hradenend criminal but just a guy with an alcohol problem or a short temper, then it IS a good thing for him not to have a gun.
Here in the U.S., gun laws vary widely by state. There is a strong correlaton between gun laws and crime: those states with strong gun control laws have higher violent crime rates, while those where law abiding citizens have access to the best available tools of self-defense have lower violent crime rates.
Assuming that is indeed true, what about the much lower violent crime rates in some other countries with much stricter gun control laws? And even where correlation exist and is not illusory, it does not equal causation.
It is specifically designed to faciliate the distribution of very large files to a large number of people. And nearly all the very large files that a lot of people are interested in are copyrighted commercial movies or games.
I think if it was bundled with a browser websites would start using this for load balancing. People that love
No, they wouldn't because the protocol is useless for distributing files smaller than about 1 MB.
You're wrong. The MPAA almost certainly would like to, and I've seen people honestly argue in favor of it.
The best, most conservative evidence of the day says that human impact on global warming is negligible, and that, therefore, we really don't need to do anything at all.
The most conservative, as in "produced by those with a politically conservative agenda", or "giving the lowest results" - definitely. But that's not necessarily the "best" evidence in scientific terms, and in fact the majority of the science community thinks other, less "conservative" evidence is a lot better.
It's not a question of whether we're "allowed" to change the environment. It's not really a moral issue. The real question is whether the changes we are causing are dangerous to our own survival.