Lucas: We'll fix yard, you give us domain
Disgruntled Customer: OK.
They spent all that lawyer money to sue the woman. And all over a job they'd done allegedly done poorly. So now they still haven't made the woman happy, AND the entire world knows about it AND they don't have their domain.
I doubt what you say is true for two primary reasons:
1) The interfaces to any modern OS are virtually the same. And particularly amongst Unix-like variants, there are certainly fundamental differences in system code, but experienced programmers will use standard c/c++ libraries that are implemented on pretty much every unix-like OS. So if you're trying to do a port of a simple text-based application, the user interface code is a piece of cake because you're writing VT100 level stuff. And the back-end is generic "C" code that will probably compile on any machine with little tweaking.
2) More importantly, without the source code to SCO, how could customers do all this code stealing? Unless SCO distributes source with their OS, but I never heard that before. So how can you steal what you don't have access to?
" Seriously, wonder what SCO will do if Samba and the other well known projects follow suit?"
I think its irrelevant, since as far as I can tell, they aren't really selling SCO Unix these days. I mean, its for sale, but nobody is buying it who doesn't already have an installed base.
Also, keep in mind this doesn't affect end customers (who can download the code anyway), so this seems more like a public statement against SCO than anything real or meaningful.
Its not as dramatic as a lot of people claim, but it makes the machines usable under 10.x.
With the upgrade I now feel very comfortable running X for MS Office, and browsing. If it didn't have the overhead of the GUI, I suspect my machine would actually be pretty fast.
It will get you another year-plus use out of the machine, and for that reason, its worth it.
And I've upgraded to a G3/900mhz processor, so I'd love a new laptop, but the G4's aren't worth it.
Apple isn't going to pry money loose from me (and many others) until they provide a signficiant upgrade, and going from G3 900mhz to G4 1.33 or 1.5 isn't worth it.
Believe it or not, there was a time *before the internet*.
Before the internet, there was no place to look for cheap computer gear.
Where to find MB's? Disks? Video cards? Surplus gear?
Imagine you couldn't google for anything.
Enter computer shopper. Computer shopper was all ads, and that's what you wanted. I wish I'd saved a copy from those days because it was physically huge.
But the internet killed it off. But it served its purpose.
Is that ActiveX components can't be installed; there's no list of what was installed, there's no uninstall... I know there's 3rd party tools to tell you what ActiveX controls were installed, but that's only half the battle.
I've often suspected this kind of stuff is done to purposely hide stuff from users.
Kind of like how the registry is designed to hide things. Its overly complex for what it does, and its easy to hide thing there. I think its that way on purpose. So that 3rd party publishers can active programs (or deactivate them), and you either don't know or can't do anything about it.
Imagine if the registry was a plain old text file. You could back it up easily, and you'd be able to grep for changes easily. But that would defeat 1/2 its purpose, wouldn't it.
To be fair, Apple has flirted with porting the older Mac OS to x86, and the underlying OS X Darwin layer is available for x86, so its not like Apple isn't keeping this option open.
Also consider if Apple did use x86, it doesn't imply you could use beige box PC's; it would simply mean that inside the apple box you'd use x86. I don't really see that as a religious issue; it would mostly be an issue of how you transition applications to x86. But that's a marketing issue, not a technical issue.
If you'll remember, before the AOL access software was a Windows application, it was previously a GEOS application; when you started AOL, a customized version of GEOS was started and then GEOS ran inside that.
This was just around the time that Windows 3.0 was beginning to be popular.
"Would you rather have a professor that didn't care too much for the book and didn't use it that much?"
Its been a long time since I've been in school, but something occurs to me: if the purpose of a university education is to teach you to think critically, do you get that critical education by just following a single textbook?
Or would you consider a variety of sources?
Would it not make more sense for a professor to lecture on salient points, and then ask his students to do research on those points? He could recommend a set of books that he has found helpful, but why require a specific book if the idea is to not "teach from the book", but rather impart an education?
I'm not trying to split hairs here; it seems that the textbook is nothing more than a crutch to save the professor effort, and the students time. It seems to reduce a degree to grades 13,14,15, & 16.
I think funding space exploration is important and necessary, however:
"Velcro" - http://www.hookandpile.com/hook-loop-invention.htm l
Invented by a swiss guy in the 40's.
"GPS" - Its a product of satellites, something NASA didn't invent; the Russians had a satellite first, and Arthur Clark argues that he invented the communications satellite (although thankfully, he did not patent the idea).
"Cellular Telephones" - Invented by Hedi Lemar. You'll think I'm joking, but I'm not. Invented during WWII, well before NASA and space exploration.
"discovery of the ozone hole which arguably launched the widespread efforts to fix our planet" - See my argument via GPS. Same idea here.
I'm not advocating more taxes, but I'm thinking of property tax.
The taxes that you're talking about aren't related to ownership, they're translated to sales or profit/loss.
For instance, most people pay property taxes on a house or land they own.
Some states have car taxes. Others have luxury taxes.
If people really thought there was such a thing as "Intellectual Property", then it would have occured to somebody to tax it.
In fact, I can make a pitch that this tax would benefit society at large. Think of it:
1) IP that is generating revenue would have to be fairly valued... too low, and the shareholders will revolt, too high, and it gets taxed too much.
2) For IP that is not really worth anything (some old movie that isn't even available), the owner would have to either pay taxes on it, or release it to the public domain.
3) IP owners wouldn't be content to "sit" on something.
Like I said, I'm not advocating taxes, but if we're going to call a copyright, "Intellectual Property", I'm saying we should go all the way and really treat it like property. Taxes and all.
Only to a certain point. How much do the copyrights on Elvis's music encourage him? Probably not much.
"Nobody else has any right to works I've created."
Only because the government says so. There is no inherent ownership in ideas; the goverment grants you protection only in the hope that you'll create more, not because there is a moral ownership of ideas.
If there is such a thing as "Intellectual Property", do you think it would be fair for government to tax it?
I mean, if real property is subject to tax, and the government wants to define "Intellectual Property" as pretty much the equivalent, isn't it not fair for IP to be taxed?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately because of the DMCA, you can't exercise fair-use rights if the content is protected by any sort of copy protection.
Its the way the big media monopolies essentially got around fair-use with DMCA.
Encarta is probably the best product Microsoft puts out.
It comes on a single DVD, has tons of content, is a good reference, and is available from Costco for $19 after rebate.
The only downside is that its not available for the Mac, although they used to make a Mac version about 5-6 years ago.
Harlan is a fucktard.
Nobody cares about the old coot, he hasn't written anything worth buying in about 40 years, and so now he's down to sueing his fans.
I'll bet he and the RIAA see eye to eye.
Instead of working it out with the woman as in:
Lucas: We'll fix yard, you give us domain
Disgruntled Customer: OK.
They spent all that lawyer money to sue the woman. And all over a job they'd done allegedly done poorly. So now they still haven't made the woman happy, AND the entire world knows about it AND they don't have their domain.
Talk about complete lack of common sense.
I doubt what you say is true for two primary reasons:
1) The interfaces to any modern OS are virtually the same. And particularly amongst Unix-like variants, there are certainly fundamental differences in system code, but experienced programmers will use standard c/c++ libraries that are implemented on pretty much every unix-like OS. So if you're trying to do a port of a simple text-based application, the user interface code is a piece of cake because you're writing VT100 level stuff. And the back-end is generic "C" code that will probably compile on any machine with little tweaking.
2) More importantly, without the source code to SCO, how could customers do all this code stealing? Unless SCO distributes source with their OS, but I never heard that before. So how can you steal what you don't have access to?
If you go to their homepage, the list all their services. Almost without exception, everthing is "sold out".
Funny way to run a business...
Of course it would be a danger to public safety, but that's a long way away from terrorism, cyber or not.
Over the long term, it lessens the effect of the word "Terrorism" when you try to define it as "Something that's bad".
" Seriously, wonder what SCO will do if Samba and the other well known projects follow suit?"
I think its irrelevant, since as far as I can tell, they aren't really selling SCO Unix these days. I mean, its for sale, but nobody is buying it who doesn't already have an installed base.
Also, keep in mind this doesn't affect end customers (who can download the code anyway), so this seems more like a public statement against SCO than anything real or meaningful.
"Since when does ICANN have the power to tell a business or person what they can or can't put on their page?"
ICANN isn't claiming any such thing; all they're saying is you must administer DNS to the RFC specifications.
In fact, my guess is that ICANN doesn't care at all about siteminder.
Is it really that hard to understand?
Its not as dramatic as a lot of people claim, but it makes the machines usable under 10.x.
With the upgrade I now feel very comfortable running X for MS Office, and browsing. If it didn't have the overhead of the GUI, I suspect my machine would actually be pretty fast.
It will get you another year-plus use out of the machine, and for that reason, its worth it.
I have 512M of RAM, btw.
And I've upgraded to a G3/900mhz processor, so I'd love a new laptop, but the G4's aren't worth it.
Apple isn't going to pry money loose from me (and many others) until they provide a signficiant upgrade, and going from G3 900mhz to G4 1.33 or 1.5 isn't worth it.
After you dropped the deck once, you learned about those magic "sequence numbers".
Believe it or not, there was a time *before the internet*.
Before the internet, there was no place to look for cheap computer gear.
Where to find MB's? Disks? Video cards? Surplus gear?
Imagine you couldn't google for anything.
Enter computer shopper. Computer shopper was all ads, and that's what you wanted. I wish I'd saved a copy from those days because it was physically huge.
But the internet killed it off. But it served its purpose.
Is that ActiveX components can't be installed; there's no list of what was installed, there's no uninstall... I know there's 3rd party tools to tell you what ActiveX controls were installed, but that's only half the battle.
I've often suspected this kind of stuff is done to purposely hide stuff from users.
Kind of like how the registry is designed to hide things. Its overly complex for what it does, and its easy to hide thing there. I think its that way on purpose. So that 3rd party publishers can active programs (or deactivate them), and you either don't know or can't do anything about it.
Imagine if the registry was a plain old text file. You could back it up easily, and you'd be able to grep for changes easily. But that would defeat 1/2 its purpose, wouldn't it.
What's that old slogan? You reap what you sow..s
To be fair, Apple has flirted with porting the older Mac OS to x86, and the underlying OS X Darwin layer is available for x86, so its not like Apple isn't keeping this option open.
Also consider if Apple did use x86, it doesn't imply you could use beige box PC's; it would simply mean that inside the apple box you'd use x86. I don't really see that as a religious issue; it would mostly be an issue of how you transition applications to x86. But that's a marketing issue, not a technical issue.
If you'll remember, before the AOL access software was a Windows application, it was previously a GEOS application; when you started AOL, a customized version of GEOS was started and then GEOS ran inside that.
This was just around the time that Windows 3.0 was beginning to be popular.
"this seems like a lot of money for a chain of shops, a few theme parks and a stack of about-to-go-out-of-copyright cartoon characters."
Don't forget ABC and ESPN. Those are probably of more interest to Comcast than cartoons and theme parks.
"The travel industry sucks right now, so all of disney's resorts should be discounted."
Maybe; I'll bet that Comcast would sell those right away to raise some cash.
"Darl is claiming someone took SCO IP, stuck it in Linux code, and distributed it as GPL"
Yes, and according to Groklaw, that person or persons are Caldera, which is what SCO used to be called.
"Would you rather have a professor that didn't care too much for the book and didn't use it that much?"
Its been a long time since I've been in school, but something occurs to me: if the purpose of a university education is to teach you to think critically, do you get that critical education by just following a single textbook?
Or would you consider a variety of sources?
Would it not make more sense for a professor to lecture on salient points, and then ask his students to do research on those points? He could recommend a set of books that he has found helpful, but why require a specific book if the idea is to not "teach from the book", but rather impart an education?
I'm not trying to split hairs here; it seems that the textbook is nothing more than a crutch to save the professor effort, and the students time. It seems to reduce a degree to grades 13,14,15, & 16.
Somebody goes to an Indian outsourcing firm and asks them what they think about Indian outsourcing?
And then its supposed to be interesting and insightful when they say "Hey, this is really good for you guys, no really!"?
I think funding space exploration is important and necessary, however:
m l
"Velcro" - http://www.hookandpile.com/hook-loop-invention.ht
Invented by a swiss guy in the 40's.
"GPS" - Its a product of satellites, something NASA didn't invent; the Russians had a satellite first, and Arthur Clark argues that he invented the communications satellite (although thankfully, he did not patent the idea).
"Cellular Telephones" - Invented by Hedi Lemar. You'll think I'm joking, but I'm not. Invented during WWII, well before NASA and space exploration.
"discovery of the ozone hole which arguably launched the widespread efforts to fix our planet" - See my argument via GPS. Same idea here.
"Tang" - Okay. You got me.
I'm not advocating more taxes, but I'm thinking of property tax.
... too low, and the shareholders will revolt, too high, and it gets taxed too much.
The taxes that you're talking about aren't related to ownership, they're translated to sales or profit/loss.
For instance, most people pay property taxes on a house or land they own.
Some states have car taxes. Others have luxury taxes.
If people really thought there was such a thing as "Intellectual Property", then it would have occured to somebody to tax it.
In fact, I can make a pitch that this tax would benefit society at large. Think of it:
1) IP that is generating revenue would have to be fairly valued
2) For IP that is not really worth anything (some old movie that isn't even available), the owner would have to either pay taxes on it, or release it to the public domain.
3) IP owners wouldn't be content to "sit" on something.
Like I said, I'm not advocating taxes, but if we're going to call a copyright, "Intellectual Property", I'm saying we should go all the way and really treat it like property. Taxes and all.
"Copyright protection encourages creation."
Only to a certain point. How much do the copyrights on Elvis's music encourage him? Probably not much.
"Nobody else has any right to works I've created."
Only because the government says so. There is no inherent ownership in ideas; the goverment grants you protection only in the hope that you'll create more, not because there is a moral ownership of ideas.
If there is such a thing as "Intellectual Property", do you think it would be fair for government to tax it?
I mean, if real property is subject to tax, and the government wants to define "Intellectual Property" as pretty much the equivalent, isn't it not fair for IP to be taxed?