The deal would be a disaster for Apple, because it would lose the ability to pick the IA32 CPU vendor that at a particular moment delivers the best performance in the metrics relevant for Apple. Intel and AMD has a history of leapfrogging each other, and it is always in the interest of a company to have multiple vendors competing for delivering the best product. This is much better than relying on an in-house department which may or may not perform on par with the rest of the industry.
For AMD it would be a disaster, because AMD would suddenly be in a position where it competed directly with its own customers. It would in one stroke be one of the largest producers of PC's, which would be unlikely to sit well with the rest of the industry.
[ The later reason also explain why a an Apple / Disney merger has become less likely, as Apple has become a big time content distributer. ]
Every site based on user contributed content will have to weight the risk of getting sued with the risk of alienating their users by removing popular material.
For most sites, especially those with free access, the proper balance is to leave user content alone until they receive threat of legal action. Everything else is simply too expensive to be practical. It is too expensive to censor material in the original sense (that is, require approval *before* publishing), ánd it is too expensive to pay for legal counseling to judge the merit of each cease and desist letter. So the default policy is that it stays, until smeone threaten to sue. Then it goes. This most likely also the case for/..
And it works fine, most material is quite legal, and most cease and desist letters are for obvious violations, and anything that remains can be handled on a case by case basis.
This will be clear to most people, the only exception are the usual whiners who always complain about what they get for free. They never contribute anything worthwhile anyway, so that is not a problem for a user generated site like digg.
I've heard that saying many times before, and it's as untrue now as it was when I first heard it.
It is only untrue if you ignore human nature, and go literal with definitions that are useless when going literal.
An honest man needs nothing to maintain his honesty. Honest people are honest by definition. Determined criminals will always get what they want. Locks only keep out the lazy criminals, which fortunately is most of them.
That is stupid even using literal definitions. A criminal is not a person who might commit a crime, given the right circumstances. A criminal is a person who has committed a crime.
Just about everyone will commit a crime, given the right circumstances (e.g. your child is starving, and you have exhausted all legal means of obtaining food).
One of the properties of a well adjusted society (and criminal code) is that the "right circumstances" occur rarely. Making it a crime to distribute a small hexadecimal number will make the "right circumstances" common among/. readers.
Just in case the moderator is wrong, and you really are as ignorant as you appear:
1) The FSF has nothing to do with the term "Open Source", apart from an active dislike. They prefer "free software". The organization stewarding the Open Source Definition is the Open Source Initiative.
2) The term "open source" was not applied to software before a meeting 1998 amongst people interested in commercializing free software, where the term was first defined. They did try to trademark it in order to prevent it from being diluted like the term "free software" had already been, but a trademark requires a specific product for trade.
I won't cheat by looking it up, but I have seen a younger ESR as a contributor to both Emacs and nethack. He is no RMS (Emacs, gcc, and gdb), but his developer credibility is still way higher than all the ESR detractors on/. combined. (I know, damnation with faint praise).
No. Congress has the right to make time limited restrictions in the freedom of the citizens of the USA to make copies (and implement methods), in order to promote the progress of science and arts. That is right there, in your constitution.
Nowhere in that constitution does it state the congress has the right to restrict the freedom of citizens of other countries the same way.
That would be similar to Iran demanding that women in the US should wear burkas.
> When an hour of downtime costs you real money, it suddenly becomes a worthwhile thing to have > someone who's contractually obliged to fix your system when it breaks.
Many vendors, including IBM, would be happy to sell you such a contract for a Linux based system. In fact, I'd be very surprised if Qantas didn't already had such a contract for their Linux based system.
Presumably the new contract is cheaper, at least initially.
This would be infinitely better than teaching the students to rely on "authoritative" sources uncritically. Especially from a democratic point of view.
You consented to let the intended receiver do whatever they want with your letter when you send it. Even before gmail they could quite legally put in on their home page, and still have Google (and every other search engine) scan it. Email privacy only covers the steps between the sender and receiver, not the end points.
Sun wanted to free Solaris, a SysVR4 derived OS, which obviously required clearing the licenses first. Hurting Linux may or may not have been a side benefit, but for a company like Sun releasing their "crown jewels" will have been the main issue.
I know it is hard for those of you into person or brand name worshiping to understand, but it is quite possible to compliment people or companies for the good things they do, and at the same time criticize them for the bad things they do. Just because you define your world into personal (or brand) loyalties, it does not mean the rest of us are similar restricted.
The opposition parties tend to support the "alternative" solutions, while the ruling parties tend tend to support he "established" players. When the opposition parties win an election, they immediately betray their former friends and start supporting the establishment.
Probably not something Google has paid billions of dollars for.
It crams five axes into a single window, using the "usual" two (x & y) axes, plus color, size and animation for the other three axes. Works fine when you use something size related for size, time for animation, and something discrete for color, as in the example.
> It seems to me that too many young people today want everything to be fun and easy.... back when I was young, we wanted everything to be boring and difficult!
We have to plan for the future using some model of what is going to happen. "No change" is also a model.
For a layman, the question is whose model we believe is most likely to hold true. We can choose the politicians, or the lobbyists, or Hollywood's, or the scientific community's.
Of these four authorities, I believe most in the last one.
Just of note - I doubt very much you'll find many CS students who know what Currying or a Closure is. Most of them learn Java and think that it's the best thing since sliced bread. They don't even realise that Functional Programming exists, let alone what it is, what it's benefits are etc.
Sounds like something from a trade school to me, not a university degree.
The French parliament is obviously not going to submit patches. The companies they have hired to provide local support might submit patches that makes their support job easier, but those will just come in through the normal patch stream, and not be obviously linked to the parliament.
> Yes, This is exactly it. I think only married people should be qualified to adopt children. The > entire gay thing wasn't an issue but the questioning made it one.
You could have chosen to answer the intended question. Not that it matters in this case, both "gays should not be allowed to adopt" and "unmarried couples should not be allowed to adopt" will put your score towards authoritarian[1], and be neutral on the left-right axes.
Nothing wrong with that: "convicted pedophiles should not be allowed to adopt" would also put you towards authoritarian, some authority is necessary for a functioning society. One reason the axes works is that only extremist would be at the extreme ends of the axes.
I guess he just stumbled over the wrong word. He doesn't believe unmarried couples should be allowed to adopt. So rather than answering the intended question (adoption by gays) he answered an unrelated question (adoption by unmarried couples).
Rail systems in Europe were subsidized long before anyone took global warming seriously.
I guess there are many reasons, rail users as a pressure group, a preference to collective solutions over individual solutions, a genuine concern about those unfit to driving cars, local environmental concerns, more tradition for urban planning (what kind of cities do we want), and our cities in general being much older and not geared to cars as the primary transportation form.
Separation of church and state is what all modern states have (using a "True Scotsman" definition of modern states).
Separation of religion and politics is an interesting idea, and suggest that you should not let your view on spiritual matters influence your view on material matters, and vice versa.
Slashdot Mirror
The deal would be a disaster for Apple, because it would lose the ability to pick the IA32 CPU vendor that at a particular moment delivers the best performance in the metrics relevant for Apple. Intel and AMD has a history of leapfrogging each other, and it is always in the interest of a company to have multiple vendors competing for delivering the best product. This is much better than relying on an in-house department which may or may not perform on par with the rest of the industry.
For AMD it would be a disaster, because AMD would suddenly be in a position where it competed directly with its own customers. It would in one stroke be one of the largest producers of PC's, which would be unlikely to sit well with the rest of the industry.
[ The later reason also explain why a an Apple / Disney merger has become less likely, as Apple has become a big time content distributer. ]
Every site based on user contributed content will have to weight the risk of getting sued with the risk of alienating their users by removing popular material.
/..
For most sites, especially those with free access, the proper balance is to leave user content alone until they receive threat of legal action. Everything else is simply too expensive to be practical. It is too expensive to censor material in the original sense (that is, require approval *before* publishing), ánd it is too expensive to pay for legal counseling to judge the merit of each cease and desist letter. So the default policy is that it stays, until smeone threaten to sue. Then it goes. This most likely also the case for
And it works fine, most material is quite legal, and most cease and desist letters are for obvious violations, and anything that remains can be handled on a case by case basis.
This will be clear to most people, the only exception are the usual whiners who always complain about what they get for free. They never contribute anything worthwhile anyway, so that is not a problem for a user generated site like digg.
It is only untrue if you ignore human nature, and go literal with definitions that are useless when going literal.
That is stupid even using literal definitions. A criminal is not a person who might commit a crime, given the right circumstances. A criminal is a person who has committed a crime.
Just about everyone will commit a crime, given the right circumstances (e.g. your child is starving, and you have exhausted all legal means of obtaining food).
One of the properties of a well adjusted society (and criminal code) is that the "right circumstances" occur rarely. Making it a crime to distribute a small hexadecimal number will make the "right circumstances" common among
Just in case the moderator is wrong, and you really are as ignorant as you appear:
1) The FSF has nothing to do with the term "Open Source", apart from an active dislike. They prefer "free software". The organization stewarding the Open Source Definition is the Open Source Initiative.
2) The term "open source" was not applied to software before a meeting 1998 amongst people interested in commercializing free software, where the term was first defined. They did try to trademark it in order to prevent it from being diluted like the term "free software" had already been, but a trademark requires a specific product for trade.
I won't cheat by looking it up, but I have seen a younger ESR as a contributor to both Emacs and nethack. He is no RMS (Emacs, gcc, and gdb), but his developer credibility is still way higher than all the ESR detractors on /. combined. (I know, damnation with faint praise).
No. Congress has the right to make time limited restrictions in the freedom of the citizens of the USA to make copies (and implement methods), in order to promote the progress of science and arts. That is right there, in your constitution.
Nowhere in that constitution does it state the congress has the right to restrict the freedom of citizens of other countries the same way.
That would be similar to Iran demanding that women in the US should wear burkas.
> When an hour of downtime costs you real money, it suddenly becomes a worthwhile thing to have
> someone who's contractually obliged to fix your system when it breaks.
Many vendors, including IBM, would be happy to sell you such a contract for a Linux based system. In fact, I'd be very surprised if Qantas didn't already had such a contract for their Linux based system.
Presumably the new contract is cheaper, at least initially.
That's a claim I never expected to hear.
This would be infinitely better than teaching the students to rely on "authoritative" sources uncritically. Especially from a democratic point of view.
> Tell me again how I consented to this...?
You consented to let the intended receiver do whatever they want with your letter when you send it. Even before gmail they could quite legally put in on their home page, and still have Google (and every other search engine) scan it. Email privacy only covers the steps between the sender and receiver, not the end points.
Sun wanted to free Solaris, a SysVR4 derived OS, which obviously required clearing the licenses first. Hurting Linux may or may not have been a side benefit, but for a company like Sun releasing their "crown jewels" will have been the main issue.
... for finally doing the right thing.
I know it is hard for those of you into person or brand name worshiping to understand, but it is quite possible to compliment people or companies for the good things they do, and at the same time criticize them for the bad things they do. Just because you define your world into personal (or brand) loyalties, it does not mean the rest of us are similar restricted.
The opposition parties tend to support the "alternative" solutions, while the ruling parties tend tend to support he "established" players. When the opposition parties win an election, they immediately betray their former friends and start supporting the establishment.
Not sure why.
Prior art for this story.
Probably not something Google has paid billions of dollars for.
It crams five axes into a single window, using the "usual" two (x & y) axes, plus color, size and animation for the other three axes. Works fine when you use something size related for size, time for animation, and something discrete for color, as in the example.
> It seems to me that too many young people today want everything to be fun and easy. ... back when I was young, we wanted everything to be boring and difficult!
We have to plan for the future using some model of what is going to happen. "No change" is also a model.
For a layman, the question is whose model we believe is most likely to hold true. We can choose the politicians, or the lobbyists, or Hollywood's, or the scientific community's.
Of these four authorities, I believe most in the last one.
Sounds like something from a trade school to me, not a university degree.
The French parliament is obviously not going to submit patches. The companies they have hired to provide local support might submit patches that makes their support job easier, but those will just come in through the normal patch stream, and not be obviously linked to the parliament.
> Yes, This is exactly it. I think only married people should be qualified to adopt children. The
> entire gay thing wasn't an issue but the questioning made it one.
You could have chosen to answer the intended question. Not that it matters in this case, both "gays should not be allowed to adopt" and "unmarried couples should not be allowed to adopt" will put your score towards authoritarian[1], and be neutral on the left-right axes.
Nothing wrong with that: "convicted pedophiles should not be allowed to adopt" would also put you towards authoritarian, some authority is necessary for a functioning society. One reason the axes works is that only extremist would be at the extreme ends of the axes.
Isn't astrology a lot older than the discovery of Pluto? In fact, it old enough that the sky no longer matches the astrological symbols.
I guess he just stumbled over the wrong word. He doesn't believe unmarried couples should be allowed to adopt. So rather than answering the intended question (adoption by gays) he answered an unrelated question (adoption by unmarried couples).
Todays Labour is significantly more right wing than the conservatives were 30 years ago.
Rail systems in Europe were subsidized long before anyone took global warming seriously.
I guess there are many reasons, rail users as a pressure group, a preference to collective solutions over individual solutions, a genuine concern about those unfit to driving cars, local environmental concerns, more tradition for urban planning (what kind of cities do we want), and our cities in general being much older and not geared to cars as the primary transportation form.
Church is to religion what state is to politics.
Separation of church and state is what all modern states have (using a "True Scotsman" definition of modern states).
Separation of religion and politics is an interesting idea, and suggest that you should not let your view on spiritual matters influence your view on material matters, and vice versa.