If I was involved in a stand up shouting match with a colleague in the middle of the office, I'd expect to have some explaining to do.
Why should the email equivalent be any different?
This isn't about monitoring of email anyway, if you'd read even the summary(!) you'd have seen that this was a very public affair, with the emails ending up being forwarded all over the city. Most companies take a rather dim view of their employees publicly behaving like truculent children.
Windows wasn't ready for TB's yet, shouldn't it say 1024 GB?
In what sense? I have a networked drive displayed in my explorer window on XP Pro right now showing as having 1.09 TB total space.
Finally, what the heck is "nanomicrons and beyond"?
A nanomicron, apart from being a bullshit made up term, would be 10E-9 of a micron, or 10E-15 of a metre. So that's a femtometre (fm) then. You'd have thought a quantum mechanical engineer would know something like that...
I really enjoy the idea of the trade-secret crowd salivating over OSS.
Yes, I can see how that would appeal to someone like you. Sorry to break it to you though, we tend to find something we like the look of, check the licence, see that for whatever reason we can't use it in this instance, shrug, and move on.
After all, it's all about property rights, and that crowd of shitbags is allgedly 110% behind the idea of property rights, correct? Or are they all about stealing all the commonwealth for themselves while the rest of us starve and labor like slaves?
Ad hominem? Please - come back when you've grown up enough to engage in a civilised debate.
Property rights are not exclusive to corporations.
Agreed - but by the same token, they are not exclusive to individuals. Even if they are, those corporations are all made up of individuals, and each of them can own property rights. If you want us shitbag commercial programmers to respect your rights, then you dirty beatniks have to respect ours - a little less name calling would be a good place to start. Deal?
The kernel is a small part of a Linux distribution. As Stallman et al are keen to point out, there is more GNU code in a typical Linux distro than there is Linux code.
IBM could contribute to the kernel, but they'd be unable to use GCC or the related tools to do it, for example.
Anyone that has had to distribute anything via Word knows this is beyond FUD.
Actually no, that's not my experience. I regularly exchange documents with clients. My current client uses Office XP while I use Office 2000, and apart from 2000 taking a while to open some of their documents I've had zero problems (even the slow ones got there in the end, after a minute or so's pause).
That's no trick, the photons are simultaneously particles and waves. There's no turning them from one to the other, they are both (or at least, they behave as both - that is, they exhibit some behaviours that are most readily explained by them being particles, and others by them being waves).
I too seem to remember hearing about somewhere achieving break even, and I thought it was JET. However, the last time fusion was discussed here I googled for evidence and couldn't find any...
What happens if you want to play it 15 years later?
I can't see myself wanting to play it in 15 years time, to be honest. I don't yearn now for the games of 15 years ago, and that's with the rose-tinted vision of nostalgia.
HL2 was a good game, well worth the money (although I paid £20 for it, rather than the full retail price of £35), but it wasn't that good. Soon something will be released that blows it away - maybe not this year or next year, but well before those 15 years are up.
Besides which, who says I'll even have a machine capable of running it in 15 years? Hardware and OSes move on just as much as games.
Bottom line is that I sincerely doubt that a lack of Steam will be the reason people can no longer play HL2.
Great game btw, UU.
Yes, it was; I wasted many a happy hour on it. Looks like shit nowadays though, and there have been many better games (in terms of gameplay as well as eye-candy) released since.
It's all about substantial use. The Internet demonstrably has substantial non-infringing uses. Also, the quality of life, ease of business, etc of tens of millions of people would be adversely affected by going after ISPs in that fashion.
For p2p apps like Kazaa it's much less clear cut. My personal experience is that the vast majority of content on such networks is infringing. Sure, there's a fair amount of stuff that isn't, but my belief (backed up by nothing more than gut feeling) is that the overwhelmnig majority shouldn't be there. Therefore your extension of the precedent is invalid, due to the nature of the use of the networks under consideration.
Note that I'm not arguing either way on the judgment itself, just pointing out the different between the Kazaa network and the Internet as a whole.
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK at least just because something is classified (or in UK government parlance, "protectively marked") doesn't mean that no-one ever gets to know about it.
It's disseminated on a need to know basis. In the body armour example, it may be that it's decided that the troops actually wearing the armour need to know, and so they're told. Or perhaps their commanding officers are, and it's left up to them whether or not to tell their men. Or maybe noone gets told.
The point is "classified" does not mean "noone must ever know this!!1!". It means "only those who need to know should know", with the added restriction that at certain levels of classification you need a certain piece of paper (a security clearance) in order to have access to the information.
So, is it illegal for me to throw the cartridge away? Or lose it? Or take it out to return it, but accidentally drop it and break it?
If they're just asking nicely, then tough. If they're actually making me sign a contract, then fair enough, sue me if I break the contract (and laugh at me for being so stupid).
I think they deliberately misunderstand the issue.
No, they understand perfectly. They are deliberately misrepresenting the issue. The issue is openness of the document format, something that they're not willing to compete on (they're not going to open up the.doc format), so they try to bring it round to something that they can compete on, i.e. features.
They understand perfectly well; in general, it's best to assume that a company does understand the issues. Just because they're (publicly) saying something that you believe to be wrong doesn't mean to say that they don't understand. More than likely, they're simply lying.
No, an awful lot of the bitching posts are at +5. Of course, this demonstrates that a significant proportion of the readership is content to bitch and read bitching posts, but it does mean that you cannot avoid them in that way.
By the same token, viruses (in the strict definition) also require user interaction to spread and infect hosts - they have to run an infected executable. Worms are self-propogating, relying on security holes, and are pretty rare, even on Windows.
If I want a PDA and an iPod I'll carry a PDA and an iPod.
And a phone and a camera and a calculator and...
Me, I like having a single device do everything for me, kind of like I have a single, multi-purpose PC rather than a compilation machine, a word processor, an accountancy machine, a console per game, etc.
Assuming you're talking about patents in general and not just software patents, that won't work. How do you keep an innovative mechanical or electrical design secret, whilst still marketing the product it's part of?
It seems the problem is people misreading your suggestion; I think the comparison with jury service was probably responsible for that.
The absolute last thing you want to do is to get average John and Jane Does to review patent applications. That works with juries, as they're not ruling on technical points of law (although increasingly, complex fraud cases are becoming too much for the average person in the street to follow). For patents, though, you really need someone who is expert in the relevant field or, failing that, a closely related one.
So, yes, I can see the merit of having a "patent duty" for programmers, engineers, etc to review software patents, engineering patents, etc respectively, but you wouldn't want just anyone doing the job.
If they lose they will basically have destroyed their player business - no-one is going to buy a product from a bunch of losers.
Most people won't even know of the suit, or will very quickly forget if they do hear of it.
If they win, they will still have a problem - people like Apply and attacking them like this just looks evil.
Again, I think you over-estimate things here. Most people don't give two hoots about Apple, or Microsoft, or anything like that. They want a computer to do stuff with, and don't particularly know or care about it beyond that. Apple? They make those Mac things don't they? Something to do with graphics or something...
On the other hand, if Creative win, they get damages and a percentage of every iPod sale. That's likely to be a whole ton of cash right there, even ignoring that they then get to go after iRiver and everyone else making similar stuff.
Someone who has been fighting hard to get software patents enabled in Europe
I know who you mean, but do not forget that all of the big software producers have software patents, including Apple. Hell, IBM is the world's most prolific patenter. No, they'll not all for software, but some of them are.
Sure, MS is lobbying for software patents in Europe - and in my considered opinion, they can take their lobbying, shove it up their collective arse and fuck off while they're doing it - but they are by no means alone in that. With Apple branching into music downloads and related hardware, MS is by no means their only competitor anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
If I was involved in a stand up shouting match with a colleague in the middle of the office, I'd expect to have some explaining to do.
Why should the email equivalent be any different?
This isn't about monitoring of email anyway, if you'd read even the summary(!) you'd have seen that this was a very public affair, with the emails ending up being forwarded all over the city. Most companies take a rather dim view of their employees publicly behaving like truculent children.
BSD will still allow for this, since they can distribute in binary-only form.
And how exactly is that open source?
Windows wasn't ready for TB's yet, shouldn't it say 1024 GB?
In what sense? I have a networked drive displayed in my explorer window on XP Pro right now showing as having 1.09 TB total space.
Finally, what the heck is "nanomicrons and beyond"?
A nanomicron, apart from being a bullshit made up term, would be 10E-9 of a micron, or 10E-15 of a metre. So that's a femtometre (fm) then. You'd have thought a quantum mechanical engineer would know something like that...
I really enjoy the idea of the trade-secret crowd salivating over OSS.
Yes, I can see how that would appeal to someone like you. Sorry to break it to you though, we tend to find something we like the look of, check the licence, see that for whatever reason we can't use it in this instance, shrug, and move on.
After all, it's all about property rights, and that crowd of shitbags is allgedly 110% behind the idea of property rights, correct? Or are they all about stealing all the commonwealth for themselves while the rest of us starve and labor like slaves?
Ad hominem? Please - come back when you've grown up enough to engage in a civilised debate.
Property rights are not exclusive to corporations.
Agreed - but by the same token, they are not exclusive to individuals. Even if they are, those corporations are all made up of individuals, and each of them can own property rights. If you want us shitbag commercial programmers to respect your rights, then you dirty beatniks have to respect ours - a little less name calling would be a good place to start. Deal?
The kernel is a small part of a Linux distribution. As Stallman et al are keen to point out, there is more GNU code in a typical Linux distro than there is Linux code.
IBM could contribute to the kernel, but they'd be unable to use GCC or the related tools to do it, for example.
Anyone that has had to distribute anything via Word knows this is beyond FUD.
Actually no, that's not my experience. I regularly exchange documents with clients. My current client uses Office XP while I use Office 2000, and apart from 2000 taking a while to open some of their documents I've had zero problems (even the slow ones got there in the end, after a minute or so's pause).
There you go, that's my anecdote.
That's no trick, the photons are simultaneously particles and waves. There's no turning them from one to the other, they are both (or at least, they behave as both - that is, they exhibit some behaviours that are most readily explained by them being particles, and others by them being waves).
I too seem to remember hearing about somewhere achieving break even, and I thought it was JET. However, the last time fusion was discussed here I googled for evidence and couldn't find any...
What happens if you want to play it 15 years later?
I can't see myself wanting to play it in 15 years time, to be honest. I don't yearn now for the games of 15 years ago, and that's with the rose-tinted vision of nostalgia.
HL2 was a good game, well worth the money (although I paid £20 for it, rather than the full retail price of £35), but it wasn't that good. Soon something will be released that blows it away - maybe not this year or next year, but well before those 15 years are up.
Besides which, who says I'll even have a machine capable of running it in 15 years? Hardware and OSes move on just as much as games.
Bottom line is that I sincerely doubt that a lack of Steam will be the reason people can no longer play HL2.
Great game btw, UU.
Yes, it was; I wasted many a happy hour on it. Looks like shit nowadays though, and there have been many better games (in terms of gameplay as well as eye-candy) released since.
It's all about substantial use. The Internet demonstrably has substantial non-infringing uses. Also, the quality of life, ease of business, etc of tens of millions of people would be adversely affected by going after ISPs in that fashion.
For p2p apps like Kazaa it's much less clear cut. My personal experience is that the vast majority of content on such networks is infringing. Sure, there's a fair amount of stuff that isn't, but my belief (backed up by nothing more than gut feeling) is that the overwhelmnig majority shouldn't be there. Therefore your extension of the precedent is invalid, due to the nature of the use of the networks under consideration.
Note that I'm not arguing either way on the judgment itself, just pointing out the different between the Kazaa network and the Internet as a whole.
Or that tobacco manufacturers know that their products cause potentially fatal health problems for their users and in some cases people around them.
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK at least just because something is classified (or in UK government parlance, "protectively marked") doesn't mean that no-one ever gets to know about it.
It's disseminated on a need to know basis. In the body armour example, it may be that it's decided that the troops actually wearing the armour need to know, and so they're told. Or perhaps their commanding officers are, and it's left up to them whether or not to tell their men. Or maybe noone gets told.
The point is "classified" does not mean "noone must ever know this!!1!". It means "only those who need to know should know", with the added restriction that at certain levels of classification you need a certain piece of paper (a security clearance) in order to have access to the information.
So, is it illegal for me to throw the cartridge away? Or lose it? Or take it out to return it, but accidentally drop it and break it?
If they're just asking nicely, then tough. If they're actually making me sign a contract, then fair enough, sue me if I break the contract (and laugh at me for being so stupid).
I'm sorry, but writing code for SCO isn't even the same game as working as an executioner of innocnets, let alone in the same ballpark.
As reprehensible as SCO's actions may be, to seriously compare them to taking even a single human life is utterly insane.
Sequel is a common pronounciation of "SQL". Not saying it's right (or wrong), but I've certainly heard a lot of people say it that way.
People tend to try to make a word out of any acronym they have to use regularly, it's generally easier to say.
Gee, I think someone missed the point...
I think they deliberately misunderstand the issue.
.doc format), so they try to bring it round to something that they can compete on, i.e. features.
No, they understand perfectly. They are deliberately misrepresenting the issue. The issue is openness of the document format, something that they're not willing to compete on (they're not going to open up the
They understand perfectly well; in general, it's best to assume that a company does understand the issues. Just because they're (publicly) saying something that you believe to be wrong doesn't mean to say that they don't understand. More than likely, they're simply lying.
I'm too poor, I don't have a car, but I can afford a cell phone.
Cost of my car: £300/month + tax, insurance and fuel.
Cost of my mobile phone: £25/month
Replying to an obvious troll: priceless^W a waste of time
No, an awful lot of the bitching posts are at +5. Of course, this demonstrates that a significant proportion of the readership is content to bitch and read bitching posts, but it does mean that you cannot avoid them in that way.
By the same token, viruses (in the strict definition) also require user interaction to spread and infect hosts - they have to run an infected executable. Worms are self-propogating, relying on security holes, and are pretty rare, even on Windows.
If I want a PDA and an iPod I'll carry a PDA and an iPod.
And a phone and a camera and a calculator and...
Me, I like having a single device do everything for me, kind of like I have a single, multi-purpose PC rather than a compilation machine, a word processor, an accountancy machine, a console per game, etc.
Assuming you're talking about patents in general and not just software patents, that won't work. How do you keep an innovative mechanical or electrical design secret, whilst still marketing the product it's part of?
It seems the problem is people misreading your suggestion; I think the comparison with jury service was probably responsible for that.
The absolute last thing you want to do is to get average John and Jane Does to review patent applications. That works with juries, as they're not ruling on technical points of law (although increasingly, complex fraud cases are becoming too much for the average person in the street to follow). For patents, though, you really need someone who is expert in the relevant field or, failing that, a closely related one.
So, yes, I can see the merit of having a "patent duty" for programmers, engineers, etc to review software patents, engineering patents, etc respectively, but you wouldn't want just anyone doing the job.
If they lose they will basically have destroyed their player business - no-one is going to buy a product from a bunch of losers.
Most people won't even know of the suit, or will very quickly forget if they do hear of it.
If they win, they will still have a problem - people like Apply and attacking them like this just looks evil.
Again, I think you over-estimate things here. Most people don't give two hoots about Apple, or Microsoft, or anything like that. They want a computer to do stuff with, and don't particularly know or care about it beyond that. Apple? They make those Mac things don't they? Something to do with graphics or something...
On the other hand, if Creative win, they get damages and a percentage of every iPod sale. That's likely to be a whole ton of cash right there, even ignoring that they then get to go after iRiver and everyone else making similar stuff.
Someone who has been fighting hard to get software patents enabled in Europe
I know who you mean, but do not forget that all of the big software producers have software patents, including Apple. Hell, IBM is the world's most prolific patenter. No, they'll not all for software, but some of them are.
Sure, MS is lobbying for software patents in Europe - and in my considered opinion, they can take their lobbying, shove it up their collective arse and fuck off while they're doing it - but they are by no means alone in that. With Apple branching into music downloads and related hardware, MS is by no means their only competitor anymore.
Not only that, but code doesn't magically stop working just because the original producer no longer supports it.