An honourable country would not keep people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay without either giving them PoW status or charging them with a specific offence and giving them the right to a fair trial, including free, unhindered and unmonitored access to legal counsel.
Now thing(sic) about $1,800,000,000,000 (1.8 trillion tax revenue) divided by 300,000,000 (300 million) people in the US. If you paid more than $6,000 in federal taxes, you're already paying more than your fair share.
Assuming that either
a) there are no children or pensioners in the US
or
b) you paid as much tax as a child as you do now, and intend to continue this until you die.
There is a very simple explanation for this, as anyone who has read 1984 should know. In order for the glorious government to effectively serve the greater good, they need to be able to communicate changes of policy quickly and effectively. If, for instance, the enemy in a war changes, it is necessary to quickly update all documents that describe how evil the enemy are. Rather than manually editing all the documents, it is much easier to have one generic word, say "text", which can then be altered as appropriate:
sed 's/text/iraq/g'
sed 's/text/iran/g'
sed 's/text/cuba/g'
sed 's/text/belgium/g'
etc.
Obviously robots.txt just happened to be in the path!
Maybe the "Open Source" bit is a little excessive, but "Open Standards" is fair enough. And if the state has determined that only Open Source will ensure that software meets Open Standards, then so be it.
Auto-destruct e-mail is something that banks and governments could get in a whole lot of trouble for! Many organizations are required to keep *all* e-mails for a number of years. A company I worked for was involved in a merger and one of the stipulations of the go-ahead from the competition commission included this. Besides, what is the point of auto-destruct e-mails unless they also disable all screen-grabbing software and develop fonts that can't be photographed?
And what will protect software once copyright is removed?
The FSF view, as I understand it, is that nothing will protect software if copyright is removed. That is, after all, the ultimate purpose of copyleft - to create an environment in which free (libre, not gratis) software flourishes.
Free software developers already operate in an environment in which copyright does not have any adverse impact on them while operating entirely within that environment (i.e the free software community). The abolition of copyright for software would just be an extension of this environment to cover all software.
You may disagree with RMS's aims, but to call him short sighted is an unfair criticism. Even those who disagree with what he is trying to do must surely agree that the GPL is a stroke of genius - the use of copyright to undermine the copyright system itself in the long term (and entirely legally too!).
I don't wish to defend SCO here, but if you are referring to this article, the context is important.
Q:
At this time most Linux and/or GNU/Linux distributions include C++ compilers and editors. Is this something for which SCO currently charges? If so, just what are the current arrangements? If not, will C++ licensing and enforcement be added to SCO's licensing and enforcement program?
It looks like Blake Stowell was talking about the compiler, not the language. The compiler is called C++.
e-mail your MP. Their details are here. Tell them that you are opposed to software patents and ask them to forward your concerns to the appropriate minister before the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers. It's not hard, it won't take any longer than your post to/. and if enough of us do it, it will make a difference. We've already won the first round in the European Parliament. Now we just need to see this through.
Most MPs can be contacted by e-mail. Their addresses are publically available. In my experience, they also tend to reply to e-mails. Letters may perhaps be better than an e-mail, but an e-mail is certainly better than nothing.
Write the letter!
If you then can't be bothered to print, stamp and send it, just e-mail it.
I was referring to the anti-GM people as those that want it kept locked away
Unfortunately, with the World Trade Organisation, the US government and the British Prime Minister all pushing the UK towards the imminent mass introduction of unregulated, unlabelled GM products, the only way to slow down the introduction of the technology is to scream very loudly and frighten all those who haven't given it much thought yet.
The basic problem is that there is a considerable number of people who have genuine concerns regarding GM technology but feel almost powerless to do anything about it. The less people believe their views are being taken into account, the more polarized their views become.
Lack of genuine democracy is the real problem in the GM debate.
Sorry buddy, junk science can be employed by both sides. The only difference is that the pro-GM side has real science to go along with the junk science.
There is plenty of real science employed by both sides in the GM debate. The problem is that *none* of it is conclusive. Depending on your point of view, this is "evidence of absence of harm" of "absence of evidence of safety".
Neither side can legitimately claim that current scientific knowledge provides solid support for their position. I, personally, take the precautionary principle to heart here; accepting that there is probably a low risk of danger, there is no real problem if we wait a few years (or decades even) until we are sure the technology is safe before using it (a few years will make minimal difference), however the potential dangers of deploying it too early could be catastrophic for the environment and our future food security.
This is excellent news! Now we will be able to take advantage of the 3D extensions to C++ that AT&T were researching in 1998, details here (last paragraph).
I don't mean to be insensitive, however, if you are blind on one eye, then you are not able to see third dimensionally in the first place
I don't know very much about this, but I don't think that "legally blind" necessarily means the same as totally blind. Here's one link that I found that describes "Amblyoplia" and mentions depth perception and 3D viewing
Guys, how hard did you have to look to find an article without pictures?!
Pictures of a 3D screen probably don't give you a very good impression when you look at them on a 2D screen. It's like those old TV adverts for flatter screens that tried to show you how much clearer the picture was - if it works, you know they're faking it.
The purists would keep their GPLd GNU/Linux while IBM and others would go and make the fork the next mainstay operating system in the industry.
Any fork would still have to be released under the GPL; this would mean that any improvements would also be available to those running the "pure" system (which is of course exactly what RMS intended when he wrote the license). It is very good to have IBM/SGI/HP/etc. contributing to the core system at the moment, but it would probably not be devastating for GNU/Linux if they all decided to go their own ways. It may also be the case that the UNIX vendors would be reluctant to make the same mistakes they did last time and each go off in incompatible directions.
Re:Cue Sun Java Desktop (madhatter)
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
Does MS really think people are going to be willing to run 5 year old technology on their work systems...?
I suspect that there will be a great many companies out there that will be pleased by the delay. If no new version of Windows comes out for a few years, they won't be forced to upgrade their operating system in order to use new versions of office software just to stay compatible with partners and customers. Upgrading OS can be a major cost and headache on a large network, much more of a problem than patching a broken one daily, for exactly the same reason that Linux hasn't really taken off in office environments yet - training non-techie users can be a significant cost.
Please understand that nobody asked us to take "Unpatched" down. For the reasons we described above, we have taken this proactive step in an effort to be a larger part of a long term solution.
I tried that but it seems to be all dark out there, some kind of weird cratery white disk had taken the place of the big yellow one. Scary!
Could you please give me some more advice so that I can know what I have to do to get a life?
Slashdot Mirror
An honourable country would not keep people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay without either giving them PoW status or charging them with a specific offence and giving them the right to a fair trial, including free, unhindered and unmonitored access to legal counsel.
Assuming that either
a) there are no children or pensioners in the US
or
b) you paid as much tax as a child as you do now, and intend to continue this until you die.
Obviously robots.txt just happened to be in the path!
That's right, it's a free market economy!
You don't need to install any packages to use a deb (or an RPM, presumably). Just use "ar" to extract the tar.gz from the package.
One of the files extracted data.tar.gz is the tarball that you want.First they ignore you, then they deride you, then they steal your lines, then ...
Maybe the "Open Source" bit is a little excessive, but "Open Standards" is fair enough. And if the state has determined that only Open Source will ensure that software meets Open Standards, then so be it.
Auto-destruct e-mail is something that banks and governments could get in a whole lot of trouble for! Many organizations are required to keep *all* e-mails for a number of years. A company I worked for was involved in a merger and one of the stipulations of the go-ahead from the competition commission included this. Besides, what is the point of auto-destruct e-mails unless they also disable all screen-grabbing software and develop fonts that can't be photographed?
The FSF view, as I understand it, is that nothing will protect software if copyright is removed. That is, after all, the ultimate purpose of copyleft - to create an environment in which free (libre, not gratis) software flourishes.
Free software developers already operate in an environment in which copyright does not have any adverse impact on them while operating entirely within that environment (i.e the free software community). The abolition of copyright for software would just be an extension of this environment to cover all software.
You may disagree with RMS's aims, but to call him short sighted is an unfair criticism. Even those who disagree with what he is trying to do must surely agree that the GPL is a stroke of genius - the use of copyright to undermine the copyright system itself in the long term (and entirely legally too!).
Q:
It looks like Blake Stowell was talking about the compiler, not the language. The compiler is called C++.
e-mail your MP. Their details are here. Tell them that you are opposed to software patents and ask them to forward your concerns to the appropriate minister before the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers. It's not hard, it won't take any longer than your post to /. and if enough of us do it, it will make a difference. We've already won the first round in the European Parliament. Now we just need to see this through.
Write the letter!
If you then can't be bothered to print, stamp and send it, just e-mail it.
Unfortunately, with the World Trade Organisation, the US government and the British Prime Minister all pushing the UK towards the imminent mass introduction of unregulated, unlabelled GM products, the only way to slow down the introduction of the technology is to scream very loudly and frighten all those who haven't given it much thought yet.
The basic problem is that there is a considerable number of people who have genuine concerns regarding GM technology but feel almost powerless to do anything about it. The less people believe their views are being taken into account, the more polarized their views become.
Lack of genuine democracy is the real problem in the GM debate.
There is plenty of real science employed by both sides in the GM debate. The problem is that *none* of it is conclusive. Depending on your point of view, this is "evidence of absence of harm" of "absence of evidence of safety".
Neither side can legitimately claim that current scientific knowledge provides solid support for their position. I, personally, take the precautionary principle to heart here; accepting that there is probably a low risk of danger, there is no real problem if we wait a few years (or decades even) until we are sure the technology is safe before using it (a few years will make minimal difference), however the potential dangers of deploying it too early could be catastrophic for the environment and our future food security.
There is no need to rush!
This is excellent news! Now we will be able to take advantage of the 3D extensions to C++ that AT&T were researching in 1998, details here (last paragraph).
Depends if you look at if from the side or not.
I don't know very much about this, but I don't think that "legally blind" necessarily means the same as totally blind. Here's one link that I found that describes "Amblyoplia" and mentions depth perception and 3D viewing
Pictures of a 3D screen probably don't give you a very good impression when you look at them on a 2D screen. It's like those old TV adverts for flatter screens that tried to show you how much clearer the picture was - if it works, you know they're faking it.
Well, almost. Lindows has just gone *way* up in my estimation.
Any fork would still have to be released under the GPL; this would mean that any improvements would also be available to those running the "pure" system (which is of course exactly what RMS intended when he wrote the license). It is very good to have IBM/SGI/HP/etc. contributing to the core system at the moment, but it would probably not be devastating for GNU/Linux if they all decided to go their own ways. It may also be the case that the UNIX vendors would be reluctant to make the same mistakes they did last time and each go off in incompatible directions.
I suspect that there will be a great many companies out there that will be pleased by the delay. If no new version of Windows comes out for a few years, they won't be forced to upgrade their operating system in order to use new versions of office software just to stay compatible with partners and customers. Upgrading OS can be a major cost and headache on a large network, much more of a problem than patching a broken one daily, for exactly the same reason that Linux hasn't really taken off in office environments yet - training non-techie users can be a significant cost.
I tried that but it seems to be all dark out there, some kind of weird cratery white disk had taken the place of the big yellow one. Scary! Could you please give me some more advice so that I can know what I have to do to get a life?