The linked article is rather sensationalized, the summary even more so
Here's the actual text. It's from Microsoft's own SEC filings, in the "Contingencies" section of the notes, not from the EU - this is Microsoft's opinion of what the European Commission might require, not something from the Comission itsself.
While computer users and OEMs are already free to run any Web browsing software on Windows, the Commission is considering ordering Microsoft and OEMs to obligate users to choose a particular browser when setting up a new PC. Such a remedy might include a requirement that OEMs distribute multiple browsers on new Windows-based PCs. We may also be required to disable certain unspecified Internet Explorer software code if a user chooses a competing browser.
Note, in particular, no mention of specific other browsers.
I absolutely agree. You don't need to understand all the code, you just need to be able to follow the part you're dealing with to fix whatever bug or interface with whatever part you're working on. Don't get me wrong, getting to know the overall architecture is something you should do (hopefully there are some old employees who can draw some block diagrams on a whiteboard for you or something - if not, that's probably something you should try yourself with a bit of archeology of the code), but knowing the ins-and-outs of the whole codebase is not something you should even attempt - you don't need to know all the code in that level of detail.
In my experience, even after two years in my current job, management are still perfectly willing to accept an answer of "I don't know that part of the code very well, give me some time to look into it and get back to you" when they ask me about a bug or a prospective new feature.
This is the main proof used for the existence of God. It's the "Impossibility of the Contrary" proof. How "logical" (and remember, by using this logic to evaluate our position we're nullifying logic) is it that the universe is as Stephen Hawking postulates, that it just spontaneously popped into existence, and chemical reactions just randomly started happening, and 2+2 just happened to equal 4? Now contrast this with the God option. We don't need billions of years of chance by chance evolution that lead to being capable of having these discussions, we don't need a big bang, and we certainly don't need to assume something that forbids us from making assumptions.
But doesn't this go back to the "turtles all the way down" question? If we assume that God created the Universe, because it's so improbable that it would happen spontaneously, isn't it then upon us to ask where God came from? Is it not just as improbable that He would have popped into existence from nowhere?
If we assume that He is more complex than the Universe (wouldn't something that could comprehend enough to build the Universe necessarily have to be more complex than its creation? I guess this is arguable), isn't it even more improbable?
My god man, talk about an overreaction! These people are saying "Bless you" because it's what people do in that situation - it's the word our language has evolved for "I'm sorry you sneezed, I know how it feels, I hope it gets better". They're just being polite. They're doing it to try to make/you/ feel better (okay, arguably, to make themselves feel better too because they know they'd feel bad if they sneezed and no-one said anything).
They're not trying to force religion on you! Next you'll be slamming someone for saying "'bye" because it's derived from "God be with you"...
Kim Stanley Robinson's another great modern SF author.
His Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars) is one of the most well thought-out, well researched views of the near future I've read. As you continue reading and the story becomes more far fetched, you may disagree with the way he sees humanity turning out, but his world is consistent, the characters are believable and well fleshed out, and the story, while it sometimes gets bogged down in politics, certainly contains its fair share of mystery and action too.
Also, for those more into aesthetics, his descriptions of the (changing) Martian landscape seen through human eyes are at times breathtaking - it's probably the nearest I'll ever get to stepping onto another world.
Yes! Banks is an unsung hero here in the US, I think because his books are marketed amongst the throwaway SF paperbacks (complete with stereotypical SF/fantasy covers), so people never pick them up. Use of Weapons is out of print in the USA, but it can still be found in the UK, and shipping from amazon.co.uk is not very expensive (plus, for what it's worth, you'll get the cool looking stylised UK cover art). I highly recommend it.
The shipping's only £4.94 (about $7.92 at the moment). If Amazon in the US has import CDs or books, it's actually often cheaper to order them from Amazon.co.uk and have them shipped.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the scourge of the 20th century: hyperbole. <p> Thank God that the 20th century's in the past - continuing hyperbole on that scale would surely have killed us all!
Warning: Spoiler if you're planning to read Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Mars' trilogy.
Something like this happens in 'Red Mars' - the cable snaps after the end-point in space is blown up, and wraps itself aroung the planet, with huge destructive force, making a giant trench. KSR prides himself on being as scientifically accurate as possible, is this an error?
As for beer, in the UK it's funny. Beer like Budweiser (the US stuff, not to be confused with an excellent Czech beer) is marketed and sold as a premium beer.
Hrm, you're obviously not drinking in the same places as me...
It's not quite a sentence, but it's quite trivial:
1) The software is copyright of the author. You cannot distribute it without their permission. 2) The author gives you permossion to distribute the software/only/ if you agree to the terms of the GPL.
so:
If you distribute the software, you're implicitly agreeing to the terms of the GPL. If you're distributing it and not following the GPL then either:
1) You haven't agreed to the author's terms, in which case you're distributing copyrighted software without permission
or
2) You're violating the GPL, which is a contract you've agreed to.
Everything in BRiX runs in a single adderss space. It's stated that the (mandatory, for programming BRiX applications) Crush language enforces application address space encapsulation, so this doesn't matter from a security point of view, but what heppens when a third party writes something in straight assembly, or writes a compiler for another language, like C?
It seems to me that any applications written in assembly of using this hypothetical compiler would look like any other BRiX application to the user, but would have access to the address space of the whole system! Surely not a good thing.
I'd disagree with your reasoning, but agree with the conclusion - most command line programs only take a recompile, and it'd be a little hard to justify giving someone a top-of-the-line Mac just for recompiling a program. It's not really 'porting'.
I seem to remember hearing something about the ICL almost managing to become the computer supplier to the Soviet government, but this being blocked in the final stages by the British government. I can't find anything to support this anywhere, however - does anyone out there remember more of this than me?
.5M and 15y seems excessive, but it also looks like a criminal prosecution, so those are probably the maximum penalties for what he's been charged with. If convicted, I would imagine the real sentence would be much less.
Hurrah! Someone's noticed! If only I had mod points.
The GPL doesn't allow you to link to non-free libraries, so you're not allowed, by the GPL to link to Microsoft's libraries - see the following section from the GPL FAQ
I am writing free software that uses non-free libraries. What legal issues come up if I use the GPL?
If the libraries that you link with falls within the following exception in the GPL:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
component itself accompanies the executable.
then you don't have to do anything special to use them. In other words, if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them.
[Note that I'm making this comment because I think it deserves discussion, not necessarily because it expresses my views on the matter. It's a tough subject]
It is ok to make compromises in code, when dead
line is due. Think airplane engeneer makes
compromises when the deadline is due.
You make this statement, but are you really sure it's true? Just because it happens doesn't make it right. I tend to thing that this attitude is what makes the 'rest' of the population so mistrusting of computer technology. Perhaps we should be asking:
Airplane engineers don't make
compromises when the deadline is due. Why is it considered okay to make compromises in code when the deadline is due?
Slashdot Mirror
The linked article is rather sensationalized, the summary even more so
Here's the actual text. It's from Microsoft's own SEC filings, in the "Contingencies" section of the notes, not from the EU - this is Microsoft's opinion of what the European Commission might require, not something from the Comission itsself.
Note, in particular, no mention of specific other browsers.
I absolutely agree. You don't need to understand all the code, you just need to be able to follow the part you're dealing with to fix whatever bug or interface with whatever part you're working on. Don't get me wrong, getting to know the overall architecture is something you should do (hopefully there are some old employees who can draw some block diagrams on a whiteboard for you or something - if not, that's probably something you should try yourself with a bit of archeology of the code), but knowing the ins-and-outs of the whole codebase is not something you should even attempt - you don't need to know all the code in that level of detail.
In my experience, even after two years in my current job, management are still perfectly willing to accept an answer of "I don't know that part of the code very well, give me some time to look into it and get back to you" when they ask me about a bug or a prospective new feature.
But doesn't this go back to the "turtles all the way down" question? If we assume that God created the Universe, because it's so improbable that it would happen spontaneously, isn't it then upon us to ask where God came from? Is it not just as improbable that He would have popped into existence from nowhere?
If we assume that He is more complex than the Universe (wouldn't something that could comprehend enough to build the Universe necessarily have to be more complex than its creation? I guess this is arguable), isn't it even more improbable?
They're not trying to force religion on you! Next you'll be slamming someone for saying "'bye" because it's derived from "God be with you"...
His Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars) is one of the most well thought-out, well researched views of the near future I've read. As you continue reading and the story becomes more far fetched, you may disagree with the way he sees humanity turning out, but his world is consistent, the characters are believable and well fleshed out, and the story, while it sometimes gets bogged down in politics, certainly contains its fair share of mystery and action too.
Also, for those more into aesthetics, his descriptions of the (changing) Martian landscape seen through human eyes are at times breathtaking - it's probably the nearest I'll ever get to stepping onto another world.
Yes! Banks is an unsung hero here in the US, I think because his books are marketed amongst the throwaway SF paperbacks (complete with stereotypical SF/fantasy covers), so people never pick them up. Use of Weapons is out of print in the USA, but it can still be found in the UK, and shipping from amazon.co.uk is not very expensive (plus, for what it's worth, you'll get the cool looking stylised UK cover art). I highly recommend it.
The shipping's only £4.94 (about $7.92 at the moment). If Amazon in the US has import CDs or books, it's actually often cheaper to order them from Amazon.co.uk and have them shipped.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the scourge of the 20th century: hyperbole.
<p>
Thank God that the 20th century's in the past - continuing hyperbole on that scale would surely have killed us all!
Warning: Spoiler if you're planning to read Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Mars' trilogy.
Something like this happens in 'Red Mars' - the cable snaps after the end-point in space is blown up, and wraps itself aroung the planet, with huge destructive force, making a giant trench. KSR prides himself on being as scientifically accurate as possible, is this an error?
Hrm, you're obviously not drinking in the same places as me...
It's not quite a sentence, but it's quite trivial:
/only/ if you agree to the terms of the GPL.
1) The software is copyright of the author. You cannot distribute it without their permission.
2) The author gives you permossion to distribute the software
so:
If you distribute the software, you're implicitly agreeing to the terms of the GPL. If you're distributing it and not following the GPL then either:
1) You haven't agreed to the author's terms, in which case you're distributing copyrighted software without permission
or
2) You're violating the GPL, which is a contract you've agreed to.
Either way, you're breaking the law.
It seems to me that any applications written in assembly of using this hypothetical compiler would look like any other BRiX application to the user, but would have access to the address space of the whole system! Surely not a good thing.
I'd disagree with your reasoning, but agree with the conclusion - most command line programs only take a recompile, and it'd be a little hard to justify giving someone a top-of-the-line Mac just for recompiling a program. It's not really 'porting'.
I seem to remember hearing something about the ICL almost managing to become the computer supplier to the Soviet government, but this being blocked in the final stages by the British government. I can't find anything to support this anywhere, however - does anyone out there remember more of this than me?
--
--
--
The GPL doesn't allow you to link to non-free libraries, so you're not allowed, by the GPL to link to Microsoft's libraries - see the following section from the GPL FAQ
--
--
Would any (presuming this information has not yet been 'purified') care to comment?
--
--
The patents are actually pretty specific about what they cover, and they cover Palm and Handspring devices pretty well.
Read them here and here.
--
--
--