Your rules apply unfair sexual discrimination. Men are not allowed to marry men, while women are. This is unfair to men. Your rules do not allow women to marry women, while men are allowed to marry women. This is unfair to women.
If you prohibited me from marrying women, I'd be pissed off. Wouldn't you be pissed off if you were prohibited from marrying women?
Black? White? Latino? Gay? Lesbian? Bi? I don't care...how well can you program? What experience do you have unit testing? Are you familiar with functional programming methods?
I'm usually against MS, but on this, I agree...they shouldn't have a position on issues like this; these issues are personal and irrelevant to the business.
Your stated belief and support of Microsoft in this matter are actually unrelated. Microsoft's actions were never different from "Black? White? Latino? Gay? Lesbian? Bi? I don't care...how well can you program? What experience do you have unit testing?" They were supporting legislation that would help put all their employees on equal footing.
To "be totally neutral" while one and only one segment of your employees are stepped on is not neutral.
there is something different about gay people, mostly that they cannot reproduce
Dunno what they taught you in sex ed, but my understanding was that most homosexuals have fully functioning reproductive organs. I have met several homosexual people whom have managed to become pregnant or impregnate someone else. Believe it or not.
Many large employers are actively involved in promoting gay rights. It makes them a more attractive employer for gay people, and being a more attractive employer is good for hiring and business in general.
This is both because it is in their best interest, and also because many large employers are run by intelligent people that believe it is the right thing to do.
What bothers me is that one corporate entity seemingly has so much influence over the legislative process. Specifically, a law that is totally unrelated to their industry.
I understand the RIAA/MPAA and Copyright legislation, but Microsoft and Gay Rights? WTF?
Workplace rights for gay people are rather related to Microsoft and their industry, because Microsoft and their industry employ lots of gay people.
The people who are now in charge of SCO saw that their business was failing. Their only workable solution was to get bought out and quickly. They looked at all their existing contracts and decided that they could tilt at IBM and get some attention.
This is completely unrelated to their expectations in the Monterey project, when different people were running the company with different goals.
Sure, you'd just have to change the font. I'm sure books have been published with unlicensed fonts before, as an error, and the publisher & the type clearinghouse figured out the value of the error and ironed it all out after the fact.
Does anyone know of any lawsuits involving typefaces used without permission from the copyright holder? I'm sure there have been a few.
it appears that using GPL-licensed fonts in a document makes your document subject to the GPL. There are a lot of consequences here, such as internal corporate communications.
Even if using a GPL font requires all documents using that font to be GPLed, that doesn't make your business document GPLed. It means that you cannot legally distribute your business document except under the GPL, which is very very different. If you illegally distribute your document not under the GPL, you've committed a copyright violation. That still doesn't put it under the GPL. It just means that you will have to stop publishing the document until you stop using the infringing copyrighted material, and you may be liable for the infringement you've already done. Still, the GPL has not been applied to anything you've produced.
This just means that GPLed fonts are unusable for non-GPLed documents, not that you'll accidentally GPL your document. Assuming that it's true in the first place. So stop using the unusable fonts, and you'll be fine.
Yeah, I agree. Linus has fucked up, but not, imho, in being pissed off at Tridge. His fuckup is in the way he's defending McVoy. If he'd said, "McVoy gets nothing out of the free version anymore, so he's stopping," that'd have been fair. The coattails bullshit was idiotic and backwards.
An addendum (sp?) to my other comment: Linus did say a few things that left me totally baffled. In his first comment, he outlined "Larry's position" and said that it made sense to him. Larry's position being that Tridge was "riding on his coattails" or something. That's some complete bullshit, and there's no defending it. All of Linus' comments since then, about why Tridge's actions were wrong now but not with Samba, have made sense.
But the coattails thing was weird. I imagined that either Linus was being a sycophant for Larry for some weird reason, or that he was a total idiot. So I'm leaning towards sycophant.
If I send McVoy an email he doesn't like, will he punch Torvalds in the nose? Will that be my fault, instead of McVoy's?
Good analogy. However, if you sent an email to McVoy, who turned red and screamed at Linus, and Linus told you, "peachpuff, please stop sending McVoy emails. It just pisses him off, and it's not going to result in a bitkeeper replacement, and I'm going to get punched in the face."
And then you sent McVoy another email anyway. Yes, it's within your rights, and clearly, McVoy is a total fucking jackass. But Linus can still be mad at you without being anti-email, and without having double standards. Given that you thought sending that email was important and worthwhile, you're probably not doing anything wrong either. Two good people can disagree, as is clearly the case with Linus and Tridge.
I just hope that Tridge's legal concerns are speculative. That could be fucking twisted.
Most tablet users are dweeby microsoft-types that probably hang out on Channel 9 message boards. In that regard, it's perfect. However, no, I don't think this is going to take off everywhere else.
My understanding is that WinFS has more features for the developer. If you have an application that you'd like to tie to Longhorn, you can use WinFS as an object store, and you can expose those objects to the search interface. Files *are* an entry in the database. Spotlight is a separate database of file-related metadata. If you start poking at the documentation for WinFS, you'll see how big a deal it is (and why it keeps getting postponed).
WinFS is to Spotlight as.NET is to.Mac; Apple saw Microsoft working on some giant new architecture, and realized they could deliver most of the same features without spending nearly as much time. WinFS = desktop searching (for most people). dotNET = internet integration (for most people). In reality, the technologies are almost completely unrelated.
Core Data is both more and less than Databinding/Datasets/ADO/whatever. It can't do all the database access that MS's stuff can do, because it's designed for a program's data model. You could use it on the inside of a graphics app just as well as you could a PIM. It does object persistence, but only to three different stores. Different niche.
The number matters because it explains why someone would call conservative think tanks "coin operated".
I'll point out, the original comment said nothing about righteousness, and could easily be applied to both liberal and conservative think tanks. But as a progressive, obviously I would believe that progressive causes are more righteous than non-progressive causes. They are designed for cooperative purposes rather than selfish ones. This is more righteous than this. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be progressive...
So what? Obviously we have no unalienable right to broadband.
We have no unalienable right to postal mail either, but somehow our nation's founders decided that the most effective way to establish a reliable post would be to make it a government service.
If a community wants to implement a "free" wireless network, fine. Let the electorate of that community make the decision.
Glad we're all on the same page. So long as you feel that way, that one bullshit sentence from the article can be safely ignored. You still both agree in practice.
However, don't try to sell the line that one has a "right" to something that they didn't produce. That is Communism [...]
Oh. Right. Doesn't matter if you agree in practice, because you're an ideologue. I assume you'd agree with that "line" when talking about inheritance. Because you have a right to everything that you own, for ever and ever, amen. Go promote slavery reparations or something.
If you'd called him "wrong" rather than "Communist" your post would be a little less loopy.
Slashdot Mirror
Your rules apply unfair sexual discrimination. Men are not allowed to marry men, while women are. This is unfair to men. Your rules do not allow women to marry women, while men are allowed to marry women. This is unfair to women.
If you prohibited me from marrying women, I'd be pissed off. Wouldn't you be pissed off if you were prohibited from marrying women?
One way that a gay man can reproduce is by inserting his penis into a woman's vagina.
Similarly, one way that a lesbian woman can become pregnant is by having sex with a man.
Sorry if that's too confusing.
To "be totally neutral" while one and only one segment of your employees are stepped on is not neutral.
As if we didn't already have enough to worry about w.r.t. the quality of sex education in this country...
What kind of empirical evidence are you looking for? (Will this do?) What are you referring to when you say "normal environment"?
Is being brought up by your grandmother ok with you? How about being brought up by your grandmother and her girlfriend?
Many large employers are actively involved in promoting gay rights. It makes them a more attractive employer for gay people, and being a more attractive employer is good for hiring and business in general.
This is both because it is in their best interest, and also because many large employers are run by intelligent people that believe it is the right thing to do.
The people who are now in charge of SCO saw that their business was failing. Their only workable solution was to get bought out and quickly. They looked at all their existing contracts and decided that they could tilt at IBM and get some attention.
This is completely unrelated to their expectations in the Monterey project, when different people were running the company with different goals.
He's just a troll, on both ends.
And now a word from our sponsor:
"This comic is made possible by a $75,000 grant from..."
The 7-UP Company!!! Turn your taste buds upside-down with the great taste of 7-UP!!!
SPRITE SUCKS!!!!!
(Joey the Midwife)
PS You are a jackass.
Sure, you'd just have to change the font. I'm sure books have been published with unlicensed fonts before, as an error, and the publisher & the type clearinghouse figured out the value of the error and ironed it all out after the fact.
Does anyone know of any lawsuits involving typefaces used without permission from the copyright holder? I'm sure there have been a few.
This just means that GPLed fonts are unusable for non-GPLed documents, not that you'll accidentally GPL your document. Assuming that it's true in the first place. So stop using the unusable fonts, and you'll be fine.
Yeah, I agree. Linus has fucked up, but not, imho, in being pissed off at Tridge. His fuckup is in the way he's defending McVoy. If he'd said, "McVoy gets nothing out of the free version anymore, so he's stopping," that'd have been fair. The coattails bullshit was idiotic and backwards.
An addendum (sp?) to my other comment: Linus did say a few things that left me totally baffled. In his first comment, he outlined "Larry's position" and said that it made sense to him. Larry's position being that Tridge was "riding on his coattails" or something. That's some complete bullshit, and there's no defending it. All of Linus' comments since then, about why Tridge's actions were wrong now but not with Samba, have made sense.
But the coattails thing was weird. I imagined that either Linus was being a sycophant for Larry for some weird reason, or that he was a total idiot. So I'm leaning towards sycophant.
And then you sent McVoy another email anyway. Yes, it's within your rights, and clearly, McVoy is a total fucking jackass. But Linus can still be mad at you without being anti-email, and without having double standards. Given that you thought sending that email was important and worthwhile, you're probably not doing anything wrong either. Two good people can disagree, as is clearly the case with Linus and Tridge.
I just hope that Tridge's legal concerns are speculative. That could be fucking twisted.
Most tablet users are dweeby microsoft-types that probably hang out on Channel 9 message boards. In that regard, it's perfect. However, no, I don't think this is going to take off everywhere else.
My understanding is that WinFS has more features for the developer. If you have an application that you'd like to tie to Longhorn, you can use WinFS as an object store, and you can expose those objects to the search interface. Files *are* an entry in the database. Spotlight is a separate database of file-related metadata. If you start poking at the documentation for WinFS, you'll see how big a deal it is (and why it keeps getting postponed).
.NET is to .Mac; Apple saw Microsoft working on some giant new architecture, and realized they could deliver most of the same features without spending nearly as much time. WinFS = desktop searching (for most people). dotNET = internet integration (for most people). In reality, the technologies are almost completely unrelated.
WinFS is to Spotlight as
Core Data is both more and less than Databinding/Datasets/ADO/whatever. It can't do all the database access that MS's stuff can do, because it's designed for a program's data model. You could use it on the inside of a graphics app just as well as you could a PIM. It does object persistence, but only to three different stores. Different niche.
Not that this makes you wrong. Just saying.
That's kindof fascinating. How did you figure that out?
The number matters because it explains why someone would call conservative think tanks "coin operated".
I'll point out, the original comment said nothing about righteousness, and could easily be applied to both liberal and conservative think tanks. But as a progressive, obviously I would believe that progressive causes are more righteous than non-progressive causes. They are designed for cooperative purposes rather than selfish ones. This is more righteous than this. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be progressive...
We have no unalienable right to postal mail either, but somehow our nation's founders decided that the most effective way to establish a reliable post would be to make it a government service. Glad we're all on the same page. So long as you feel that way, that one bullshit sentence from the article can be safely ignored. You still both agree in practice.Oh. Right. Doesn't matter if you agree in practice, because you're an ideologue. I assume you'd agree with that "line" when talking about inheritance. Because you have a right to everything that you own, for ever and ever, amen. Go promote slavery reparations or something.
If you'd called him "wrong" rather than "Communist" your post would be a little less loopy.
Count the dollars going into conservative think tanks vs progressive, and then try to make that comparison again.
Heh. Sorry to get all up in your grill :)