I'll be honest -- I voted for Bush, but I was ready to select some Democratic and Libertarian representatives in state government and Congress. To each his own, I say.
As did I. I'm a registered Republican, but I think that voting for someone just because of their political affiliations is ridiculous. This election, as in any other, I did my best to vote for the candidates that I felt shared my same core values and beliefs. While I'm happy that Bush won the presidential race, I'm also disappointed that other candidates I supported for senate and state races lost.
And I'm also ready to say "Thank you" to Kerry for being a semi-decent sport and not going nuts like Gore did in 2000.
Agreed. For all that I don't agree with his politics, Kerry's done a good thing, for both the country and his party... another round of election lawyering would have been a hard blow for the Democratic party, I think. Nobody particularly likes lawyers, and I'm pretty sure that Kerry recognized that if he didn't have a clear-cut reason to take a case to court, then people would start associating the Democratic party with election litigation.
IMHO, though, the majority of the credit for this election going so smoothly should go to the poll workers and monitors. They managed to keep a good eye on things this election, and to keep any obvious problems (and hence, challenges) from surfacing.
They asked what the conclusions of the Duelfer report were. Now you can argue about whether that report was wrong (that's an assertion), but you can't really argue about what it said.
...and that's the problem with this study. As pointed out above, I could come up with a score of questions that ask Kerry supporters about "facts" that are undeniably true, and then ignore them when they start to explain why they disagree with the "facts" or think that the question itself is loaded.
An example: did Kerry call terrorists a "nuisance"? Yep. Sure did. Undeniable fact. Never mind that I've taken this out of context in order to intentionally bias the question. I mean - he said it, right? It's an undeniable fact. How can you live in a fantasy world where you think he didn't say that?
I see both sides doing this. Frankly, this doesn't bother me. It's part of politics - where candidates don't neccesarily argue about the facts themselves as much as they argue about the interpretation of those facts. If you want to convince people of your world view, you try to present the most persuasive argument you can; and often times, that means not discussing the facts themselves, but why your interpretation of the facts is different from your opponent's interpretation.
That said: I was once a registered Democrat; I'm now a registered Republican, and I doubt that I'll ever go back to the Democratic ticket. Why? While I was a Democrat, I never had a Republican call me stupid. I never saw conservative think tanks come out with a study showing that my political affiliation implied that I was disconnected from reality. I never had a member of the "other party" refer to me as if I were less than human because my opinions differed from theirs.
I wish the converse were true; but it's not. As a known conservative, particularly in this election season, I have been on the receiving end of enough hatred, bigotry, and invective directed at me to last a lifetime. Most of it has come from strangers who know nothing about me other than that I'm a registered Republican, which makes me an instant candidate for their own personal two-minute hate. The only "fact" that matters to them is my party affiliation, which they apparently believes gives them the right to be abusive, insulting, and treat me as if I were some sort of sub-human.
So... even if I were convinced that Kerry was a better candidate than Bush, I would be voting against him, purely becuase of his association with such an arrogant, hateful, spiteful, and all-around viscious politcal party.
Mind you, not all Democrats subscribe to this philosophy - thank God for that. So long as that's true, there's still some hope for the party. However, the party in general - and the leadership in particular - has gotten progressively more hateful and viscious over the last 20 years. For me, at least, they have finally reached the point where their actions speak so loudly that I cannot hear what they say.
Their "facts", opinions, and interpretations are useless to me, becuase before I can even enter into a debate about their validity, I have to at least implicitly agree to their negative characterization of me - because unless I do, they are unwilling to consider my "ignorant" and "uninformed" point of view.
Until the actions of the Democratic party leadership and the rank and file show me that they've lost their penchant for assuming their own inherent superiority, relying on hate speech and ad homenin attacks rather than rational argument... well, I'm going to be ignoring them.
Overheard a guy talking on his cell phone the other day...
"Hey, Joe? Did you see this on the internet?"
"Huh. Well, with the election lottery, well - you know who makes those voting machines, right?"
"Yah, Diebold. Uh-huh, the ones who endorsed Candidate X."
"Now, listen - this guy sent me an email, and he knows a guy who says that one of the folks who had a brother who worked at Diebold told him that you have a better chance at winning the lottery if you vote for X."
"Uh-huh. Yah, but what if it is true? I dunno, man - I don't really care who wins, so I'm gonna vote for X."
"You too? Yah? What're you gonna do with the money when you win?"
My intended sarcastic tone obviously didn't come through... I wasn't seriously suggesting that Nader drop some of his issues (though, as a Bush supporter, I'd love to see him pick up a few more Democratic votes). It was intended as more of a commentary on the decline and fall of the American voter than a slight on Nader or his selection of issues.
Nader is much more an issue candidate than a party candidate.
Nader's problem is that he has too many issues. When he talks about wanting to change everything, that can be disturbing. Most people don't like change. In most elections, they may have one or two things that they feel could be changed for the better, but otherwise they'd prefer that everything be left more or less as it is.
Take a look at Bush and Kerry. Bush's main issue has been the war on terrorism. Kerry's main issue has been how much Bush sucks. If Nader had focused on one issue - say, the minimum wage - and allowed himself to be middle-of-the-road everywhere else, then he would have been perceived as a safe candidate, and he'd probably be sucking up 15-20% of the vote like Perot did. Instead, he's got all these issues, and any particular voter is likely to find one or two of his ideas that they disagree with enough that it will keep them from voting for him.
From what I can tell, it *looks* like this device should be able to record direct-to-DVD without the need for an intervening tape. Anyone have any experience with using a device like this that way? Ideally, we'd like to be able to record direct to DVD, and when done, swap the DVD out to a duplicator and make a few copies of it.
For those interested, this would be an idea setup for a couple of classes I'm taking where we have distance learning students. Being able to send them a DVD with a month's worth of classes on it would be a whole heck of a lot better than what we're managing now, and $300 is probably within the budget for a simple solution like this.
Of course, it's the Republican administration. Because we all know that the DOJ is staffed entirely by technically savvy individuals, who no doubt understand all the possible nuances and implications of Microsoft's choice of file format.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Why is it that Hanlon's Razor only gets ignored when it's politically convenient?
Re:I wonder if it's true real-time
on
RT Linux Patches
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Not to be rude - but I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. I've been a developer at TimeSys for several years, and I've never heard anything of the sort mentioned by anyone here. Searching LKML via Google, I can't find anything that accuses TimeSys of violating the GPL, or anything remotetly simiilar to that.
If you have something specific you want to point out, please do so.
Without any regulation, businesses get very opportunistic and start cutting corners...
...largely because they can get away with it. While you can punish a corporation in the US, unless there's clear and almost overwhelming evidence of criminal wrongdoing, it's almost impossible to punish the principals of that corporation.
In other words, if you cut regulation, unscrupulous (or enterprising, depending on your point of view) individuals will do their best to be almost criminally negligent, because that's what they can get away with. However, since even outright criminal negligence tends to get a corporation fined while the perpetrators go free with a couple hundred million in severance pay, well... you get outright criminal negligence as the unscrupulous (or enterprising) act like parasites, gutting profitable corporations from within and leaving their ruined shells behind to take "responsibility" for their actions.
If you want deregulation, you have to insist that those who run the deregulated corporations be held fully responsible for the operation of their companies. No "I wasn't aware of that" prevarications, or "I don't recall" defenses. Full deregulation means full accountability and full responsibility.
There was a transition in public thinking in America from the 1960's to the 1980's (Reagan was a big force in this movement) that government could do good for the public to a belief that anything the government does could only do things badly (inefficient, red tape, bureaucracy, fraud-infested).
It's also a matter of scale, and ease of communication. Consider this: if 1 person out of a thousand has a problem with the way the government is doing something, that's almost 300,000 people. In other words - if 99.9% of the population thinks that some action taken by the government is a good thing, there will still be almost 300,000 people who may think it's a bad thing. For comparison, the NAACP - a fairly inflential force in US national, state and local politics - has around 500,000 members.
Thanks to modern communications - TV, radio, phone, fax, email, blogs - it's ridiculously easy for even a few thousand motivated individuals to 'get out a story'. So, you end up with no government program, action, or activity that can ever be viewed as "good" or "bad". There will always be a fraction of the populace that can, and will, make a case that opposes the majority view; and modern communciations more or less ensures them the opportunity that their point will be heard, even if it is disregarded by the majority.
Blargh. I just realized that, at the moment, we're 3 cats crazy, and we've been 4-5 cats crazy at times - not counting litters! Mix in two rufflebutts, two mini dauchsunds, a praying mantis, 3-4 stray cats that come around when it suits them, coyotes, deer, owls and (thanks to the cats) a regular flow of dead chipmunks, moles and birds... sheesh. Life on the farm, I guess. Best thing is I'm only 30 minutes outside of Pittsburgh:-)
When Bush pressed for congressional authorization, I honestly believed it was to back up the demand for inspections with a credible threat of force.
Umm... and your problem is what, exactly? Did you honestly think that after telling Hussein "Cooperate with UN inspections, or we will invade your country, topple your regime and try you for war crimes against your own people", the US was going to laugh and shout "Psyche!" and give him a noogie or something?
The web site states that for the period from 1990 to 2000, there were "6,364 challenges reported to or recorded by the Office for Intellectual Freedom".
That's about 579 challenges total per year, or only 11-12 challenges per year in each state of the union.
Looking at it another way, the ALA reports that "There are an estimated 117,859 libraries of all kinds in the United States today." Of these, 102,990 are classified as public libraries or school libraries. Which means that over the course of 1990-2000, only 6% of these libraries received any kind of challenge.
Now, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Given that reporting of challenges is voluntary, they may very well be under-reported. Still, the nature of controversey surrounding a challenge seems to be the sort of thing that would attract attention - in many cases, they are specifically publicized (by the challenger, or the library) in order to attract attention. So it's probably safe to work from the assumption that challenges are not drastically under-reported. Still, let's err on the side of cuation and say that we assume that challenges are drastically under-reported, and that there are actually on the order of 6000 challenges per year.
Given those figures, an individual library would expect to deal with a single challenge about once every 20 years. Of course, that assumes that each library is an autonomous unit, which is probably not the case for school libraries - I'd expect that a challenge in one school library for a district would probably affect all other libraries in the same district as well. So the time period between challanges for a school library system might be smaller, but even then, I'd be surprised if any particular school district had to deal with more than a couple of challenges each year... and in that case, well, at least it shows you have active parent involvement in the district, right? So there's still something positive coming out of the whole mess.
Now, I'm not trying to downplay the significance of these challenges. On the other hand, their relatively low frequency seems to indicate that they're not so much an issue of pervasive censorship, but instead appear to be an issue of individual libraries making the occaisional misjudgement about the desires and mores of the communities they serve.
They started by creating the CPL, getting it certified, and have now been hiring prominent open source developers to work on CPL.
The CPL was not created by Microsoft - as mentioned here, it was created by IBM, and is essentially an updated and generalized version of IBM's original Open Source license, the IBM Public License.
When someone incorporates CPL code, there's no way to prove that they modified it themselves, and so CPL compliance is based entirely on the goodwill of corporations, and we've seen how generous that goodwill is...
Irrelevant - there's no way to prove that someone has incorporated GPL code into a closed source product, short of obvious indicators like embedded strings, etc. GPL compliance is also "based entirely on the goodwill of corporations". The long and the short of the matter is that a company that's willing to knowingly violate the CPL will probably also be willing to knowingly violate the GPL.
The CPL is designed so that companies can take advantage of the work of open source developers without having to compensate them in any way... traditionally, with Open Source, the developers receive the source for their project, and any derivative works.
As is the GPL. Neither the CPL nor the GPL are concerned with the origin of software, they're concerned with the distribution of software. They're both designed to ensure that the recipient of a piece of software has access to the source code. That's it. Nothing in either license about compensating the original developers, or having to give back source code to the original developers. Even you recognize this - while it's "traditional" to contribute back changes to an GPL'd project, it's not required. In fact, the FSF considers this kind of requirement onerous enough that they explicitly classify licenses that have this requirement (for example, the Open Public License) as non-free.
Now, the reason why I bring this all up is that, as mentioned above, Microsoft has been hiring prominent open source developers, having them release their source under the CPL.
...which is bad, why? We're talking about Microsoft's own code, here - it's their choice as to what license they want to release their code under. The CPL is recognized by the OSI. It's acknowledged as a free software license by the FSF, albeit one incompatible with the current GPL because it addresses patent issues that the GPL does not.
In fact, at this point, if there's anyone that's getting a "free ride" off of Microsoft's actions, it's everyone except Microsoft, who now has access to - and can use - Microsoft's CPL software, as is, without any obligation.
Overall, I think this is a positive event. It appears there are OSS advocates (not juse Josh!) within Microsoft who seem to be trying to convince the corporate culture there that OSS is not neccesarily a threat to Microsoft, and they're going about it in a very reasonable way. They selected an existing OSS license instead of coming up with Yet Another License. They released code for a couple of trial projects under this license, and have been following the OSS philosophy of "release early, release often". They've apparently met with enough success with these projects that they feel they have a good reason to actively encourage the release other projects under OSS licenses, and they're asking the community for input on what else to consider releasing
Don't bother... this didn't manage to even come close to being as fun as the original Lemmings games. Cruddy graphics, confusing controls... blech.
Arcanum was fun, but plan on playing it 2-3 times:-) I went through as a tech dwarf to start with, and someday when I have the time, I want to go back and replay it as an elf, and then maybe again as a pure fighter-type.
Slashdot Mirror
As did I. I'm a registered Republican, but I think that voting for someone just because of their political affiliations is ridiculous. This election, as in any other, I did my best to vote for the candidates that I felt shared my same core values and beliefs. While I'm happy that Bush won the presidential race, I'm also disappointed that other candidates I supported for senate and state races lost.
Agreed. For all that I don't agree with his politics, Kerry's done a good thing, for both the country and his party... another round of election lawyering would have been a hard blow for the Democratic party, I think. Nobody particularly likes lawyers, and I'm pretty sure that Kerry recognized that if he didn't have a clear-cut reason to take a case to court, then people would start associating the Democratic party with election litigation.
IMHO, though, the majority of the credit for this election going so smoothly should go to the poll workers and monitors. They managed to keep a good eye on things this election, and to keep any obvious problems (and hence, challenges) from surfacing.
...and that's the problem with this study. As pointed out above, I could come up with a score of questions that ask Kerry supporters about "facts" that are undeniably true, and then ignore them when they start to explain why they disagree with the "facts" or think that the question itself is loaded.
An example: did Kerry call terrorists a "nuisance"? Yep. Sure did. Undeniable fact. Never mind that I've taken this out of context in order to intentionally bias the question. I mean - he said it, right? It's an undeniable fact. How can you live in a fantasy world where you think he didn't say that?
I see both sides doing this. Frankly, this doesn't bother me. It's part of politics - where candidates don't neccesarily argue about the facts themselves as much as they argue about the interpretation of those facts. If you want to convince people of your world view, you try to present the most persuasive argument you can; and often times, that means not discussing the facts themselves, but why your interpretation of the facts is different from your opponent's interpretation.
That said: I was once a registered Democrat; I'm now a registered Republican, and I doubt that I'll ever go back to the Democratic ticket. Why? While I was a Democrat, I never had a Republican call me stupid. I never saw conservative think tanks come out with a study showing that my political affiliation implied that I was disconnected from reality. I never had a member of the "other party" refer to me as if I were less than human because my opinions differed from theirs.
I wish the converse were true; but it's not. As a known conservative, particularly in this election season, I have been on the receiving end of enough hatred, bigotry, and invective directed at me to last a lifetime. Most of it has come from strangers who know nothing about me other than that I'm a registered Republican, which makes me an instant candidate for their own personal two-minute hate. The only "fact" that matters to them is my party affiliation, which they apparently believes gives them the right to be abusive, insulting, and treat me as if I were some sort of sub-human.
So... even if I were convinced that Kerry was a better candidate than Bush, I would be voting against him, purely becuase of his association with such an arrogant, hateful, spiteful, and all-around viscious politcal party.
Mind you, not all Democrats subscribe to this philosophy - thank God for that. So long as that's true, there's still some hope for the party. However, the party in general - and the leadership in particular - has gotten progressively more hateful and viscious over the last 20 years. For me, at least, they have finally reached the point where their actions speak so loudly that I cannot hear what they say. Their "facts", opinions, and interpretations are useless to me, becuase before I can even enter into a debate about their validity, I have to at least implicitly agree to their negative characterization of me - because unless I do, they are unwilling to consider my "ignorant" and "uninformed" point of view.
Until the actions of the Democratic party leadership and the rank and file show me that they've lost their penchant for assuming their own inherent superiority, relying on hate speech and ad homenin attacks rather than rational argument... well, I'm going to be ignoring them.
Overheard a guy talking on his cell phone the other day...
"Hey, Joe? Did you see this on the internet?"
"Huh. Well, with the election lottery, well - you know who makes those voting machines, right?"
"Yah, Diebold. Uh-huh, the ones who endorsed Candidate X."
"Now, listen - this guy sent me an email, and he knows a guy who says that one of the folks who had a brother who worked at Diebold told him that you have a better chance at winning the lottery if you vote for X."
"Uh-huh. Yah, but what if it is true? I dunno, man - I don't really care who wins, so I'm gonna vote for X.""You too? Yah? What're you gonna do with the money when you win?"
My intended sarcastic tone obviously didn't come through... I wasn't seriously suggesting that Nader drop some of his issues (though, as a Bush supporter, I'd love to see him pick up a few more Democratic votes). It was intended as more of a commentary on the decline and fall of the American voter than a slight on Nader or his selection of issues.
Nader's problem is that he has too many issues. When he talks about wanting to change everything, that can be disturbing. Most people don't like change. In most elections, they may have one or two things that they feel could be changed for the better, but otherwise they'd prefer that everything be left more or less as it is.
Take a look at Bush and Kerry. Bush's main issue has been the war on terrorism. Kerry's main issue has been how much Bush sucks. If Nader had focused on one issue - say, the minimum wage - and allowed himself to be middle-of-the-road everywhere else, then he would have been perceived as a safe candidate, and he'd probably be sucking up 15-20% of the vote like Perot did. Instead, he's got all these issues, and any particular voter is likely to find one or two of his ideas that they disagree with enough that it will keep them from voting for him.
Hey! Perl still adheres to the "one tool for one job" metaphor.
It's just that Perl's "one job" seems to be defined as "replace all the other tools"...
From what I can tell, it *looks* like this device should be able to record direct-to-DVD without the need for an intervening tape. Anyone have any experience with using a device like this that way? Ideally, we'd like to be able to record direct to DVD, and when done, swap the DVD out to a duplicator and make a few copies of it.
For those interested, this would be an idea setup for a couple of classes I'm taking where we have distance learning students. Being able to send them a DVD with a month's worth of classes on it would be a whole heck of a lot better than what we're managing now, and $300 is probably within the budget for a simple solution like this.
Of course, it's the Republican administration. Because we all know that the DOJ is staffed entirely by technically savvy individuals, who no doubt understand all the possible nuances and implications of Microsoft's choice of file format.
Why is it that Hanlon's Razor only gets ignored when it's politically convenient?
Not to be rude - but I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. I've been a developer at TimeSys for several years, and I've never heard anything of the sort mentioned by anyone here. Searching LKML via Google, I can't find anything that accuses TimeSys of violating the GPL, or anything remotetly simiilar to that.
If you have something specific you want to point out, please do so.
...largely because they can get away with it. While you can punish a corporation in the US, unless there's clear and almost overwhelming evidence of criminal wrongdoing, it's almost impossible to punish the principals of that corporation.
In other words, if you cut regulation, unscrupulous (or enterprising, depending on your point of view) individuals will do their best to be almost criminally negligent, because that's what they can get away with. However, since even outright criminal negligence tends to get a corporation fined while the perpetrators go free with a couple hundred million in severance pay, well... you get outright criminal negligence as the unscrupulous (or enterprising) act like parasites, gutting profitable corporations from within and leaving their ruined shells behind to take "responsibility" for their actions.
If you want deregulation, you have to insist that those who run the deregulated corporations be held fully responsible for the operation of their companies. No "I wasn't aware of that" prevarications, or "I don't recall" defenses. Full deregulation means full accountability and full responsibility.
It's also a matter of scale, and ease of communication. Consider this: if 1 person out of a thousand has a problem with the way the government is doing something, that's almost 300,000 people. In other words - if 99.9% of the population thinks that some action taken by the government is a good thing, there will still be almost 300,000 people who may think it's a bad thing. For comparison, the NAACP - a fairly inflential force in US national, state and local politics - has around 500,000 members.
Thanks to modern communications - TV, radio, phone, fax, email, blogs - it's ridiculously easy for even a few thousand motivated individuals to 'get out a story'. So, you end up with no government program, action, or activity that can ever be viewed as "good" or "bad". There will always be a fraction of the populace that can, and will, make a case that opposes the majority view; and modern communciations more or less ensures them the opportunity that their point will be heard, even if it is disregarded by the majority.
Blargh. I just realized that, at the moment, we're 3 cats crazy, and we've been 4-5 cats crazy at times - not counting litters! Mix in two rufflebutts, two mini dauchsunds, a praying mantis, 3-4 stray cats that come around when it suits them, coyotes, deer, owls and (thanks to the cats) a regular flow of dead chipmunks, moles and birds... sheesh. Life on the farm, I guess. Best thing is I'm only 30 minutes outside of Pittsburgh :-)
A2: "Well, not really. It only has one user. But we can't get Senator Kerry to stop posting."
Umm... and your problem is what, exactly? Did you honestly think that after telling Hussein "Cooperate with UN inspections, or we will invade your country, topple your regime and try you for war crimes against your own people", the US was going to laugh and shout "Psyche!" and give him a noogie or something?
Don't you mean, "under investigation for reading documents posted on an open server?
A Bussard ram drive, perhaps?
Maybe it should be SETI tracking the probes instead of NASA...
Absolutely correct! Except that you misspelled "Kerry".
Whee! We're already in the Maximum Fun Chamber!
I know what you mean :-) This is the first time I've ever used this line, and it was just such a classic opportunity that I just couldn't resist...
You must be new here.
The web site states that for the period from 1990 to 2000, there were "6,364 challenges reported to or recorded by the Office for Intellectual Freedom".
That's about 579 challenges total per year, or only 11-12 challenges per year in each state of the union.
Looking at it another way, the ALA reports that "There are an estimated 117,859 libraries of all kinds in the United States today." Of these, 102,990 are classified as public libraries or school libraries. Which means that over the course of 1990-2000, only 6% of these libraries received any kind of challenge.
Now, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Given that reporting of challenges is voluntary, they may very well be under-reported. Still, the nature of controversey surrounding a challenge seems to be the sort of thing that would attract attention - in many cases, they are specifically publicized (by the challenger, or the library) in order to attract attention. So it's probably safe to work from the assumption that challenges are not drastically under-reported. Still, let's err on the side of cuation and say that we assume that challenges are drastically under-reported, and that there are actually on the order of 6000 challenges per year.
Given those figures, an individual library would expect to deal with a single challenge about once every 20 years. Of course, that assumes that each library is an autonomous unit, which is probably not the case for school libraries - I'd expect that a challenge in one school library for a district would probably affect all other libraries in the same district as well. So the time period between challanges for a school library system might be smaller, but even then, I'd be surprised if any particular school district had to deal with more than a couple of challenges each year... and in that case, well, at least it shows you have active parent involvement in the district, right? So there's still something positive coming out of the whole mess.
Now, I'm not trying to downplay the significance of these challenges. On the other hand, their relatively low frequency seems to indicate that they're not so much an issue of pervasive censorship, but instead appear to be an issue of individual libraries making the occaisional misjudgement about the desires and mores of the communities they serve.
The CPL was not created by Microsoft - as mentioned here, it was created by IBM, and is essentially an updated and generalized version of IBM's original Open Source license, the IBM Public License.
Irrelevant - there's no way to prove that someone has incorporated GPL code into a closed source product, short of obvious indicators like embedded strings, etc. GPL compliance is also "based entirely on the goodwill of corporations". The long and the short of the matter is that a company that's willing to knowingly violate the CPL will probably also be willing to knowingly violate the GPL.
As is the GPL. Neither the CPL nor the GPL are concerned with the origin of software, they're concerned with the distribution of software. They're both designed to ensure that the recipient of a piece of software has access to the source code. That's it. Nothing in either license about compensating the original developers, or having to give back source code to the original developers. Even you recognize this - while it's "traditional" to contribute back changes to an GPL'd project, it's not required. In fact, the FSF considers this kind of requirement onerous enough that they explicitly classify licenses that have this requirement (for example, the Open Public License) as non-free.
...which is bad, why? We're talking about Microsoft's own code, here - it's their choice as to what license they want to release their code under. The CPL is recognized by the OSI. It's acknowledged as a free software license by the FSF, albeit one incompatible with the current GPL because it addresses patent issues that the GPL does not.
In fact, at this point, if there's anyone that's getting a "free ride" off of Microsoft's actions, it's everyone except Microsoft, who now has access to - and can use - Microsoft's CPL software, as is, without any obligation.
Overall, I think this is a positive event. It appears there are OSS advocates (not juse Josh!) within Microsoft who seem to be trying to convince the corporate culture there that OSS is not neccesarily a threat to Microsoft, and they're going about it in a very reasonable way. They selected an existing OSS license instead of coming up with Yet Another License. They released code for a couple of trial projects under this license, and have been following the OSS philosophy of "release early, release often". They've apparently met with enough success with these projects that they feel they have a good reason to actively encourage the release other projects under OSS licenses, and they're asking the community for input on what else to consider releasing
I'll second this. Last job I had, we used it to simulate telcom provider's networks. Very cool software.
Don't bother... this didn't manage to even come close to being as fun as the original Lemmings games. Cruddy graphics, confusing controls... blech.
Arcanum was fun, but plan on playing it 2-3 times :-) I went through as a tech dwarf to start with, and someday when I have the time, I want to go back and replay it as an elf, and then maybe again as a pure fighter-type.
True. Then again, there's not a whole lot that gets installed by default, and it's pretty easy to use the setup utility to install curl.