Seriously. The way I was taught this biz, is don't believe anything anybody tells you. Set the stuff up and evaluate it yourself.
If your associates there have made decisions based upon what they have read, and not what they have experienced, there are probably some really nasty timebombs waiting to go off. Hopefully you'll be far far away by then...
You're funny. If PayPal should do anything, it should be to admit some data entry drone made a mistake and take actions to correct it. Their "180 day" policy does nothing to ensure compliance, it only nets them 6 months of interest.
I consulted for a smallish private girls high school since the time they barely had two networks of Mac SE's. One set of 4 for the faculty and 6 for the computer lab, which had a nice raised floor, and someone had an office in there that was huge.
I started deploying PCs and servers for the administrators. Eventually things grew large enough that we needed a central place for a server room, so we picked a store room in the basement. It was within 100m of all the telco closets in other buildings, so it seemed like a good place. We could hit the rest of the campus without having to buy routers, which were quite expensive in the early 90's. Switches were barely even talked about back then.
Only one problem though. The store room was adjacent to the boiler room. A lot of heating ducts ran above our server room, and would cause the computers to overheat. The only solution for a couple of years was to cut the heat to certain parts of the school. The girls froze their butts off (well, as much as one freezes in Southern California).
Eventually, the person hogging the office in the room with the raised floor left the school. I swooped and made it into our new "data center" (lol it had 2 racks...data center, but calling it that made it seem important and garnered a lot of support which was needed because a couple of other factions had plans for that space too). We pulled a bunch of cat 5e from the old server room to the new "data center" and installed a switch in the old room. That way we kept the hub count within spec.
This is evil because CFLs contain mercury. Walmart will primarly be selling them to people who are to uninformed, irresponsible or just too lazy to dispose of them properly. Thus, Walmart through this action will serve to increase the amount of mercury in our water tables.
Having an option granted is a very different thing from exercising that option and profiting from it. Apple has disclosed an irregularity in granting an option to Steve Jobs, which he never exercised, and indeed gave back to Apple. Of course, they board did choose to compensate him similarly with new options, but there's nothing illegal about that.
HEY! I own one of those "mini TVs". Well, not exactly, it's a 5" LCD, but still, I don't live down by the river. I live in a house, and I even take a bath every Saturday Night whether I need one or not.
however, by integrating in parallels developers could now decided to write ONE version of their software (windows) and be done with it
Which is precisely why there will always be obstacles to running Windows under OS X. I don't see Apple providing a Wine port, nor virtualization in Leopard. Can't have dedicated Mac Developers abandon coding under Cocoa and Carbon and let OS X die on the vine. The farthest Apple will go is to maybe provide a little "special" help to Parallels in the form of providing access to OS X engineers, but that's about it. They want -no- they NEED it to be inconvenient to run Windows on a Mac. An $80 charge before you can pirate windows onto your box is a pretty good level of inconvenience. $80 + a retail Windows license...even more convenient.
Oh wait, didn't we just have a bazillion threads about the Vista EULA forbidding users to run it under a VM. Why is that? Seriously, the answer is because it significantly simplifies any efforts to bypass the DRM technology in Vista. Just like Napster, Apple would find themselves behind contributory copyright infringement suits as soon as they provide virtualization tech and it is used to bypass DRM on HD or BluRay DVDs. So, this is reason #2 why Apple won't be selling bundled virtualization. "But that wouldn't make any sense to file a suit like that" you might say, to which I would have to reply "When has the MPAA ever been logical about filing lawsuits?".
Yeah, definitely all of those guys he let put on their own dog-and-pony show at the WWDC Keynote this year have a very long way to go to come close to Jobs' presentation level. Especially that guy that demoed Time Machine, boy, you could tell he really wants to be the next front man for Apple, and boy did he ever fall flat on his face. The only thing that made his presentation interesting was the technology itself, but even then, I was like "Didn't IBM have this sort of stuff on the 360 years and years ago?". Okay, they didn't have the spiffy timewarp graphic thingy, but you could definitely get back every revision of a file that you had space to store.
Jobs will just fire up the RDF, and with a mesmerizing Keynote, simply move all that stuff way into the back of the minds of the investigators, judges, etc.
Apple iPhone will actually be a joint development with a phone-maker Motorola?
Maybe that's why Zander let Jobs steal the iTunes Phone show by presenting the Nano at the same press conference, because they both had something much better in mind...like a cell phone just a smidge bigger than a nano. I'd love that. Way to lighten up the Bat Belt.
Meh corruption. The FCC is going to get a very public spanking from Congress in the new session. There will be some legislation reversing this decision, and they will probably throw in some boundaries to rein the FCC in.
Whether you call it a module, or an application, both are a gob of bits loaded into RAM, dynamically linked to GPL code, then utilize said GPL code to provide services. This logic is contrary to the GPL which states that a non-GPL program may call services of a GPL program through a public interface, so long as it does not rely on "intimate knowledge" of how the GPL code operates. Last time I checked, Linux device driver interfaces and KPIs were pretty well documented in public, and though I could see the case to exclude certain modules that access kernel tables that are hidden behind the KPIs, I have to say I see no reason stated by the GPL that suggests a non-GPL program can't be loaded on a GPL operating system and use the services provided by that operating system, kernelspace, userspace, or otherwise.
As for your straw man argument (i.e., XGL), GPL absolutely guarantees that you can use your GPL code without having to also use non-GPL code. Your argument is a non-starter.
You might want to try actually reading the GPL and the FAQ of the GPL before representing yourself as an authority on this topic. There is also a website which you may be unfamiliar with, where I am sure you will be welcomed here
The funny thing about this whole thing is the dunderheads who stirred up this shit have unwittingly violated the GPL themselves by trying to modify the license without obtaining permission from all the authors involved. Why Linus held back on that point in his posting kind of escapes me.
It's definitely a good thing. The idea of banning binary kernel modules is a slippery slope that eventually leads to the idea that you can't run any program under linux unless it's GPL.
"So I think of the brainstorm of putting it on the upper hinge."
Except in her example, her design choices would no doubt result in tons of product liability for her company, when the sensors fail to stop the garage door from closing on a child.
"A devastating loss of cash and personal satisfaction for David Lindhardt"
I'm not sure if the judge moonlights as an amateur comic, but his ruling sure cracked me up. Hope e360 burns up more of their money getting denied satisfaction by the legal system.
I heard spamhaus got flooded with examples of spam from e360...maybe someone should put together a consortium of those people to go sue e360 for abuse and then ask for their domain registrar to suspend their domain. Now, that would be funny.
I don't see any problem with the studios offering the same price for a movie to these retailers, for the same product. But a DVD is not a digital download. There is no reason they should expect a lower price on a physical DVD, there are additional manufacturing, warehousing, handling and shipping costs. This is just some old tired dogs trying to hang on to the past. We never heard them complain about the cable companies getting a lower price on movies...
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. The way I was taught this biz, is don't believe anything anybody tells you. Set the stuff up and evaluate it yourself.
If your associates there have made decisions based upon what they have read, and not what they have experienced, there are probably some really nasty timebombs waiting to go off. Hopefully you'll be far far away by then...
Certainly living up to your namesake there, Bad.
You're funny. If PayPal should do anything, it should be to admit some data entry drone made a mistake and take actions to correct it. Their "180 day" policy does nothing to ensure compliance, it only nets them 6 months of interest.
I consulted for a smallish private girls high school since the time they barely had two networks of Mac SE's. One set of 4 for the faculty and 6 for the computer lab, which had a nice raised floor, and someone had an office in there that was huge.
I started deploying PCs and servers for the administrators. Eventually things grew large enough that we needed a central place for a server room, so we picked a store room in the basement. It was within 100m of all the telco closets in other buildings, so it seemed like a good place. We could hit the rest of the campus without having to buy routers, which were quite expensive in the early 90's. Switches were barely even talked about back then.
Only one problem though. The store room was adjacent to the boiler room. A lot of heating ducts ran above our server room, and would cause the computers to overheat. The only solution for a couple of years was to cut the heat to certain parts of the school. The girls froze their butts off (well, as much as one freezes in Southern California).
Eventually, the person hogging the office in the room with the raised floor left the school. I swooped and made it into our new "data center" (lol it had 2 racks...data center, but calling it that made it seem important and garnered a lot of support which was needed because a couple of other factions had plans for that space too). We pulled a bunch of cat 5e from the old server room to the new "data center" and installed a switch in the old room. That way we kept the hub count within spec.
I don't know if Martinez sewer gas does it like Oakland sewer gas.
This is evil because CFLs contain mercury. Walmart will primarly be selling them to people who are to uninformed, irresponsible or just too lazy to dispose of them properly. Thus, Walmart through this action will serve to increase the amount of mercury in our water tables.
Having an option granted is a very different thing from exercising that option and profiting from it. Apple has disclosed an irregularity in granting an option to Steve Jobs, which he never exercised, and indeed gave back to Apple. Of course, they board did choose to compensate him similarly with new options, but there's nothing illegal about that.
Apple is an integration company. The product they sell is user experience.
HEY! I own one of those "mini TVs". Well, not exactly, it's a 5" LCD, but still, I don't live down by the river. I live in a house, and I even take a bath every Saturday Night whether I need one or not.
however, by integrating in parallels developers could now decided to write ONE version of their software (windows) and be done with it
Which is precisely why there will always be obstacles to running Windows under OS X. I don't see Apple providing a Wine port, nor virtualization in Leopard. Can't have dedicated Mac Developers abandon coding under Cocoa and Carbon and let OS X die on the vine. The farthest Apple will go is to maybe provide a little "special" help to Parallels in the form of providing access to OS X engineers, but that's about it. They want -no- they NEED it to be inconvenient to run Windows on a Mac. An $80 charge before you can pirate windows onto your box is a pretty good level of inconvenience. $80 + a retail Windows license...even more convenient.
Oh wait, didn't we just have a bazillion threads about the Vista EULA forbidding users to run it under a VM. Why is that? Seriously, the answer is because it significantly simplifies any efforts to bypass the DRM technology in Vista. Just like Napster, Apple would find themselves behind contributory copyright infringement suits as soon as they provide virtualization tech and it is used to bypass DRM on HD or BluRay DVDs. So, this is reason #2 why Apple won't be selling bundled virtualization. "But that wouldn't make any sense to file a suit like that" you might say, to which I would have to reply "When has the MPAA ever been logical about filing lawsuits?".
Yeah, definitely all of those guys he let put on their own dog-and-pony show at the WWDC Keynote this year have a very long way to go to come close to Jobs' presentation level. Especially that guy that demoed Time Machine, boy, you could tell he really wants to be the next front man for Apple, and boy did he ever fall flat on his face. The only thing that made his presentation interesting was the technology itself, but even then, I was like "Didn't IBM have this sort of stuff on the 360 years and years ago?". Okay, they didn't have the spiffy timewarp graphic thingy, but you could definitely get back every revision of a file that you had space to store.
Jobs will just fire up the RDF, and with a mesmerizing Keynote, simply move all that stuff way into the back of the minds of the investigators, judges, etc.
Apple iPhone will actually be a joint development with a phone-maker Motorola?
Maybe that's why Zander let Jobs steal the iTunes Phone show by presenting the Nano at the same press conference, because they both had something much better in mind...like a cell phone just a smidge bigger than a nano. I'd love that. Way to lighten up the Bat Belt.
Meh corruption. The FCC is going to get a very public spanking from Congress in the new session. There will be some legislation reversing this decision, and they will probably throw in some boundaries to rein the FCC in.
I think there will be an obstruction of trade class action suit filed against Microsoft for this.
Whether you call it a module, or an application, both are a gob of bits loaded into RAM, dynamically linked to GPL code, then utilize said GPL code to provide services. This logic is contrary to the GPL which states that a non-GPL program may call services of a GPL program through a public interface, so long as it does not rely on "intimate knowledge" of how the GPL code operates. Last time I checked, Linux device driver interfaces and KPIs were pretty well documented in public, and though I could see the case to exclude certain modules that access kernel tables that are hidden behind the KPIs, I have to say I see no reason stated by the GPL that suggests a non-GPL program can't be loaded on a GPL operating system and use the services provided by that operating system, kernelspace, userspace, or otherwise.
As for your straw man argument (i.e., XGL), GPL absolutely guarantees that you can use your GPL code without having to also use non-GPL code. Your argument is a non-starter.
You might want to try actually reading the GPL and the FAQ of the GPL before representing yourself as an authority on this topic. There is also a website which you may be unfamiliar with, where I am sure you will be welcomed here
The funny thing about this whole thing is the dunderheads who stirred up this shit have unwittingly violated the GPL themselves by trying to modify the license without obtaining permission from all the authors involved. Why Linus held back on that point in his posting kind of escapes me.
It's definitely a good thing. The idea of banning binary kernel modules is a slippery slope that eventually leads to the idea that you can't run any program under linux unless it's GPL.
It's Twenty Seven B Stroke Six YIC
"So I think of the brainstorm of putting it on the upper hinge."
Except in her example, her design choices would no doubt result in tons of product liability for her company, when the sensors fail to stop the garage door from closing on a child.
A man having a mid-life crisis has his life turned upside down when he takes in a border collie crazier than he is.
Can't think of anyone better than Jeff Bridges to play that role.
No to mention there were at least 3 of them, they could have easily carried him away.
Why should any politician step down because they are gay? It's ridiculous.
"A devastating loss of cash and personal satisfaction for David Lindhardt"
I'm not sure if the judge moonlights as an amateur comic, but his ruling sure cracked me up. Hope e360 burns up more of their money getting denied satisfaction by the legal system.
I heard spamhaus got flooded with examples of spam from e360...maybe someone should put together a consortium of those people to go sue e360 for abuse and then ask for their domain registrar to suspend their domain. Now, that would be funny.
I agree dr_dank. I think Jack is pulling a few pages from John Dvorak's playbook.
I don't see any problem with the studios offering the same price for a movie to these retailers, for the same product. But a DVD is not a digital download. There is no reason they should expect a lower price on a physical DVD, there are additional manufacturing, warehousing, handling and shipping costs. This is just some old tired dogs trying to hang on to the past. We never heard them complain about the cable companies getting a lower price on movies...