There is an entirely different method to conducting research that many people are taught in schools these days,
That's no different from the way it used to be: any reasonably smart person trying to figure out a new domain would first go to simple, easy-to-understand survey articles.
One of the most important resources for serious science used to be Scientific American.
Actually, that possibility is even more remote now:
To help clarify and address these concerns, we made a small change to the license to specifically call out that the license does not apply to users developing software for a non-Windows platform that has "the same or substantially the same features or functionality" as the.NET Framework. If the software you are developing is for Windows platforms, you can look at the code, even if that software has "the same or substantially the same features or functionality" as the.NET Framework.
It would still be prudent for the Mono developers not to look at it, but with that disclaimer, I think it would be pretty hard for Microsoft to make anything stick in court.
All things being equal, it's better if companies don't publish their proprietary source code under restrictive licenses.
However, don't be overly dramatic. This sort of thing isn't new and open source projects know how to cope with it. Microsoft would have a hard time making any claim actually stick, unless there was blatant infringement. Furthermore, the Mono project can now also simply have some independent third party regularly check their code against Microsoft's to make sure nothing sneaks in.
Microsoft is not releasing those libraries as open source. What they are doing is what they and other companies have been doing for a long time: releasing some of their source code in read-only form to "help" people debug.
In fact, the real problem with this is that, in case of ambiguities, people will code increasingly to Microsoft's source code instead of the specification. Furthermore, after having released it, Microsoft may attempt to claim that the Mono project copied some of their source code in violation of the license.
One can't prevent Microsoft from doing this, but it's not a good thing.
This administration will go down in history as the most egregiously shameful, dishonest, dirty in the history of the United States.
I wouldn't be so sure; it's been a pretty steady decline over the last half century and it might just continue like that. Even a loser like Bush Sr. looks pretty good compared to his son.
When you go to an all-you-can-eat buffé do you not eat until you're full?
Good analogy.
When you buy unlimited home cable service, it's like buying the salad portion of the buffet: you can eat as much salad (=web browsing) as you want. You did not buy the entree or deserts, meaning you are not permitted to run P2P or servers.
So, you're cheating: you're paying for the salad, but you're trying to eat everything.
If you want the entree or desert portions of the buffet, sign up for unlimited business service.
NB: I'm not saying that flat rate is the only way to go but putting the blame on someone who's just using what they payed for is idiotic.
You did not pay for unlimited 24/7 bandwidth, you paid for web browsing and related activities at uncapped speeds.
The university is by definition a place where ideas are shared and discussed.
Yes, and that is exactly why people like the Pope have no place there, since the Pope has demonstrated that he is completely intransigent.
The only reason the Pope wants to visit universities is to increase his power and credibility, and the correct response to that is to banish him from institutions of reason and learning.
I think the ISP's approach of selectively targeting the worst bandwidth hogs when they became aware of problems was the best one: it's easy to do and it doesn't limit what you can do unless there's a problem.
Bandwidth caps and tiered pricing are a result of a few people not being able to exercise some self-restraint. It's the tragedy of the commons again. And the result of it is that bandwidth costs will go up significantly and everybody suffers.
The culprits here are not the cable companies, it's people who believe that "unlimited bandwidth" entitles them to running BitTorrent and Joost 24/7, in clear violation of the actual TOS.
Why would anybody want to have a "dialog" with the pope? Dialog presupposes that both sides participate honestly and with an open mind, and the Catholic church has demonstrated over two thousand years that it is incapable of doing that, and instead uses intimidation, violence, and murder to get its way. I hope many more institutions will follow and declare the pope and any other high Catholic dignitary "persona non grata".
The Catholic church is an evil institution. It is sad that so many well-meaning Catholic believers, good people at heart, don't realize that.
Currently, I work for a small software firm around that size, and compared to the rest of the cost of doing business, switching from Office to OO.o (and we barely use Office) isn't even worth, money wise, the time it takes to install it.
Sounds to me you're short-sighted. You already know that MS Office will make radical UI changes, MS Office will make radical format changes, and MS Office will force upgrades. MS has to do that because that's how they make money. OOo development, on the other hand, is user driven and backwards compatibility and continuity are a much bigger concern.
So, if it's training and support costs you're worried about, OOo is the obvious choice.
Well, if Macintosh users would support OpenOffice, they could become independent of Microsoft's corporate strategy.
But, of course, Mac users generally behave even more like cattle than Microsoft users and want to hand their money to someone else to think for them, and that's what Microsoft is doing. And when it comes to applications, they're more concerned with whether the buttons are shiny enough than whether the application gets the job done.
Thing is that outside of fiction such things simply do not exist. Any actual ID card scheme will at best be only as secure as current systems.
Lots of countries have physical id cards that are nearly impossible to forge. Many of those have no electronic components at all, are fully human readable, and are excellent from a privacy point of view.
Actually what you need to know is intent knowing identity isn't actually of much use.
Identity tells you a great deal about intent. Countries like Israel, for example, base much of their airline security on deriving intent from identity, and their airlines seem to be doing pretty well.
Thus you can be sure that all future airline terrorists are likely to have one of these:)
So what? What would it matter even if 100% of all terrorists had Clear cards? What matters is the probability that a terrorist passes screening, and the cost and inconvenience screening imposes on passengers.
I'm sorry, but overall I have to say: you simply don't know what you're talking about.
More likely, it will compute the longest path it can get away with without pissing you off so much that you just leave, making sure to pass by all the items you're most likely to buy.
As any one knows prisons and navy ships (i.e. the ultimate panopticon) have zero crime rates.
Surveillance in both places is apparently quite poor. For prisons, I actually don't understand why; it wouldn't be all that expensive to put cameras in every cell and hallway. I think in a few years, that's what you're going to see, along with extensive use of RFID tracking.
My experience is that people who lost their jobs after the dotcom bomb often spent some time contributing to open source projects, also to keep up with technologies and to network. So, recession isn't necessarily bad for open source.
It's pretty clear that they are, actually, since the pictures in it are all of Mustangs.
The calendar isn't being sold under the "Ford Mustang" trademark, therefore it doesn't violate the trademark. The fact that it contains trademarked objects does not change that fact.
If they didn't, they'd run the risk of losing their trademark protection, which would be far worse.
No, they don't run the risk of losing the trademark. And even under your hare-brained interpretation, at most, they'd risk losing the "Ford Mustang" trademark for calendars, not cars.
the cost of distributing the film often costs as much as making the film did
Internet distribution and cheap large screen TVs seem to be solving that problem. It can be as much fun to have a bunch of friends over for a movie as it is to go out to the movies.
I suspect many people know that this is bogus. It's just something that's easy to do politically and legally and gives the appearance as if MySpace and politicians are "doing something".
I wouldn't complain to loudly about it; it's far better than if they actually came up with something effective instead.
Using helium instead of hydrogen for balloons and airships is a complete waste; the Hindenburg didn't explode because of the hydrogen, it exploded because of its aluminum/tar coat.
Slashdot Mirror
Receptionist: Do you have a Q4A5 planet insurance waiver?
Xev: No.
Receptionist: A D-class standard waiver?
Xev: Sorry.
Receptionist: Any waivers of any kind?
Xev: No.
Receptionist: Then cash will be fine.
Xev: Pardon?
Receptionist: Precious metals or bankable equivalents.
Xev: We have no precious metals or bankable anything.
Receptionist: Then your situation becomes a class 1313.
Xev: What's that?
Receptionist: Ignored.
Xev: You can't do that.
Receptionist: I'm afraid I have no choice. Policy is policy.
Kai: We will pay you later.
Receptionist: I'm sorry, MEDSAT does not accept credit.
Xev: This is an emergency!
Receptionist: I understand. Please inform the next person to appear on the screen.
Xev: Hey, lady, watch! Lexx, blow up that little red moon we just passed.
There is an entirely different method to conducting research that many people are taught in schools these days,
That's no different from the way it used to be: any reasonably smart person trying to figure out a new domain would first go to simple, easy-to-understand survey articles.
One of the most important resources for serious science used to be Scientific American.
It would still be prudent for the Mono developers not to look at it, but with that disclaimer, I think it would be pretty hard for Microsoft to make anything stick in court.
All things being equal, it's better if companies don't publish their proprietary source code under restrictive licenses.
However, don't be overly dramatic. This sort of thing isn't new and open source projects know how to cope with it. Microsoft would have a hard time making any claim actually stick, unless there was blatant infringement. Furthermore, the Mono project can now also simply have some independent third party regularly check their code against Microsoft's to make sure nothing sneaks in.
Microsoft is not releasing those libraries as open source. What they are doing is what they and other companies have been doing for a long time: releasing some of their source code in read-only form to "help" people debug.
In fact, the real problem with this is that, in case of ambiguities, people will code increasingly to Microsoft's source code instead of the specification. Furthermore, after having released it, Microsoft may attempt to claim that the Mono project copied some of their source code in violation of the license.
One can't prevent Microsoft from doing this, but it's not a good thing.
This administration will go down in history as the most egregiously shameful, dishonest, dirty in the history of the United States.
I wouldn't be so sure; it's been a pretty steady decline over the last half century and it might just continue like that. Even a loser like Bush Sr. looks pretty good compared to his son.
I have all my E-mails going back to the early 1980's, and I believe the same is true for many people. It's trivial to do.
But I'm not actually required to keep my E-mails, the president is required to by law.
When you go to an all-you-can-eat buffé do you not eat until you're full?
Good analogy.
When you buy unlimited home cable service, it's like buying the salad portion of the buffet: you can eat as much salad (=web browsing) as you want. You did not buy the entree or deserts, meaning you are not permitted to run P2P or servers.
So, you're cheating: you're paying for the salad, but you're trying to eat everything.
If you want the entree or desert portions of the buffet, sign up for unlimited business service.
NB: I'm not saying that flat rate is the only way to go but putting the blame on someone who's just using what they payed for is idiotic.
You did not pay for unlimited 24/7 bandwidth, you paid for web browsing and related activities at uncapped speeds.
What's false about it? Your bandwidth isn't limited. In fact, not even your volume is limited.
All the TOS require is that you don't degrade service for your neighbors.
The university is by definition a place where ideas are shared and discussed.
Yes, and that is exactly why people like the Pope have no place there, since the Pope has demonstrated that he is completely intransigent.
The only reason the Pope wants to visit universities is to increase his power and credibility, and the correct response to that is to banish him from institutions of reason and learning.
I go for weeks just hibernating which is even faster.
It sure is, in particular if, during those weeks, you use Linux.
I think the ISP's approach of selectively targeting the worst bandwidth hogs when they became aware of problems was the best one: it's easy to do and it doesn't limit what you can do unless there's a problem.
Bandwidth caps and tiered pricing are a result of a few people not being able to exercise some self-restraint. It's the tragedy of the commons again. And the result of it is that bandwidth costs will go up significantly and everybody suffers.
The culprits here are not the cable companies, it's people who believe that "unlimited bandwidth" entitles them to running BitTorrent and Joost 24/7, in clear violation of the actual TOS.
Why would anybody want to have a "dialog" with the pope? Dialog presupposes that both sides participate honestly and with an open mind, and the Catholic church has demonstrated over two thousand years that it is incapable of doing that, and instead uses intimidation, violence, and murder to get its way. I hope many more institutions will follow and declare the pope and any other high Catholic dignitary "persona non grata".
The Catholic church is an evil institution. It is sad that so many well-meaning Catholic believers, good people at heart, don't realize that.
Currently, I work for a small software firm around that size, and compared to the rest of the cost of doing business, switching from Office to OO.o (and we barely use Office) isn't even worth, money wise, the time it takes to install it.
Sounds to me you're short-sighted. You already know that MS Office will make radical UI changes, MS Office will make radical format changes, and MS Office will force upgrades. MS has to do that because that's how they make money. OOo development, on the other hand, is user driven and backwards compatibility and continuity are a much bigger concern.
So, if it's training and support costs you're worried about, OOo is the obvious choice.
Whereas with MS software there is, potentially, a focused development path (I'm not trying to be modded funny, honest).
That's like saying that central planning is obviously better than a market economy, and we all know what the outcome of that was.
Well, if Macintosh users would support OpenOffice, they could become independent of Microsoft's corporate strategy.
But, of course, Mac users generally behave even more like cattle than Microsoft users and want to hand their money to someone else to think for them, and that's what Microsoft is doing. And when it comes to applications, they're more concerned with whether the buttons are shiny enough than whether the application gets the job done.
Thing is that outside of fiction such things simply do not exist. Any actual ID card scheme will at best be only as secure as current systems.
:)
Lots of countries have physical id cards that are nearly impossible to forge. Many of those have no electronic components at all, are fully human readable, and are excellent from a privacy point of view.
Actually what you need to know is intent knowing identity isn't actually of much use.
Identity tells you a great deal about intent. Countries like Israel, for example, base much of their airline security on deriving intent from identity, and their airlines seem to be doing pretty well.
Thus you can be sure that all future airline terrorists are likely to have one of these
So what? What would it matter even if 100% of all terrorists had Clear cards? What matters is the probability that a terrorist passes screening, and the cost and inconvenience screening imposes on passengers.
I'm sorry, but overall I have to say: you simply don't know what you're talking about.
More likely, it will compute the longest path it can get away with without pissing you off so much that you just leave, making sure to pass by all the items you're most likely to buy.
As any one knows prisons and navy ships (i.e. the ultimate panopticon) have zero crime rates.
Surveillance in both places is apparently quite poor. For prisons, I actually don't understand why; it wouldn't be all that expensive to put cameras in every cell and hallway. I think in a few years, that's what you're going to see, along with extensive use of RFID tracking.
My experience is that people who lost their jobs after the dotcom bomb often spent some time contributing to open source projects, also to keep up with technologies and to network. So, recession isn't necessarily bad for open source.
It's pretty clear that they are, actually, since the pictures in it are all of Mustangs.
The calendar isn't being sold under the "Ford Mustang" trademark, therefore it doesn't violate the trademark. The fact that it contains trademarked objects does not change that fact.
If they didn't, they'd run the risk of losing their trademark protection, which would be far worse.
No, they don't run the risk of losing the trademark. And even under your hare-brained interpretation, at most, they'd risk losing the "Ford Mustang" trademark for calendars, not cars.
the cost of distributing the film often costs as much as making the film did
Internet distribution and cheap large screen TVs seem to be solving that problem. It can be as much fun to have a bunch of friends over for a movie as it is to go out to the movies.
I suspect many people know that this is bogus. It's just something that's easy to do politically and legally and gives the appearance as if MySpace and politicians are "doing something".
I wouldn't complain to loudly about it; it's far better than if they actually came up with something effective instead.
Using helium instead of hydrogen for balloons and airships is a complete waste; the Hindenburg didn't explode because of the hydrogen, it exploded because of its aluminum/tar coat.
ZFS for Linux is only available through FUSE (user mode), which is less than ideal.
BSD may work for you (format the volume on OSX since OSX is finicky about which BSD variant it gets, while Linux doesn't care).