So you're saying instead of just buying a product I need to hire people to write a product for me? That's just stupid.
So instead of just buying plans to my new house I should hire an architect to draw them for me? That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a contract I should hire a lawyer to write one up for me? That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a design for my chip, I should hire an enginner to make one for me? That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a manual for the new product I just introduced, I should hire a tech writer to write one for me? That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a portait of myself, I should comission an artist to paint one for me? That's just stupid
Remember, software is not a material good, it's information (like all the other examples I gave). We are also, talking about adding a new feature to linux, like all my examples involve the creation of something new.
It is quite normal, if you have some special need in the realm of intellectual property, to comission that work. Open Source/Free Software does tend to shift programming from being more of a manufacturing industry to a service industry. This has it's advantages, really. Just as you no more expect the market to spontaneously provide documentation on the proceedures internal to your company, you shouldn't expect the market to spontaneously provide a linux feature only you need.
With the source code available, you can do that. free software has often been driven by individuals scratching their own itches. If a company has an itch, and it's cheaper for them to scratch it themselves, because they have the soource, why shouldn't they scratch it?
Small companies can outsource (like they do legal services) Large companies can develop in-house (like they do legal services).
I don't understand why the/. crowd is so eager to protect privacy when it comes to sending data over the Internet, but this is dismissed as "we don't need this".
Because the computer is under my control, the monitor is under my control, and almost everything in-between. With a wireless scheme, where the signal is being broadcast into places I don't have control, I would agree that encryption is a brilliant idea, but personally, I'd do it at the transmitter and reciever, and just make sure any radio data I transmit is encrypted, why make a special scheme for video? But encrypting things for a 3' travel from one point in my home, to another point in my home, that does not at any point leave my home, it strikes me at least, that the culprit that they're trying to defend that signal from is already in my home. Me.
So the fear is, it's yet another paranoid scheme to "protect intellectual property"
Now the internet, suddenly I'm broadcasting my data outside my home, over dozens of systems I have no control whatsoever on. The risk of my data being intercepted is much greater.
Basically, I'm willing to walk naked on my way to the shower, or in a revealing bathrobe, but not willing to on the street, as I already have appropriate privacy protections in place.
So the reasons are:
The risk to us of someone intercepting the data over the cable in our home is small (especially compared to the TEMPEST emisions of our current monitors)
The risk to us of someone intercepting data on the internet is large (even compared to aforementioned TEMPEST emissions)
We don't trust the Copyright Association, and this sounds like the kind of thing they'd like to make mandatory on all flat-screen displays
A whole bunch of things I disagree with, but I'll just address two:
In other words, what you are encouraging is collusion among some vendors to destroy others. This is anti-competitive behavior, Bruce, and is highly illegal as well as unethical.
Collusion is only illegal if it is done in restraint of trade. The GPL is non-exclusionary. How are you going to drive the other vendors out of business by giving them better software?
How's this for an example... Take two companies, we'll call one..... Bruce. We'll call the other.... Eric. Bruce and Eric both have patents on processes used in their industry. They realise they could both make much more money if they had the right to use the other's patent. They agree to cross-license their patents. Another company comes along, we'll call it.... Brett. Brett comes up with a process that is better than Bruce and Eric's processes, but dependant on both. Brett wishes to use this new process, so approaches Bruce and Eric asking for permission to use their processes. They reply "sure, if you let us use yours".
Any restraint of trade here? No more than the patent system already imposes. If Brett wishes to use Bruce and Eric's Processes, they're free to license them. If they don't like the terms under which they're offered, they're free to refuse Bruce and Eric the rights to the improved process.
This sort of patent cross-licensing goes on every day...
The problem is that, since the initial code was licensed under the GPL, the code which is contributed back is licensed exclusively under the GPL because that's the license under which the contributor got it. Thus, if the original author accepts a single contribution, his whole work is irrevocably licensed ONLY under the GPL and his ability to legally dual-license goes away.
No, the code he returns to you is licensed back under whatever terms he wishes, and can legally offer. If you, as the copyright holder, are willing to allow him to release his derivative work (contribution) under some other terms, he may legally do so. Those other terms may be that in return for getting paid, he gives you the right to distribute his work as you see fit.
If he refuses to license it to you under any other terms than the GPL, then no, you can't distribute it under any other terms than the GPL. Of course, that sentence is still true removing both instances of the phrase "under any other terms than the GPL".
I think you may find two distinct camps in the open source world: The socialist-like view that we should all help each other and give our source away for free. The other camp are the capitalist pigs that see good business sense in open source. The first camp I don't understand, the second, which I subscribe to, has a lot of profit potential.
I think, despite my liking of capitalism, you're going to place me in the socialist camp. Really, I don't think I'm in either, nor do I really think the two exist, or are as irreconsilable as you seem to think.
So first, I'll make my defense of Capitalism from a more socialist viewpoint. Capitalism has the advantage of being (at least in the ideal, and to a closer extent than any other system in preactice) what is termed by economists, Paredo-Optimal. This means that the allocation of labor and resources is such that no two people have bundes of goods/services that they would gladly swap. i.e. cases where I have 8 chickens, and would rather have a cow, and you have a cow, and would rather have 8 chickens will be eliminated. (well, the transaction may go through middlemen, and may get lossy, but you get the point).
Capitalism is not, however, anything goes, it does involve rules (i.e. the transaction "you have 8 chickens, and I have a big stick, give me the chickens and I won't hit you with the stick" is verboten) chosen to make sure things keep working this way.
Enough Econ 101, what about Free Software/Open Source? Well, basically, things with software are no longer paredo optimal. I have a copy of MS word, you have a copy of MS excel. I have the labor/materials required to copy MS word, and would gladly trade those for a copy of Excel. You have the labor/materials to make one, and would for a copy of Word. Copyright laws don't let us do that.
Copyright laws (presumably) exist because without them, if spent lots of money/effort writing software, and then everyone just copied it without paying me, I'd lose out, and not being a dunce, wouldn't do it in the first place. So copyright laws prevent me and you from trading MS's stuff, to give MS an incentive to make software.
However, what happens, it's easier to make software in the first place, if you can copy bits from other peoples software... So in software, as the free software/open source software movement demonstrates, software can be created without these incentives, since removing them (allowing copying) makes software cheaper.
So the economist would say "Copyright restrictions on software create an unnecessary inefficiency in the software market", the capitalist would say "Open Source Software allows us to make software better and for less money, gotta be a buck in that somewhere" and the err... "socialist" would say "Free Software lets me share software with my neighbor, so we all benefit"
When you went to the error your cursor was taken to the exact area of the code that contained said error.
compile mode in emacs does this though... you go to the error you want to look up, and hit enter.
You could set breakpoints in the code.
Gdb mode in emacs does this... (just M-x gdb, it asks what you what file to run..., then in the source windoow do M-x gdb-break) bind it to a character if you like...
I'll admit it may not be as easy as in borland, but it's certainly there...
Re:RHAT did version jumps?
on
Free Solaris 8
·
· Score: 2
Unless I'm mistaken... Redhat:
3.x a.out maybe? 4.0 at least dropped a.out support I think from looking around some websites..
4.x libc5, kernel 2.0
5.x Glibc 2.0, kernel 2.0
6.x Glibc 2.1, kernel 2.2
So in any case, they increased a major version number when they switched C libraries, and then again, when they switched to the new stable kernel branch. Both seem at least reasonable to me as reasons to increase the major version number of their product.
A fundamental precept of the duel, was that it restored honor to both parties. That is, that if one person called another a liar, over which they fought a duel, both the winner, and loser, of the duel were considered to have maintained their honor, because they were willing to fight over it.
In my opinion, a flamewar serves a similar purpose, that is, that neither party expects to actaully accomplish anything, other than to preserve her good name, by demonstrating her willingness to fight for it.
This sort of behavior undoubtedly magnifies any insult anyone has recieved, by causing a simple you're stupid to escalate into a back-and-forth exchange of heated comemnts.
So that's perhaps half of why the net seems so much more hostile than "real life". What remains is, are people more likely to insult each other online?
IMNSHO, no What is different about the net is it is, at least in such forums as slashdot, usenet, and mailing lists, a many-to-many forum of communication. Thus, if person A tells person B they're stupid, there's several hundred, to several thousand witnesses. If, on the other hand, person A tells person B they're stupid on the street corner there's more likely a dozen witnesses. Thus, on the net, each incidence of hostility is witnessed by far more people.
Certainly there are many-to-many communication forums in "real life", and many are often *more* acrimonious than life on the net (where the regulars are better adjusted). Try a talk show, or a PTA or zoning board meeting.
People just don't always get along. Just on the net, you get to watch, and they don't take their argument to a more private venue...
The uncertainty principle was derived from the basic postulates of quantum mechanics (that is, the assumption that light, and energy states of systems are quantized leads you to the uncertainty principle).
Quantum mechanics was not, at all, invented to explain out difficulties in measuring things that small, and has done an astoundingly good job of describing almost every experiment thrown at it.
Also, its arguable whether it's the case that you can't measuere the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously, or wheyther the problem is that it doesn't *have* a well-defined position and momentum simultaneously.
Yes, obviously, if it's not giving the right answers, it needs to be reassessed, but lets wait till we have evidence it doesn't work before inventing new theories to explain things.
a)As others have pointed out, this is just servers, which judge jackson considered irrelevant
b) This probably includes their alpha platforms (and there's diddly for application support for any of alpha/NT, alpha/linux and alpha/tru64 compared to intel/win32), and
c)It's irrelevant to the timeframe in which microsoft allegedly performed it's anticompetetive acts:
The switch to Linux - revealed as arch-rival Microsoft prepares to launch Windows 2000 on February 17 -
has emerged in the past six months. (emphasis added)
I will, for the sake of argument, not challengge the assumption that the free software movement exists due to student loans. It's still silly to say it's "owned by banks". Presumably the student loans were/are being paid back, with interest even. To the extent that those loans are interest free, it's because they're subsidized by the government.
Proprietary software is also largely funded by loans, most businesses need to go to a bank to get started up, is all commercial software owned by banks? All automobiles?
Doctors get student loans too. Is your body owned by a bank?
People working for proprietary software shops, also had student loans, some of them would be flipping burgers too, if they hadn't gotten educations.
What power over what we really get anyway? "Sorry, you said on your student loan application that you wouldn't work on gnome in your free time"?
One hundred years from now, our complaints of Bill Gates actions will beyond doubt seem petty: the man who left an 80 billion dollar charity foundation behind him (granted, things could go bad for Microsoft, but they are too big to go away: at worst/best they will go the way of IBM) will be remembered as one of the worlds greatest philantropists.
Funny, despite Andrew Carnegie, and John Rockerfeller, and many of the other robber barons, giving generously to charity history doesn't really seem to make them out as heros...
Do you guys remember when IBM were the Bad Guys? Microsoft didn't require government intervention and controls to eat their lunch. Market forces take over sooner or later. And the government's stupid anti-trust action against IBM was dismissed anyway.
If I recall my computing history correctly, the reason that IBM had the operating system for it's new "PC" developed externally, is that they were laboring under a consent degree with the government for antitrust violations, and being prosecuted for more of the same. It is almost without a doubt that IBM's actions were infuenced by the threat of the antitrust suit, and while it's certainly possible that it was merely market forces that brought them down, and that the antitrust action was irrelevant, I don't think that it's that simple, and that id IBM didn't have the spectre of the antitrust suits hanging over them, they might easily dominate the PC market like MS does, or worse.
Myth: Linux is more reliable than Windows NT Reality: Linux Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal Stories [snip]
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 has been proven in demanding customer environments to be a reliable operating system. Customers such as [snip] and many others run mission critical applications on Windows NT 4.0.
So my question is, if anectdotal evidence isn't good enough to show Linux is stable, why is it good enough for NT. Where's the "real world data or metrics". All they reference is the DH Brown study saying that the clustering solutions are still under development...
There is a difference between the home security system I chose to install, and my ISP keeping logs, and the govenment getting into my privacy.
The firs, is strictly my choice, the second, I can switch ISPs and expect relatively little overlap, and I *would* be upset if they were sharing their logs with anyone who asked.
The govenment is looking for the right to intrude on peoples privacy when the government choses, anywhere. Hardly the same thing.
The (incorrect) assumption is that such problems are solved in complete isolation. Really, someone solves one part, publishes it, someone else reads that and realizes Ah-Ha! I can do this, and publishes it, and so on, and so on.
So if you come up with an answer all on your own, it generally means everyone else is also just one step away... Including the bad guys:)
While the NSA may be ahead of the rest of us in cryptography, it'd be because they have lots of cryptographers who all talk to each other, and keep up with the published literature. If it can be solved with just the public literature, sooner or later, someone will go public....
The government also mandated long ago that public corporations have a responsibility to make a profit, and to plan for their continued profitability. Failure to do so leaves the officers of said corporation liable for charges of mismanagement. Charges which could lead to prison terms for the execs.
Yeah, it also precudes them from dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, making fraudulent claims, and hosts of other things that would enhance their profitiability.... What's your point?
Before the gov't freed me from phone company tyranny, I had never experienced the failure of a telephone.
When was this? This prohibition predates the AT&T breakup (which was over the tying of local and long distance service). While AT&T did rent equipment to customers (and btw, still will), this was not required, and AT&T was barred from requiring it.
The present case is bogus.
You are of course, entitled to your opinion. The DOJ is (obviously) of a different mind. Fortunately, there exists in this country, a means for arbitrating diffrences over how the laws work. And when Judge Jackson makes his ruling, and the decision is (or isn't appealed) said mechanism will be working...
government has no place in matters of product design, or even bundling.
However the governments contention was that the bundling was not done for technical reasons, but to leverage Microsoft's monopoly power to hurt a competitor's business.
If that is what Microsoft did, it's illegal. And that makes it the governments business.
If the precedent is established that the government has a role in adjudicating appropriate features and bundling, we all lose.
This precedent has been long set. Look at the local telephone companies, they are not allowed to require the use of their telephone (the physical thing) to use their service. In general a monopolist tying a second product, to one in which they hold a monopoly is illegal. So whether Microsoft committed a crime depends on whether the browser was integrated with the operating system for purely "technical" reasons or in order to compete with Netscape. You (and Microsoft) seem to think the former, while the DOJ believes the latter. So it's gone to court, where arguments for both sides have been made.
I cannot think of any group less well equipped to evaluate business decisions than a government.
Driving a competitor out of business is a business decision... I can't think of anyone else besides the government who equipped to rein in a monopolist, and certainly see tying as a awy for a monopolist to profit at the public's expense.
Another problem with these "credibility scores" is that they are largely independant of field. When one submits an article to a scientific journal, you sugggest some possible reviewers, as people you feel are qualified to comment on your work, and the article is sent to one or more people (possibly one of the ones you suggested) in your field.
So while I, for example, am probably qualified to discuss new research in semi-empirical quantum chemistry of conjugated polymers, my comments on a paper on organic synthesis of biomolecules are likely to be useless, if not plain wrong.
so what happens when a bunch of stormtroopers (who never hit) meets a bunch of redshirts (who invariably die immediately)? As best I can tell the redshirts get paniced by the stormtroopers (ineffectual) firing, and run off a cliff.
ummm? no? Yes, claims 12-20 cover the method of generating diffs using hashes and all. But claim 21 seems to cover the idea of displaying 2 drafts of a document side-by-side, which may very well be the claim they say corel's infringing on, all by itself. (which would explain why it didn't occur to them before this that their nifty patent applied to WP:)
Or if not benchmarks, some form of standardized teating. I don't much care for "single number" benchmarks, that claim to sum it all up, but it's nice to see how different machines handle the same load. You do need a lot of them though. computer speeds are very complicated things, and you need to look at a lot of variables before you can conclude whether a system is "right" for you.
And is pretty impractical to try all the different machines in order to decide what works.
Benchmarks are a tool, not an answer.
Re:chmod wont work. It doesnt matter what permisio
on
EDA: Unix vs. NT
·
· Score: 1
Why is a properly setup suid system a "severe security hole". Not that I'm a big fan of the unix privledged/non-priveledged model but....
I've also heard horror stories of NT admins giving all their secretaries Adminstrator Privs, because it was easier than figuring out what registry entry they needed to unprotect.
Only NT has a C2 rating? There have been a number of unixes (AIX (I think), Digital Unix) that have gotten C2 security classifications.
10 years ago NT didn't exist, so is kinda silly to make comparisons to unix 10 years ago.
Summed over all unixes, yes, there are more unix security problems than NT.
what is wrong with "stupid unix kernels" considering that using the modem is using a device?
why is it ok to "dial-in a connection that was setup by an administrator" on NT, but not ok for a unix admin to (say) setup diald and PPP so that merely attempting to connect to the site you wish to access is sufficient?
NT doesn't have any DOS attacks? I've read 2 I think on bugtraq the last couple weeks.
Re:about all this stuff...
on
Penguin Pets
·
· Score: 2
First, I haven't read the actual stufy, but...
the article didn't say that the "remote" penguins lived farther from the center of the colony. it could equally be judged by distance from the trail. Your "less social" conclusion relies on the assumption that the trail travels directly through the "main group", whereas I would think "right into" could cover a wide variety of situations. A road going "right into" Manhattan does not necesarially pass nearby all the buildings in Manhattan, or even all of those occupied by Manhattans most social people.
Your argument isn't especially supported by fact.
After 10 days of having people around, the "remote" penguins' rate of head-turning was as low as that of the "tourist trail" penguins. However, while the "remote" penguins' corticosterone levels also dropped during this time period, they still remained higher than "tourist trail" levels.
If it was a function merely of the personalities of the penguins involved, why did the more remote ones stop being stressed by the presence of humans? The corticosterone levels of the "remote" penguins remaining higher might support your argument, but the dropping corticosterone levels and head-turning after 10 days is rather against it. Did the penguins become more social?
Not to say that the study is certainly correct, or that you're obviously wrong, but it seems to me, that without reading an actual paper on the study, knowing the location of the trail, the density of penguins at the trail and at the "remote" site, and many other details, it's unfair to dismiss the researchers as "guessers", and impossible to theorise on alternative explanations to the experiment. At least impossible without guessing.
100% sure there's none used anywhere? Can't be. However, you can't steal much without a risk of being caught.
First off, if the binaries are identical, or have large stretches of identical bits then they almost certainly have the same source (or some of). At least it's likely enough you could start questioning people in the company under oath.
Second, if it has identical behavior, it's probably identical code. Especially Bugs. GNU ls had a buffer overflow and printed out all Q's when you did such-and-such, so does this program. again, not proof, but enough to get a judge thinking.
Certainly if it has 'most all the same features, and works in 'most 'zactly the same way, people will notice THAT and start looking. Hey... funny.... my linux binary just ran fine on AIX... and I'm using undocumented interfaces..
You could... But is risky. Which will 'least discourage big companies from doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a contract I should hire a lawyer to write one up for me?
That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a design for my chip, I should hire an enginner to make one for me?
That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a manual for the new product I just introduced, I should hire a tech writer to write one for me?
That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a portait of myself, I should comission an artist to paint one for me?
That's just stupid
Remember, software is not a material good, it's information (like all the other examples I gave). We are also, talking about adding a new feature to linux, like all my examples involve the creation of something new.
It is quite normal, if you have some special need in the realm of intellectual property, to comission that work. Open Source/Free Software does tend to shift programming from being more of a manufacturing industry to a service industry. This has it's advantages, really. Just as you no more expect the market to spontaneously provide documentation on the proceedures internal to your company, you shouldn't expect the market to spontaneously provide a linux feature only you need.
With the source code available, you can do that. free software has often been driven by individuals scratching their own itches. If a company has an itch, and it's cheaper for them to scratch it themselves, because they have the soource, why shouldn't they scratch it?
Small companies can outsource (like they do legal services) Large companies can develop in-house (like they do legal services).
So the fear is, it's yet another paranoid scheme to "protect intellectual property"
Now the internet, suddenly I'm broadcasting my data outside my home, over dozens of systems I have no control whatsoever on. The risk of my data being intercepted is much greater.
Basically, I'm willing to walk naked on my way to the shower, or in a revealing bathrobe, but not willing to on the street, as I already have appropriate privacy protections in place.
So the reasons are:
How's this for an example... Take two companies, we'll call one..... Bruce. We'll call the other.... Eric. Bruce and Eric both have patents on processes used in their industry. They realise they could both make much more money if they had the right to use the other's patent. They agree to cross-license their patents. Another company comes along, we'll call it.... Brett. Brett comes up with a process that is better than Bruce and Eric's processes, but dependant on both. Brett wishes to use this new process, so approaches Bruce and Eric asking for permission to use their processes. They reply "sure, if you let us use yours".
Any restraint of trade here? No more than the patent system already imposes. If Brett wishes to use Bruce and Eric's Processes, they're free to license them. If they don't like the terms under which they're offered, they're free to refuse Bruce and Eric the rights to the improved process.
This sort of patent cross-licensing goes on every day...
No, the code he returns to you is licensed back under whatever terms he wishes, and can legally offer. If you, as the copyright holder, are willing to allow him to release his derivative work (contribution) under some other terms, he may legally do so. Those other terms may be that in return for getting paid, he gives you the right to distribute his work as you see fit.If he refuses to license it to you under any other terms than the GPL, then no, you can't distribute it under any other terms than the GPL. Of course, that sentence is still true removing both instances of the phrase "under any other terms than the GPL".
So first, I'll make my defense of Capitalism from a more socialist viewpoint. Capitalism has the advantage of being (at least in the ideal, and to a closer extent than any other system in preactice) what is termed by economists, Paredo-Optimal. This means that the allocation of labor and resources is such that no two people have bundes of goods/services that they would gladly swap. i.e. cases where I have 8 chickens, and would rather have a cow, and you have a cow, and would rather have 8 chickens will be eliminated. (well, the transaction may go through middlemen, and may get lossy, but you get the point).
Capitalism is not, however, anything goes, it does involve rules (i.e. the transaction "you have 8 chickens, and I have a big stick, give me the chickens and I won't hit you with the stick" is verboten) chosen to make sure things keep working this way.
Enough Econ 101, what about Free Software/Open Source? Well, basically, things with software are no longer paredo optimal. I have a copy of MS word, you have a copy of MS excel. I have the labor/materials required to copy MS word, and would gladly trade those for a copy of Excel. You have the labor/materials to make one, and would for a copy of Word. Copyright laws don't let us do that.
Copyright laws (presumably) exist because without them, if spent lots of money/effort writing software, and then everyone just copied it without paying me, I'd lose out, and not being a dunce, wouldn't do it in the first place. So copyright laws prevent me and you from trading MS's stuff, to give MS an incentive to make software.
However, what happens, it's easier to make software in the first place, if you can copy bits from other peoples software... So in software, as the free software/open source software movement demonstrates, software can be created without these incentives, since removing them (allowing copying) makes software cheaper.
So the economist would say "Copyright restrictions on software create an unnecessary inefficiency in the software market", the capitalist would say "Open Source Software allows us to make software better and for less money, gotta be a buck in that somewhere" and the err... "socialist" would say "Free Software lets me share software with my neighbor, so we all benefit"
Know what? They're all right :)
I'll admit it may not be as easy as in borland, but it's certainly there...
Redhat:
- 3.x a.out maybe? 4.0 at least dropped a.out support I think from looking around some websites..
- 4.x libc5, kernel 2.0
- 5.x Glibc 2.0, kernel 2.0
- 6.x Glibc 2.1, kernel 2.2
So in any case, they increased a major version number when they switched C libraries, and then again, when they switched to the new stable kernel branch. Both seem at least reasonable to me as reasons to increase the major version number of their product.In my opinion, a flamewar serves a similar purpose, that is, that neither party expects to actaully accomplish anything, other than to preserve her good name, by demonstrating her willingness to fight for it.
This sort of behavior undoubtedly magnifies any insult anyone has recieved, by causing a simple you're stupid to escalate into a back-and-forth exchange of heated comemnts.
So that's perhaps half of why the net seems so much more hostile than "real life". What remains is, are people more likely to insult each other online?
IMNSHO, no What is different about the net is it is, at least in such forums as slashdot, usenet, and mailing lists, a many-to-many forum of communication. Thus, if person A tells person B they're stupid, there's several hundred, to several thousand witnesses. If, on the other hand, person A tells person B they're stupid on the street corner there's more likely a dozen witnesses. Thus, on the net, each incidence of hostility is witnessed by far more people.
Certainly there are many-to-many communication forums in "real life", and many are often *more* acrimonious than life on the net (where the regulars are better adjusted). Try a talk show, or a PTA or zoning board meeting.
People just don't always get along. Just on the net, you get to watch, and they don't take their argument to a more private venue...
Quantum mechanics was not, at all, invented to explain out difficulties in measuring things that small, and has done an astoundingly good job of describing almost every experiment thrown at it.
Also, its arguable whether it's the case that you can't measuere the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously, or wheyther the problem is that it doesn't *have* a well-defined position and momentum simultaneously.
Yes, obviously, if it's not giving the right answers, it needs to be reassessed, but lets wait till we have evidence it doesn't work before inventing new theories to explain things.
b) This probably includes their alpha platforms (and there's diddly for application support for any of alpha/NT, alpha/linux and alpha/tru64 compared to intel/win32), and
c)It's irrelevant to the timeframe in which microsoft allegedly performed it's anticompetetive acts:
Proprietary software is also largely funded by loans, most businesses need to go to a bank to get started up, is all commercial software owned by banks? All automobiles?
Doctors get student loans too. Is your body owned by a bank?
People working for proprietary software shops, also had student loans, some of them would be flipping burgers too, if they hadn't gotten educations.
What power over what we really get anyway? "Sorry, you said on your student loan application that you wouldn't work on gnome in your free time"?
What exactly is your point?
Reality: Linux Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal Stories
[snip]
- Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 has been proven in demanding customer environments to be a reliable operating system. Customers such as [snip] and many others run mission critical applications on Windows NT 4.0.
So my question is, if anectdotal evidence isn't good enough to show Linux is stable, why is it good enough for NT. Where's the "real world data or metrics". All they reference is the DH Brown study saying that the clustering solutions are still under development...The firs, is strictly my choice, the second, I can switch ISPs and expect relatively little overlap, and I *would* be upset if they were sharing their logs with anyone who asked.
The govenment is looking for the right to intrude on peoples privacy when the government choses, anywhere. Hardly the same thing.
So if you come up with an answer all on your own, it generally means everyone else is also just one step away... Including the bad guys :)
While the NSA may be ahead of the rest of us in cryptography, it'd be because they have lots of cryptographers who all talk to each other, and keep up with the published literature. If it can be solved with just the public literature, sooner or later, someone will go public....
As an idea, it's over six years old
If that is what Microsoft did, it's illegal. And that makes it the governments business.
This precedent has been long set. Look at the local telephone companies, they are not allowed to require the use of their telephone (the physical thing) to use their service. In general a monopolist tying a second product, to one in which they hold a monopoly is illegal. So whether Microsoft committed a crime depends on whether the browser was integrated with the operating system for purely "technical" reasons or in order to compete with Netscape. You (and Microsoft) seem to think the former, while the DOJ believes the latter. So it's gone to court, where arguments for both sides have been made. Driving a competitor out of business is a business decision... I can't think of anyone else besides the government who equipped to rein in a monopolist, and certainly see tying as a awy for a monopolist to profit at the public's expense.So while I, for example, am probably qualified to discuss new research in semi-empirical quantum chemistry of conjugated polymers, my comments on a paper on organic synthesis of biomolecules are likely to be useless, if not plain wrong.
so what happens when a bunch of stormtroopers (who never hit) meets a bunch of redshirts (who invariably die immediately)? As best I can tell the redshirts get paniced by the stormtroopers (ineffectual) firing, and run off a cliff.
ummm? no? Yes, claims 12-20 cover the method of generating diffs using hashes and all. But claim 21 seems to cover the idea of displaying 2 drafts of a document side-by-side, which may very well be the claim they say corel's infringing on, all by itself. (which would explain why it didn't occur to them before this that their nifty patent applied to WP :)
Or if not benchmarks, some form of standardized teating. I don't much care for "single number" benchmarks, that claim to sum it all up, but it's nice to see how different machines handle the same load. You do need a lot of them though. computer speeds are very complicated things, and you need to look at a lot of variables before you can conclude whether a system is "right" for you.
And is pretty impractical to try all the different machines in order to decide what works.
Benchmarks are a tool, not an answer.
Not to say that the study is certainly correct, or that you're obviously wrong, but it seems to me, that without reading an actual paper on the study, knowing the location of the trail, the density of penguins at the trail and at the "remote" site, and many other details, it's unfair to dismiss the researchers as "guessers", and impossible to theorise on alternative explanations to the experiment. At least impossible without guessing.
First off, if the binaries are identical, or have large stretches of identical bits then they almost certainly have the same source (or some of). At least it's likely enough you could start questioning people in the company under oath.
Second, if it has identical behavior, it's probably identical code. Especially Bugs. GNU ls had a buffer overflow and printed out all Q's when you did such-and-such, so does this program. again, not proof, but enough to get a judge thinking.
Certainly if it has 'most all the same features, and works in 'most 'zactly the same way, people will notice THAT and start looking. Hey... funny.... my linux binary just ran fine on AIX... and I'm using undocumented interfaces..
You could... But is risky. Which will 'least discourage big companies from doing it.