Ok, did I get this right, this is an entire Linux system and the FSF holds no copyrights on any of the pieces involved? Do they still want to call it GNU/Linux?
I'm honestly a bit puzzled here, isn't there at least a library or something which is FSF owned?
Yes, but if you just want to burn a Flash or
EPROM you don't need Linux - you can do it
on a DOS system, too. That the data transferred to
the Flash happens to be Linux doesn't matter in that case, it's just another data set.
Well it seems like Bin Laden is guilty of terrorism (e.g. embassy bombings), so an attack on him would be justified, whether he's guilty in the WTC case or not.
Nevertheless, there must be an investigation to determine who *was* responsible for the WTC attack. Bin Laden is certainly not the only terrorist, and if this act was commited by someone else, that person should be caught, too.
However it seems reasonable to go after this particular terrorist threat before he causes more damage.
I don't really disagree with what you say but I object to the wording regarding the secret service. E.g. "letting him fly". It's not the
secret service' job to make decision there, there is a clear chain of command, and the president is on top of it. If he wanted to go to NYC he could have, it was *his* decision.
Hmmm, I see you point, but that's not quite the implementation I was thinking of.
Using some unrealistic numbers for an example, let's say 1000 patents would be granted per year. Than at the end of the year the 1000 highest valued patents come into effect, the rest remains in the queue. Bogus patents wouldn't be rated high and never make it to the top. (Well, if they are rated correctly, that is.)
Say the scale was 0-1000 points. A patent reviewer assigns a value to a patent. A good application rates in the 900s, a bad one in the 50s.
In one year the threshold might be 910 (because 1000 patents were in the queue which were rated 910 or higher) in the next it might be 850. Which means the patent you submitted last year which rated 905 was now approved, too. (It would stay in the queue with the same value.)
Submitting lots of 50s applications would just create more work for the reviewers. Probably not a big deal, since there is a fee attached.
What makes you think they will be able to copy with this additional level of scrutiny and evaluation that you're asking for?
Fair point, but it may actually be easier this way. When you're checking a patent which seems to have low merit (e.g. one-click) you could just say "ok I give this 50 points" (of 1000 possible). It might be easier to compare it with other patents, than to make an absolute check. If you'd compare it with e.g. FM modulation it would be an easy choice to say "this one makes it, that one doesn't".
Another hope is, that companies might focus on their important stuff, and throw out the crap, because:
the crap doesn't make it, and is therefore a waste of money
if it makes it, it might delay their important patents
The important point for me is, that the patent office would be forced to do some quality assessment, whereas now they seem to take the easy way out, and award anything... In the worst case we'd just have less bad patents.:)
Is a law necessary, though? As I understand it the rules of these standards bodies require the companies participating in a standard to reveal their patents anyway. That seems to be the basis for these countersuits.
As far as volume goes - maybe there should just be a cap on patents. Something like "x patents a year can be awarded". The patent office would then be charged to award the patents with the most merit, each year. If a patent application doesn't make it in one year, it may make it in the next. If it never makes it... well then it probably shouldn't.:)
You should be required to pack a gun to fly on a commercial airliner.
Unfortunately this also means, that the suicide terrorist has no problem anymore to get his gun on the plane.
If he doesn't care about his own life, all he has to do is shoot out a window and hope for the sudden pressure drop to destroy and bring down the plane.
Even if he just threatens someone with his gun, you'll have a hard time, just shooting him (instead of the hostage) and not damaging the plane severley. Even worse if he just sneaks in the cockpit and pulls the door shut. The pilot, even if armed, would probably be busy flying the plane and not be in a position to resist. The attacker has always the advantage of knowing exactly when the attack is taking place.
What might maybe help, is a guard at the cockpit, armed with a special gun and ammo and well trained. I believe the Israelis are doing that.
There is a danger though, that this would cause more fatalities in a kidnapping which does not involve a suicide strategy.
Another alternative might be an armored cockpit which has no passage to the passenger cabin.
Also: amendment rights should only apply to citizens - wouldn't it be possible to ban non-citizens from bearing arms? Might just make it
a little harder for the terrorists.
I would think, though, it's a contributing factor. Islam does provide the concept of a holy war, and like many religions it has a strong measure of intolerance in it. (See: "I'm a jeleaous god")
You can be islamic and be a peaceful man, you can read the bibel, the tora and the koran, and extract a message of peace from it, that's certainly true. (And makes you a lot more sympathical than those who don't.)
However forcing your beliefs on others, intolerance and hatred - those ideas are a core part of many faiths. There are many stories of genocide justified in the bible. -
So I don't think it's fair to say religion is blameless.
I applaud your attempt to interpret your religion in a peaceful way, though - and I hope some day that will be the way in which the vast majority of people do it.
I there was anything to this bullshit, then it would give us the interpretation before not after the fact, alright?
For example something like: "attack on the world trade center this year" is useful while "two brothers torn apart by Chaos" is utter crap, which fits on some world event or another in just about any year.
It's worse, not only will a missile defense
shield not protect the US - stopping the arms reduction treaty with Russia will also make it more likely that future terrorist attacks will be executed with nuclear arms.
A missile shield would be good in some cases, but reducing the number of Russian nuclear devices is much more important.
Yes, but those are members of the executive branch - these rules should not apply to the judiciary, because the judiciary is supposed to be independent. I think the division of powers is a vital issue here.
I think the cases don't directly compare. I don't like to be monitored at my workplace - I feel that's disgusting. I do acknowledge that companies have the right, but I protest when policies like that are introduced, and take it as one factor in my employment decisions.
Monitoring judges however is a much more serious issue. Judges have to be independent, and monitoring threatens that independence. Sure some judges suck, but this will not be improved by this action, it will be made worse.
Once judges are afraid to surf the net, we can expect even more un-informed decisions in internet related cases.
And lets face it, if you can afford a 500K machine, I don't think a copy of Solaris will
break the bank.
That's true, but most Solaris machines don't cost anywhere near that.
The SUN Blade on my desk has a single board and CPU in it, and two (non-redundant) hard drives, if I unplug any of these pieces, the system will stop.:)
Now I admit SUN makes a lot nicer machines than this one, so I certainly see your point, but a lot of the machines in the SUN/HP range could be replaced with x86 boxes. And SUN is way overpriced for the kind of performance it provides.
I presume he is referring to the release in Europe? Here's the announcement for the upcoming release in Germany: press release. According to this it will be released on October 25.
Regardless of release dates, they have a right to due process. Of course they also have to obey the law, and I do hope they'll be finally forced to do just that.
I don't think the EU would be able to do that, since MS is a largely US-based company. They could however impose fines, or order them to stop the bundling.
In windows, you need to tell where to place software because the drive letter filing system forces you.
Not really - I don't NEED to - the packages usually suggest default locations, but I could change them if need be.
Yes, but why would you want to change the locations? Usually users change the default location, because there is no free space there.
In Linux you can work around that easily - if your program xyz wants to install in/opt/xyz and you have no space, then you just put a link there, pointing to a partion which has space.
Of course the user doesn't want to have to bother about this at all. Ideally the mapping of logical file system to physical drives ought to be transparent. So when you add another drive you just have more space. Not on a drive letter, not on a partition, just where you need it. There are Unix systems which support that, too.
one of the goals of the Konqy project is to be as standards compliant as possible
Actually, I don't think that's true - if I interprete their statements correctly, the goal is to render all web pages out there correctly. It definately seems to be what they are trying to do.
I tend to agree with that goal. You can't enforce standards with such a small market share.
Re:that's not a cubicle that's a japanese apartmen
on
The Ultimate Cubicle
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
America... is the richest nation on earth. I mean honestly, why should anyone there have to work in a tiny cage without natural light?
Ok, Japan has a big economy too, but it's also a very
small country with a lot of people, making space an expensive resource - that's hardly true for the US.
So really, why shouldn't USians have a decent work environment?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm honestly a bit puzzled here, isn't there at least a library or something which is FSF owned?
Yes, but if you just want to burn a Flash or EPROM you don't need Linux - you can do it on a DOS system, too. That the data transferred to the Flash happens to be Linux doesn't matter in that case, it's just another data set.
Nevertheless, there must be an investigation to determine who *was* responsible for the WTC attack. Bin Laden is certainly not the only terrorist, and if this act was commited by someone else, that person should be caught, too.
However it seems reasonable to go after this particular terrorist threat before he causes more damage.
I don't really disagree with what you say but I object to the wording regarding the secret service. E.g. "letting him fly". It's not the secret service' job to make decision there, there is a clear chain of command, and the president is on top of it. If he wanted to go to NYC he could have, it was *his* decision.
Using some unrealistic numbers for an example, let's say 1000 patents would be granted per year. Than at the end of the year the 1000 highest valued patents come into effect, the rest remains in the queue. Bogus patents wouldn't be rated high and never make it to the top. (Well, if they are rated correctly, that is.)
Say the scale was 0-1000 points. A patent reviewer assigns a value to a patent. A good application rates in the 900s, a bad one in the 50s. In one year the threshold might be 910 (because 1000 patents were in the queue which were rated 910 or higher) in the next it might be 850. Which means the patent you submitted last year which rated 905 was now approved, too. (It would stay in the queue with the same value.)
Submitting lots of 50s applications would just create more work for the reviewers. Probably not a big deal, since there is a fee attached.
Fair point, but it may actually be easier this way. When you're checking a patent which seems to have low merit (e.g. one-click) you could just say "ok I give this 50 points" (of 1000 possible). It might be easier to compare it with other patents, than to make an absolute check. If you'd compare it with e.g. FM modulation it would be an easy choice to say "this one makes it, that one doesn't".
Another hope is, that companies might focus on their important stuff, and throw out the crap, because:
The important point for me is, that the patent office would be forced to do some quality assessment, whereas now they seem to take the easy way out, and award anything... In the worst case we'd just have less bad patents. :)
As for the "system" working: it does if it provides you an opportunity to sue, and that seems to be the case.
They can't keep it completely secret, patents are publically accessible.
As far as volume goes - maybe there should just be a cap on patents. Something like "x patents a year can be awarded". The patent office would then be charged to award the patents with the most merit, each year. If a patent application doesn't make it in one year, it may make it in the next. If it never makes it... well then it probably shouldn't. :)
Unfortunately this also means, that the suicide terrorist has no problem anymore to get his gun on the plane. If he doesn't care about his own life, all he has to do is shoot out a window and hope for the sudden pressure drop to destroy and bring down the plane.
Even if he just threatens someone with his gun, you'll have a hard time, just shooting him (instead of the hostage) and not damaging the plane severley. Even worse if he just sneaks in the cockpit and pulls the door shut. The pilot, even if armed, would probably be busy flying the plane and not be in a position to resist. The attacker has always the advantage of knowing exactly when the attack is taking place.
What might maybe help, is a guard at the cockpit, armed with a special gun and ammo and well trained. I believe the Israelis are doing that. There is a danger though, that this would cause more fatalities in a kidnapping which does not involve a suicide strategy.
Another alternative might be an armored cockpit which has no passage to the passenger cabin.
Also: amendment rights should only apply to citizens - wouldn't it be possible to ban non-citizens from bearing arms? Might just make it a little harder for the terrorists.
I would think, though, it's a contributing factor. Islam does provide the concept of a holy war, and like many religions it has a strong measure of intolerance in it. (See: "I'm a jeleaous god")
You can be islamic and be a peaceful man, you can read the bibel, the tora and the koran, and extract a message of peace from it, that's certainly true. (And makes you a lot more sympathical than those who don't.)
However forcing your beliefs on others, intolerance and hatred - those ideas are a core part of many faiths. There are many stories of genocide justified in the bible. - So I don't think it's fair to say religion is blameless.
I applaud your attempt to interpret your religion in a peaceful way, though - and I hope some day that will be the way in which the vast majority of people do it.
For example something like: "attack on the world trade center this year" is useful while "two brothers torn apart by Chaos" is utter crap, which fits on some world event or another in just about any year.
Seems totally justified.
A missile shield would be good in some cases, but reducing the number of Russian nuclear devices is much more important.
Their Thrift Stores take old computers and give you a receipt. Not sure about parts, but old complete systems are fine. (Just donatated one recently.)
Yes, but those are members of the executive branch - these rules should not apply to the judiciary, because the judiciary is supposed to be independent. I think the division of powers is a vital issue here.
Monitoring judges however is a much more serious issue. Judges have to be independent, and monitoring threatens that independence. Sure some judges suck, but this will not be improved by this action, it will be made worse.
Once judges are afraid to surf the net, we can expect even more un-informed decisions in internet related cases.
However I think the original poster was thinking about the workstation market, and Intel/AMD machines might well be competitive there.
HP has already x86 machines on offer. I imagine Intel and AMD would be keen to see their a 64 bit chips in a similar sort of setup.
Support will depend on the company who ships the workstation of course.
That's true, but most Solaris machines don't cost anywhere near that.
The SUN Blade on my desk has a single board and CPU in it, and two (non-redundant) hard drives, if I unplug any of these pieces, the system will stop. :)
Now I admit SUN makes a lot nicer machines than this one, so I certainly see your point, but a lot of the machines in the SUN/HP range could be replaced with x86 boxes. And SUN is way overpriced for the kind of performance it provides.
Regardless of release dates, they have a right to due process. Of course they also have to obey the law, and I do hope they'll be finally forced to do just that.
I don't think the EU would be able to do that, since MS is a largely US-based company. They could however impose fines, or order them to stop the bundling.
Well xterm works, but there are plenty of graphical tools for rpm installation, too.
Not really - I don't NEED to - the packages usually suggest default locations, but I could change them if need be.
Yes, but why would you want to change the locations? Usually users change the default location, because there is no free space there.
In Linux you can work around that easily - if your program xyz wants to install in /opt/xyz and you have no space, then you just put a link there, pointing to a partion which has space.
Of course the user doesn't want to have to bother about this at all. Ideally the mapping of logical file system to physical drives ought to be transparent. So when you add another drive you just have more space. Not on a drive letter, not on a partition, just where you need it. There are Unix systems which support that, too.
Actually, I don't think that's true - if I interprete their statements correctly, the goal is to render all web pages out there correctly. It definately seems to be what they are trying to do.
I tend to agree with that goal. You can't enforce standards with such a small market share.
Ok, Japan has a big economy too, but it's also a very small country with a lot of people, making space an expensive resource - that's hardly true for the US.
So really, why shouldn't USians have a decent work environment?