Actually, it's not, and there's no evidence that this happens (ethereal can be pretty convincing). What the "p2p" refers to is that connections are made directly between calling parties, without the intervention of other servers. True, it's not what people think of these days when you say p2p, but it's still entirely accurate.
You have to look at the mentality, which is "you can install these services so that all of those braindead unix machines can talk to you." -- i.e. Services for Unix.
How about because... not everything in the world actually consists of plain text? A PDF is three times larger than a comparable text file because it contains about twenty times as much information. What really pisses me off is when people use PDF for documents that aren't meant to be printed.:)
Imagine how high the bar for entry into any technology market if you have to pay a small army of patent attorneys, clerks, paper shufflers, pencil pushers, etc., to make sure your butt is covered.
How can one patent something just because it is done by a circuit instead of a human?
Because that's what patents are for? They apply to machines that do something so that you don't have to. Not that the patent is warranted in this case, But your argument seems rather thin to me.
Since that hasn't happened then your theory is wrong. Show me that it hasn't.
According to that theory the sector which employs the greatest number of people should be items that cost the least. At the risk of repeating myself: no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no. That's what I specifically and repeatedly DIDN'T say.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, or maybe you need to read more closely. Of course the price of stuff goes up and we're not all unemployed; indeed prices are all relative anyway. What I'm saying is that measures that force the price up are going to have a negative impact on employment -- or at least, not the positive one that the grandparent suggested.
Also, don't you think that there would be even more people working in oil-related fields if the price was so low that it was everywhere (imagine gas-powered laptops being workable)? I think you're just looking at a case where it's important enough that the demand curve flattens out for a while.
Then we'll arrange a road trip in our newly modded "hybrid" vehicles with massive piles of batteries, and achieve "infinite miles per gallon." A couple of days after slashdot picked up that story, CNN was running it, with the same absolutely stupid non-explanation. I don't know whether that makes me feel good or bad.
True, but that doesn't lead to more work being performed.
Imagine that you have the current polluting widget, which takes a certain amount of materials and labor, and which costs $10. There also exists the more complicated "clean" widget. Suppose that you're right, and that in the case of widgets, the green alternative requires more labor input. For this, and probably other reasons, the clean widget will fetch a higher price -- say $30.
So now say we impose a market restriction (call it "emissions control") which says that the polluting widgets may not be sold (or that that may not be used). Then everyone who could afford $10 widgets but not $30 widgets will leave the market, and everyone else will buy fewer widgets, owing to their increased costs. Widget sales will drop, as will sales of (products containing|services requiring) widgets, margins will narrow, and all of those businesses will have less money for the employees. And that's only the beginning.
Feel free to trace that logic out as far as you want with "widget" == "some doodad that's necessary for coal-based electricity generation", and you'll see how such a little thing could potentially depress the world economy to a noticeable degree.
Because the public program will be able to use the public dollar to run the private endeavors into the ground, and then use the fact that they're the only ones with operating experience to justify their getting every job? Having "competition" where one of the parties is owned by the government is the worst of both worlds.
1. That was the point. Read the thing you're supposedly replying to; it refers to "the act of running a program" -- what the user does.
2. "That comes under fair use?" Arguably, but the people who write EULAs claim otherwise, and the point of the grandparent was how EULAs justify themselves.
3. Nothing beyond this point parses as anything resembling an english sentence.
-10 Troll indeed. Or at least -10 Lazy, Ignorant, and Incoherent.
I'd just like the mention that Ubuntu theoretically has all of this, mostly thanks to Debian. They've got a centralized repository, so if you pick an app in your favorite APT frontend, you should be able to install it and that's it (of course, sometimes reality intrudes and you have to resolve a conflict). apt-get source --build is also quite easy, though I don't know of any frontends to handle it for you. The 'menu' system has been around for ages and has always worked for me; any window manager or whatever sort of thing supports a menu, can tell Debian how to add all of your apps to the menu. And Ubuntu's at least as good as anyone when it comes to making non-free stuff reasonably easy to install, though for some reason most vendors still think that RPM is the be-all and end-all of packages.
Indeed not even close to a majority of registered voters, and even further from a majority of eligible voters. According to census.gov data, there were 142,070 thousand registered voters for the 2004 election, so Bush secured an amazing 43.7% of the registered vote. More importantly, my book, there were 201,230 thousand eligible voters in 2003 according to this study, which means that Bush was supported by a commanding 30.83% of the people who had the opportunity to vote for him. (Of course, Kerry came off with 29.33%).
Slashdot Mirror
If it's included in a distro, it shouldn't be one where "testing" is a worry. Therefore, no problem.
Actually, it's not, and there's no evidence that this happens (ethereal can be pretty convincing). What the "p2p" refers to is that connections are made directly between calling parties, without the intervention of other servers. True, it's not what people think of these days when you say p2p, but it's still entirely accurate.
RFC 3489
Roger that. It's perfectly valid to call it the "GNU General Public License", but that's still GNU GPL.
You have to look at the mentality, which is "you can install these services so that all of those braindead unix machines can talk to you." -- i.e. Services for Unix.
do the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs?
How about because... not everything in the world actually consists of plain text? A PDF is three times larger than a comparable text file because it contains about twenty times as much information. What really pisses me off is when people use PDF for documents that aren't meant to be printed. :)
Imagine how high the bar for entry into any technology market if you have to pay a small army of patent attorneys, clerks, paper shufflers, pencil pushers, etc., to make sure your butt is covered.
You do and it is.
"Standing" doesn't mean "going over there" ;)
How can one patent something just because it is done by a circuit instead of a human?
Because that's what patents are for? They apply to machines that do something so that you don't have to. Not that the patent is warranted in this case, But your argument seems rather thin to me.
* Oxygen is good.
* Competition is bad.
* I like Jello.
No, it's GNU software, which means that it's got to be worse than that. I suggest:
GRUB -> GRill Unified Bootloader
GRILL -> GRub Is Linux Loader
Linux distros these days use MD5 by default -- but they use it in a way that's not so horribly stupid as to be broken by this attack.
Since that hasn't happened then your theory is wrong.
Show me that it hasn't.
According to that theory the sector which employs the greatest number of people should be items that cost the least.
At the risk of repeating myself: no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no. That's what I specifically and repeatedly DIDN'T say.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, or maybe you need to read more closely. Of course the price of stuff goes up and we're not all unemployed; indeed prices are all relative anyway. What I'm saying is that measures that force the price up are going to have a negative impact on employment -- or at least, not the positive one that the grandparent suggested.
Also, don't you think that there would be even more people working in oil-related fields if the price was so low that it was everywhere (imagine gas-powered laptops being workable)? I think you're just looking at a case where it's important enough that the demand curve flattens out for a while.
Then we'll arrange a road trip in our newly modded "hybrid" vehicles with massive piles of batteries, and achieve "infinite miles per gallon." A couple of days after slashdot picked up that story, CNN was running it, with the same absolutely stupid non-explanation. I don't know whether that makes me feel good or bad.
True, but that doesn't lead to more work being performed.
Imagine that you have the current polluting widget, which takes a certain amount of materials and labor, and which costs $10. There also exists the more complicated "clean" widget. Suppose that you're right, and that in the case of widgets, the green alternative requires more labor input. For this, and probably other reasons, the clean widget will fetch a higher price -- say $30.
So now say we impose a market restriction (call it "emissions control") which says that the polluting widgets may not be sold (or that that may not be used). Then everyone who could afford $10 widgets but not $30 widgets will leave the market, and everyone else will buy fewer widgets, owing to their increased costs. Widget sales will drop, as will sales of (products containing|services requiring) widgets, margins will narrow, and all of those businesses will have less money for the employees. And that's only the beginning.
Feel free to trace that logic out as far as you want with "widget" == "some doodad that's necessary for coal-based electricity generation", and you'll see how such a little thing could potentially depress the world economy to a noticeable degree.
s#\\#/#g
would do it without looking like ASCII art at the same time
Because the public program will be able to use the public dollar to run the private endeavors into the ground, and then use the fact that they're the only ones with operating experience to justify their getting every job? Having "competition" where one of the parties is owned by the government is the worst of both worlds.
Agreed. It's not a major problem most times, just an inconvenience.
1. That was the point. Read the thing you're supposedly replying to; it refers to "the act of running a program" -- what the user does.
2. "That comes under fair use?" Arguably, but the people who write EULAs claim otherwise, and the point of the grandparent was how EULAs justify themselves.
3. Nothing beyond this point parses as anything resembling an english sentence.
-10 Troll indeed. Or at least -10 Lazy, Ignorant, and Incoherent.
I'd just like the mention that Ubuntu theoretically has all of this, mostly thanks to Debian. They've got a centralized repository, so if you pick an app in your favorite APT frontend, you should be able to install it and that's it (of course, sometimes reality intrudes and you have to resolve a conflict). apt-get source --build is also quite easy, though I don't know of any frontends to handle it for you. The 'menu' system has been around for ages and has always worked for me; any window manager or whatever sort of thing supports a menu, can tell Debian how to add all of your apps to the menu. And Ubuntu's at least as good as anyone when it comes to making non-free stuff reasonably easy to install, though for some reason most vendors still think that RPM is the be-all and end-all of packages.
it runs exceptionally well under qemu.
Hey, finally a chance for some crossover from the current poll.
I say we dust off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Indeed not even close to a majority of registered voters, and even further from a majority of eligible voters. According to census.gov data, there were 142,070 thousand registered voters for the 2004 election, so Bush secured an amazing 43.7% of the registered vote. More importantly, my book, there were 201,230 thousand eligible voters in 2003 according to this study, which means that Bush was supported by a commanding 30.83% of the people who had the opportunity to vote for him. (Of course, Kerry came off with 29.33%).