"There are two kinds of people in the world: those who have already had a hard drive crash, and those who will have a hard drive crash."
And then there is my 91 years old grandmother whi never had a hard drive crash and probably never will have one*.
*though I would like her to have one as it would mean she will live long enough to have the occasion to buy a hard drive using non-computer appliance (tv, vcr...?) in the future and have it get old enough to crash.
Among other things SCO is claiming that IBM cannot put RCU under an open source license because it would (according to them) breach IBM's confidentiality agreement regarding Unix Sys V (yes, even though RCU doesn't come from it). In other word they claim that IBM has a contractual obligation to keep RCU, a patented technology, like a trade secret.
And SCO isn't even going after copyright claims as far as Linux is concerned, they are actually fighting very hard NOT to have them be in front of the court. What they say (to the court) they are going after are breach of contract claims. Their only claim about copyright are that IBM had no right to distribute dynix and AIX after they yanked their licensed... or so they claim;)
If they encrypted any message they backup offline and never backuped the key (except in a distributed fashion) and destroyed it (the key) when the message is destroyed then the backed-up (or backuped?) message is almost as good as destroyed and that can wait to be destroyed until the offline backup is destroyed.
Even if it is true it is IBM's problem not Linux's and just goes to show that closed sourceness doesn't guarantee that the software you use doesn't infringe any copyright contrarily to what SCO seemed to imply by decrying taht open sourceness doesn't guarantee it either.
"If they filed for the patent within one year of the release of the technique, then they could patent it."
Only if the person/organisation filing for the technique is the person/organisation that did publicly talk about it.
If you create a novel technique and talks about it publicly you have one year (in the US) during which you can still patent it but if anybody else patents it the public talk you gave about it is prior art against that patent.
Don't you mean Black Widowers mysteries instead of black web? And I think that the name of the little demon granting wishes that always go wrong is Azazel for if anyone wants to search for them.
The French pointof view on the whole "Freedom Fries" thing is that if "French Fries"="Freedom Fries" then French=Freedom, something we totally agree with.
He isn't complaining that he wasn't explained what the consequences would be he seems to assert (hard to be sure from the article) that the University knew about his cheating but let him continue until just before he got his degree.
Now, given the amount of honesty and remorse he has displayed so far (he doesn't even seem able to fake remorse) this lawsuit is probably groundless but if he indeed has reasons to think that the University knew about his cheating but let him continue to get his money then I can understand his action (just because one of the parties of a lawsuit is dishonest doesn't mean the other party is honest).
"So do you apply this logic to, say, sexual harassment or rape cases? If a woman is taking a man to court for raping her, she must be the guilty one? People sue Michael Moore because he presents flat-out lies for which you may sue under the American system."
He means exactly the opposite.
If Moore attacks a powerful group of people with a documentary and they don't sue him it means that they didn't find anything that would stick in court (at least enough not to have the suit be declared frivolous) either because he is not lying, in which case trying to find him lying is pointless, or because he is lying in such a subtle way that they couldn't prove it, in which case I am very unlikely to uncover anything given that I know most probably less about the subject than the group attacked, have less resources and less motivation (I'm not the one (whose ideas are) being attacked here) so it would in all likelyhood be a waste of time in this case too.
Therefore, if the group attacked is powerful enough to dedicate resources to discrediting Moore (is the NRA powerful enough for you?) and they don't sue him then he probably didn't lie.
By your logic we can never solve interesting problems since today's problem can only run on tomorrow's hardware by which time they will be uninteresting according to you.
So whether we wait or not te problem set we can solve will be uninteresting (according to you) so its still better to wait since the set of uninteresting problems you can solve by waiting is bigger than the set of uninteresting problems if you don't wait.
Actually I wouldn't count on *NOT* seeing a Romulan given how much thought they give to continuity and how difficult it might prove to write entertaining episodes where you cannot see the ennemy at all.
It mostly deals with the legal view because she is herself a paralegal.
Given that even when the SCO matter is over there will still be more FUD and probably more lawsuits (anything successful enough attracts them) there will be something for PJ to analyse.
Re:It is normal for a story to turn this way
on
Groklaw Turns One
·
· Score: 1
No, put a ring on your ring finger, get a tan and take the ring off so that the ring is visible by its absence.
1. It was a place designed for public use so the standard for safety might be differnt than for a private home (I know,he was on the roof but still).
2. He got a settlement, which doesn't give us any information about whether he had a case at all (the school might have thought it was less expensive to settle than to litigate it long enough to get it thrown out of court). Note that it doesn't say that he had one and it doesn't say he didn't have one.
So it is useless as a counterexample showing that it is not a urban legend.
I wonder which came first, the urban legend or the movie "Liar, Liar" (where Jim Carey's character says that he would have been able to win more money for the burglar than in the example given in the movie).
Sure your problem set expands but this is an argument in favor of slacktitude as the hardware that you bought later rather than sooner will be beefier and therefore more apt to tackle your next simulation than if you had bought sooner rather later, especially if the preoblem set expands, which would make it running it on the 'sooner' machine harder than running it on the 'later' one.
Slashdot Mirror
The joke would work better if you used Free Software instead of Open Source.
"There are two kinds of people in the world: those who have already had a hard drive crash, and those who will have a hard drive crash."
And then there is my 91 years old grandmother whi never had a hard drive crash and probably never will have one*.
*though I would like her to have one as it would mean she will live long enough to have the occasion to buy a hard drive using non-computer appliance (tv, vcr...?) in the future and have it get old enough to crash.
What about pre-revolution Americans? Should they also have acceped their exclusion from the English political process?
Among other things SCO is claiming that IBM cannot put RCU under an open source license because it would (according to them) breach IBM's confidentiality agreement regarding Unix Sys V (yes, even though RCU doesn't come from it). In other word they claim that IBM has a contractual obligation to keep RCU, a patented technology, like a trade secret.
And SCO isn't even going after copyright claims as far as Linux is concerned, they are actually fighting very hard NOT to have them be in front of the court. What they say (to the court) they are going after are breach of contract claims. Their only claim about copyright are that IBM had no right to distribute dynix and AIX after they yanked their licensed... or so they claim
If they encrypted any message they backup offline and never backuped the key (except in a distributed fashion) and destroyed it (the key) when the message is destroyed then the backed-up (or backuped?) message is almost as good as destroyed and that can wait to be destroyed until the offline backup is destroyed.
No, we use
$ ed
Steve Jobs, is that you?
Even if it is true it is IBM's problem not Linux's and just goes to show that closed sourceness doesn't guarantee that the software you use doesn't infringe any copyright contrarily to what SCO seemed to imply by decrying taht open sourceness doesn't guarantee it either.
"If they filed for the patent within one year of the release of the technique, then they could patent it."
Only if the person/organisation filing for the technique is the person/organisation that did publicly talk about it.
If you create a novel technique and talks about it publicly you have one year (in the US) during which you can still patent it but if anybody else patents it the public talk you gave about it is prior art against that patent.
Don't you mean Black Widowers mysteries instead of black web? And I think that the name of the little demon granting wishes that always go wrong is Azazel for if anyone wants to search for them.
Well, Fries are more Belgian than French anyway but we don't mind that association. Just another thing for them rosbeef to envy us for
Let's just say that after that story he will find out that he didn't need to _simulate_ the 45.3 billions photons.
The French pointof view on the whole "Freedom Fries" thing is that if "French Fries"="Freedom Fries" then French=Freedom, something we totally agree with.
This has nothing to do with Copyleft (GPL and LGPL) and everything to do with Free Software and I guess RMS would agree with you.
He probably would also say that Copyleft has everything to do with making sure that these freedom are kept in modified versions of Free Software.
He isn't complaining that he wasn't explained what the consequences would be he seems to assert (hard to be sure from the article) that the University knew about his cheating but let him continue until just before he got his degree.
Now, given the amount of honesty and remorse he has displayed so far (he doesn't even seem able to fake remorse) this lawsuit is probably groundless but if he indeed has reasons to think that the University knew about his cheating but let him continue to get his money then I can understand his action (just because one of the parties of a lawsuit is dishonest doesn't mean the other party is honest).
"So do you apply this logic to, say, sexual harassment or rape cases? If a woman is taking a man to court for raping her, she must be the guilty one? People sue Michael Moore because he presents flat-out lies for which you may sue under the American system."
He means exactly the opposite.
If Moore attacks a powerful group of people with a documentary and they don't sue him it means that they didn't find anything that would stick in court (at least enough not to have the suit be declared frivolous) either because he is not lying, in which case trying to find him lying is pointless, or because he is lying in such a subtle way that they couldn't prove it, in which case I am very unlikely to uncover anything given that I know most probably less about the subject than the group attacked, have less resources and less motivation (I'm not the one (whose ideas are) being attacked here) so it would in all likelyhood be a waste of time in this case too.
Therefore, if the group attacked is powerful enough to dedicate resources to discrediting Moore (is the NRA powerful enough for you?) and they don't sue him then he probably didn't lie.
QED.
By your logic we can never solve interesting problems since today's problem can only run on tomorrow's hardware by which time they will be uninteresting according to you.
So whether we wait or not te problem set we can solve will be uninteresting (according to you) so its still better to wait since the set of uninteresting problems you can solve by waiting is bigger than the set of uninteresting problems if you don't wait.
QED
Actually I wouldn't count on *NOT* seeing a Romulan given how much thought they give to continuity and how difficult it might prove to write entertaining episodes where you cannot see the ennemy at all.
PJ views Groklaw as an anti-FUD site.
It mostly deals with the legal view because she is herself a paralegal.
Given that even when the SCO matter is over there will still be more FUD and probably more lawsuits (anything successful enough attracts them) there will be something for PJ to analyse.
No, put a ring on your ring finger, get a tan and take the ring off so that the ring is visible by its absence.
At 0.5% of your total value even if you put a limit if 1 dick-ticket per day most of the world's population would be bankrupt in less than a year.
Two problems with your example:
1. It was a place designed for public use so the standard for safety might be differnt than for a private home (I know
2. He got a settlement, which doesn't give us any information about whether he had a case at all (the school might have thought it was less expensive to settle than to litigate it long enough to get it thrown out of court). Note that it doesn't say that he had one and it doesn't say he didn't have one.
So it is useless as a counterexample showing that it is not a urban legend.
I wonder which came first, the urban legend or the movie "Liar, Liar" (where Jim Carey's character says that he would have been able to win more money for the burglar than in the example given in the movie).
"But there are reasons for the SI numbers, and they work well enough for the US to resist changing."
This sentence doesn't make sense since the SI = Systeme International = metric system.
So you mean that there are reasons for the metric system that work well enough for the US to resist changing?
Why wouldn't it be meaningful?
Sure your problem set expands but this is an argument in favor of slacktitude as the hardware that you bought later rather than sooner will be beefier and therefore more apt to tackle your next simulation than if you had bought sooner rather later, especially if the preoblem set expands, which would make it running it on the 'sooner' machine harder than running it on the 'later' one.
Some do, it's called case modding.