The moment they show it to you, the OSS community will 'remove' it from all the distros of Linux. Then SCO won't be able to get licensing fees from anybody.
Of course. However this doesn't mean that *if* (I don't think there is, but let's assume for the sake of argument here) there is infringing code they can still collect for damages. Expecting us to leave the code in and pay licensing from this point forward is a fantasy that ain't going to happen. But the agument that if we removed the (still theoretical) code it would ruin their case and keep them from collecting damages is stupid. If there was ever infringement they can collect.
How long ago did you last try Gentoo? I ask because I haven't encountered any of those problems. I started doing Gentoo about, hmmm, 3 months ago (maybe 4). The only problem I've encountered so far is that the compile options are set to -O3 by default, which did cause some crashes during compile, I set it down to -O2 and everything worked fine. No crashes, no dependancy problems, just the hassle of compiling everything before it'll work.
I'm given to understand that urpmi actually works pretty well for avoiding dependancy hell, but I haven't installed Mandrake or Redhat lately... As for Debian and apt-get, I gave it a shot, and it worked quite well. Except. I had three packages where I'd gotten dependant on features from the newest version, and Debian (being so stable) did not have the newest versions of those packages (two or three revisions down the tree, as I recall).
I'll probably try something else in the near future, I'm not a distro bigot:) For now, Gentoo works quite well, and I'm still being forced to learn how to make things work. Actually I'm planning on getting the MandrakeMove just so I can a) Impress my friends and family with the beauty that is Unix, and b) see what Mandrake 9.2 looks/feels like.
I use Gentoo myself, mainly to avoid Dependancy Hell, but it gets old waiting 10+ hours for KDE or any other massive program to compile. Frankly, the speed boost for a specific to me compile isn't really worth the hassle of having to wait for the compile...
OTOH, I have learned more about Linux since I tried Gentoo than I ever did while using Redhat or Mandrake. Which is the real reason I chose it. I needed something that would force me to learn how to use it better.
I've always thought that we made a rather serious mistake back in the 1830's when Caveat Emptor was allowed to become the legal standard. Prior to that it was assumed that there would be "Fair Dealing". Obviously there are flaws with the fair dealing standard (who defines "fair" just to begin with), but in the nearly 200 years we've been operating with Cateat Emptor it hasn't worked out too well for Joe Average.
The main problem is the double standard, if Joe Average messes up (fails to read fine print, actually expects a product to behave as advertised, etc) he not only gets reamed, he's expected to bring his own vasaline. When Foo Corp messes up (prints "incorrect" prices, etc) they don't get reamed; usually they're allowed to get away with saying "oops, we made a mistake, you really can't buy a computer for $50". And that's a serious problem. Personally I'd rather we went to a standard that *didn't* encourage corporations (and people) to look for tiny mistakes that can be used to ream someone, but if that's the way we want to play it the system needs to work in reverse too.
On a more on topic note, I'm pretty sure that Caveat Emptor doesn't apply anyway, it sounds more like a case of false advertising to me. The ads and the box say "Now includes *FOO*", but the fine print defines "foo" to mean "bar". If that's legal, it shouldn't be.
Re:when we're finished patting ourselves on the ba
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 1
You might also note that one has to be a Fortune 500 size company to get enough support from Microsoft to keep IIS running reliably.
Heh. Not true, but damn funny none the less. One of the bits of hypocracy from MS that I especially love is the "Cost of Support" line they feed people. RedHat offers a year's support for $178, about what WinXP costs (ok, a bit more, but not much). WinXP has the support as an extra cost on top of the purchase cost...
I've never had the pleasure of administering an IIS system, but various friends have and I'm amazed that any IIS systems can actually stay up long enough to serve a web page. More than anything else, I think that the success of Apache is simply due to the fact that IIS is a really bad program.
Re:when we're finished patting ourselves on the ba
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
"Our webserver is used by more Forbes/Fortune 500 companies and is used by more secure websites. Apaches numbers are only high because a lot of amateurs use it".
What is our argument to that? (we don't have one. We just ignore it and continue patting ourselves on the back.)
Um, why should I care what Forbes/Fortune 500 companies are doing? Remember these are the same companies which have such a terrific track record for merger success (more than half of all mergers fail within 4 years), corporate ethics (Enron/Haliburton/etc anyone?), and even profitibility (Disney under Eisner). Sure, they buy a lot of MS software, which doubtless is yet another measure of their essential stupidity. I don't really understand how highly educated executives can make such consistantly bad decisions, but they do.
I agree that we have to find out what we're doing wrong, but I can't see Fortune 500 company adoption as a huge indicator of doing things right. They're dinosaurs run by dinosaurs and I rather strongly suspect that many of the current Fortune 500 companies will die off in the next decade.
Probably both, but the real question is: does it really matter? Actually, from am "adopting Free Software" standpoint people running Apache on Windows is probably better. It shows them that a) it works, b) the TCO myth is just that, and c) it works *better* than MS IIS. This will naturally lead people into wondering of other Free Software has the same qualities (which, unfortunately, not all of it does, but much of it does).
What I'm saying is that an IT type who starts using Apache on Windows is likely to begin using other Free Software, and eventually to leave the clutches of MS entirely. Or at least that's the happy fantasy version:)
The last thing you want is a hacker breaking into your brain and controlling you.
Read "Ghost in the Shell" (both 1 and 2) by Shirow Masamune, its one of his key plot points. He does a pretty good job of showing a cybernetically integrated society, and the potential drawbacks to cyborging. In addition his art is very good. See a preview here of GitS 2. He's really gotten into using his Mac for 3d imaging and shading lately, he's one of the few artists I've seen who manages to pull it off without looking like he's got 2d drawings badly pasted onto 3d backgrounds. Dunno how he manages that.
Of course, if manga isn't your thing I guess Shirow wouldn't be much fun to read.
The hudge easily gave IBM what they had asked for, and gave a time frame for that. One month to produce the evidence (over the holiday season - not much:), and a couple weeks for IBM to digest that. Dismissing the case was not an option at this point.
I still don't get it. They were the ones suing, shouldn't it be expected that they have their evidence ready to present when the case first started? I could understand giving the defense time to gather evidence, but the plaintiff should be expected to have their evidence ready to present. Seems to me at least that a plaintiff showing up without their evidence is pretty good grounds for dismisal. Is it really generally acceptable to bring suit before you assemble your evidence? I admit freely that I've never sued or been sued, so I'm ignorant here.
(How did that comment I'm replying to get rated 'Insightful'??)
Maybe because there wasn't a "+1 Good Question" modifier? I was ranting a bit, but I really was also seeking information.
I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around the entire thing. How is it even possible to demand money from people for an infringement that you won't proove? I mean, if I went around saying that WinXP had some of my code, and I wanted $699 per XP user; *but* I won't actually say what XP code was stolen, I'd be laughed off the face of the planet.
Is there some bizarre "you don't have to show infringement" legal clause I'm unaware of? I know that the judge has required that SCO show proof (in a couple of months), but why did the judge give them a couple of months? What's wrong with: "show proof now, or I dismiss the case with prejudice"? Was the judge required to give SCO extortion time, or did the judge just think "gee, they seem honest, I'll give them a few months before requiring that they show proof"?
What really baffles me is that so much of the mainstream press coverage isn't even mentioning the "SCO won't say what's infringing" bit... I understand why SCO doesn't want to say what's infringing: they want Linux to infringe so they can collect royalties. I just don't understand why any sane judge would give them even a couple of months of blackmail time before requiring proof.
Re:"grok" is from "Stranger in a Strange Land"
on
The Voice of Groklaw
·
· Score: 3, Funny
...by R.A. Heinlein. It's Martian for "understand deeply".
Well, not to get "I'm geekier than you", but "deeply" doesn't quite have the right emphisis. The root of grok was "drink", and metaphorically "to become one with". Which meant that grok, in the understanding sense, would mean to understand perfectly and completely.
In an effort to avoid becoming completly geeky, I have avoided looking up the page number where Mike explans this:)
I also personally believe that "geek" is Martian for "terribly attractive".
If not martian it should mean that in some language. 'Course, I tend to think it means that in English; my GF is a geek too.
Beagle burned? This is BIG. There're Oxygen in mars's atmosphere!
Um, yes, there is. About.13% according to NASA Not to mention all the oxygen locked up in the 95% or so carbon *dioxide* that makes up the bulk of the atmosphere. Not a lot of oxygen I'll grant you, but free oxygen none the less. It'll make colonization a lot easier.
You are forgetting something - making the classic American mistake. America != The World. In fact, America is a minority when it comes to population.
Nope, I didn't forget. The move is multinational. My computer wasn't made in the US either, like most hardware it was made in China/Taiwan/Vietnam/Korea/Etc. Same as yours, same as the guy in Germany, or Japan, or Brazil, or wherever. It isn't just Phoenix, but virtually every BIOS maker who has signed on to DRM. The legal situation in some non-US countries may be better, but don't count on it. You'd be amazed at the amount of sovregnity that a country surrenders when they sign on to the WTO... Here in the US we can't pass environmental laws that financially harm Mexican or Canadian corporations because of Chapter 11 of NAFTA [footnote]; the WTO treaties have similar nasty clauses.
FOOTNOTE: Actually we can *pass* the laws, then a secret group of three individuals (who are they? We aren't allowed to know, except that at least one will be chosen by the corporation claiming financial harm) will meet (where? We aren't allowed to know) and discuss (Can we see the procedings? Certainly not) the situation. After discussion they will fine the offending US State (or federal government) an amount equal to the imagined profits that the corporation claims it has lost, including potential future earnings. This amount will often be in the multi-billion dollar level. California, as an example, has already repealed a law keeping cancer causing fuel additives out of fuel because they couldn't afford to pay the fine. No voter input, no accountability, just secret meetings declaring that Californians had to accept cencer causing chemicals in their groundwater becuase a Canadian corporation was afraid it might loose a few dollars...
I'm not an isolationist. I'm in favor of international trade. But NAFTA and the WTO aren't about trade, they're about eleminating the power of the citizens in their nations.
If enough people (the masses) are doing something illegal, wouldn't that send out a very clear message that something is wrong with the definition of legal?
Well, yes and no. See examples under "obscenity" (in my home state, Texas, a couple of undercover Narcs arrested a woman for selling dildos, she's awaiting trial now). Similarly, in California for example, a large majority favored decriminilizing marijuana for medical reasons, that hasn't worked either [footnote].
In the long run, your're right. Enough people do the illegal thing and it tends to become at least defacto legal. In the short run it winds up being used as a method of stomping on people who piss off those in power (for example, the author of "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do" is one of the few people the Federal government has prosicuted for taking advantage of California's mediacal marijuana laws. It was obviously a politically motivated arrest, which ultimately lead to the author's death.)
.
.
FOOTNOTE: This is actually a rant. Has the concept of "State's Rights" *ever* actually been used to the advantage of the individual? And, more importantly, has there *ever* been a politician who really supported it? I mean, we've got John Ashcroft who has on several occasions spoken out in favor of State's Rights, right up until California passed a medical marijuana law, Oregan passed an assisted suicide law, etc. Seemingly the people who scream the loudest about the importance of State's Rights are the most likely to use Federal power to prevent State's Rights from helping the individual. Feh.
Yes,.NET makes a lot of things a lot easier, and it makes some things more difficult. The Visual Studio IDE still blows away anything and everything Linux offers and developing world class web apps can be done with.NET faster than in Linux.
I'll agree that there is no free IDE that can throw up a GUI as quickly and as well as MS [VisualBasic.NET Whatever]. The underlying programming language (VB) sucks big ones, but the GUI maker is supurb, no doubt. I'd be damn happy if there were a GPLed GUI maker that good.
The bigest concern is software lockin with patents and DMCA. Making Linux illegal would be MS dream.
That's the real kicker, isn't it? Now that Phoenix has signed on to "Trusted Computing" we are facing the very real possibility that the next generation of hardware (and MS OS) will have a very difficult to break content lock in. I doubt they'd do anything as blatient as making Linux impossible to run, but it'd have to run in "Non-Trusted" mode, MS webservers wouldn't serve to a non-trusted computer, movies, sounds, and images built with "trusted" packages won't open on non-trusted OSes.
Its likely that a group of hackers would crack it, and allow Linux to open the "secure" content, but that would be illegal, which kinda kills the idea of Linux as an OS for the masses...
This is the real threat, and considering MS's history I really do think they'll try it. OpenOffice can open Word files? No problem, DRM them and poof, no more (legal) OpenOffice. Legal doesn't much matter to you and me, I figure that if I've bought the content I can bloody well open it on the platform of my choice; but legal does matter to corporate adopters. If they can't *legally* open the MS Word document sent to them, they'll leave Linux, its that simple. And, ultimately, legal does matter to us, if we're forced to run pirate than we are open to lawsuits, arrest, etc. The DMCA must be overturned.
I don't think you'd even have to use super miniturized components. Some types of plastic explosive have a hardness quite similar to the plastic used to make laptop computer cases. Theoretically a person could replace the entire case of a laptop with one made out of plastic explosive... Give it a good paint job and you have a literal/dev/bomb. Which not only starts up normally, but can do anything else you'd expect a computer to.
Hell, it might even be possible to do the job quick enough to replace the case of an innocent person's laptop without their notice (break in the day before the flight, alter laptop, leave carefully so as not to leave traces, a sleeper who doesn't even know he's asleep). Set it off with a timer program...
None of this addresses the fact that if a person *really* wanted to take down an airplane all it takes is a surface to air missile at the end of the runway. If you can smuggle thousands of tonnes of drugs into this country annually, I'm sure a few SAMs aren't impossible.
He's not doing anything. He's telling you to turn on the computer, log in and show him the files...
Riiiggghhttt. And the bank robber didn't do anything either, he just told the teller to give him money.
Telling you to activate a device is silly, but defensable. Telling you to open encrypted files doesn't increase security one bit, and brings up all sorts of trade secret laws, as well as simply being an inexcusable invasion of privacy.
I've never understood the odd fixation the airport "security" corporations have with techie toys. Yes, I suppose you could hide a knife, or a small gun, or a small explosive charge, inside a laptop. However how does turning the bleeding thing on (which, as Mr. Berry points out, seems to be the whole point of many airport security types existance) proove that it doesn't contain hidden weapons? A smaller battery pack, designed for only a few minutes of life would provide ample space for concealing just about anything. Likewise replacing the CD or floppy bay with a false cover would provide a nice little hiding place for unpleasant things. Both would still leave the computer functional (at least long enough to get past Mr. Minimum Wage and bored).
Airport security was a joke before Sep 11, and remains a joke today. At my local airport we have the same minimum wage, minimum training, minimum testing, "security" guards that we had prior to 9/11. The only difference is that now they want to make you think you're more secure so they add all sorts of obvious and invasive procedures. Show a photo ID, sure that'll stop terrorists, I'm sure they've never heard of fake IDs...
Big surprise here: private, for profit, "security" corprations have the same priority that all private for profit corporations have. They want to make the most money by spending the least money as goal number 1. Actually providing security is, by definition, goal number 2 at the best. This isn't to say that private, for profit, corporations are bad. Its just a recognition of reality, the way corporate law works their prime goal must be making money, everything else is secondary. Real security might involve several things, but at the minimum it must involve removing the profit motive from security. Why? Because every dollar that goes into profit isn't going into *security*. I'd be happy if they started using real police officers as airport security.
So, by all means, let's get busy not doing anything real to improve airport security, instead let's harrass the geek crowd. Not that I'm bitter or anything...
Why not retro rocket thrusters? Okay, okay, I speculate they're heavy and they're complicated
I suspect its the "complicated" aspect that makes them undesireable. Even for a moon landing remote control would have too much speed of light lag to be workable, which means Mars is right out for that approach. Computer controlled rocket landing sounds like a recipe for disaster, there's simply too many variables happening in realtime. Obviously it worked for the Viking series, but I suspect that we had unusually good luck there. And, as has been pointed out, the Viking probes were both huge and expensive, more room to cram in control systems.
Recall that it was only because Neil Armstrong was such a hotshot pilot that Apollo 11 didn't crash and kill them both. Well, that and he insisted on the lander carrying enough fuel for an emergency maneuver like the one he performed.
Why would you think that recent technology is any more reliable than older stuff? Faster, sure, but I wouldn't have said more reliable. Remember old '30s cars that you still see driving around sometimes? There's very little on them that can't be fixed with gaffer tape and a hammer, and they go for ever.
Um, no. They don't "go forever". You have to have a goodly supply of duct tape and hammers becuase those old monstrosities break down every five or six hundred miles. Neverminding safety improvements, efficiencey (ie: miles per gallon), etc. Give me a modern car made out of aluminum and fiberglass any time, thanks.
Or: compare old, low-capacity hard-drives with today's monsters. I have a 30MB SCSI-1 hard drive that lay in a drawer for 10 years and worked perfectly the first time I tried it, and in fact held my log partition for a while: these days you're lucky to get a hard-drive warranty that lasts more than a year.
Here you do have a point, but I'll argue its simply because back then a hard drive was so expensive to make that they made them to last ("What do you mean this $1,000 HD died after a year?!?"). Today's hard drives are definately built cheaper, partially because they're cheap enough that people don't mind replacing them, and partially because we've been conned into believing that hard drives are disposable. OTOH, you can buy higher quality hard drives for a higher price, and they too will last longer.
Same goes for printers, I've got an ancient HP laser printer, it weighs about 150 pounds. It is slow, and (back when it was new) cost in the $2000 range. Still works great. No mystery though, its the same concept: if you pay $2000 you expect it to *last*, you pay $150 (what I paid for my newest laser printer) you really can't reasonably expect it to last so long.
Faster, smaller ICs? More prone to cosmic rays. Etcetera.
Here I'll disagree, I have no doubt that people building space probes will take the money to buy the more expensive (and more reliable) parts.
As for the success of the 1970's era probes I'll argue two things, firstly the various agencies had bigger budgets (when inflation if factored in), which meant they could build better probes. Secondly, I'll say that luck plays a big part in this, Mars is a long damn way off, all sorts of stuff can happen on the trip.
I just heard about someone that got arrested for handing out bibles on a high school campus, and it really pissed me off. They're not affiliated with the school, they're there on their own time. Why can't they hand out literature? They're not charging for it. They're not forcing anyone to listen to them. They do not have a captive audience.
I wouldn't believe everything I hear on this subject. The Fanatic Minority is not above spreading outright lies to make themselves sound like victims. Not saying that in this particular case what you say isn't true, just saying that I'd want to see some pretty convincing coverage from non-Fanatic Minority newssources before I believed it.
OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that there are laws against handing out literature of any sort on school grounds simply because of traffic issues. If group Foo wants to hand out tracts, the next thing you know groups Bar, Baaz, and Quux will also insist on handing out their tracts, and ultimately the kids would wind up having to run a gauntlet simply to get to class. Its kinda like spam, if one person does it its annoying but not really bad, when hundreds do it it keeps things from working.
What about a judge displaying the ten commandments in his courthouse?
That is a violation of the idea of a secular government, and has been delt with quite properly by ordering its removal and suspending the judge in question. However it isn't equivalant to a student wearing a head scarf or cross. I'd argue that the judge displaying the ten commandments is equivient to a teacher leading a prayer. In both of those cases it would be a person in a position of state granted authority using that authority to intemidate people not of their religion.
Which is the whole point of a secular government, the idea that people with government power don't use that power to intemidate people of other religions. I, for one, find it rather revoltingly hypocritical that the US Supreme Court opens with prayers to the Christian god, that the US Congress frequently has prayers to the Christian god, and that our currency has an appeal to the Christian god embedded upon it. All of these are clear violations of the idea that the government doesn't use its power to promote any particular religion.
Also, for those who will try to argue that the currency, at least, isn't specifically Christian I will ask kindly that you grow up. Of course its Christian, no other religion on earth uses the word for "deity" as a name for their particular deity (except Islam, and they always use the Arabic word "Allah" even when the Muslum in question isn't Arabic). "In God We Trust" is pro-Christian propaganda, and as a non-Christian I can't help but see at is a message gently reminding me that I'm not as important as Christians are.
I realize that many of the people who would like to see a less secular government are decent people who don't want to use government to intemidate followers of other religions. But ultimately that's what it comes down to. If I (or any other non-Christian) enter a courthouse where the judge displays the Ten Commandments, and opens with a prayer to the Christian god, I will come to the inescapiable conclusion that due to my religion I won't get a fair trial.
This is also why a city displaying a creche is a bad idea. Again, I don't think that the peole who want the city to display a creche are bad people bent on stomping down people of other religions. Its just that I can't see any reason other than intemidation to use *government* money and *government* land to display a religious symbol. There are several perfectly appropriate places to put creches, in church yards, on the private property of believers. When I, or any other non-Christian, see a government creche on government land the message is clear: I'd better keep my head down, because the Christians are more important than I am. It says "You are a second class citizen". I know that isn't the message that (most) of the people who want to put up government creches want to send; but it is the message that ultimately gets sent.
Girls wearing the veil (or being forced to?) are not directly dangerous for democracy per se. It is the ideology that they are trying to force upon other women of the same religion. Please don't confuse islam, with islamism.
While I certainly recognize the difference between Islam and Islamism, I don't think that women wearing head scarves (I earlier mis-stated myself and said veils) is necessarially a sign of Islamism. Similarly, a woman choosing to wear a head scarf is hardly a really aggressive push towards Islamism. Personally, I'd wager that many (though certainly not all) of the women wearing head scarves are coerced in some way, OTOH Menonite women wear those odd little caps and ugly dresses all the time, and again I doubt that all of them are forced into doing so.
I think that in this case the existance of Islamism (which, I quite agree, is a dangerous and real threat to my own personal liberty) is not really a factor. At issue is the question of weather followers of Islam (and Jewdism, Christianity, etc) will be granted freedom of religion in France.
Actually, this follows a disturbing trend of pretending that people in school don't have rights. Here in the US we see this trend expressed in random searches without a warrent, now in France they want to eleminate the right to religious expression... I won't argue that a school is, by definition, a more controled environment than real life, but this doesn't mean that a student surrenders his civil rights at the door.
Basically they are saying our schools are secular and so all religious identity is banned. I really don't have a problem with that. People can believe what they like but I don't want it forced on me
You've fallen into the same trap that the Fantatical Minority (or Religious Right as they choose to call themselves) has. Seeing a symbol (or person, or activity) that you disapprove of isn't having it "forced on you". A Christian wearing a cross, or a Muslum wearing a veil, neither of these are people trying to force their religion on you, they're simply practicing it. You can consider it obnoxious, or irritating, or whatever, but it doesn't infringe on your rights. Exactly the same way that when one of the Fanatical Minority sees a gay couple walking hand in hand it offends them, but it doesn't infringe on their rights.
More to the point, I can't agree with you that a public school can force a person to behave in a secular manner any more than I cann accept that a public school could force someone to behave in a religous manner. Forcing someone *not* to wear a cross is identical to forcing someone *to* wear a cross. Its religious oppression either way you look at it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm given to understand that urpmi actually works pretty well for avoiding dependancy hell, but I haven't installed Mandrake or Redhat lately... As for Debian and apt-get, I gave it a shot, and it worked quite well. Except. I had three packages where I'd gotten dependant on features from the newest version, and Debian (being so stable) did not have the newest versions of those packages (two or three revisions down the tree, as I recall).
I'll probably try something else in the near future, I'm not a distro bigot :) For now, Gentoo works quite well, and I'm still being forced to learn how to make things work. Actually I'm planning on getting the MandrakeMove just so I can a) Impress my friends and family with the beauty that is Unix, and b) see what Mandrake 9.2 looks/feels like.
OTOH, I have learned more about Linux since I tried Gentoo than I ever did while using Redhat or Mandrake. Which is the real reason I chose it. I needed something that would force me to learn how to use it better.
I've always thought that we made a rather serious mistake back in the 1830's when Caveat Emptor was allowed to become the legal standard. Prior to that it was assumed that there would be "Fair Dealing". Obviously there are flaws with the fair dealing standard (who defines "fair" just to begin with), but in the nearly 200 years we've been operating with Cateat Emptor it hasn't worked out too well for Joe Average.
The main problem is the double standard, if Joe Average messes up (fails to read fine print, actually expects a product to behave as advertised, etc) he not only gets reamed, he's expected to bring his own vasaline. When Foo Corp messes up (prints "incorrect" prices, etc) they don't get reamed; usually they're allowed to get away with saying "oops, we made a mistake, you really can't buy a computer for $50". And that's a serious problem. Personally I'd rather we went to a standard that *didn't* encourage corporations (and people) to look for tiny mistakes that can be used to ream someone, but if that's the way we want to play it the system needs to work in reverse too.
On a more on topic note, I'm pretty sure that Caveat Emptor doesn't apply anyway, it sounds more like a case of false advertising to me. The ads and the box say "Now includes *FOO*", but the fine print defines "foo" to mean "bar". If that's legal, it shouldn't be.
I've never had the pleasure of administering an IIS system, but various friends have and I'm amazed that any IIS systems can actually stay up long enough to serve a web page. More than anything else, I think that the success of Apache is simply due to the fact that IIS is a really bad program.
I agree that we have to find out what we're doing wrong, but I can't see Fortune 500 company adoption as a huge indicator of doing things right. They're dinosaurs run by dinosaurs and I rather strongly suspect that many of the current Fortune 500 companies will die off in the next decade.
What I'm saying is that an IT type who starts using Apache on Windows is likely to begin using other Free Software, and eventually to leave the clutches of MS entirely. Or at least that's the happy fantasy version :)
Of course, if manga isn't your thing I guess Shirow wouldn't be much fun to read.
Maybe because there wasn't a "+1 Good Question" modifier? I was ranting a bit, but I really was also seeking information.
Is there some bizarre "you don't have to show infringement" legal clause I'm unaware of? I know that the judge has required that SCO show proof (in a couple of months), but why did the judge give them a couple of months? What's wrong with: "show proof now, or I dismiss the case with prejudice"? Was the judge required to give SCO extortion time, or did the judge just think "gee, they seem honest, I'll give them a few months before requiring that they show proof"?
What really baffles me is that so much of the mainstream press coverage isn't even mentioning the "SCO won't say what's infringing" bit... I understand why SCO doesn't want to say what's infringing: they want Linux to infringe so they can collect royalties. I just don't understand why any sane judge would give them even a couple of months of blackmail time before requiring proof.
In an effort to avoid becoming completly geeky, I have avoided looking up the page number where Mike explans this
If not martian it should mean that in some language. 'Course, I tend to think it means that in English; my GF is a geek too.
FOOTNOTE: Actually we can *pass* the laws, then a secret group of three individuals (who are they? We aren't allowed to know, except that at least one will be chosen by the corporation claiming financial harm) will meet (where? We aren't allowed to know) and discuss (Can we see the procedings? Certainly not) the situation. After discussion they will fine the offending US State (or federal government) an amount equal to the imagined profits that the corporation claims it has lost, including potential future earnings. This amount will often be in the multi-billion dollar level. California, as an example, has already repealed a law keeping cancer causing fuel additives out of fuel because they couldn't afford to pay the fine. No voter input, no accountability, just secret meetings declaring that Californians had to accept cencer causing chemicals in their groundwater becuase a Canadian corporation was afraid it might loose a few dollars...
I'm not an isolationist. I'm in favor of international trade. But NAFTA and the WTO aren't about trade, they're about eleminating the power of the citizens in their nations.
In the long run, your're right. Enough people do the illegal thing and it tends to become at least defacto legal. In the short run it winds up being used as a method of stomping on people who piss off those in power (for example, the author of "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do" is one of the few people the Federal government has prosicuted for taking advantage of California's mediacal marijuana laws. It was obviously a politically motivated arrest, which ultimately lead to the author's death.)
.
.
FOOTNOTE: This is actually a rant. Has the concept of "State's Rights" *ever* actually been used to the advantage of the individual? And, more importantly, has there *ever* been a politician who really supported it? I mean, we've got John Ashcroft who has on several occasions spoken out in favor of State's Rights, right up until California passed a medical marijuana law, Oregan passed an assisted suicide law, etc. Seemingly the people who scream the loudest about the importance of State's Rights are the most likely to use Federal power to prevent State's Rights from helping the individual. Feh.
Its likely that a group of hackers would crack it, and allow Linux to open the "secure" content, but that would be illegal, which kinda kills the idea of Linux as an OS for the masses...
This is the real threat, and considering MS's history I really do think they'll try it. OpenOffice can open Word files? No problem, DRM them and poof, no more (legal) OpenOffice. Legal doesn't much matter to you and me, I figure that if I've bought the content I can bloody well open it on the platform of my choice; but legal does matter to corporate adopters. If they can't *legally* open the MS Word document sent to them, they'll leave Linux, its that simple. And, ultimately, legal does matter to us, if we're forced to run pirate than we are open to lawsuits, arrest, etc. The DMCA must be overturned.
Hell, it might even be possible to do the job quick enough to replace the case of an innocent person's laptop without their notice (break in the day before the flight, alter laptop, leave carefully so as not to leave traces, a sleeper who doesn't even know he's asleep). Set it off with a timer program...
None of this addresses the fact that if a person *really* wanted to take down an airplane all it takes is a surface to air missile at the end of the runway. If you can smuggle thousands of tonnes of drugs into this country annually, I'm sure a few SAMs aren't impossible.
Telling you to activate a device is silly, but defensable. Telling you to open encrypted files doesn't increase security one bit, and brings up all sorts of trade secret laws, as well as simply being an inexcusable invasion of privacy.
Airport security was a joke before Sep 11, and remains a joke today. At my local airport we have the same minimum wage, minimum training, minimum testing, "security" guards that we had prior to 9/11. The only difference is that now they want to make you think you're more secure so they add all sorts of obvious and invasive procedures. Show a photo ID, sure that'll stop terrorists, I'm sure they've never heard of fake IDs...
Big surprise here: private, for profit, "security" corprations have the same priority that all private for profit corporations have. They want to make the most money by spending the least money as goal number 1. Actually providing security is, by definition, goal number 2 at the best. This isn't to say that private, for profit, corporations are bad. Its just a recognition of reality, the way corporate law works their prime goal must be making money, everything else is secondary. Real security might involve several things, but at the minimum it must involve removing the profit motive from security. Why? Because every dollar that goes into profit isn't going into *security*. I'd be happy if they started using real police officers as airport security.
So, by all means, let's get busy not doing anything real to improve airport security, instead let's harrass the geek crowd. Not that I'm bitter or anything...
Recall that it was only because Neil Armstrong was such a hotshot pilot that Apollo 11 didn't crash and kill them both. Well, that and he insisted on the lander carrying enough fuel for an emergency maneuver like the one he performed.
Here you do have a point, but I'll argue its simply because back then a hard drive was so expensive to make that they made them to last ("What do you mean this $1,000 HD died after a year?!?"). Today's hard drives are definately built cheaper, partially because they're cheap enough that people don't mind replacing them, and partially because we've been conned into believing that hard drives are disposable. OTOH, you can buy higher quality hard drives for a higher price, and they too will last longer.
Same goes for printers, I've got an ancient HP laser printer, it weighs about 150 pounds. It is slow, and (back when it was new) cost in the $2000 range. Still works great. No mystery though, its the same concept: if you pay $2000 you expect it to *last*, you pay $150 (what I paid for my newest laser printer) you really can't reasonably expect it to last so long.
Here I'll disagree, I have no doubt that people building space probes will take the money to buy the more expensive (and more reliable) parts.As for the success of the 1970's era probes I'll argue two things, firstly the various agencies had bigger budgets (when inflation if factored in), which meant they could build better probes. Secondly, I'll say that luck plays a big part in this, Mars is a long damn way off, all sorts of stuff can happen on the trip.
OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that there are laws against handing out literature of any sort on school grounds simply because of traffic issues. If group Foo wants to hand out tracts, the next thing you know groups Bar, Baaz, and Quux will also insist on handing out their tracts, and ultimately the kids would wind up having to run a gauntlet simply to get to class. Its kinda like spam, if one person does it its annoying but not really bad, when hundreds do it it keeps things from working.
Which is the whole point of a secular government, the idea that people with government power don't use that power to intemidate people of other religions. I, for one, find it rather revoltingly hypocritical that the US Supreme Court opens with prayers to the Christian god, that the US Congress frequently has prayers to the Christian god, and that our currency has an appeal to the Christian god embedded upon it. All of these are clear violations of the idea that the government doesn't use its power to promote any particular religion.
Also, for those who will try to argue that the currency, at least, isn't specifically Christian I will ask kindly that you grow up. Of course its Christian, no other religion on earth uses the word for "deity" as a name for their particular deity (except Islam, and they always use the Arabic word "Allah" even when the Muslum in question isn't Arabic). "In God We Trust" is pro-Christian propaganda, and as a non-Christian I can't help but see at is a message gently reminding me that I'm not as important as Christians are.
I realize that many of the people who would like to see a less secular government are decent people who don't want to use government to intemidate followers of other religions. But ultimately that's what it comes down to. If I (or any other non-Christian) enter a courthouse where the judge displays the Ten Commandments, and opens with a prayer to the Christian god, I will come to the inescapiable conclusion that due to my religion I won't get a fair trial.
This is also why a city displaying a creche is a bad idea. Again, I don't think that the peole who want the city to display a creche are bad people bent on stomping down people of other religions. Its just that I can't see any reason other than intemidation to use *government* money and *government* land to display a religious symbol. There are several perfectly appropriate places to put creches, in church yards, on the private property of believers. When I, or any other non-Christian, see a government creche on government land the message is clear: I'd better keep my head down, because the Christians are more important than I am. It says "You are a second class citizen". I know that isn't the message that (most) of the people who want to put up government creches want to send; but it is the message that ultimately gets sent.
I think that in this case the existance of Islamism (which, I quite agree, is a dangerous and real threat to my own personal liberty) is not really a factor. At issue is the question of weather followers of Islam (and Jewdism, Christianity, etc) will be granted freedom of religion in France.
Actually, this follows a disturbing trend of pretending that people in school don't have rights. Here in the US we see this trend expressed in random searches without a warrent, now in France they want to eleminate the right to religious expression... I won't argue that a school is, by definition, a more controled environment than real life, but this doesn't mean that a student surrenders his civil rights at the door.
More to the point, I can't agree with you that a public school can force a person to behave in a secular manner any more than I cann accept that a public school could force someone to behave in a religous manner. Forcing someone *not* to wear a cross is identical to forcing someone *to* wear a cross. Its religious oppression either way you look at it.