It would very quickly send a message to the executive branch that it can usurp the authority of the legislative branch. Not all attachments are stupid, and it's not for the president to decide which ones are worthy.
Line-item veto is a really bad idea, especially considering who's currently holding the pen.
Why should the president have authority to change the bill without it going back to congress? What would stop him from leaving in the stupid attachments and vetoing everything else?
Most corporate law is based on ethics. Bill Gates and Gordon Gecko may try to rationalize unethical behavior with their "greed is good" philosophy, but most people simply don't believe it.
Gates is a scumbag who's just trying to buy himself a good guy image.
"To simulate martian gravity, which is a third of Earth's, experimenters stripped one of the test rovers of two-thirds of its weight"
That would reduce intertia too, making the simulator easier to move than the one on Mars. I wonder if a better simulation would have been to attach a helium balloon to the CG of the vehicle.
Only to the degree that "we the people" allow it to be. You think you can ride roughshod over poor working stiffs? Think again. Labor unions will rise up and crush you. It's their right.
"Not all of us think a monopoly should be illegal."
Monopolies aren't ipso facto illegal, but the MS monopoly most definitely was. If you don't like the laws, then change them, or find yourself a country whose laws you agree with.
I suppose if you have never watched a legitimate copy of a movie then it's possible that you have not seen the FBI warnings. FYI, the only mention of dollars is the hundreds of thousands they can legally extract from your anus.
He got one thing right... First let's get a few things straight. All of O'Gara's assertions are nutty.
Some of them go way beyond nutty. Dvorak acknowledges that O'Gara tracked down and photographed PJ's home and PJ's mother's home and posted pics in her column
But rather than point out the problem with this type of "journalism", he praises it.
Oh, brother. In the olden days, O'Gara would have been given a medal for generating readership. But in today's world of the so easily offended, she's apparently let go instead, and things calm down as the hissy fit subsides.
Right, thank god we have PC Magazine to sustain the flame of responsible journalism. What an asshole.
"The reason its 'part of the OS' is that the back-end http protocol handlers are reused by every application (well, those that don't want to reinvent the wheel) to connect to the internet."
That's a lame excuse for a company who didn't even see fit to include a TCP/IP stack until around '94. Now that they have one, it's easy for every malware writer and his brother to hijack it, but nearly impossible for the rightful owner to upgrade it with something better.
This has nothing to do with efficient reuse of code. It has everything to do with Gates being a greedy sob who would fuck his dead mother's corpse if there was a buck to be made.
By *all* definitions? No, I already showed why that isn't true.
"You can't download the binary of a driver, tell the kernel to load it, and expect it to work unless the person who compiled just so happened to have the exact same version info, and by some miracle the same compile options."
You can't load code from a Univac either. That's beside the point.
"Just because you can "load modules" doesn't mean you are suddenly a microkernel."
Who said otherwise? My point was that there is more than one meaning to the word "monolithic" as it relates to an OS kernel.
"God it's like monolithic has become a swear word, it's a perfectly valid design."
You're reading way too much into what I wrote. Linux *is* monolithic in the sense that all of its components run in the same address space, and I'm not claiming that a microkernel would be better.
The parent is not informative. Although his statements are correct in the context of this story, there are in fact more than one meaning to the term "monolithic kernel".
Slashdot Mirror
It would very quickly send a message to the executive branch that it can usurp the authority of the legislative branch. Not all attachments are stupid, and it's not for the president to decide which ones are worthy.
Line-item veto is a really bad idea, especially considering who's currently holding the pen.
Why should the president have authority to change the bill without it going back to congress? What would stop him from leaving in the stupid attachments and vetoing everything else?
You probably heard the story on NPR this morning.
"couldn't companies invest in some kind of apparatus like this and invent a process to produce their zero-g glasses on Earth?"
Yeah, but they'd have to be really, uhm, high.
Solaris 2 (aka SunOS5) was derived from both BSD and SysVR4.
http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html
I hope she's sitting on the throne when she discovers your bit of mischief, cuz she's gonna shit.
It won't matter how slowly and deliberately the change is made. The collective memory of the U.S. is too short to prevent it from happening again.
I say this because we fixed the same problem as recently as 1978 with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
"Business ethics is itself oxymoron"
Most corporate law is based on ethics. Bill Gates and Gordon Gecko may try to rationalize unethical behavior with their "greed is good" philosophy, but most people simply don't believe it.
Gates is a scumbag who's just trying to buy himself a good guy image.
Why would native Americans be proud about planting the Stars and Stripes? Ohhh, never mind.
"To simulate martian gravity, which is a third of Earth's, experimenters stripped one of the test rovers of two-thirds of its weight"
That would reduce intertia too, making the simulator easier to move than the one on Mars. I wonder if a better simulation would have been to attach a helium balloon to the CG of the vehicle.
Give it time. Henry Ford also thought that he could bust the unions. He lost.
"The US is a capitalist country."
Only to the degree that "we the people" allow it to be. You think you can ride roughshod over poor working stiffs? Think again. Labor unions will rise up and crush you. It's their right.
All I'm really saying here, is "fuck off, troll".
Would you have died of loneliness?
Mom: Look! Sue is taking her first step.
Billy [crawling on stomach]: Mom! Look at me! I just patented flying!
"Not all of us think a monopoly should be illegal."
Monopolies aren't ipso facto illegal, but the MS monopoly most definitely was. If you don't like the laws, then change them, or find yourself a country whose laws you agree with.
"There are always alternatives."
You just don't get it. It has nothing to do with free markets. They were proven to be an illegal monopoly. Don't try to rewrite history.
s/Cobb/Codd/
What about a /. in a parallel universe? Next time, think before you post ;^P
I suppose if you have never watched a legitimate copy of a movie then it's possible that you have not seen the FBI warnings. FYI, the only mention of dollars is the hundreds of thousands they can legally extract from your anus.
The last 5 star wars movies have sucked anyway.
"do I share the blame?"
Only if you did it intentionally and hid it from the user.
No, I'm not a lawyer. Wanna make something of it?
He got one thing right...
First let's get a few things straight. All of O'Gara's assertions are nutty.
Some of them go way beyond nutty. Dvorak acknowledges that O'Gara tracked down and photographed PJ's home and PJ's mother's home and posted pics in her column
But rather than point out the problem with this type of "journalism", he praises it.
Oh, brother. In the olden days, O'Gara would have been given a medal for generating readership. But in today's world of the so easily offended, she's apparently let go instead, and things calm down as the hissy fit subsides.
Right, thank god we have PC Magazine to sustain the flame of responsible journalism. What an asshole.
"The reason its 'part of the OS' is that the back-end http protocol handlers are reused by every application (well, those that don't want to reinvent the wheel) to connect to the internet."
That's a lame excuse for a company who didn't even see fit to include a TCP/IP stack until around '94. Now that they have one, it's easy for every malware writer and his brother to hijack it, but nearly impossible for the rightful owner to upgrade it with something better.
This has nothing to do with efficient reuse of code. It has everything to do with Gates being a greedy sob who would fuck his dead mother's corpse if there was a buck to be made.
"Yeah - just wait for the sunset."
I'm at the pole, you insensitive clod.
"By all definitions Linux is monolithic."
By *all* definitions? No, I already showed why that isn't true.
"You can't download the binary of a driver, tell the kernel to load it, and expect it to work unless the person who compiled just so happened to have the exact same version info, and by some miracle the same compile options."
You can't load code from a Univac either. That's beside the point.
"Just because you can "load modules" doesn't mean you are suddenly a microkernel."
Who said otherwise? My point was that there is more than one meaning to the word "monolithic" as it relates to an OS kernel.
"God it's like monolithic has become a swear word, it's a perfectly valid design."
You're reading way too much into what I wrote. Linux *is* monolithic in the sense that all of its components run in the same address space, and I'm not claiming that a microkernel would be better.
The parent is not informative. Although his statements are correct in the context of this story, there are in fact more than one meaning to the term "monolithic kernel".