But that's the point. Once you start recognizing certain contributors more than others and giving them status symbols - especially where the difference is small and/or largely subjective - you risk creating a "them and us" situation.
That's not just a risk, it's happened, albiet not within the open source movement but rather within the broader free content movement (i.e. Wikipedia).
The bizarre world you suggest where diplomatic immunity grants you the right to snatch and grab others obviously doesn't exist. Otherwise, why use INTERPOL? Why not just get a diplomat from another country to do it?
Desire to not cause an international incident (and to split infinitives)?
And what store lets me buy the right to use a given work in a video criticizing the work?
IANAL. IANYourL either. This is not legal advice. ETC. Once you have the video, you can do that to it (under current case law) without permission provided said video is sufficiently original. What constitutes "sufficiently original" is... variable.
Like Mac in the desktop/laptop/netbook market? Or like Safari in browser market?
Mac hasn't entered the netbook market (yet). In the other two, Mac is far ahead of Linux, which is relatively far ahead of BSD, which is relatively far ahead of Solaris, which... you get the picture. Safari is ahead of Chrome^H^H^H Opera.
Jefferson was probably referring to vigilance by the people. OTOH in his time period, after the revolution, "the people" == "the gov't" was seen as a valid equation.
What I don't get is why a usually libertarian sanctuary like/. doesn't seem to have a problem with the states grabbing unclaimed property? Hell both sides are already taxing and spending like there is no tomorrow, why should they have the right to grab someone's stuff because they haven't used it in x amount of time? What business is it of theirs?
We already have them practically turning us upside down and shaking in hopes of loose change falling out, lets not give them more ways to snatch, okay?
This is/. AT&T is a giant evil monopoly. So, just like Microsoft,/.ers don't care about reality, they just want to bash the monopoly in question.
We need something that the TSA won't like. Don't allow flights where passengers were forced to take off their shoes or go through more than one metal detector at the airport.
You usually go through exactly one metal detector, so I don't see how that would change anything (the shoes thing obviously would).
I think the original claim of QC went something like this: zomg Quantum Computing will be done eventually and then they'll be able to trivially break most/all modern ciphers, even if implemented in a perfect way! There will not even be theoretical security! I know, lets take this old, unbreakable cipher and invent a method of key distribution that is perfectly secure in theory! That way, by the time QComputing is invented, QCrypto will have rendered it moot.
Executive summary: "provable security using real world hardware" was never a goal.
Slashdot Mirror
OP's point is still valid; MySQL is merely a bad example.
But that's the point. Once you start recognizing certain contributors more than others and giving them status symbols - especially where the difference is small and/or largely subjective - you risk creating a "them and us" situation.
That's not just a risk, it's happened, albiet not within the open source movement but rather within the broader free content movement (i.e. Wikipedia).
Which means yes, it will be in what is supposed to be their standard for production systems.
Brilliant.
I think you mean brillant.
He means the "X-ray" thingie next to the metal detector (on the way in, going through security).
IIRC Google Voice != VoIP.
IIRC this is the first one that Google is selling directly to consumers (as opposed to licensing HTC and Motorola to make and sell the phones).
What could she do with it that can't already be done on the various phones, tablets and netbooks that exist?
What tablets? Seriously. What good tablets currently exist on the market?
Any then current/former Ubuntu users probably wanted an app store or four.
I didn't think that any of them would be stupid enough to be left behind w.r.t. that particular marketing movement.
certainly an organization has to have members, in order to be an organization in the first place.
Name one natural person who is also a member of the UN.
The bizarre world you suggest where diplomatic immunity grants you the right to snatch and grab others obviously doesn't exist. Otherwise, why use INTERPOL? Why not just get a diplomat from another country to do it?
Desire to not cause an international incident (and to split infinitives)?
RIAA/MPAA's classic settlement offer is whatever-you-have plus a dollar
Bull. Their settlement offer is almost always a few thousand dollars, tops.
Wait, they sued someone who could afford that? When did this happen?
And what store lets me buy the right to use a given work in a video criticizing the work?
IANAL. IANYourL either. This is not legal advice. ETC.
Once you have the video, you can do that to it (under current case law) without permission provided said video is sufficiently original. What constitutes "sufficiently original" is... variable.
Like Mac in the desktop/laptop/netbook market? Or like Safari in browser market?
Mac hasn't entered the netbook market (yet).
In the other two, Mac is far ahead of Linux, which is relatively far ahead of BSD, which is relatively far ahead of Solaris, which... you get the picture.
Safari is ahead of Chrome^H^H^H Opera.
They obviously need to read RFC2119 then...
For those too lazy to look that up... it's the RFC that defines phrases such as "SHALL [NOT]" (as in "implementations SHALL NOT do X").
Jefferson was probably referring to vigilance by the people. OTOH in his time period, after the revolution, "the people" == "the gov't" was seen as a valid equation.
KISS A GIRL!
This is /. ! Are you kidding?
It seems your version of Nosmoke.exe is incompatible with your power cord. Shall I give you Microsoft's tech support number?
What I don't get is why a usually libertarian sanctuary like /. doesn't seem to have a problem with the states grabbing unclaimed property? Hell both sides are already taxing and spending like there is no tomorrow, why should they have the right to grab someone's stuff because they haven't used it in x amount of time? What business is it of theirs?
We already have them practically turning us upside down and shaking in hopes of loose change falling out, lets not give them more ways to snatch, okay?
This is /. AT&T is a giant evil monopoly. So, just like Microsoft, /.ers don't care about reality, they just want to bash the monopoly in question.
We need something that the TSA won't like. Don't allow flights where passengers were forced to take off their shoes or go through more than one metal detector at the airport.
You usually go through exactly one metal detector, so I don't see how that would change anything (the shoes thing obviously would).
There's typically no statute of limitations placed on bringing a civil suit.
You sure about that?
I think the original claim of QC went something like this:
zomg Quantum Computing will be done eventually and then they'll be able to trivially break most/all modern ciphers, even if implemented in a perfect way! There will not even be theoretical security! I know, lets take this old, unbreakable cipher and invent a method of key distribution that is perfectly secure in theory! That way, by the time QComputing is invented, QCrypto will have rendered it moot.
Executive summary: "provable security using real world hardware" was never a goal.
"Quantum cryptography" is a marketing buzzword term (buzzphrase?) largely created by this company.
What company? QC is still in the "kinda theoretical" phase right now (i.e. the five to ten years to market point)
I thought blond meant hair color and blonde meant stupidity.
But this one involves computers and stuff! It's so obviously different!