With a Debian system, if something requires a "web server" (but not a specific one such an Apache mod), then the package can be built to depend upon a generic webserver.
The various web server packages can "provide" that.
So, in theory, any Debian package that depends upon a text editor can be built to use whatever text editor you like. Rather than requiring the text editor that the package maintainer prefered to use.
The "fine" is where you pay money to the local government because you did something that you were not licensed to do.
My point is that the Massachusets state government is only doing what anny sufficently large market entity can do. Law Firms do exactly what you just mentioned. Now, explain to me why the hell it's different?
It is different because, as I had pointed out earlier, lawyers are not the Government. Lawyers do not pass laws nor do they enforce laws.
Since you seem to be operating under the belief that they do, this conversation is at an end. You'll figure it out when you apply for your learner's PERMIT so you can practice to get your driver's LICENSE.
Go ahead and tell the state that you don't have to fill out their forms and that you can drive anyway.
The State of Massachusets can not fine you anything for not using an Open Format, either. They can simply choose to ignore any files which arrive which are not in an open format.
No. The forms will NOT be ignored. They will be returned, if possible, with the notice that they are not the correct forms/format.
If WalMart chooses to NOT file the correct forms/formats, they will be fined.
So, Massachusets CAN fine you for "not using an Open Format".
If there are any patent restrictions or copyright restrictions, then this should be DOA.
I also agree that the Open Source community should make itself heard on this issue. Particularly in regards to educating the Massachusetts' officials on the problems with those restrictions (both the immediate problems and the opportunities they provide Microsoft to make problems at a later date).
Microsoft will not give up on this issue. There is far too much at stake for them to lose an entire state. They will play whatever political games they can and they won't care about the cost.
Umm . . . so because you can't get the software you want preinstalled, there's a monopoly?
No, because of the monopoly, I cannot get the software I want preinstalled.
Did you (and the person who mod'ed you up) somehow miss the trial between Netscape and Microsoft? You remember, the one where Microsoft was legally classified as a monopoly?
Face it, you'd never get anything you wanted installed because it then has to be tested & supported by the seller. This just isn't going to happen, monopoly or not.
Strange, it used to happen. I was able to get Netscape preinstalled on a computer.
So it will never happen, but it used to happen.
There have been over 10 million Firefox downloads. That's a sizable market. Yet you won't see Dell offering to preinstall Firefox (but you used to be able to get Netscape preinstalled).
Almost like Lawfirms and them still using WordPerfect...
Yeah, "almost" as in "almost 100% completely wrong".
Lawyers are NOT the Government.
And sufficiently large entity, be it the state government of Massachusets, or be it WalMart, it's still a market decision.
No, it is not. Because WalMart cannot pass laws or fine you for not following them.
If WalMart wants to open a store in MA, then they have to fill out the paperwork. They have to file the tax forms. Their insurance company has to file the insurance forms.
Case #1. Microsoft fails to get their file formats approved. No problem.
Case #2. Microsoft succeeds in getting their file formats approved.
a. We will need a clean TEST IMPLEMENTATION of
1a. Reader
2a. Writer
b. We will need a way to document any variations between Microsoft's output/input and the Test Implementation.
I don't trust Microsoft NOT to break the published "standard" in small, but important ways.
If Microsoft gets this included, then their program's output must be validated against the standard. If it doesn't meet the standard, then it isn't an option for the government.
And with every Hotfix and ServicePack, Microsoft has the option to introducing irregularities to their output/input.
Learn from the past. Microsoft did similar crap with the beta of Windows 3.0 and DR-DOS.
The REAL problem is that Microsoft will get their file formats approved, get their software into use, then start changing the format they save in. Just a little with each "update".
Eventually, the "open" format is just as proprietary as their closed format is now.
Why? It takes different kind of skills to keep a system up and running nice and secure that to crack it.
Bingo! I can pick locks, but that doesn't mean I'm any good at designing better locks. From the article:
But I always tried to come up with something new, never seen before. I coded viruses for platforms that were considered infect-resistant. I found some satisfaction in programming, just because I like logical and abstract thinking. This is not about any sort of "cyberterrorism."
Yet I don't recall any submissions he's made to Open Source software on fixing exploitable holes.
THAT would tell you whether he was as good as he claimed.
As an anology : Someone very good at blowing up buildings is probably not that good at actually build one. Sure, a good demolisher need good knowledge about construction, but it's not the same. Really.
Yep. And until I see him releasing code to fix exploitable holes in Open Source, he's still just another kiddie. Again, from the article:
I take care of ZAV (Zoner Antivirus) core--this means all those low-level functions for scanning, unpacking, emulation, heuristics, ZAV database maintenance and new detection patterns.
Pattern matching is nothing. And that's all that anti-virus software is.
Rather than spending his massive talent on pattern matching viruses, why hasn't he come out with something to prevent viruses in the first place?
Anti-virus systems are all re-active, not pro-active.
Re-active is easy. Pro-active is hard.
This story is junk. Some "journalist" saw that a "criminal" had been hired by a "security" company and decided that it would be a good story.
Governments do not follow the same rules that a regular business does. Governments make the Laws.
To do business with a Government, the business must follow the Laws that that Government has written.
That is why Microsoft is so worried about this. If the Government mandates specific file formats, then the businesses working with/for that government will use those file formats.
They can't enforce their ideas, "either you do it our way or not at all" - now they must respect the customer, as the customers have a choice - now Microsoft can't hold its firm stand of a monopoly and must yield to demands...
Great. Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble getting some non-Microsoft OS pre-installed on any Dell desktop/laptop they sell.
Oh, you can't do that?
Well, I'm sure you can at least get Firefox pre-installed.
Oh, not that either?
What this is is Microsoft attempting to prevent a State from breaking away from the Microsoft monopoly.
The proprietary, binary extensions in MS's version of XML are patented. That gives MS a lot of power when agreeing to a deal like this.
Just look at MS's work to "extend" SPF and how their license was determined not to be Free enough.
The list of approved formats include.pdf's. OpenOffice.org can write.pdf's natively. MS Office cannot. If this passes without MS's formats being included, then it will be a real threat to MS's monopoly.
If it passes with MS's formats allowed, then it won't.
Zip functionality is so easy to implement in servers and clients that there really isn't any argument about "binary XML".
This is all about different companies trying to get THEIR binary format to be the "standard" with XML.
From the article
Manufacturers of consumer devices such as Canon, as well as mobile-phone companies such as Nokia, have argued for a binary XML format. Without it, large files such as images will take too long to download to devices such as mobile phones, they argue.
Images are already binary data. They really don't compress much more (if you've chosen the right format). That means that they will take the same amount of time to download, binary XML format or not.
The problem with all these DRM issues is that no one ever brings up what happen if the artist is deceased. The record company still owns the song and making a killing.
That's one of the biggest issues. The artist does NOT OWN THE RIGHTS to his/her work.
If the artist keeps the rights, that is one set of circumstances.
If the artist sells the rights, those rights should expire (and the work become public domain) after 10 or 20 years (even if the artist dies right after he signs them over).
Rule of thumb, if the artist is deceased the songs should be automatically free. None of this 2pac-after-death-release bullshit. He's dead how does he make music?!
I wouldn't have a problem with that, if the corporation he signed the work over to only had 10 years ownership. They can release all of his previously unreleased stuff, for 10 years. Then it's public domain.
Gates and these millionaires never talk enough about these things. They mention artists should be paid. Blah, now back to DRM.
Yep. Because they want to shape the discussion to favour themselves.
I want to protect the rights of the artists and their works.
I want to allow the corporations the time to produce and profit from the works they buy.
I don't want to have corporations locking up works for an indefinate time.
I would love to see some examples of biological textbooks advocating critical thinking of evolution.
Until you understand it, you cannot be critical of it.
Instead of that, the textbooks present a history of events involving the theory, and explain evolutionary theory, but do nothing for showing weaknesses in evolutionary theory.
And what would those "weaknesses" be?
Be specific.
The closest we get to critical thinking are short, amusing anectdotes involving Lamarckism.
If Lamarckism is your standard for "critical thinking" then you've already lost.
Lamarckism is easily and quickly disproved. No matter how much I bench press, any children I have will NOT be born stronger.
"Critical thinking" doesn't mean complaining about something that you don't understand. If you see a problem with it, then why don't you come up with a counter theory that can better explain the observed facts AND be more testable.
Predict massive gains by extrapolating from a very recent improvement in a very small segment of your market.
Keep boasting about the features your product has that your competitor doesn't. Remind everyone that they need those specific features.
Keep telling the "journalists" out there about how your product handles the same tasks better than the competition. Faster. Smaller footprint. Better security. Easier administration.
If someone hasn't heard of your product, they aren't going to try your product.
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Looks like you're wrong.
WMD Report
That took about 15 seconds in Google.
The ORIGINAL question was "WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
You failed to do so. You presented a link to a CNN story about the report, not to a specific quote in the report. You can't do that because the report does not say what you claim it says.
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. Define the level of force to be used in your forceful reinstatement.
"UN sanctions curbed Saddam's ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."
And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think he wasn't working to bring down the entire sanctions from within the U.N.
Again, the actual report contradicts your claims. "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
So, in conclusion: #1. Saddam was not a nuclear threat to the US. #2. Saddam was not a chemical threat to the US. #3. Saddam was not a biological threat to the US. #4. Saddam was not a terrorist threat to the US.
Saddam was not a military threat to the US in any way, shape or form.
The war was unjustified. Bush's actions to invade Iraq appeared sound at the time (that's why we went in), but all the premises were flawed -- the reasons given, we realize, are not valid.
Some of us realized that PRIOR to our invasion.
Other people simply cannot accept the facts until their Leader has allowed them to.
While I don't excuse Bush's actions, neither was this his own fault. The entire government system failed us twice: in lacking accurate intelligence to save the WTC, and in lacking accurate intelligence to save Iraq.
Bullshit.
We had UN inspectors in Iraq PRIOR to our invasion.
It would have been the easiest thing in the world to check and confirm the "facts" that Bush was claiming he had back then.
Back then, the "reasons" given for the UN people not finding the stuff that Bush "knew" was there were: #1. The UN people couldn't find their own ass with both hands.
#2. That just shows how well Saddam has hidden them.
Bush had an agenda and he chose which "facts" to present in his speeches to the US public.
You might argue that admitting our mistake and pulling out would've saved the remnants of our reputation and recovered some goodwill. I claim that this would've been at the expense of the current pseudo-stability in Iraq.
There is no stability (pseudo or otherwise) in Iraq. Go ahead and walk down any street outside the GreenZone wearing a tee shirt saying "I'm an American" and see how long you last.
Once we invaded, unless we have US-run free elections (LOL), some angry terrorist bent on justifiable revenge would've seized power. In the interest of my personal safety, I prefer a US regime in Iraq to a regime angry at the US.
Look at the political assassinations that are happening right now.
Why will those stop after the elections?
To reiterate: yes, Bush was wrong.
No, Bush lied.
Yet his choices remain the least wrong of all the possible ones.
No, the sanctions were working and could have been left in place without any threat to the US.
America has only wrong moves ahead of it.
No, because of Bush, we only have a selection of choices of differing degrees of death and destruction that we can be responsible for.
We have been trying for years to make other countries fear us instead of love us, and if we abandon that policy, they will neither fear us nor like us.
No. It will take a long time, but we can have allies again.
It's a wrong policy, but unfortunately, we have no other choice -- we have nobody brave enough to try to change it and risk not managing it.
There are 100,000+ people willing to risk their lives in Iraq. Because your chicken-hawks are happy with the situation does not mean that our troops are cowards.
From the very beginning, this has been about the neo-con agenda (that includes Bush) to establish more control in the mid-east.
Because they're a bunch of cold-war chicken-hawks, they had no understanding of the actual situation and their egos wouldn't let them believe otherwise.
Which leaves us in the quagmire we're currently in.
This is all Bush's fault. He is the man at the top. He set the schedule. He set the conditions.
Go ahead and point to a single instance where Saddam had setup production facilities or anything else.
There aren't any because he was not pursuing it.
The reports only said that he intended to pursue those programs if he could.
None of the reports have even a single instance of an actual purchase or construction that would show Saddam attempting to reconstruct any of those programs.
For some people, these are very difficult concepts. Imagine if your TV volume control changed channels if you hit it twice, but only if you were watching a commercial (and if you're watching a car commercial, the settings are reversed). That's what it is like for people who have never used a computer.
The biggest problem is that the interface (keyboard and mouse) can have completely different functionality depending upon which app is running.
In Windows, right clicking the mouse brings up the background menu, unless you're in Firefox when it brings up the bookmark option, unless you're in Firefox and pointing at link and it will bring up the save link option, unless the link is a download where it will allow you to download the file and save it somewhere...
Every time I hear people talking about "helping" people who have never used a computer, I think back to that old Spanish lady who would move the mouse with her right hand, brace her wrist on the table, then click the buttons with her left hand.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't seen any yet. Are you aware of any? I'd like to test them and see how well they work.
I can't seem to find a public discussion of what FEATURES or FUNCTIONALITY they are looking at for package management.
I see their page about RPM's and how they are a temporary measure and what functionality they do NOT want.
And package management is, to me, part of the core functionality.
That way, different distributions could implement ADDITIONAL functionality, as long as they also had the core LSB functionality.
With a Debian system, if something requires a "web server" (but not a specific one such an Apache mod), then the package can be built to depend upon a generic webserver.
The various web server packages can "provide" that.
So, in theory, any Debian package that depends upon a text editor can be built to use whatever text editor you like. Rather than requiring the text editor that the package maintainer prefered to use.
Businesses do NOT care about LSB-compatibility. All they care about is whether the ISV's app is certified on a particular platform.
The LSB is about making it easier for ISV's to write to the LSB which they hope the various distributions will support.
Since you seem to be operating under the belief that they do, this conversation is at an end. You'll figure it out when you apply for your learner's PERMIT so you can practice to get your driver's LICENSE.
Go ahead and tell the state that you don't have to fill out their forms and that you can drive anyway.
"COP's, Interactive".
And many, many more.
If WalMart chooses to NOT file the correct forms/formats, they will be fined.
So, Massachusets CAN fine you for "not using an Open Format".
You are wrong, again.
If there are any patent restrictions or copyright restrictions, then this should be DOA.
I also agree that the Open Source community should make itself heard on this issue. Particularly in regards to educating the Massachusetts' officials on the problems with those restrictions (both the immediate problems and the opportunities they provide Microsoft to make problems at a later date).
Microsoft will not give up on this issue. There is far too much at stake for them to lose an entire state. They will play whatever political games they can and they won't care about the cost.
Did you (and the person who mod'ed you up) somehow miss the trial between Netscape and Microsoft? You remember, the one where Microsoft was legally classified as a monopoly?Strange, it used to happen. I was able to get Netscape preinstalled on a computer.
So it will never happen, but it used to happen.
There have been over 10 million Firefox downloads. That's a sizable market. Yet you won't see Dell offering to preinstall Firefox (but you used to be able to get Netscape preinstalled).
I see why you posted that anonymously.
Lawyers are NOT the Government.No, it is not. Because WalMart cannot pass laws or fine you for not following them.
If WalMart wants to open a store in MA, then they have to fill out the paperwork. They have to file the tax forms. Their insurance company has to file the insurance forms.
If they don't file, they're fined.
Case #1. Microsoft fails to get their file formats approved. No problem.
Case #2. Microsoft succeeds in getting their file formats approved.
a. We will need a clean TEST IMPLEMENTATION of
1a. Reader
2a. Writer
b. We will need a way to document any variations between Microsoft's output/input and the Test Implementation.
I don't trust Microsoft NOT to break the published "standard" in small, but important ways.
If Microsoft gets this included, then their program's output must be validated against the standard. If it doesn't meet the standard, then it isn't an option for the government.
And with every Hotfix and ServicePack, Microsoft has the option to introducing irregularities to their output/input.
Learn from the past. Microsoft did similar crap with the beta of Windows 3.0 and DR-DOS.
The REAL problem is that Microsoft will get their file formats approved, get their software into use, then start changing the format they save in. Just a little with each "update".
Eventually, the "open" format is just as proprietary as their closed format is now.
THAT would tell you whether he was as good as he claimed.Yep. And until I see him releasing code to fix exploitable holes in Open Source, he's still just another kiddie. Again, from the article: Pattern matching is nothing. And that's all that anti-virus software is.
Rather than spending his massive talent on pattern matching viruses, why hasn't he come out with something to prevent viruses in the first place?
Anti-virus systems are all re-active, not pro-active.
Re-active is easy.
Pro-active is hard.
This story is junk. Some "journalist" saw that a "criminal" had been hired by a "security" company and decided that it would be a good story.
Governments do not follow the same rules that a regular business does. Governments make the Laws.
To do business with a Government, the business must follow the Laws that that Government has written.
That is why Microsoft is so worried about this. If the Government mandates specific file formats, then the businesses working with/for that government will use those file formats.
And it cascades from there.
Oh, you can't do that?
Well, I'm sure you can at least get Firefox pre-installed.
Oh, not that either?
What this is is Microsoft attempting to prevent a State from breaking away from the Microsoft monopoly.
The proprietary, binary extensions in MS's version of XML are patented. That gives MS a lot of power when agreeing to a deal like this.
Just look at MS's work to "extend" SPF and how their license was determined not to be Free enough.
The list of approved formats include
If it passes with MS's formats allowed, then it won't.
This is all about different companies trying to get THEIR binary format to be the "standard" with XML.
From the article Images are already binary data. They really don't compress much more (if you've chosen the right format). That means that they will take the same amount of time to download, binary XML format or not.
If the artist keeps the rights, that is one set of circumstances.
If the artist sells the rights, those rights should expire (and the work become public domain) after 10 or 20 years (even if the artist dies right after he signs them over).I wouldn't have a problem with that, if the corporation he signed the work over to only had 10 years ownership. They can release all of his previously unreleased stuff, for 10 years. Then it's public domain.Yep. Because they want to shape the discussion to favour themselves.
I want to protect the rights of the artists and their works.
I want to allow the corporations the time to produce and profit from the works they buy.
I don't want to have corporations locking up works for an indefinate time.
Easy to install, easy to use and they handle almost all of the problems that end users will run into.
Be specific.If Lamarckism is your standard for "critical thinking" then you've already lost.
Lamarckism is easily and quickly disproved. No matter how much I bench press, any children I have
will NOT be born stronger.
"Critical thinking" doesn't mean complaining about something that you don't understand. If you see a problem with it, then why don't you come up with a counter theory that can better explain the observed facts AND be more testable.
Salesman: "Nothing makes you feel more like a man than a Thundercougarfalconbird."
Predict massive gains by extrapolating from a very recent improvement in a very small segment of your market.
Keep boasting about the features your product has that your competitor doesn't. Remind everyone that they need those specific features.
Keep telling the "journalists" out there about how your product handles the same tasks better than the competition. Faster. Smaller footprint. Better security. Easier administration.
If someone hasn't heard of your product, they aren't going to try your product.
Get out there and GLOAT.
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Looks like you're wrong.The ORIGINAL question was "WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
You failed to do so. You presented a link to a CNN story about the report, not to a specific quote in the report. You can't do that because the report does not say what you claim it says.Actually, if you read the final report, it says that they were effective. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp
"UN sanctions curbed Saddam's ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."Again, the actual report contradicts your claims. "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
So, in conclusion:
#1. Saddam was not a nuclear threat to the US.
#2. Saddam was not a chemical threat to the US.
#3. Saddam was not a biological threat to the US.
#4. Saddam was not a terrorist threat to the US.
Saddam was not a military threat to the US in any way, shape or form.
Other people simply cannot accept the facts until their Leader has allowed them to.Bullshit.
We had UN inspectors in Iraq PRIOR to our invasion.
It would have been the easiest thing in the world to check and confirm the "facts" that Bush was claiming he had back then.
Back then, the "reasons" given for the UN people not finding the stuff that Bush "knew" was there were:
#1. The UN people couldn't find their own ass with both hands.
#2. That just shows how well Saddam has hidden them.
Bush had an agenda and he chose which "facts" to present in his speeches to the US public.There is no stability (pseudo or otherwise) in Iraq. Go ahead and walk down any street outside the GreenZone wearing a tee shirt saying "I'm an American" and see how long you last.Look at the political assassinations that are happening right now.
Why will those stop after the elections?No, Bush lied.No, the sanctions were working and could have been left in place without any threat to the US.No, because of Bush, we only have a selection of choices of differing degrees of death and destruction that we can be responsible for.No. It will take a long time, but we can have allies again.There are 100,000+ people willing to risk their lives in Iraq. Because your chicken-hawks are happy with the situation does not mean that our troops are cowards.
From the very beginning, this has been about the neo-con agenda (that includes Bush) to establish more control in the mid-east.
Because they're a bunch of cold-war chicken-hawks, they had no understanding of the actual situation and their egos wouldn't let them believe otherwise.
Which leaves us in the quagmire we're currently in.
This is all Bush's fault. He is the man at the top. He set the schedule. He set the conditions.
You voted for him.
There aren't any because he was not pursuing it.
The reports only said that he intended to pursue those programs if he could.
None of the reports have even a single instance of an actual purchase or construction that would show Saddam attempting to reconstruct any of those programs.
Back in 1996, I was working at a non-profit that had just received a huge donation for computers.
...
There was one old Spanish woman who simply could not manage her mouse. She had to hold it steady with one hand while clicking with her other hand.
I set her up with solitare and showed her how to play and within a week she had mastered the muscle control needed for one handed mouse work.
This problem goes beyond
#1. recognizing a mouse and how it controls the pointer
#2. understanding
2a. left-click
2b. right-click
2c. single click
2d. double click
#3. muscle control for using a mouse efficiently
For some people, these are very difficult concepts. Imagine if your TV volume control changed channels if you hit it twice, but only if you were watching a commercial (and if you're watching a car commercial, the settings are reversed). That's what it is like for people who have never used a computer.
The biggest problem is that the interface (keyboard and mouse) can have completely different functionality depending upon which app is running.
In Windows, right clicking the mouse brings up the background menu, unless you're in Firefox when it brings up the bookmark option, unless you're in Firefox and pointing at link and it will bring up the save link option, unless the link is a download where it will allow you to download the file and save it somewhere
Every time I hear people talking about "helping" people who have never used a computer, I think back to that old Spanish lady who would move the mouse with her right hand, brace her wrist on the table, then click the buttons with her left hand.