You can sync with syncML directly, or run your own syncML server and use syncEvolution to sync from the phone (I'm using it with my OpenGroupware installation) if you want to have a "cloud"-like feeling. It shares as much information with anyone as my GNU/Linux desktop.
You got syncML to work! How? What versions, on what distribution.
Maemo never had time to develop soul sucking modules - if it had gotten anywhere near Verizon, you can be sure it would have become a world-class Dementor.
So you haven't heard about Aegis?
Software that makes a Debian Linux based platform more closed than iOS?
Software that makes it impossible to do what you want with the phone even if you have root access.
However, what Novell did sell to SCO was the copyright to Unixware
Not so fast:
On August 10, 2007, Judge Kimball, hearing the SCO v. Novell case, ruled that "...the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights".
We are using Xtext (2.0) and its companion Xtend (2.0) to build domain specific languages. Together with Xbase, a part grammar for expressions, we can build new DSLs for various purposes in no time. And it is not such a code bloat as some people might think. When you develop applications with a wide range of models, these EMF-based tools are quite practical. Beside that, we evaluated ATL, QVT, and Xtend in various scenarios. Right now it looks like, that Xtend is very well suited to build generators to source code of other languages especially Java and Scala. It also made a good impression in model-to-model transformations.
In fact, to support GP's contention, Sun even bought Interactive Unix, so there was no reason for them to pay SCO squat. Later, they did buy Tarantella from them.
ISC had a license from AT&T for Unix SRV3.2. That license included terms that required ISC to keep the code closed source.
SUN bought ISC.
SUN had a license from At&T for Unix SRV4 (yes, they bought a license, even thought they (mostly) wrote it). That license included terms that required SUN to keep the code closed source.
Novell bought Unix from At&T. Not a license, they bought the copyright.
Novell sold a license to SUN that allowed SUN to do whatever they wanted with there Unix derived code, including open sourcing it.
Novell sold something to SCO, no-one really knows what, but it wasn't the copyrights to Unix.
SCO sold whatever it was to Caldera.
SCO renamed themselves to Tarentella then got bought by SUN.
Caldera renamed themselves to The SCO Group.
TSOG sold nothing to SUN. (The couldn't, they didn't own anything anyone understands).
The world of proprietary software and IP is too complicated for any sane human being to understand.
If the legal teams that IBM & Novell hired were any good (IANAL), why didn't they just look up the copyrights, see SCO had no grounds, and then tell the guys to go jump off a cliff?
What does "look up a copyright" mean?
That's not how it works.
You go to the judge and say "I own the copyright to this and that is a copy of this".
TSCOG (SCOX) didn't own the copyright (Novell does) and the Linux code wasn't copied. The only person who can decide that is a Judge, not IBM & Novell.
It was the Austrians (e.g. the Randite moron Greenspan) who got us here while the Keynesians (who don't believe in central planning) predicted exactly what would happen.
Lemme get this straight. You're telling me the Austrians who are calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve believe in central planning? Show me the Keynesian that says that the actions of the Fed triggered this mess.
Learn to read, idiot.
The original poster said:
Most of today's economists believe in Keynesian central planning
Most of today's economists believe in Keynesian central planning, not true free market economics and sound money like the Austrian economists. Students of the Austrian School predicted the economic bubble and subsequent collapse because they very well know the obvious causes.
RON PAUL 2012!
Stunning.
You've got it exactly wrong.
It was the Austrians (e.g. the Randite moron Greenspan) who got us here while the Keynesians (who don't believe in central planning) predicted exactly what would happen.
Because global warming models are based on physics, not dodgy financial "theories". They aren't made by plugging random numbers into a randomly chosen set of equations, they're made by plugging real physical constants into descriptions of known physical theories.
* Tens+ of thousands of Kurds and Sunnis are alive today who would've been genocided by Saddam. This would be going on today.
ITYM Shia, not Sunni. Saddam was Sunni
Tens of thousands may have been saved, but at the cost of around a million excess deaths of others. Saddam's murder rate was tiny compared to what happened during and after the invasion.
Furthermore, we now have a 14.1" model that can be configured with 8 GB Ram and a Sandy Bridge i7 for under $800. I don't really consider that to be pricey at all.:)
They are not "my superior interpretations", they are mainstream paleoclimatology. [...] . There have been eight glaciations in the past 800000 years. These glaciation cycles are regular as clockwork.
So you contend current warming is caused by the end of the last ice age?
Aha! You've hit upon the way to make sense of the situation to both sides of the argument - money. A precise economic analysis of the cost of both A and B would help determine whether to act or not.
Well, at least you're comfortable resorting to Ad Hominem attacks instead of debating the validity of the science. Thanks for playing.
Debating the validity of the science?
The only thing tangentialy related to science you have said is
The earth's average temperature has risen 1.4 degree F in the last 100 years. So, I'd call that remarkable stable. But, if you want to read the tea leaves instead of using science, which clearly says this change is easily within the margin of error and not statistically significant...then yeah...you're right.
which is simply unsupported opinion, not "debate".
I actually used to believe the global warming story, until I looked at the science; then I concluded that it was incoherent bullshit. It's not the "anthropogenic warming" that's wrong--humans probably have cause the climate to get slightly warmer--it's the interpretation of those results where global warming proponents lose all connection with reality. Global warming is the left wing analog of "creation science" and "pro-life medicine".
Go on then, what's incoherent?
What are your superior interpretations?
When are you going to publish these perls or wisdom?
Show me the physical chemistry argument for how CO2 forces increases in heat retention in a wet atmosphere, and I will acknowledge that this might be real.
Light from the sun warms the surface of the Earth.
The warm earth radiates IR.
IR is absorbed by CO2 (among other things), warming it.
The CO2 emits IR in all directions. Some goes off into space, some back down to the Earth.
So, the more CO2 the less IR being lost to space, so the warmer the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet Richard Branson alone has donated over $3 billion to the study of AGW.
Balls.
In 2006 Branson "pledged" to spend his profits over the next 10 years on developing "energy sources that do not contribute to global warming".
Nothing for climate research.
Has he spent any of this money? I have no idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/science/22warmcnd.html
You can sync with syncML directly, or run your own syncML server and use syncEvolution to sync from the phone (I'm using it with my OpenGroupware installation) if you want to have a "cloud"-like feeling. It shares as much information with anyone as my GNU/Linux desktop.
You got syncML to work! How? What versions, on what distribution.
Maemo never had time to develop soul sucking modules - if it had gotten anywhere near Verizon, you can be sure it would have become a world-class Dementor.
So you haven't heard about Aegis?
Software that makes a Debian Linux based platform more closed than iOS?
Software that makes it impossible to do what you want with the phone even if you have root access.
I don't know?
For medications maybe the largest pharmacutical companies in the world?
For medical procedures, who invented the currently used hip replacement technique, oh yes, those socialist froggies.
In fact, appart from battlefield medicine, what has he US invented recently?
Urgh, this shit makes my brain ache.
However, what Novell did sell to SCO was the copyright to Unixware
Not so fast:
On August 10, 2007, Judge Kimball, hearing the SCO v. Novell case, ruled that "...the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights".
We are using Xtext (2.0) and its companion Xtend (2.0) to build domain specific languages. Together with Xbase, a part grammar for expressions, we can build new DSLs for various purposes in no time. And it is not such a code bloat as some people might think. When you develop applications with a wide range of models, these EMF-based tools are quite practical. Beside that, we evaluated ATL, QVT, and Xtend in various scenarios. Right now it looks like, that Xtend is very well suited to build generators to source code of other languages especially Java and Scala. It also made a good impression in model-to-model transformations.
Ah. I guess i'll skip it then.
There is even a bank that uses a proprietary old SSH because the BSD OpenSSH is considered GPL and therefore owned by SCO.
Citation needed.
This non-existant bank obviously has the worst lawyers in the world.
BSD OpenSSH is GPL software?
In fact, to support GP's contention, Sun even bought Interactive Unix, so there was no reason for them to pay SCO squat. Later, they did buy Tarantella from them.
ISC had a license from AT&T for Unix SRV3.2. That license included terms that required ISC to keep the code closed source.
SUN bought ISC.
SUN had a license from At&T for Unix SRV4 (yes, they bought a license, even thought they (mostly) wrote it). That license included terms that required SUN to keep the code closed source.
Novell bought Unix from At&T. Not a license, they bought the copyright.
Novell sold a license to SUN that allowed SUN to do whatever they wanted with there Unix derived code, including open sourcing it.
Novell sold something to SCO, no-one really knows what, but it wasn't the copyrights to Unix.
SCO sold whatever it was to Caldera.
SCO renamed themselves to Tarentella then got bought by SUN.
Caldera renamed themselves to The SCO Group.
TSOG sold nothing to SUN. (The couldn't, they didn't own anything anyone understands).
The world of proprietary software and IP is too complicated for any sane human being to understand.
What SCO thought they were buying wasn't what Novell thought they were selling.
A not so minor quibble:
What Caldera thought SCO bought from Novell wasn't what Novell thought they sold to SCO.
SCO then sold whatever it was to Caldera and renamed themselves Tarentella (and got bought by Sun who got bought by Oracle).
Then Caldera (you know, Mickey Mouse's ear) renamed themselves to "The SCO Group".
TSCOG never bought anything from Novell.
If the legal teams that IBM & Novell hired were any good (IANAL), why didn't they just look up the copyrights, see SCO had no grounds, and then tell the guys to go jump off a cliff?
What does "look up a copyright" mean?
That's not how it works.
You go to the judge and say "I own the copyright to this and that is a copy of this".
TSCOG (SCOX) didn't own the copyright (Novell does) and the Linux code wasn't copied. The only person who can decide that is a Judge, not IBM & Novell.
Back away from the case, look at it objectively, and you can see that the legal frameworks surrounding patent and copyright are fundamentally broken.
That would be be hard to see in this case because there are no patent or copyright issues involved.
TSCOG (SCOX) hold no patents and own no copyright to UNIX code.
Lemme get this straight. You're telling me the Austrians who are calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve believe in central planning? Show me the Keynesian that says that the actions of the Fed triggered this mess.
Learn to read, idiot.
The original poster said:
Most of today's economists believe in Keynesian central planning
This is a ridiculous claim.
Not a true enough scotsman for you, eh?
Most of today's economists believe in Keynesian central planning, not true free market economics and sound money like the Austrian economists. Students of the Austrian School predicted the economic bubble and subsequent collapse because they very well know the obvious causes.
RON PAUL 2012!
Stunning.
You've got it exactly wrong.
It was the Austrians (e.g. the Randite moron Greenspan) who got us here while the Keynesians (who don't believe in central planning) predicted exactly what would happen.
No.
Next question.
Oh, why?
Because global warming models are based on physics, not dodgy financial "theories". They aren't made by plugging random numbers into a randomly chosen set of equations, they're made by plugging real physical constants into descriptions of known physical theories.
OK?
* Tens+ of thousands of Kurds and Sunnis are alive today who would've been genocided by Saddam. This would be going on today.
ITYM Shia, not Sunni. Saddam was Sunni
Tens of thousands may have been saved, but at the cost of around a million excess deaths of others. Saddam's murder rate was tiny compared to what happened during and after the invasion.
Furthermore, we now have a 14.1" model that can be configured with 8 GB Ram and a Sandy Bridge i7 for under $800. I don't really consider that to be pricey at all. :)
No, but it weighs 2.13 Kg - too heavy for me.
They are not "my superior interpretations", they are mainstream paleoclimatology. [...] . There have been eight glaciations in the past 800000 years. These glaciation cycles are regular as clockwork.
So you contend current warming is caused by the end of the last ice age?
A 1.4 degree change in temperature over 100 years is within the margin of error of the instruments. It's is not a "statistically significant" change.
conflating two different arguments.
Show me a source for your claim that the change is within the margin of error.
Show me a source for your claim that the change is not statisticaly significant.
The IPCC has manipulated the temperatures.
Source?
Claims to have lost the original data.
What are you talking about? Are you confusing the IPCC and the CRU?
Refuses to share their temperature data for independent evaluation.
The IPCC has no temperature data. I think you don't know what the IPCC is. Maybe you should check out their website.
Created an illegal back-door communications channel to circumvent FOIA requests on taxpayer funded studies
You are seriously confused about the difference between the IPCC and the CRU/
. Shut down thermometers in cooler locations.
What? How on earth would the IPCC do that?
Deliberately attacked, ostracized, and excluded scientists with opposing views from publishing their results in journals.
You mean the paper that was published, and in fact even cited in AR4, despite being, as was pointed out in the famous e-mail, total crap?
This is beyond absurd. It's a religion. Not a science.
Well, since you seem to have a very, very strange idea of what the IPCC is and does...
Aha! You've hit upon the way to make sense of the situation to both sides of the argument - money. A precise economic analysis of the cost of both A and B would help determine whether to act or not.
Been there, done that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
I see, you would rather die than change. Interesting.
No, the problem is that it's you who would rather lie than change.
Well, at least you're comfortable resorting to Ad Hominem attacks instead of debating the validity of the science. Thanks for playing.
Debating the validity of the science?
The only thing tangentialy related to science you have said is
The earth's average temperature has risen 1.4 degree F in the last 100 years. So, I'd call that remarkable stable. But, if you want to read the tea leaves instead of using science, which clearly says this change is easily within the margin of error and not statistically significant...then yeah...you're right.
which is simply unsupported opinion, not "debate".
I was talking to you?
tqk (413719) said:
Get a grip! I'm trying to sort this stuff out for myself
"trying to sort this stuff out" seems to imply a certain amount of fuck being given.
I actually used to believe the global warming story, until I looked at the science; then I concluded that it was incoherent bullshit. It's not the "anthropogenic warming" that's wrong--humans probably have cause the climate to get slightly warmer--it's the interpretation of those results where global warming proponents lose all connection with reality. Global warming is the left wing analog of "creation science" and "pro-life medicine".
Go on then, what's incoherent?
What are your superior interpretations?
When are you going to publish these perls or wisdom?
Show me the physical chemistry argument for how CO2 forces increases in heat retention in a wet atmosphere, and I will acknowledge that this might be real.
Light from the sun warms the surface of the Earth.
The warm earth radiates IR.
IR is absorbed by CO2 (among other things), warming it.
The CO2 emits IR in all directions. Some goes off into space, some back down to the Earth.
So, the more CO2 the less IR being lost to space, so the warmer the earth.
Simple enough for you?