Another possible reason for your mouse speeding up is the 2.6 kernel actually initializing the mouse and setting the precision, etc. You can disable this, and return to "almost 2.4"-like behaviour by adding the following kernel parameter to your boot config:
Ooooh, I get it! If something is "unacceptable to most persons", it should be outlawed! So, by that logic, in the US, Islam should probably outlawed, due to the overwhelming Christian majority, right? Hey, maybe homosexuality should be outlawed, too. Yeah, tyranny of the majority... it's a *great* idea!
Those guarantees are what a license is for. If I need to call every author of code I want to use, I might as well use proprietary stuff. One of the main points of free software is that you can use it without asking the author.
Oh, I completely agree. Of course, this is a non-sequitur, as it also has nothing to do with my post. I was simply responding to the idea that an author can turn around and sue you after saying he wouldn't.
However, Linus is not at all the only copyright holder on the kernel source. And I doubt if these statements are legally binding, even for Linus. He just tries to tell how he interprets the license. I remember him saying on a mailinglist that those statements don't legally mean anything, they just explain what he thinks the license is saying. If tomorrow he changes his mind, you may have a problem. If Alan Cox (or any other copyright holder on part of the kernel) doesn't agree with Linus' interpretation, you may have a problem as well.
Well, Linus seems to disagree. See here and here. Granted, Linus ain't no legal authority, but I'd assume he's not *completely* out to lunch.:) Of course, the Linux kernel is just one situation, and so this discussion may not apply to all projects. But it's not nearly so black and white as one might think.
This is not strictly true. If the author makes guarantees to you about whether or not they'll sue, these statements can be partly binding. Look up the concept of estoppel for an idea of how this works.
Incidentally, this exists in practice. In particular, the Linux kernel license (the GPL) prevents the distribution of binary-only kernel modules. However, Linus has stated publically, as well as in writing in the kernel source, that no action will be taken against parties who distribute such modules.
Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but with credit cards, my understanding is that you get nailed for interest the *second* you pull the cash out, unlike purchases, where the interest is calculated at the end of the month.
Now that would be a *great* feature for the Googlebar to implement. It could tack your custom blacklisted sites onto the end of any search you perform... I think I might have to contact the Googlebar authors and suggest this.:)
Of course. The mass of a black hole is only the mass of the original, collapsed matter, and any additional in-fallen matter. So, a stellar-sized black hole is typically in the 4-15 solar masses range. Contrast this to a supermassive black hole which is in the range of 10's to 100's of billions of solar masses. There is also evidence for more intermediate-sized black holes, but nothing concrete as of yet.
Umm... yes. Supermassive blackholes are the leading candidates for the engines driving quasars. From Google:
"Quasar - an enormously bright object at the edge of our Universe that emits massive amounts of energy. In an optical telescope, they appear point-like, similar to stars, from which they derive their name. Their high luminosity is created from matter falling into a supermassive black hole in the centers of distant galaxies."
We had plans for Iraq, post-conquest. They didn't work
Nope, they didn't. Which is what most of the world was saying before the US invaded. But, they did it anyway, and then learned the hard way. Oh well, sometimes, that's the only way to learn... the question is, did the US actually learn anything? The cynic in me thinks not...
LOL! This is hilarious. You use terrorism as a way to justify space-based weapons, even though space-based weapons would have done *NOTHING* to prevent 9/11. Hell, do you honestly think that these types of weapons will have any effect on some lunatic with a low-yield nuke? Dumbass.
And it gets worse! Do you honestly think that, say, Korea, could develop the launch capability necessary to hit the US with a missile without the US government knowing about it? Not to mention that a space-based weapon *still* wouldn't make any friggin' difference, even if they could... the US would be far smarter to install ground-based anti-missile weapons than try to blow up the damned thing from space.
Err, what does that have to do with my point? True Communism has never existed on a large scale on this planet. Thus, claims that it tries to "own and dictate every aspect of a person's life" are silly, since we don't know *what* it would do in practice. Similarly, we can't just go and "talk to some people that actually lived under that system", because no one has ever *lived* under the system! So, I guess my real point is, there's no sense in making claims about the validity, morality, etc, of Communism, since we honestly have no idea *what* it would be like to live in a truly Communist society.
Now, you can complain all you want about the (im)practicality of the Marxist transition to Communism. But that has no bearing on Communism itself.
...this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
This stage is NOT communism! This is an intermediate state which Marx felt was necessary during the transition *to* Communism. Thus, no truly communist country has ever existed... they've all stalled out in this intermediate state and subsequently devolved into socialist dictatorships.
No, they haven't. They've lived in a dictatorship which decided to call itself "Communist", even though, in reality, it wasn't. Kinda like FOX referring to themselves as "fair and impartial".
Wow, speaking of wrong. No truly communist country has *ever* existed, so it's a little difficult to get the opinion of someone who has "lived under that system". Yes, that includes Russia, China, and any other country you'd like to mention. All of them were/are, in the end, dictatorships.
Or maybe Gentoo *isn't* stable, at least not the way Debian views stability. Debian-unstable is probably just as functional as a Gentoo system. However, unlike Gentoo, Debian is willing to give the user choice: do they want stability, or cutting-edge functionality?
And what does that have to do with the grandparent's question, exactly? He asked about OSS VM's not based on "commercial ideas"... which, of course, doesn't exactly describe Mono.
Its just a satellite that already has a replacement planned and is being built as we speak
Nooo... there is no replacement for the Hubble planned. There is a new space-based telescope being planned, but it's mission objectives are FAR different from those of the Hubble. It will have a different range of sensitivity, IR rather than visible + UV, and won't be in LEO, making it unserviceable and also unupgradeable. The Hubble is a wonderful research instrument, and has performed, and more importantly, *continues* to perform an immense service. As such, it's only natural for the research community to want to keep it aloft.
So your HR department is going to check out who they're outsourcing to, as well as interviewing all of their hiring managers, their HR department, all individuals working on the project, and any new people brought on? Because if you don't do all of that, you can't be guaranteed that something won't go wrong along the way... after all, a brilliant contract company can still hire boneheads. And if you *do* do all of that, you might as well do the job in-house.
And you deal with those on a case-by-case basis. Frankly, if you don't know *exactly* what applications are being used on your network at any given time, even on a system with thousands of users, your IT department has done something seriously wrong. Especially considering it's the job of IT to install and support these applications in the first place. And if you break some small fry's application because you weren't aware of it, tough sh*t. It's not one of the IT-supported applications, so it's their problem if it suddenly breaks.
Bullshit. The fact is that, when you outsource, you lose all quality control, regarding the employees. As a result, the agency you go with could hire a total moron, who then posts your confidential data on a website. Had you kept the job in-house, you would have been able to do a better job screening employees, thus reducing overall incompetence. Moreover, you can, in-house, communicate and enforce a policy (ie, through careful procedures to gain access to data, etc) which makes it clear what can and cannot be done with various types of data, thus reducing the chances of some incompetent that slipped by misunderstanding or ignoring the rules. If the job is outsourced, you can't be guaranteed that 1) the employee fully understands your policies regarding data or 2) those policies are being followed/enforced. Essentially, you're leaving it up to some firm who may or may not be doing what you expect (hell, they could, themselves, be outsourcing the job to someone else!)
Oooh, this is an *excellent* point. My understanding is that, by accepting compensation (ie, paycheque, etc), you are probably implicitely accepting the employment agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it works just fine for me...
Another possible reason for your mouse speeding up is the 2.6 kernel actually initializing the mouse and setting the precision, etc. You can disable this, and return to "almost 2.4"-like behaviour by adding the following kernel parameter to your boot config:
psmouse_noext=1
Ooooh, I get it! If something is "unacceptable to most persons", it should be outlawed! So, by that logic, in the US, Islam should probably outlawed, due to the overwhelming Christian majority, right? Hey, maybe homosexuality should be outlawed, too. Yeah, tyranny of the majority... it's a *great* idea!
Those guarantees are what a license is for. If I need to call every author of code I want to use, I might as well use proprietary stuff. One of the main points of free software is that you can use it without asking the author.
:) Of course, the Linux kernel is just one situation, and so this discussion may not apply to all projects. But it's not nearly so black and white as one might think.
Oh, I completely agree. Of course, this is a non-sequitur, as it also has nothing to do with my post. I was simply responding to the idea that an author can turn around and sue you after saying he wouldn't.
However, Linus is not at all the only copyright holder on the kernel source. And I doubt if these statements are legally binding, even for Linus. He just tries to tell how he interprets the license. I remember him saying on a mailinglist that those statements don't legally mean anything, they just explain what he thinks the license is saying. If tomorrow he changes his mind, you may have a problem. If Alan Cox (or any other copyright holder on part of the kernel) doesn't agree with Linus' interpretation, you may have a problem as well.
Well, Linus seems to disagree. See here and here. Granted, Linus ain't no legal authority, but I'd assume he's not *completely* out to lunch.
This is not strictly true. If the author makes guarantees to you about whether or not they'll sue, these statements can be partly binding. Look up the concept of estoppel for an idea of how this works.
Incidentally, this exists in practice. In particular, the Linux kernel license (the GPL) prevents the distribution of binary-only kernel modules. However, Linus has stated publically, as well as in writing in the kernel source, that no action will be taken against parties who distribute such modules.
Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but with credit cards, my understanding is that you get nailed for interest the *second* you pull the cash out, unlike purchases, where the interest is calculated at the end of the month.
Now that would be a *great* feature for the Googlebar to implement. It could tack your custom blacklisted sites onto the end of any search you perform... I think I might have to contact the Googlebar authors and suggest this. :)
Is there any other kind?
Of course. The mass of a black hole is only the mass of the original, collapsed matter, and any additional in-fallen matter. So, a stellar-sized black hole is typically in the 4-15 solar masses range. Contrast this to a supermassive black hole which is in the range of 10's to 100's of billions of solar masses. There is also evidence for more intermediate-sized black holes, but nothing concrete as of yet.
Anyway, see here for more detailed info.
Umm... yes. Supermassive blackholes are the leading candidates for the engines driving quasars. From Google:
"Quasar - an enormously bright object at the edge of our Universe that emits massive amounts of energy. In an optical telescope, they appear point-like, similar to stars, from which they derive their name. Their high luminosity is created from matter falling into a supermassive black hole in the centers of distant galaxies."
We had plans for Iraq, post-conquest. They didn't work
Nope, they didn't. Which is what most of the world was saying before the US invaded. But, they did it anyway, and then learned the hard way. Oh well, sometimes, that's the only way to learn... the question is, did the US actually learn anything? The cynic in me thinks not...
LOL! This is hilarious. You use terrorism as a way to justify space-based weapons, even though space-based weapons would have done *NOTHING* to prevent 9/11. Hell, do you honestly think that these types of weapons will have any effect on some lunatic with a low-yield nuke? Dumbass.
And it gets worse! Do you honestly think that, say, Korea, could develop the launch capability necessary to hit the US with a missile without the US government knowing about it? Not to mention that a space-based weapon *still* wouldn't make any friggin' difference, even if they could... the US would be far smarter to install ground-based anti-missile weapons than try to blow up the damned thing from space.
People there struck me as less religious than the rest of the praries, if not the country.
Ever been to southern Alberta? Say, Lethbridge?
Damnit! *shudder*
Err, what does that have to do with my point? True Communism has never existed on a large scale on this planet. Thus, claims that it tries to "own and dictate every aspect of a person's life" are silly, since we don't know *what* it would do in practice. Similarly, we can't just go and "talk to some people that actually lived under that system", because no one has ever *lived* under the system! So, I guess my real point is, there's no sense in making claims about the validity, morality, etc, of Communism, since we honestly have no idea *what* it would be like to live in a truly Communist society.
Now, you can complain all you want about the (im)practicality of the Marxist transition to Communism. But that has no bearing on Communism itself.
they have lived in a Communist country
No, they haven't. They've lived in a dictatorship which decided to call itself "Communist", even though, in reality, it wasn't. Kinda like FOX referring to themselves as "fair and impartial".
Wow, speaking of wrong. No truly communist country has *ever* existed, so it's a little difficult to get the opinion of someone who has "lived under that system". Yes, that includes Russia, China, and any other country you'd like to mention. All of them were/are, in the end, dictatorships.
Or maybe Gentoo *isn't* stable, at least not the way Debian views stability. Debian-unstable is probably just as functional as a Gentoo system. However, unlike Gentoo, Debian is willing to give the user choice: do they want stability, or cutting-edge functionality?
And what does that have to do with the grandparent's question, exactly? He asked about OSS VM's not based on "commercial ideas"... which, of course, doesn't exactly describe Mono.
Ever heard of Parrot?
Its just a satellite that already has a replacement planned and is being built as we speak
Nooo... there is no replacement for the Hubble planned. There is a new space-based telescope being planned, but it's mission objectives are FAR different from those of the Hubble. It will have a different range of sensitivity, IR rather than visible + UV, and won't be in LEO, making it unserviceable and also unupgradeable. The Hubble is a wonderful research instrument, and has performed, and more importantly, *continues* to perform an immense service. As such, it's only natural for the research community to want to keep it aloft.
So your HR department is going to check out who they're outsourcing to, as well as interviewing all of their hiring managers, their HR department, all individuals working on the project, and any new people brought on? Because if you don't do all of that, you can't be guaranteed that something won't go wrong along the way... after all, a brilliant contract company can still hire boneheads. And if you *do* do all of that, you might as well do the job in-house.
And you deal with those on a case-by-case basis. Frankly, if you don't know *exactly* what applications are being used on your network at any given time, even on a system with thousands of users, your IT department has done something seriously wrong. Especially considering it's the job of IT to install and support these applications in the first place. And if you break some small fry's application because you weren't aware of it, tough sh*t. It's not one of the IT-supported applications, so it's their problem if it suddenly breaks.
That the individual was outsourced is irrelevant.
Bullshit. The fact is that, when you outsource, you lose all quality control, regarding the employees. As a result, the agency you go with could hire a total moron, who then posts your confidential data on a website. Had you kept the job in-house, you would have been able to do a better job screening employees, thus reducing overall incompetence. Moreover, you can, in-house, communicate and enforce a policy (ie, through careful procedures to gain access to data, etc) which makes it clear what can and cannot be done with various types of data, thus reducing the chances of some incompetent that slipped by misunderstanding or ignoring the rules. If the job is outsourced, you can't be guaranteed that 1) the employee fully understands your policies regarding data or 2) those policies are being followed/enforced. Essentially, you're leaving it up to some firm who may or may not be doing what you expect (hell, they could, themselves, be outsourcing the job to someone else!)
Oooh, this is an *excellent* point. My understanding is that, by accepting compensation (ie, paycheque, etc), you are probably implicitely accepting the employment agreement.