In big projects, closed or open, there is always a distribution of day to day responsibilities. You can't do anything significant if everything has to be vetted by a single person. Jobs doesn't make every design decision at Apple either and there is also informal consensus building there. In the end there are people with authority who can drive through decisions... whether it is because they pay the check or because they own root on the source repository. It's the authority that matters, not that it is exercised all the time.
Open source projects developed by consensus? Are there a lot of projects made by the Religious Society of Friends I'm unaware of? Most of the projects I see are run either through benevolent dictatorship or at best by a technocracy.
Editing can be reverted... the ability to do it doesn't give you a feeling of power. Deletion, now that's a power trip.
They thrive on the attention, the ability to destroy... hell they even thrive on the hatred. The fact that one of the deletionist in question even posted this story when it's obvious that no one here is going to agree with him is pretty telling.
Until I googled it I didn't even know it was controversial.... it's archaic, but it isn't inherently racist unless you make an effort to know what language the PC corps of America has deemed unacceptable regardless of intent and use it despite that knowledge. I personally didn't know, I expect he didn't either.
The human mind is a funny thing... letters on paper are a little more trustworthy.
The contract while perhaps somewhat strange is not ambigious. Including a superset and subsequently excluding a subset does not a contradiction make (the "without limitation" part is extrapolation from a legal dictionary, which is not law... when English language and logic speak plainly to the meaning of text a legal dictionary can not overrule that).
As long as the diff doesn't contain any of the original code and the patch is distributed in isolation then there is no conflict with the GPL... if RH distributes a binary kernel though then they are in violation of the GPL, this would make RH liable but I don't know whether your rights under the GPL or the prohibitions under the NDA take precedence for the recipient though.
Spending a lot of time dwelling on engineering for applications which aren't even relevant now (for instance applications which only become interesting with widespread broadband or mobile phones with teraflop computation capability) is not something of interest to most reasonable engineers. Art obvious to practitioners will only be discussed when it starts becoming useful... and it becomes useful to patent trolls long before it becomes useful to anyone else. So they are the first to "discuss" it (if you can call submarined patents discussion).
What's the solution? I see none. Only obviousness stands in the way of patent trolls and even without the TSM test it only reduces their chances of success slightly (it's purely subjective and nothing a little venue shopping won't help with, besides... they don't need a very high success rate).
Forking a project is relatively easy, if the insane are leading the asylum the real contributors move house. Moving house with wikipedia? Little less straightforward. The usefulness of contributions to code is also a little more easily gauged than the usefulness of wikipedia edits and admin actions (being an inclusionist I see a hell of a lot of admin actions as pretty much useless in fact).
Fuck can mean anything, if the proverb is about not fighting worthless fights with low lifes it no longer has any bearing on Kasparov's situation though.
This makes UTC more useful for a very small number of people... yet it will make it completely useless to most people in a decade or so.
Legacy systems which need absolute time now and use UTC... can deal with leap seconds.
Legacy systems which need something resembling mean solar time now... can't do without leap seconds.
Why change it instead of making a new standard for new systems which need absolute time? It breaks nothing and accomplishes the same goal. I fail to see the logic in the present change, except for the fact that it will make some people a lot of money since huge amounts of systems will have to upgrade from UTC to whatever new standard emerges to take it place for use by most of us.
Passphrase encryption is weak shit, also it's trivially easy for them to launch a man in the middle attack... having a secure and valid keychain is just as important as having a secure private key.
How the hell did you come to that conclusion? It's a diatribe against the governor refusing to impose taxes to raise money for defense and negotiate for peace with the indians!
The giving up of essential liberties refers to the sentence before... "We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther." Which as the other poster said means they don't want the fucking army in their backyard.
No, but now you are getting into minutia of implementation. The essential concept they share is copy on write of data and snapshotting of metadata to allow you to quickly make fully recoverable checkpoints of the state. In the case of KeyKOS it's the state of the OS, in WAFL's case it's the state of the filesystem.
Slashdot Mirror
In big projects, closed or open, there is always a distribution of day to day responsibilities. You can't do anything significant if everything has to be vetted by a single person. Jobs doesn't make every design decision at Apple either and there is also informal consensus building there. In the end there are people with authority who can drive through decisions ... whether it is because they pay the check or because they own root on the source repository. It's the authority that matters, not that it is exercised all the time.
Open source projects developed by consensus? Are there a lot of projects made by the Religious Society of Friends I'm unaware of? Most of the projects I see are run either through benevolent dictatorship or at best by a technocracy.
Nuff Said.
Editing can be reverted ... the ability to do it doesn't give you a feeling of power. Deletion, now that's a power trip.
... hell they even thrive on the hatred. The fact that one of the deletionist in question even posted this story when it's obvious that no one here is going to agree with him is pretty telling.
They thrive on the attention, the ability to destroy
That's about it ... they must have gotten sick of webcomics.
Even if they could they would have to pour magnitudes more power into it to get good low frequency representation ... dunno how healthy that would be.
Until I googled it I didn't even know it was controversial .... it's archaic, but it isn't inherently racist unless you make an effort to know what language the PC corps of America has deemed unacceptable regardless of intent and use it despite that knowledge. I personally didn't know, I expect he didn't either.
The human mind is a funny thing ... letters on paper are a little more trustworthy.
... when English language and logic speak plainly to the meaning of text a legal dictionary can not overrule that).
The contract while perhaps somewhat strange is not ambigious. Including a superset and subsequently excluding a subset does not a contradiction make (the "without limitation" part is extrapolation from a legal dictionary, which is not law
As long as the diff doesn't contain any of the original code and the patch is distributed in isolation then there is no conflict with the GPL ... if RH distributes a binary kernel though then they are in violation of the GPL, this would make RH liable but I don't know whether your rights under the GPL or the prohibitions under the NDA take precedence for the recipient though.
Just because it has legal merit doesn't mean it is of any worth.
Spending a lot of time dwelling on engineering for applications which aren't even relevant now (for instance applications which only become interesting with widespread broadband or mobile phones with teraflop computation capability) is not something of interest to most reasonable engineers. Art obvious to practitioners will only be discussed when it starts becoming useful ... and it becomes useful to patent trolls long before it becomes useful to anyone else. So they are the first to "discuss" it (if you can call submarined patents discussion).
... they don't need a very high success rate).
What's the solution? I see none. Only obviousness stands in the way of patent trolls and even without the TSM test it only reduces their chances of success slightly (it's purely subjective and nothing a little venue shopping won't help with, besides
Nuff Said.
Forking a project is relatively easy, if the insane are leading the asylum the real contributors move house. Moving house with wikipedia? Little less straightforward. The usefulness of contributions to code is also a little more easily gauged than the usefulness of wikipedia edits and admin actions (being an inclusionist I see a hell of a lot of admin actions as pretty much useless in fact).
Maybe I'm a bit cynical ... but isn't that just to protect AT&T?
Pretty sure that is NP.
Nuff Said.
Dunno about your NN, but mine is pretty effective ... come to think of it, way more effective than it should be on a Saturday night :(
If you're a theistic fanatic acquiring knowledge partly to aid you in spreading your personal brand of lunacy by whatever means, then yes.
If you are a deist ala Einstein and Thomas Jefferson then fine.
Somewhere in between? Then it depends on where exactly.
Fuck can mean anything, if the proverb is about not fighting worthless fights with low lifes it no longer has any bearing on Kasparov's situation though.
Given the person, the times and the "gewinne oder verliere" part I would expect "rammelt" to mean fight ... not fuck in the sexual sense.
This makes UTC more useful for a very small number of people ... yet it will make it completely useless to most people in a decade or so.
... can deal with leap seconds.
... can't do without leap seconds.
Legacy systems which need absolute time now and use UTC
Legacy systems which need something resembling mean solar time now
Why change it instead of making a new standard for new systems which need absolute time? It breaks nothing and accomplishes the same goal. I fail to see the logic in the present change, except for the fact that it will make some people a lot of money since huge amounts of systems will have to upgrade from UTC to whatever new standard emerges to take it place for use by most of us.
Passphrase encryption is weak shit, also it's trivially easy for them to launch a man in the middle attack ... having a secure and valid keychain is just as important as having a secure private key.
How the hell did you come to that conclusion? It's a diatribe against the governor refusing to impose taxes to raise money for defense and negotiate for peace with the indians!
... "We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther." Which as the other poster said means they don't want the fucking army in their backyard.
The giving up of essential liberties refers to the sentence before
I'd argue WAFL is just the filesystem equivalent of KeyKOS's checkpoint mechanism.
No, but now you are getting into minutia of implementation. The essential concept they share is copy on write of data and snapshotting of metadata to allow you to quickly make fully recoverable checkpoints of the state. In the case of KeyKOS it's the state of the OS, in WAFL's case it's the state of the filesystem.