I'm sorry, you lost me right here. When installing code of dubious legality downloaded from Hungary with a miriad of stolen codecs and swiped protocols that is under furious development from a bunch of cankankerous weirdos, RTFM is certainly a valid complaint.
mplayer is not, and probably never be production quality software. Since (insert distro here) will never package it, it will always suck.
You don't have to RTFM for Windows, but since ther e is no TFM, or source for that matter, if things are screwed up, it's damn hard to fix it.
So my response to you: Get your grubby click and drool mits off my operating system!
Options are apparently sold only to stocks that have been above $5 for more than six months (according to a broker my friend talked to). Just a few more months to go, if that's true.
AFAIK, there's no inherent reason you can't short SCO, though I agree it'd be a bad idea.
This place:
http://www.optionsxpress.com/
seems to indicate that you can trade in options without a margin account.
In fact I think you may have things mixed up.
Shorting stocks requires margin, since there is in theory no limit to the amount of money you can lose. With options you can only lose what you paid for them.
I haven't read your book, so I don't know for sure.
The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water; and also that just because Caldera released kernel source under that license does not mean that the whole codebase (not just what was republished) should also be GPL'd.
I agree that "barely coherent" is an exaggeration. I wish that self serving fluff like this would stay out of stories. However, you point makes no sense.
The only reason that the above statement makes any sense is that he doesn't go into the details of describing it.
Here's the facts:
1) Sco says that federal copyright law says you can only make _one_ copy of a piece of software and federal copyright law trumps the GPL in this case
2) The BSD license and the GPL are identical in this regard. You are able to distribute the code without any restriction in the number of copies, as long as you obey the other parts of the license.
3) The GPL is untested in court, but the BSD license _is_. If 1 is a plausible argument, then AT&T could have said that the BSD license is invalid in their lawsuit in the early 90's. Since there is precedent for the BSD license in court, the simialar povisions in the GPL will be upheld
I claim you can only believe two of these claims.
As for the second point, no one is claiming that unrelased code is GPLed.
1) The code that was realsed by caldera is BSDed.
2) The code relased by SCO in their Linux packages is _probably_ GPLed. In order fo it _not_ to be GPLed they have to argue that they didn't even look at what they're distributing. On the one hand they're saying that the violation is so extensive that it can't be undone. OTOH, they say that they didn't notice it was happening at first. It's not impossible, but it seems like they need to explain why this happened.
3) So far all of the real code they are claiming is theirs has been shown to have had previous origins that they can not claim.
We don't need to assume an aggessively viral GPL to sounter their claims.
Let's keep in mind that Moore's Law was more an observation than a predictive law of nature, despite how people treat it that way.
Let's not and say we did.*
Seriously, I doubt that many people think that Moore's law is on an equal footing as say gravity and quantum mechanics. Still, an observation that has held more or less for nearly 40 years is worth considering as a very valuable guideline. Let's keep this in mind as well.
(*Why do vacuous comments like this make it into slashdot stories?)
A regulated utility is suposed to operate in the public interest. A nonregulated utility operates to make money.
Currently the allegation is that the heavily regulated distribution campanies refuse to upgrade distribution because the regulators won't let them raise rates to finance it, in effect that regulation caused the problem.
This may be the case, but it reminds me of pro-communists who keep saying that communism never worked out because it was never fully implemented.
A deregulated industry will attempt to operate its power system close to capacity at all times as much as possible. This leaves the system open to problems like today's.
Deregulation may work out in the end, but so far what I've seen doesn't impress me very much.
I'm flying along and suddenly I find myself in class 5 turbulence (it
shouldn't happen but it does occasionally), so I try to get out, but
suddenly the controls of my airplane go stiff and I find myself
heading straight for a cell.
I don't think it sounds like a good idea to me. Allowing an automatic
system to control the flight of an aircraft is just asking for
trouble. The manual system, if designed and used properly could be
much better.
Someone I know is a grad student at a prestigious university that shall remain nameless. He's doing research that is supposed to somehow be "nanotechnology." However, the size of devices he's dealing with is huge, about 50 to 100 microns.
Hopefully there courts will finally give some guidance on this.
The ironic thing about this is that when sampling started becoming popular and people did it very heavily, the result was much more creative and interesting than it is now.
Then you would take sounds from loads of sources and slap them all together. Now you just find a catchy riff, go talk to their lawyers, an let some talentless hack mutter something over it.
I'm afraid though, that the music industry has foisted such a restricted idea of fair use on all of us that it's going to be difficult to get the legal system to go againt them.
So far, point releases have had useful enhancements, while major releases have redone everything and made life miserable. (e.g. using xinetd and broken a gcc in 7.0, metacity stubbornly by default in 8.0)
There is only supposition of guilt, which is preposterous, because these same reviewers have the same relationship with ATI's competition.
You're kidding, right?
What this system leads to is never giving out negative reviews, since you risk not getting pre-released video cards for that particular manufacturer.
The situation would be considerably worse if reviewers lost the ability to get preview cards from (say) ATI if you gave a good review to (say) Nvidia, but it's still potentially corrupt.
Michael's right to question the honesty of the system.
Write a game for the X-Box. Drop it in the mail to have it signed by microsoft, and start your stop watch. Write down how long it takes to get back. Repeat 1.5 million times.
The might get a bit suspicious when you send in games like Rouge Ninja Fighters 1432143, though.
> I won't subscribe until I never see a dupe or typo.
But you'll post a comment almost every day (including 7 on March 3rd).
Clearly you like Slashdot. Clearly you spend a lot of time on t. If the typos and dupes bother you so much, why do you keep coming back?
Look, the dupes and typos bug me too, but it comes with the territory (for some reason). The fact is that Slashdot is a useful and fun information source for me, it really isn't all that expenive to subscribe, and getting ahead of the slashdot effect sounds good to me.
If you don't want to subscribe, that's fine, nobody's forcing you, by my guess is that your reasons are more of a rationalization that actually caring about "professional"ism.
If you don't want to subscribe, that's fine, nobody's forcing you, by my guess is that your reasons are more of a rationalization that actually caring about "professional"ism.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFM is not a valid complaint.
I'm sorry, you lost me right here. When installing code of dubious legality downloaded from Hungary with a miriad of stolen codecs and swiped protocols that is under furious development from a bunch of cankankerous weirdos, RTFM is certainly a valid complaint.
mplayer is not, and probably never be production quality software. Since (insert distro here) will never package it, it will always suck.
You don't have to RTFM for Windows, but since ther e is no TFM, or source for that matter, if things are screwed up, it's damn hard to fix it.
So my response to you: Get your grubby click and drool mits off my operating system!
Options are apparently sold only to stocks that have been above $5 for more than six months (according to a broker my friend talked to). Just a few more months to go, if that's true.
AFAIK, there's no inherent reason you can't short SCO, though I agree it'd be a bad idea.
This place:
http://www.optionsxpress.com/
seems to indicate that you can trade in options without a margin account.
In fact I think you may have things mixed up.
Shorting stocks requires margin, since there is in theory no limit to the amount of money you can lose. With options you can only lose what you paid for them.
I haven't read your book, so I don't know for sure.
Excellent point, however your explanation of a misconception has a possible misconception.
You say "Olde English," which if one takes to mean "Old English," would refer to the English spoken by the people in Britain before 1066.
Although the word wherefore may have had Old English origins (the OED indicates that it does not), Romeo and Juliet is Elizabethan English.
GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water; and also that just because Caldera released kernel source under that license does
not mean that the whole codebase (not just what was republished) should also be GPL'd.
I agree that "barely coherent" is an exaggeration. I wish that self serving fluff like this would stay out of stories. However, you point makes no sense.
The only reason that the above statement makes any sense is that he doesn't go into the details of describing it.
Here's the facts:
1) Sco says that federal copyright law says you can only make _one_ copy of a piece of software and federal copyright law trumps the GPL in this case
2) The BSD license and the GPL are identical in this regard. You are able to distribute the code without any restriction in the number of copies, as long as you obey the other parts of the license.
3) The GPL is untested in court, but the BSD license _is_. If 1 is a plausible argument, then AT&T could have said that the BSD license is invalid in their lawsuit in the early 90's. Since there is precedent for the BSD license in court, the simialar povisions in the GPL will be upheld
I claim you can only believe two of these claims.
As for the second point, no one is claiming that unrelased code is GPLed.
1) The code that was realsed by caldera is BSDed.
2) The code relased by SCO in their Linux packages is _probably_ GPLed. In order fo it _not_ to be GPLed they have to argue that they didn't even look at what they're distributing. On the one hand they're saying that the violation is so extensive that it can't be undone. OTOH, they say that they didn't notice it was happening at first. It's not impossible, but it seems like they need to explain why this happened.
3) So far all of the real code they are claiming is theirs has been shown to have had previous origins that they can not claim.
We don't need to assume an aggessively viral GPL to sounter their claims.
Let's keep in mind that Moore's Law was more an observation than a predictive law of nature, despite how people treat it that way.
Let's not and say we did.*
Seriously, I doubt that many people think that Moore's law is on an equal footing as say gravity and quantum mechanics. Still, an observation that has held more or less for nearly 40 years is worth considering as a very valuable guideline. Let's keep this in mind as well.
(*Why do vacuous comments like this make it into slashdot stories?)
A regulated utility is suposed to operate in the public interest. A nonregulated utility operates to make money.
Currently the allegation is that the heavily regulated distribution campanies refuse to upgrade distribution because the regulators won't let them raise rates to finance it, in effect that regulation caused the problem.
This may be the case, but it reminds me of pro-communists who keep saying that communism never worked out because it was never fully implemented.
A deregulated industry will attempt to operate its power system close to capacity at all times as much as possible. This leaves the system open to problems like today's.
Deregulation may work out in the end, but so far what I've seen doesn't impress me very much.
Because it's only an inch and a half accross?
Or because it isn't a real t-shirt, just a ascii art one?
I don't think it sounds like a good idea to me. Allowing an automatic system to control the flight of an aircraft is just asking for trouble. The manual system, if designed and used properly could be much better.
Thanks for your insightful comment.
Unfortunately, I don't have a sister,
Someone I know is a grad student at a prestigious university that shall remain nameless. He's doing research that is supposed to somehow be "nanotechnology." However, the size of devices he's dealing with is huge, about 50 to 100 microns.
We decided that this was "mega-nanotechnology."
Take the word "matrix" and take the numbers that add them together.
13+ 1+ 20+ 18+ 9+ 24=85
Subtract the number of apostles
You get 73.
If the holy number is expressed as a trinity like so:
7*(7+7)
You get 98.
Multiply the two numbers:
98*73
Which gives 7154
That spells out the word God.
Coincidence?
I think not!
Hopefully there courts will finally give some guidance on this.
The ironic thing about this is that when sampling started becoming popular and people did it very heavily, the result was much more creative and interesting than it is now.
Then you would take sounds from loads of sources and slap them all together. Now you just find a catchy riff, go talk to their lawyers, an let some talentless hack mutter something over it.
I'm afraid though, that the music industry has foisted such a restricted idea of fair use on all of us that it's going to be difficult to get the legal system to go againt them.
Did I just get modded down for using the word fuck?
Right.
I've seen enough of gentoo. There may be some light, but there's a great deal of crack smoke as well.
So for the second time I waste 45 minutes trying to figure out how the fuck to install this thing on Redhat.
This time I figured it out. Here's how to do it:
Go to the bittorrent page.
download the "cvs_alikins" rpms
If you install just this, then btdownloadcurses will download, but it's pretty broken.
to get btdownloadgui to work go to:
http://www.wxpython.org/download.php
and follow the instructions under the "Linux RPMs" sections (do rpm -q python2 to figure out which python2 you have. I have 2.2)
The INSTALL.unix.txt installed by the BitTorrent package should give you enough info to get it working with your browser.
This applies to 7.3. It probably also applies to 8 and 9, but YMMV.
Although these are widely accepted beliefs, there isn't a whole lot of evidence to support them.
It's clear that using cell phones can distract drivers, but it has yet to be shown to be worse than many other types of distractions.
Well, it looks like it wasn't as obvious as I thought, I was thinking:
"You can't handle the truth"
Oh well.
There's a reply to this that is so obvious, that I'm going to leave it to your imagination.
So far, point releases have had useful enhancements, while major releases have redone everything and made life miserable. (e.g. using xinetd and broken a gcc in 7.0, metacity stubbornly by default in 8.0)
Hopefully this is just a marketing decision.
There is only supposition of guilt, which is
preposterous, because these same reviewers have
the same relationship with ATI's competition.
You're kidding, right?
What this system leads to is never giving out negative reviews, since you risk not getting pre-released video cards for that particular manufacturer.
The situation would be considerably worse if reviewers lost the ability to get preview cards from (say) ATI if you gave a good review to (say) Nvidia, but it's still potentially corrupt.
Michael's right to question the honesty of the system.
So maybe we could attack the X-Box this way:
Write a game for the X-Box. Drop it in the mail to have it signed by microsoft, and start your stop watch. Write down how long it takes to get back. Repeat 1.5 million times.
The might get a bit suspicious when you send in games like Rouge Ninja Fighters 1432143, though.
You know, I posted this without really thinking. Let my apologize for beuing a jerk. This comment was insensitive,
Why do you always bring two Mormans fishing?
Because if you bring one, he'll drink all your beer.
> I won't subscribe until I never see a dupe or typo.
But you'll post a comment almost every day (including 7 on March 3rd).
Clearly you like Slashdot. Clearly you spend a lot of time on t. If the typos and dupes bother you so much, why do you keep coming back?
Look, the dupes and typos bug me too, but it comes with the territory (for some reason). The fact is that Slashdot is a useful and fun information source for me, it really isn't all that expenive to subscribe, and getting ahead of the slashdot effect sounds good to me.
If you don't want to subscribe, that's fine, nobody's forcing you, by my guess is that your reasons are more of a rationalization that actually caring about "professional"ism.
If you don't want to subscribe, that's fine, nobody's forcing you, by my guess is that your reasons are more of a rationalization that actually caring about "professional"ism.
Oops, looks like I made a typo _and_ a dupe!