The GPL is a license under which copyrighted material can be used by others, it is not an entity to which copyright can be assigned (transferred). Sontag seems to think that the GPL == the FSF, or something along those lines.
Yes, partially. He is trying to make it look like releasing software under GPL is the same as assigning copyrights, which of course it's not. If SCO originally owned copyrights, they still do. They haven't assigned copyrights to anyone. That's total FUD that average reader (read: investor/broker/etc.) will not catch right away, neither did the interviewer.
It's just like their previous claims that there were hundreds of thousands and millions of lines of code that were copied directly to Linux. Oops, our bad, it's an imitation now, we couldn't find any direct copying. They are trying to generate press coverage and create as much FUD as possible. But we all know that already, yet we are still "discussing" them.
If you haven't used the recent (3.2+) versions of KDE, then you don't know what you are talking about or what that abomination of a "review" is probably referring to. In those recent versions of KDE, if there's only one item inside the menu group, then the sub-menu is not displayed. Rather, the name of the group is displayed and acts like a menu item that you can click on to run an app. When you do so, it runs an app that is the only entry under the menu group.
So, for example, if in the menu you have Internet->Chat group, and Chat group contains only Kopete entry under it, then when you click on K->Internet, the Chat entry will show up as an application item, rather than a sub-group, and clicking it will launch the only entry under it - Kopete. If you install more chat apps, or edit menu and add more entries under that group, then it will display as a sub-group.
What was to be expected anyway? KDE desktop with GNOME defaults? Did he expect GNOME to have KDE and QT app defaults? Did I mention the "review" was abysmal?
As far as I know, SUSE 9.1 is supposed to include the new KDEfied OpenOffice, better quickstarter, new KOffice. Is 2.6 kernel faster? How does OO.org look? Did the "reviewer" do anything other than try to click on the SUSE website links, documenting every banner ad and pop-up, and try to install xchat? What kind of a "review" is that?
Neither would Paradox. Paradox/BDE combination has no equivalent on Linux. I, for one, will gladly pay for WP office suite that includes Paradox, or a standalone Paradox/BDE for Linux as long as they are reasonably priced.
It's looking likely that they mean that SCO distributed SAMBA etc after breaking the terms of the GPL, but wouldn't it be lovely if there was GPL code illicitly stashed away in Unixware... now *that* would be satisfying;)
All copyright is good for is excluding others. It doesn't allow distribution itself, though. Free speech is what does that.
OK, I see your point. Although if "others" are excluded, and copyright holder has rights to free speech, then copyright holder has exclusive rights to redistribute the work - which is what I said. You can get to it both ways but I do see your point. Anyway, this is a side point to my original argument.
Downloading is reproduction, and that too is an exclusive right per the same statute. This was discussed in the 9th Circuit opinion on the Napster case. You don't have to share to break the law.
Yes, people keep pointing this out. I'd like to see this explored more. Imagine if you go to a website and it starts playing copyrighted music and loads copyrighted images without having copyright holders' permissions, can you - the site visitor - be sued or prosecuted for copyright violations? IANAL, but it seems to me if the downloader knowingly downloads a copyrighted work and has a reason to believe that the sharer has no rights to distribute the said work, only then should the downloader be violating.
Another similar example: if you visit, say Wal-Mart online music store, purchase and download some music tracks; only to find out later that Wal-Mart didn't have proper rights to redistribute them, can the copyright holder sue you - the downloader - for damages? I don't think that's right.
If you expand even more on that principle, then imagine holding consumers (at least partially) liable for literally guessing whether the copyrighted content they are purchasing (or getting for free) is "legal" or not. And even then, copyright holders are free to sue any distributors anytime in the future, even if those distributors were thought to be "legal" at some point, putting everyone who acquired that work ("legally" in the past) at risk of being liable for coyright infringement. This is going too far. Copyrights need to be limited in nature, not all-inclusive like this.
Now, I am not saying that a lot of P2P is like this. For example, if you use KaZaA and find the latest Britney Spears song from someone who's sharing it from a Comcast cable home network, you should know that that's a copyrighted work and have a reason to believe it's being distributed without permission. So, in that case maybe the downloader is responsible for contributory infringement (or whatever the term). In any other type of scenario, how can downloaders be held responsible?
So it does border on actually stealing in my humble opinion. Copyright doesn't even have anything to do with it really. You're taking something that you can only get (legally) if you had paid for it.
Actually, copyright has everything to do with it since that's the law that is protecting the copyright holders' rights. To reiterate, copyright protects rights, not the actual property. That makes sense since the "property" in question is not physical in nature. So then, copyright holders have exclusive rights to make copies and redistribute their "property" or their creative works. Copyright infringement refers to actions that violate those rights.
Most of the times these actions involve making and distributing copies of copyrighted materials without copyright holder's permission. If you want to translate that to the P2P world, most of the times that would be P2P users who share these files. So, P2P users who share/distribute copyrighted content without copyright holders' permissions are violating the rights of those copyright holders.
I wouldn't necessarily call violating someone's rights "stealing." I would call it what it is - infringing on someone's rights - or "copyright infringement" instead.
My point being that you claim They have their own criteria what can be allowed and what cannot... This is not true. Again, courts will not allow a government entity to dictate content.
I didn't say they would dictate content. If you go back and re-read the comment I was replying to I made an argument that there was nothing in the first amendment that could prevent the government from requiring attendee list for demonstrations. The word "criteria" was used in that context.
Of course, they were being held for BEING IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Just because the US has been criminally negligent in not detaining immigration law violators in the past, doesn't mean we have any obligation to do so. Backlogs on immigration hearings are over 6 months. Why should we let these Aholes wander the country free? Why not detain them? Do we need a trial to prove they're in the country illegally? A visa is either expired or it isn't.
Boy, my heart bleeds for people in the country illegally.
I don't care what your heart bleeds for, that's not my point. And I am in no way suggesting that illegal immigration should be allowed at all. That's why there are laws and regulations that handle these situations; and believe it or not, even illegal immigrants have rights in this country to be treated fairly. Just because you are an immigrant does not mean that laws don't apply to you and government can do whatever it wants with you at any time.
You're an idiot. IAAL. Trust me, the 8th Amendment only attaches POST-CONVICTION. Don't quote me the Amendment. Case law says otherwise, dope. Jesus, non-lawyers thinking they know the law.
This pretty much says all about your competence in your arguments when you have to resort to personal attacks to make a point. Well, makes sense since you have no explanation of how bail applies to "POST-CONVICTION" only.
As I said, case law dating to the 1940's makes it clear that unlawful combatants that aren't citizens don't have constitutional protections.
Unfortunately, you keep saying the same thing over and over. None of what I said referred to "unlawful combatants" in any regard. Re-read what I wrote if you'd like. Illegal immigrant is not the same as "unlawful combatant" or a "terrorist" and there's no case law that you can cite that will say that, as far as I am aware.
Sony tried with a WiFi-connected file server in early 2003. The FSV-PGX1 was a 20GB hard drive controlled by an embedded Linux system that turned it into a file-server. It could be used by up to 250 people who accessed it by CIFS, if using Windows, or NFS if using Unix/Linux.
[emphasis mine]
It says nothing about the Asus HD in question having any of those. Read the article yourself.
Cities already require their advance approval of any demonstration. They have their own criteria what can be allowed and what cannot..
The US Supreme Court allows only time, place and manner restrictions - not content.
Your point being?
Only non-citizens outside of the US can be held without charges, and only when classified as unlawful combatants.
I wasn't referring to Al Qaida fighters in Afghanistan, if that's what you mean. Many immigrants working in the U.S., mostly Muslims had been detained, without charges, no access to lawyers families, or anyone for months at a time. At the end, all of them were charged with relatively minor visa or employment violations and either let go or deported. None of them were "unlawful combatants." That's a problem, isn't it - that government can name anyone a suspect under terrorism investigation, and not have to be accountable to anyone or any system.
And the 8th only applies post-conviction anyway. Know your law before you pop-off, please.
Nonsense. 8th amendment says:
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
It has no word "conviction" in it. Bail does not happen after conviction. If executive branch of the government decides to bypass the judicial branch and decides to inflict punishments itself, and if those punishments are "cruel" or "unusual" then the 8th amendment is violated.
Sorry, but I think most Americans aren't too concerned about people sworn to destroy our country and its political and legal system, then squeal like babies for their "rights" under that same system as soon as they are captured.
It's funny thing you call it "rights" (in quotes) - that demonstrates your whole point of how important your "rights" are to you. But I guess your point is - "I have nothing to hide, it won't affect me, only to terrorists and bad people." That's a problem as I said and usually occurs when governments are playing scare tactics. When people are sufficiently scared they will not only re-elect and blindly trust the said government, but also be willing to give them any power they ask for. Unfortunately, such scare tactics are usually reminiscent to dictatorships and controlling regimes more than "free" societies where people have certain inalienable "rights."
Hopefully, the Congress will not vote for anything like the Patriot Act II. I have some faith since there seems to be more pressure mounting to limit the current Patriot Act as it is.
This is a war, not cops and robbers.
Yep, this is a war - it's not a civilized country or anything where laws of the land are upheld. What is the point of having the Constitution when it is blatantly disregarded? Want to sell that point to people? Maybe everyone should just give up their rights and blindly trust the government - because it's a war - it's better for you, trust me, you need to know nothing more.
Only one of them - about who you referred to as "people." Some others I took into different direction on purpose.
I've said the government seems unwilling to blatantly violate the first amendment in the name of preventing terrorism. I suspect this is due to people being mmore familiar with this amendment than with the other amendments, and therefore are more likely to stand up and say no. It doesn't justify violating any part of the Constitution. My point was that I think the government is content with violating other parts of the Constitution for now, and the first amendment is safe for the time being.
I guess if that's what most people think, they should be proud of the job they've done. Because they do blatantly violate the First Amendment as well:
- read what AAP (Association of American Publishers) has to say about that - also have a look at www.readerprivacy.com - then look at how Muslims are being treated by Justice department in what ACLU alleges is a violation of "the First Amendment by authorizing the investigations of people based on activities that are constitutionally protected as free expression, free association and free exercise of religion." - Slate also provided some explanation as to how the Patriot Act tries to bypass the First Amendment (scroll down to section 215 explanation or search for first amendment)
Remember that one of the keys to the USA Patriot Act is that government can do as it wishes and not have to tell anyone about it. Not only that, but also require others who do know (like librarians) to keep quiet, or else... In effect, you have to blindly trust the government that they will not abuse their power, and we all know from the past how good they are at that.
The only line the first amendment draws concerning freedom of assembly is that it must be peaceful. In other words, unless there's a very good reason to suspect that a demonstration won't be peaceful, denying anyone the right to demonstrate would be a first amendment violation.
I agree, but at the same time ensuring that a demonstration is peaceful gives the government the excuse to exercise at least some control over not only who is organizing and conducting it and what it is about, but also who will be able to attend it. It's a hypothetical scenario, but it can be done in the name of "security" and possibly fall under ensuring the peacefulness.
It doesn't say that in any of the two linked articles!!! Are you reading something else? It says Sony once tried making such a device with NFS and CIFS. The only thing the articles say about the device in question is that it will support HTML web-based administration and sharing.
If all your file server is doing is connecting an HD to your network, then this device can do it in hardware alone.
What do you mean "hardware alone?" It needs to run something to be able to communicate with clients and share files:
It will have a Web-based management interface through which the drive can be accessed. Files will be freely shareable, have read-access only or be restricted to password-owning users.
The info lacks details but it looks like all access and sharing will be done through a web server. How useful is that? I don't know, since the article also mentions that previous attempts by other manufacturers in this direction have failed, including what I thought was a better solution:
Sony tried with a WiFi-connected file server in early 2003. The FSV-PGX1 was a 20GB hard drive controlled by an embedded Linux system that turned it into a file-server. It could be used by up to 250 people who accessed it by CIFS, if using Windows, or NFS if using Unix/Linux. The WiFi version was 11Mbit/s 802.11b, which meant that file-server access speeds weren?t great, particularly with several people sharing it. Again, it was a light device, weighing in at 320g.
I could actually see a use for such a device for home users with multiple computers or a very small office; but I don't think it's a good idea at all. Given from what I've seen the security (or lack thereof) most people use to set up their wireless networks, this type of device will make all sensitive data directly accessible and available to everyone nearby without even needing to have any computers turned on.
There's a fine line between acknowledging the speakers and orgaizers at a rally and requiring a full attendance list.
I quoted the whole 1st amendment. Where does it draw that line? It doesn't. That was my point.
The latter is impossible and a blatant First Amendment violation.
Sure it's possible. Want to organize a demonstration? In addition to the existing requirements you will need to supply the list of all expected attendants at the demonstration. The attendee list may be obtained by telephone, mailing, online form submission, or by personal contact. The data required for each attendee is as follows:
- first, middle and family names - social security number - date of birth - gender - current address - last 3 addresses, or all addresses for the last 5 years, whichever is longer - telephone number - employer - employer's address and telephone number
On the specified date, the dedicated area will be surrounded by temporary fences and controlled by the police. Persons with incomplete records will not be admitted to the demonstration. In case of perceived security threat the City reserves the right to refuse admittance to any person without reason.
Seems doable to me.
And take it one step further if this was really implemented. How far does the collected data go? You want to fly from Chicago to New York to visit relatives? What? Our CAPPS II says you participated in several demonstrations opposing current government actions - yellow flag. Hmm... you also have a one way ticket to New York and no baggage to check in? That's it - you are RED - you can no longer fly!
Maybe the cities will say: You can have your protest, if you supply a list of names of people who will be there.
Perhaps, although doing so would be a clear violation of the first amendment's freedom of assembly.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Cities already require their advance approval of any demonstration. They have their own criteria what can be allowed and what cannot. I don't see anything in the 1st amendment that can keep them from requiring organizers and attendants lists to check against terrorist databases to the list of their criteria.
I know people will cite the Patriot Act as an example that the government doesn't give a damn about the Constitution.
Nothing of the sort is happening. In fact, Bush and Ashcroft are proud of having passed the US PATRIOT Act and regard it as a plus in their fight against terrorism. Needless to say, most people are blind to principles and could care less if the government is able to listen into their telephone conversations with their friends without a warrant, or tap into their OnStar or a similar device to track them or listen to their in-car conversations. Or detain suspects for extended periods of time, if not forever, without charging them with anything, giving them access to a lawyer, family, etc. All they do is talk to family and friends over the phone and drive kids around anyway - they have nothing to hide; do you? Principles go down the drain when government uses scare tactics.
On the other hand, I don't recall any real limitations on freedom of speech (okay, not giving expert advice to terrorists, but the courts struck that part of the Patriot Act down). They've been unwilling so far to touch the first amendment.
You are making it sound like it's OK to violate the Constitution as long as you don't violate the 1st amendment. The US PATRIOT Act and government's actions based thereon, violate 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, among other things. i.e., courts will uphold the 1st amendment, but not care at all about others? How is this justified?
Sue SCO for what? Making public statements of them having reached an agreement?
No, sue SCO for defrauding them.
Imagine now a hypothetical scenario: a software company approaches a small business and demands additional $1000 license fees per server from them for running Windows 2000 servers (patent/contract/copyrights/whatever). If no such license is obtained, they threaten costly lawsuits and years of litigation. As a proof of validity of their claim they give some obscure references and gibberish. Intimidated by such tactics and without getting proper advice, the small business owner pays up few grand and goes on with his business. Later he discovers that he had been defrauded. Surely, he can go to court and ask for his money back.
The main difference is - does EV1 really want to correct their mistake or do they want to play "safe" on both sides, and try to sweep this under the rug? I am guessing the latter.
Please, throw anything you want in whatever direction, but unfortunately, you must not understand the difference between a database server - like a production RDBMS (which you call "database") - and a database tool. Just because Paradox can be used a relational data store does not mean you run your high availability secure banking production servers on it.
What it is - is a great tool for quick and convenient way to manipulate data and tables across other RDBMSes, including itself. It has an easily learned scripting support so you can script and automate some of the repetitive tasks. Also has an extremely useful querying interface. Beyond standard SQL queries, with its unique interface, you can access data that would not be easily reachable with the SQL. Many, if not all, Borland tools, like Delphi and others used to come with a stripped down version of Paradox, called Database Desktop - kind of like you would use MS Query but you could accomplish a hell of a lot more using Database Desktop since it provided an actual database functionality. I don't know about now, since I don't do any of that stuff anymore. If you haven't worked on a database application, you are unlikely to understand the usefulness of such a tool.
This is relevant to the Office suite discussion because MS argues it has Access, SUN has its own with StarOffice, OO.org has nothing. I am not sure this is necessarily an "office" functionality, but to have at least a standalone tool like that would be of a great value to many.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't used M$ Office since college 5 years ago (it was crap then and still is) but there is nothing like Access in the OSS world. Yet. There are some excellent front ends to e.g. pgsql/mysql/etc. but nothing Ma & Pa Kettle's General Store can fire up w/o being a DB admin. Is there?
Feel free to ask Corel to make Paradox open source. It's currently a part of WordPerfect Office Professional. Remember when they used to make Office for Linux? They had Paradox for Linux too. I never understood why Borland sold Paradox to Corel. It was a perfect companion to Delphi and other programming tools, and Corel sent it downhill right away. It's not like Paradox has a big market share or is creating sales at Corel either. People use MS Access. Paradox was/is an excellent product in need of a new strategy.
Indeed we have moved on to the days of domain-specific plug-in permissions as implemented in recent Konqueror releases. We are no longer forced to download and watch extremely annoying flash ads, some even with very intrusive soundtracks. Not even to get started on how flash disables my default browser controls as I expect them to work anywhere else on the web - back/forward, open link in new window/tab, view image, select/copy/paste, find text, save link as, etc., etc., etc.
If you were seriously going to make a booster to put 660 tons into LEO, this sounds about like the ticket for the first stage; they would be too dumb to fail easily and cheap enough that you could afford to lose (or discard) them regularly.
Interesting. Googling further for different articles and then looking at Energia's own plan, they want to launch components separately and assemble them in LEO. They figure it will take approximately 6-7 Energia launches to be able to assemble/dock everything in space. This makes a lot of sense if you consider that the main craft would not be landing on Mars but only staying in the LMO. Only a lander/ascent vehicle needs to go down and re-dock on the way back.
Another earlier article (not so good English translation) I read however, contradicted the idea that either Energia or Saturn V were going to be used. Go figure. Mind you, I still think they are bluffing.
Energia is dead, *period*. It's not funded. The project team was dismantled over a decade ago. No components have been manufactured in over a decade. No work has been done on the project in over a decade. No Energia has been launched in over a decade. The only existing complete launcher died with Buran. There is no evidence to show that what does remain of the plans, components, etc... have been treated any better than was Buran. *It's dead*, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
That's not to say it could not be revieved, but doing so would be from a cold, nearly standing start.
I don't know what you are trying to prove with your asterisks. First, your definition of *dead* differs from mine; for example, I call Buran "dead" since there's absolutely no chance it can be revived. Second, Energia as a company is in no way dead or unfunded, and nobody knows, including you, how they keep their LV technical specs, data, components, or how many people, if any, they have assigned to those "unfunded" projects. Third, there's no dispute that reviving their most powerful LV that has not been launched in awhile would not be easy at all. Fourth, read below.
There is utterly no reason to believe they are not bluffing. In the last year and some they have annouced numerous projects they are supposedly working on, whose sum total would have been a difficult task for the Soviet Union it's heyday, let alone in impoverished and decaying Russia.
You must have a comprehension problem. What does my first post (that you replied to) say in the very beginning?
I think that there's a good chance Energia is bluffing about the 660 ton Mars spacecraft.... But assuming for a second that Energia is not bluffing...
The rest of the post and ideas expressed assumes they are not bluffing, even if the chance of them doing so are extremely low. Surely, for the purposes of the discussion, if you assume they are not bluffing, they must be planning on getting the 660 ton spacecraft off of the ground?
Energia is *dead*. The program was cancelled over a decade ago. I know Energia.ru give you the impression that it's an active program, but it's not.
I don't think that's completely accurate. Your statement is true for Buran because of the funding, roof collapse, lost technical documents, etc. I don't believe Energia has been used recently but that does not mean it's "dead." In fact, Energia has launched cargo other than Buran into orbit.
Besides, and assuming they are not bluffing about the Mars craft, they don't have any other launchers they can build on for future more powerful lifters they will be definitely needing.
Reality check (Google to the rescue!):
Energiya RD-0120: vacuum thrust 200,000 kgf (roughly 440,000 lbf)
Rocketdyne SSME: vacuum thrust 512,950 lbf
(The RD-0120 was copied from the SSME.)
With the assembly they both used - 3 main engines on the shuttle, and 4 RD-0120s on Energia, they have comparable power then. I'm not sure of exact performance differences between SRBs and LRBs.
This does not mean that it would be overly difficult to bolt a bunch of SSME's onto a different airframe so that we could fly 100 tons of cargo instead of 20 tons of cargo inside 80 tons of obsolete spaceplane; on the contrary, putting a new vehicle together would probably be cheaper than keeping the Shuttle program going until 2008.
Won't this take more time? Keeping the shuttle around until the end of the decade (and possibly a little longer) gives NASA time to come up with a longer term solutions to what types of manned vehicles they want to use for LEO. And what about to the moon and, eventually, Mars? I like the previous poster's (in this thread) idea that lifting should be separate from the cargo. And, as he suggests, SSMEs would need to be adjusted for the staged launch process then.
I don't think this is within the realm of practicality, but 200 tons looks fairly reasonable from my relatively in-expert point of view. (Goodness knows what you'd do for the boosters to get the thing off the ground; clustering so many solid rockets would have a very high probability of failure.)
Competition is good, and I don't think Americans will sit around while the Russians start testing a Mars spacecraft..
I think that there's a good chance Energia is bluffing about the 660 ton Mars spacecraft. That's not another satellite launch - who's going to pay for that?
But assuming for a second that Energia is not bluffing, NASA would have to either play catch-up or compete on a different level. IANARS (rocket scientist) but as far as I know, Energia lifters are one of, if not the best of the breed. Unlike Buran, the launch vehicle that was going to lift it into the orbit (and did so once) - LV Energia - has not been lost or forgotten. When it was designed and built, it could carry up to 100-120 tons into orbit, over 200 tons if fully expanded. The main difference from the STS being that the shuttle has its main engine on the spacecraft, while Buran was lifted entirely by Energia rocket and attached liquid rocket boosters (i.e. spacecraft did not do any lifting of its own).
Now, as far as I know, nobody else including NASA has anything like this. While Energia design could be relatively easily used for lifting cargo other than Buran, I'm not sure the Shuttle main engine could be that easily ported or even comparable in power. If there's indeed a renewed competition in space and considering that there's still a lot to be said about lifting 660 pound spacecraft into LEO (not even about going to Mars and back), I am wondering what would NASA's plans be - play catch-up, or do something entirely different?
I kinda agree... between this guy, SCO, Microsoft, and everyone else these days, it seems like childish behavior in the courtroom is the order of the day.
This is more than childish. It's frivolous and should be criminal. I mean the guy is suing Yahoo and AOL for using Google? Maybe he could also sue thousands, if not millions, of websites that have a textbox with "google search" button next to it, or a link to Google's website too (because we all know that linking is illegal too)!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, partially. He is trying to make it look like releasing software under GPL is the same as assigning copyrights, which of course it's not. If SCO originally owned copyrights, they still do. They haven't assigned copyrights to anyone. That's total FUD that average reader (read: investor/broker/etc.) will not catch right away, neither did the interviewer.
It's just like their previous claims that there were hundreds of thousands and millions of lines of code that were copied directly to Linux. Oops, our bad, it's an imitation now, we couldn't find any direct copying. They are trying to generate press coverage and create as much FUD as possible. But we all know that already, yet we are still "discussing" them.
If you haven't used the recent (3.2+) versions of KDE, then you don't know what you are talking about or what that abomination of a "review" is probably referring to. In those recent versions of KDE, if there's only one item inside the menu group, then the sub-menu is not displayed. Rather, the name of the group is displayed and acts like a menu item that you can click on to run an app. When you do so, it runs an app that is the only entry under the menu group.
So, for example, if in the menu you have Internet->Chat group, and Chat group contains only Kopete entry under it, then when you click on K->Internet, the Chat entry will show up as an application item, rather than a sub-group, and clicking it will launch the only entry under it - Kopete. If you install more chat apps, or edit menu and add more entries under that group, then it will display as a sub-group.
What was to be expected anyway? KDE desktop with GNOME defaults? Did he expect GNOME to have KDE and QT app defaults? Did I mention the "review" was abysmal?
As far as I know, SUSE 9.1 is supposed to include the new KDEfied OpenOffice, better quickstarter, new KOffice. Is 2.6 kernel faster? How does OO.org look? Did the "reviewer" do anything other than try to click on the SUSE website links, documenting every banner ad and pop-up, and try to install xchat? What kind of a "review" is that?
Neither would Paradox. Paradox/BDE combination has no equivalent on Linux. I, for one, will gladly pay for WP office suite that includes Paradox, or a standalone Paradox/BDE for Linux as long as they are reasonably priced.
This must make your day then - a copy and paste job from Linux.
OK, I see your point. Although if "others" are excluded, and copyright holder has rights to free speech, then copyright holder has exclusive rights to redistribute the work - which is what I said. You can get to it both ways but I do see your point. Anyway, this is a side point to my original argument.
Yes, people keep pointing this out. I'd like to see this explored more. Imagine if you go to a website and it starts playing copyrighted music and loads copyrighted images without having copyright holders' permissions, can you - the site visitor - be sued or prosecuted for copyright violations? IANAL, but it seems to me if the downloader knowingly downloads a copyrighted work and has a reason to believe that the sharer has no rights to distribute the said work, only then should the downloader be violating.
Another similar example: if you visit, say Wal-Mart online music store, purchase and download some music tracks; only to find out later that Wal-Mart didn't have proper rights to redistribute them, can the copyright holder sue you - the downloader - for damages? I don't think that's right.
If you expand even more on that principle, then imagine holding consumers (at least partially) liable for literally guessing whether the copyrighted content they are purchasing (or getting for free) is "legal" or not. And even then, copyright holders are free to sue any distributors anytime in the future, even if those distributors were thought to be "legal" at some point, putting everyone who acquired that work ("legally" in the past) at risk of being liable for coyright infringement. This is going too far. Copyrights need to be limited in nature, not all-inclusive like this.
Now, I am not saying that a lot of P2P is like this. For example, if you use KaZaA and find the latest Britney Spears song from someone who's sharing it from a Comcast cable home network, you should know that that's a copyrighted work and have a reason to believe it's being distributed without permission. So, in that case maybe the downloader is responsible for contributory infringement (or whatever the term). In any other type of scenario, how can downloaders be held responsible?
Actually, copyright has everything to do with it since that's the law that is protecting the copyright holders' rights. To reiterate, copyright protects rights, not the actual property. That makes sense since the "property" in question is not physical in nature. So then, copyright holders have exclusive rights to make copies and redistribute their "property" or their creative works. Copyright infringement refers to actions that violate those rights.
Most of the times these actions involve making and distributing copies of copyrighted materials without copyright holder's permission. If you want to translate that to the P2P world, most of the times that would be P2P users who share these files. So, P2P users who share/distribute copyrighted content without copyright holders' permissions are violating the rights of those copyright holders.
I wouldn't necessarily call violating someone's rights "stealing." I would call it what it is - infringing on someone's rights - or "copyright infringement" instead.
I didn't say they would dictate content. If you go back and re-read the comment I was replying to I made an argument that there was nothing in the first amendment that could prevent the government from requiring attendee list for demonstrations. The word "criteria" was used in that context.
I don't care what your heart bleeds for, that's not my point. And I am in no way suggesting that illegal immigration should be allowed at all. That's why there are laws and regulations that handle these situations; and believe it or not, even illegal immigrants have rights in this country to be treated fairly. Just because you are an immigrant does not mean that laws don't apply to you and government can do whatever it wants with you at any time.
This pretty much says all about your competence in your arguments when you have to resort to personal attacks to make a point. Well, makes sense since you have no explanation of how bail applies to "POST-CONVICTION" only.
Unfortunately, you keep saying the same thing over and over. None of what I said referred to "unlawful combatants" in any regard. Re-read what I wrote if you'd like. Illegal immigrant is not the same as "unlawful combatant" or a "terrorist" and there's no case law that you can cite that will say that, as far as I am aware.
Quoting the MacWorld article:
Sony tried with a WiFi-connected file server in early 2003. The FSV-PGX1 was a 20GB hard drive controlled by an embedded Linux system that turned it into a file-server. It could be used by up to 250 people who accessed it by CIFS, if using Windows, or NFS if using Unix/Linux.
[emphasis mine]
It says nothing about the Asus HD in question having any of those. Read the article yourself.
Your point being?
I wasn't referring to Al Qaida fighters in Afghanistan, if that's what you mean. Many immigrants working in the U.S., mostly Muslims had been detained, without charges, no access to lawyers families, or anyone for months at a time. At the end, all of them were charged with relatively minor visa or employment violations and either let go or deported. None of them were "unlawful combatants." That's a problem, isn't it - that government can name anyone a suspect under terrorism investigation, and not have to be accountable to anyone or any system.
Nonsense. 8th amendment says:
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
It has no word "conviction" in it. Bail does not happen after conviction. If executive branch of the government decides to bypass the judicial branch and decides to inflict punishments itself, and if those punishments are "cruel" or "unusual" then the 8th amendment is violated.
It's funny thing you call it "rights" (in quotes) - that demonstrates your whole point of how important your "rights" are to you. But I guess your point is - "I have nothing to hide, it won't affect me, only to terrorists and bad people." That's a problem as I said and usually occurs when governments are playing scare tactics. When people are sufficiently scared they will not only re-elect and blindly trust the said government, but also be willing to give them any power they ask for. Unfortunately, such scare tactics are usually reminiscent to dictatorships and controlling regimes more than "free" societies where people have certain inalienable "rights."
Hopefully, the Congress will not vote for anything like the Patriot Act II. I have some faith since there seems to be more pressure mounting to limit the current Patriot Act as it is.
Yep, this is a war - it's not a civilized country or anything where laws of the land are upheld. What is the point of having the Constitution when it is blatantly disregarded? Want to sell that point to people? Maybe everyone should just give up their rights and blindly trust the government - because it's a war - it's better for you, trust me, you need to know nothing more.
Only one of them - about who you referred to as "people." Some others I took into different direction on purpose.
I guess if that's what most people think, they should be proud of the job they've done. Because they do blatantly violate the First Amendment as well:
- read what AAP (Association of American Publishers) has to say about that
- also have a look at www.readerprivacy.com
- then look at how Muslims are being treated by Justice department in what ACLU alleges is a violation of "the First Amendment by authorizing the investigations of people based on activities that are constitutionally protected as free expression, free association and free exercise of religion."
- Slate also provided some explanation as to how the Patriot Act tries to bypass the First Amendment (scroll down to section 215 explanation or search for first amendment)
Remember that one of the keys to the USA Patriot Act is that government can do as it wishes and not have to tell anyone about it. Not only that, but also require others who do know (like librarians) to keep quiet, or else... In effect, you have to blindly trust the government that they will not abuse their power, and we all know from the past how good they are at that.
I agree, but at the same time ensuring that a demonstration is peaceful gives the government the excuse to exercise at least some control over not only who is organizing and conducting it and what it is about, but also who will be able to attend it. It's a hypothetical scenario, but it can be done in the name of "security" and possibly fall under ensuring the peacefulness.
It doesn't say that in any of the two linked articles!!! Are you reading something else? It says Sony once tried making such a device with NFS and CIFS. The only thing the articles say about the device in question is that it will support HTML web-based administration and sharing.
What do you mean "hardware alone?" It needs to run something to be able to communicate with clients and share files:
It will have a Web-based management interface through which the drive can be accessed. Files will be freely shareable, have read-access only or be restricted to password-owning users.
The info lacks details but it looks like all access and sharing will be done through a web server. How useful is that? I don't know, since the article also mentions that previous attempts by other manufacturers in this direction have failed, including what I thought was a better solution:
Sony tried with a WiFi-connected file server in early 2003. The FSV-PGX1 was a 20GB hard drive controlled by an embedded Linux system that turned it into a file-server. It could be used by up to 250 people who accessed it by CIFS, if using Windows, or NFS if using Unix/Linux. The WiFi version was 11Mbit/s 802.11b, which meant that file-server access speeds weren?t great, particularly with several people sharing it. Again, it was a light device, weighing in at 320g.
I could actually see a use for such a device for home users with multiple computers or a very small office; but I don't think it's a good idea at all. Given from what I've seen the security (or lack thereof) most people use to set up their wireless networks, this type of device will make all sensitive data directly accessible and available to everyone nearby without even needing to have any computers turned on.
I quoted the whole 1st amendment. Where does it draw that line? It doesn't. That was my point.
Sure it's possible. Want to organize a demonstration? In addition to the existing requirements you will need to supply the list of all expected attendants at the demonstration. The attendee list may be obtained by telephone, mailing, online form submission, or by personal contact. The data required for each attendee is as follows:
- first, middle and family names
- social security number
- date of birth
- gender
- current address
- last 3 addresses, or all addresses for the last 5 years, whichever is longer
- telephone number
- employer
- employer's address and telephone number
On the specified date, the dedicated area will be surrounded by temporary fences and controlled by the police. Persons with incomplete records will not be admitted to the demonstration. In case of perceived security threat the City reserves the right to refuse admittance to any person without reason.
Seems doable to me.
And take it one step further if this was really implemented. How far does the collected data go? You want to fly from Chicago to New York to visit relatives? What? Our CAPPS II says you participated in several demonstrations opposing current government actions - yellow flag. Hmm... you also have a one way ticket to New York and no baggage to check in? That's it - you are RED - you can no longer fly!
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Cities already require their advance approval of any demonstration. They have their own criteria what can be allowed and what cannot. I don't see anything in the 1st amendment that can keep them from requiring organizers and attendants lists to check against terrorist databases to the list of their criteria.
Nothing of the sort is happening. In fact, Bush and Ashcroft are proud of having passed the US PATRIOT Act and regard it as a plus in their fight against terrorism. Needless to say, most people are blind to principles and could care less if the government is able to listen into their telephone conversations with their friends without a warrant, or tap into their OnStar or a similar device to track them or listen to their in-car conversations. Or detain suspects for extended periods of time, if not forever, without charging them with anything, giving them access to a lawyer, family, etc. All they do is talk to family and friends over the phone and drive kids around anyway - they have nothing to hide; do you? Principles go down the drain when government uses scare tactics.
You are making it sound like it's OK to violate the Constitution as long as you don't violate the 1st amendment. The US PATRIOT Act and government's actions based thereon, violate 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, among other things. i.e., courts will uphold the 1st amendment, but not care at all about others? How is this justified?
No, sue SCO for defrauding them.
Imagine now a hypothetical scenario: a software company approaches a small business and demands additional $1000 license fees per server from them for running Windows 2000 servers (patent/contract/copyrights/whatever). If no such license is obtained, they threaten costly lawsuits and years of litigation. As a proof of validity of their claim they give some obscure references and gibberish. Intimidated by such tactics and without getting proper advice, the small business owner pays up few grand and goes on with his business. Later he discovers that he had been defrauded. Surely, he can go to court and ask for his money back.
The main difference is - does EV1 really want to correct their mistake or do they want to play "safe" on both sides, and try to sweep this under the rug? I am guessing the latter.
Please, throw anything you want in whatever direction, but unfortunately, you must not understand the difference between a database server - like a production RDBMS (which you call "database") - and a database tool. Just because Paradox can be used a relational data store does not mean you run your high availability secure banking production servers on it.
What it is - is a great tool for quick and convenient way to manipulate data and tables across other RDBMSes, including itself. It has an easily learned scripting support so you can script and automate some of the repetitive tasks. Also has an extremely useful querying interface. Beyond standard SQL queries, with its unique interface, you can access data that would not be easily reachable with the SQL. Many, if not all, Borland tools, like Delphi and others used to come with a stripped down version of Paradox, called Database Desktop - kind of like you would use MS Query but you could accomplish a hell of a lot more using Database Desktop since it provided an actual database functionality. I don't know about now, since I don't do any of that stuff anymore. If you haven't worked on a database application, you are unlikely to understand the usefulness of such a tool.
This is relevant to the Office suite discussion because MS argues it has Access, SUN has its own with StarOffice, OO.org has nothing. I am not sure this is necessarily an "office" functionality, but to have at least a standalone tool like that would be of a great value to many.
Feel free to ask Corel to make Paradox open source. It's currently a part of WordPerfect Office Professional. Remember when they used to make Office for Linux? They had Paradox for Linux too. I never understood why Borland sold Paradox to Corel. It was a perfect companion to Delphi and other programming tools, and Corel sent it downhill right away. It's not like Paradox has a big market share or is creating sales at Corel either. People use MS Access. Paradox was/is an excellent product in need of a new strategy.
Indeed we have moved on to the days of domain-specific plug-in permissions as implemented in recent Konqueror releases. We are no longer forced to download and watch extremely annoying flash ads, some even with very intrusive soundtracks. Not even to get started on how flash disables my default browser controls as I expect them to work anywhere else on the web - back/forward, open link in new window/tab, view image, select/copy/paste, find text, save link as, etc., etc., etc.
Nonsense. It's clearly SCO trying to inject their Sys V code into GNOME and then sue all its users.
Interesting. Googling further for different articles and then looking at Energia's own plan, they want to launch components separately and assemble them in LEO. They figure it will take approximately 6-7 Energia launches to be able to assemble/dock everything in space. This makes a lot of sense if you consider that the main craft would not be landing on Mars but only staying in the LMO. Only a lander/ascent vehicle needs to go down and re-dock on the way back.
Another earlier article (not so good English translation) I read however, contradicted the idea that either Energia or Saturn V were going to be used. Go figure. Mind you, I still think they are bluffing.
I don't know what you are trying to prove with your asterisks. First, your definition of *dead* differs from mine; for example, I call Buran "dead" since there's absolutely no chance it can be revived. Second, Energia as a company is in no way dead or unfunded, and nobody knows, including you, how they keep their LV technical specs, data, components, or how many people, if any, they have assigned to those "unfunded" projects. Third, there's no dispute that reviving their most powerful LV that has not been launched in awhile would not be easy at all. Fourth, read below.
You must have a comprehension problem. What does my first post (that you replied to) say in the very beginning?
I think that there's a good chance Energia is bluffing about the 660 ton Mars spacecraft.
The rest of the post and ideas expressed assumes they are not bluffing, even if the chance of them doing so are extremely low. Surely, for the purposes of the discussion, if you assume they are not bluffing, they must be planning on getting the 660 ton spacecraft off of the ground?
I don't think that's completely accurate. Your statement is true for Buran because of the funding, roof collapse, lost technical documents, etc. I don't believe Energia has been used recently but that does not mean it's "dead." In fact, Energia has launched cargo other than Buran into orbit.
Besides, and assuming they are not bluffing about the Mars craft, they don't have any other launchers they can build on for future more powerful lifters they will be definitely needing.
With the assembly they both used - 3 main engines on the shuttle, and 4 RD-0120s on Energia, they have comparable power then. I'm not sure of exact performance differences between SRBs and LRBs.
Won't this take more time? Keeping the shuttle around until the end of the decade (and possibly a little longer) gives NASA time to come up with a longer term solutions to what types of manned vehicles they want to use for LEO. And what about to the moon and, eventually, Mars? I like the previous poster's (in this thread) idea that lifting should be separate from the cargo. And, as he suggests, SSMEs would need to be adjusted for the staged launch process then.
LRBs possibly?
I think that there's a good chance Energia is bluffing about the 660 ton Mars spacecraft. That's not another satellite launch - who's going to pay for that?
But assuming for a second that Energia is not bluffing, NASA would have to either play catch-up or compete on a different level. IANARS (rocket scientist) but as far as I know, Energia lifters are one of, if not the best of the breed. Unlike Buran, the launch vehicle that was going to lift it into the orbit (and did so once) - LV Energia - has not been lost or forgotten. When it was designed and built, it could carry up to 100-120 tons into orbit, over 200 tons if fully expanded. The main difference from the STS being that the shuttle has its main engine on the spacecraft, while Buran was lifted entirely by Energia rocket and attached liquid rocket boosters (i.e. spacecraft did not do any lifting of its own).
Now, as far as I know, nobody else including NASA has anything like this. While Energia design could be relatively easily used for lifting cargo other than Buran, I'm not sure the Shuttle main engine could be that easily ported or even comparable in power. If there's indeed a renewed competition in space and considering that there's still a lot to be said about lifting 660 pound spacecraft into LEO (not even about going to Mars and back), I am wondering what would NASA's plans be - play catch-up, or do something entirely different?
Again, IANARS, so feel free to correct.
This is more than childish. It's frivolous and should be criminal. I mean the guy is suing Yahoo and AOL for using Google? Maybe he could also sue thousands, if not millions, of websites that have a textbox with "google search" button next to it, or a link to Google's website too (because we all know that linking is illegal too)!