Actually the Diebold database name is "LocalDB" and the password is "password". To me, "Setup" is less likely to be a database file than some file that contains "DB" in the name.
Sure their kernel changes would be GPL but they would be controlling kernel development. This is an attack that won't hurt Microsoft at all. They produce a Linux kernel that is incompatible with Linus'. The effect is either to fragment Linux (if Linus chose not to accept Microsoft's changes) or to control future kernel development (if Linus has to accept all Microsoft's changes). Either is good for Microsoft. For example, Microsoft can simply choose to make the kernel incompatible with Linus' by implementing features that they are fairly certain Linus will not incorporate (fragement from a 1.x kernel?). Once they have fragmented the kernel they can gain market share for MSLinux by porting Office to it or simply offering superior support but they really won't need to because they'll already have damaged Linux simply by fragementing it, showing how easy it is to create different, unique, incompatible versions.
I think the community is underestimating Microsoft's cunning. Software built on Linux doesn't have to be GPL. Microsoft can therefore, port Office and other apps to run only on their version of Linux. They could even possibly port their API so that Windows apps run on their version of Linux. If/once enough people start using the MSLinux, the control it. Could the community keep up? Probably but they'd be keeping up with Microsoft which is hardly a position of leadership.
If Microsoft so wants to destroy Linux, why not hire a few dozen developers, create a fork of Linux that is incompatible with Linus' but includes more desireable (likely patented) features than Linus'? They could basically take control of Linux.
Of course, Jabber based. BTW, I posted about this on/. long ago and actually emailed google (do they read those?) about the advantages of them getting into IM. So of course, I'll take credit if they do:)
Wow, I was reading this and thought "I don't remember writing this but it's exactly what I say all the time". It's even signed it with my name. Maybe I have alzheimer's. That'd suck. Then I got to the compass scores and realized this wasn't my post:) I'm not as far left, typically -4.00 to 0, and more libertarian, usually around -6.00. Whew.
Madison concluded by saying he felt the Constitution he and Hamilton were promoting with the Federalist Papers was the best solution they could come up with to solve the problem of factions.
But, as he noted, the constitution wasn't perfect: "The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger [of factions] on this side, as was wished and expected." His only solution was to beg Americans not to form factions.
Although George Washington was soon thereafter elected unanimously and by acclimation, America's second presidential election (won by John Adams) almost immediately led to the creation of Madison's feared "factions" in the form of Vice-President Thomas Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican" party (today called the "Democratic Party"). Ever since then, we've largely been a two-party nation - because our Constitution is written in a way that causes anything else to result in the least democratic outcome to an election.
Most of the rest of the world, however, has learned from our mistake and taken a different path.
Of the 86 other "fully democratic" nations in the world (according to the UN), only a few like Greece and Australia had repeated our mistake, although Australia solved the problem with a national variation on what in America is called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), where you select your first, second, third, etc., preference among candidates, and if there's no majority winner, the "instant runoff" is instantly recalculated.
Had this been in place in the US in 2000, for example, and had most of Nader's voters chosen Gore as their second choice (as most polls indicate was the case), then when neither Gore nor Bush received more than 50 percent of the vote, Nader's first-choice votes (he being the lowest of the vote-drawers) would have reverted to their second-choice and Gore would have been elected by the majority of the people (as he was anyway, but that's a different rant).
patents on software methods which should fall under the category of mathematical algorithms which are not patentable Wow! This should be challenged in court against the patent office or something. I believe it can be proven mathematically that every software algorithm is a mathematical algorithm and therefore not patentable. From my distant memory, this proof is a very basic concept in Formal Languages and Automata Theory.
I'm sceptical too but my guess is that they not only record your search history but your click history. Knowing that information is one method of helping to make search results more acurate.
Considering I recently implemented my own private google search history at my personal site, I think it's a nice feature. I just don't know if I trust amazon.com to deliver it to the masses.
I agree that Google shouldn't try to do everything but I think IM is a great idea (call it Joggle?). Google can supply their search results via IM. I love ActiveBuddy.com services. I love using my IM client, gaim, for posting to my blog. I'd like it to be the interface to many other services too. I think google would be the ideal company to host it.
The "fact" that Microsoft is so aggressively attacking Linux should be a huge sign of how much Microsoft has determine Linux its biggest threat. Good signs for Linux's capabilities. Not so good for the community and consumers until this all subsides.
I have six computers in my house running 24/7 and spend basically no time maintaining them. They are always doing what they do and doing it well.
three Linux
- one for work (development)
- one as web/db server
- one as PVR one OS X for video, web surfing/editing two Windows XP
- both fo games
- one for music and file services (only because it has the disk space, otherwise it would be one of the Linux machines which are all small form factor so can't hold more drives).
Sure would be nice for the Aunt Madge users
on
Xandros version 2
·
· Score: 1
if there was a consistent UI for linux. After all, there are many more Aunt Madge users and that's what linux on the desktop will need to succeed.
I think if a contract isn't defended from violation, it's void. Should be the same for patents. Since they've offered it for free, it becomes free by default (especially after >20 years). I'm certain there is precedent for this elsewhere in law. "Possession is 9/10 the law". FAT has been public (free) for far to long for Microsoft to consider it theirs.
Their plan is to tie up this case as long as possible by introducing as much confusion as possible. The longer it takes, the worse it is for Linux because this will still be hanging over it.
I somehow deleted a few key words from my conclusions which should have stated:
"then what you have is basically a struct."
Meaning that this class in Java can be used just as a struct is used in C++.
My point was primarily targeting the quote from the original parent "I've got to make a whole class". Yes, you have to define a whole class, but that class is no more complicated to define than a struct in C++. That is, all you define are the fields. You don't define any methods. This class and struct are used in the same way as well.
So if they are defined similarly and used the same they are basically the same. Certainly if you want to get into the semantic differences of the languages they're certainly different but then that's why C++ and Java are different languages isn't it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the Diebold database name is "LocalDB" and the password is "password". To me, "Setup" is less likely to be a database file than some file that contains "DB" in the name.
Sure their kernel changes would be GPL but they would be controlling kernel development. This is an attack that won't hurt Microsoft at all. They produce a Linux kernel that is incompatible with Linus'. The effect is either to fragment Linux (if Linus chose not to accept Microsoft's changes) or to control future kernel development (if Linus has to accept all Microsoft's changes). Either is good for Microsoft. For example, Microsoft can simply choose to make the kernel incompatible with Linus' by implementing features that they are fairly certain Linus will not incorporate (fragement from a 1.x kernel?).
Once they have fragmented the kernel they can gain market share for MSLinux by porting Office to it or simply offering superior support but they really won't need to because they'll already have damaged Linux simply by fragementing it, showing how easy it is to create different, unique, incompatible versions.
I think the community is underestimating Microsoft's cunning.
Software built on Linux doesn't have to be GPL. Microsoft can therefore, port Office and other apps to run only on their version of Linux. They could even possibly port their API so that Windows apps run on their version of Linux. If/once enough people start using the MSLinux, the control it.
Could the community keep up? Probably but they'd be keeping up with Microsoft which is hardly a position of leadership.
If Microsoft so wants to destroy Linux, why not hire a few dozen developers, create a fork of Linux that is incompatible with Linus' but includes more desireable (likely patented) features than Linus'? They could basically take control of Linux.
I think Gabber is perfect!
Of course, Jabber based. /. long ago and actually emailed google (do they read those?) about the advantages of them getting into IM. So of course, I'll take credit if they do :)
BTW, I posted about this on
Wow, I was reading this and thought "I don't remember writing this but it's exactly what I say all the time". It's even signed it with my name. Maybe I have alzheimer's. That'd suck. Then I got to the compass scores and realized this wasn't my post :) I'm not as far left, typically -4.00 to 0, and more libertarian, usually around -6.00. Whew.
The History of Software Patents.
Can't patent Mathematical Algorithms.
Software isn't THE process. Software simply executes a process by means of mathematical expressions/algorithms.
patents on software methods which should fall under the category of mathematical algorithms which are not patentable
Wow! This should be challenged in court against the patent office or something. I believe it can be proven mathematically that every software algorithm is a mathematical algorithm and therefore not patentable. From my distant memory, this proof is a very basic concept in Formal Languages and Automata Theory.
Simply because someone raises an issue that concerns them without having a (stated) solution does not constitute complaining nor whining.
Though I agree with you point that p2p is not the problem.
I'm sceptical too but my guess is that they not only record your search history but your click history. Knowing that information is one method of helping to make search results more acurate.
Considering I recently implemented my own private google search history at my personal site, I think it's a nice feature. I just don't know if I trust amazon.com to deliver it to the masses.
I agree that Google shouldn't try to do everything but I think IM is a great idea (call it Joggle?). Google can supply their search results via IM. I love ActiveBuddy.com services. I love using my IM client, gaim, for posting to my blog. I'd like it to be the interface to many other services too. I think google would be the ideal company to host it.
hehe, me too since I haven't seen spam in my inbox for years.
The "fact" that Microsoft is so aggressively attacking Linux should be a huge sign of how much Microsoft has determine Linux its biggest threat. Good signs for Linux's capabilities. Not so good for the community and consumers until this all subsides.
I agree.
I have six computers in my house running 24/7 and spend basically no time maintaining them. They are always doing what they do and doing it well.
three Linux
- one for work (development)
- one as web/db server
- one as PVR
one OS X for video, web surfing/editing
two Windows XP
- both fo games
- one for music and file services (only because it has the disk space, otherwise it would be one of the Linux machines which are all small form factor so can't hold more drives).
if there was a consistent UI for linux. After all, there are many more Aunt Madge users and that's what linux on the desktop will need to succeed.
I just compiled the source on Linux and it appears to work just fine.
"Legal rights are absolute"
Then why do we have courts?
I think if a contract isn't defended from violation, it's void. Should be the same for patents. Since they've offered it for free, it becomes free by default (especially after >20 years). I'm certain there is precedent for this elsewhere in law. "Possession is 9/10 the law". FAT has been public (free) for far to long for Microsoft to consider it theirs.
"I see nothing wrong with it. They own the patents, so they have the right to sell it to whoever pays."
If they don't enforce the patents until there is significant market backing, it's wrong. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Their plan is to tie up this case as long as possible by introducing as much confusion as possible. The longer it takes, the worse it is for Linux because this will still be hanging over it.
Just to point out, this implies/requires it was a statement of fact rather than opinion. That is, opinions are libelous.
IANAL
Copyright Preemption
wget -o robots.log -O - http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt | perl -ane 'print "http://www.whitehouse.gov$F[1]\n" if ($F[0] =~ /^Disallow/)' | wget -i - -r -l 1
of course, remember to configure ~/.wgetrc to specify your preferred user-agent and referrer.
I somehow deleted a few key words from my conclusions which should have stated:
"then what you have is basically a struct."
Meaning that this class in Java can be used just as a struct is used in C++.
My point was primarily targeting the quote from the original parent "I've got to make a whole class". Yes, you have to define a whole class, but that class is no more complicated to define than a struct in C++. That is, all you define are the fields. You don't define any methods. This class and struct are used in the same way as well.
So if they are defined similarly and used the same they are basically the same. Certainly if you want to get into the semantic differences of the languages they're certainly different but then that's why C++ and Java are different languages isn't it.