DotNetNuke because it is not part of a fully Open Source stack ( at this point in time DotNetNuke runs on ASP.NET, a services layer which is only available for the Windows platform - a situation which the Mono project is trying to address ).
I wouldn't be saying this stuff if TFA didn't freaking say itself that Mono was insufficient.
You know there are probably patents on the design of the keyboard people type the open source code with, that's note really pure open source in your opinion?
I don't care about this, because I don't depend upon any specific keyboard to get my job done. I can use any keyboard I want. That's freedom.
Being forced in ASP.NET running on Windows is not freedom.
No one minds this cross-platform usage. No one has ever told Sebastian or me that they didn't think that PearPC is open enough because it runs on Windows.
TFA says that they built their project on ASP.NET, which is non-free. So the question is how free can something be, if it's dependent upon non-free requirements.
Imagine a state where real full free speech was allowed, but there's a catch. You have to be a member of The Party in order to get this right for free speech. Sure, anyone could receive your free speech, but to participate, people would have to give up freedoms.
Free Software is about promoting freedom, not about giving up freedom here, for freedom there.
RTFA, because the Summary sucks. The tool in question is built on ASP.NET, which is unavailable for Linux.
Fundamentally, this is an issue of free (as in limited free-speech) software. Yeah, you're free to do whatever you want with it, but first you have to consent to give up a number of freedoms just to be able to use the code.
Yes, his source meets the terms of Free and Open in the terms of what we define to be Free and Open, but there's an important point to consider here: Since everything is standing on the shoulders of giants, can you call yourself Open Source if you're standing on a proprietary giant?
It's not about it running only on Windows, it's about it running on ASP.NET, which is only available for Windows. They're distributing something that is free (as in speech) that can only be used on a proprietary non-free toolkit. (for the time, Mono is trying to fix this.)
If there were Open Source alternatives for ASP.NET that were source level compatible, then there wouldn't be a problem. But forcing someone to purchase a license for windows, and ASP.NET is generally unacceptable from a free standpoint.
It's like saying "You can say whatever you want, but in order to say it, you have to first write it down on this handy Gov-o-matic Scratchpad!"
The issue TFA has is not that their project is designed to run on Windows, but rather that it's designed to run under ASP.NET, which almost entirely eliminates any hope to get it running on any architecture other than Windows.
Again, PearPC runs in Windows, and the majority of people that use it run it in Windows. Why don't we get any complaints about not being "true open source"? Because you can compile PearPC to run on a number of architectures, and it's not built upon a proprietary tool that is non-free to obtain.
Open Source Software is a good idea, and it's a solid way to develop programs, and I applaud the guys in TFA for making their source code available, but fundamentally, it's built upon a toolset and architecture that make it inherantly non-free.
Get off it. Even in at that dinner where the politicians lampoon themselves, (where the Bush comment (paraphrased): Some call you the rich; I call you my base. came from) he jokingly said, "It's nice to be at this dinner, which unlike the Internet, I actually can say that I invented."
Al Gore's a smart guy, he knows we're just kidding when we chide him over "inventing" the internet.
Well, I'm not attempting to affirm that Bush *isn't* doing anything fucked up with Yucca mountain. I just don't have evidence either way. But what I do have evidence of, and posted, is that Clinton had the same thing going on.
Plus, New Mexico does have nuclear waste storage, it's called WIPP. Although, yes, it is low level radioactive, mostly things that radioactive as a result of having been exposed to radio active materials, not actually radioactive materials itself, but this is due to the geological nature of the facility. The wikipedia link I gave explains more or less what can be stored there, and why.
The Yucca Mountain facility is much more geologically suitable for long-term storage than WIPP. That's just kind of hard to argue.
Of course, everyone was fighting WIPP when it was coming out, too, suggesting that they don't want radioactive goo stored in their backyard. They rarely ever realized that there wasn't going to be any spent fuel used. It was all going to be stuff that was low-level radioactive. They can't even store any liquids there anyways due to geological concerns. Didn't stop the protesters for being upset at Bill Clinton.
It's always politics "We don't want it here," and you better believe that people can come up with reasonable concerns that haven't been addressed indefinitely. It always happens, it really does. This isn't something new that Bush invented. Unless you mean, "invented" the same way that Al Gore invented the internet.
WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) in Carlsbad, New Mexico was entirely completed during the Clinton era.
It *also* had the same sort of sensationalistic criticism, as people are now attributing only to Bush.
Every administration that tries to do anything about getting rid of nuclear waste is going to hit resistence by the public, who are going to detest whoever is in charge, whether they ask them nicely or not.
Apparently at least back in the day, Paleo-anthropology had a real big problem with fraud. Piltdown Man comes to mind immediately. They presented their evidence, everyone said, "Yep, that's what we expected, excellent work", then the evidence was locked away without further examination.
In modern years someone wanted to run some DNA tests on Piltdown Man and got permission. While the lab tech was drilling a whole to the marrow to try and find some DNA, they smelt burning bone. Fossilised bone doesn't burn (at least not with a hand drill.) and they found that the bones were not only modern age, but were also not even from the same animal.
Anyone so deeply into the research as to know how things get done is pretty capable of falsifying just about anything.
I've found that in Germany (the foreign country I spent the most time) that people couldn't tell that I wasn't German just by looking at me, and one of my German teachers in an advanced level class couldn't make out that I was American by my accent (she guessed French, likely because being so relatively close to Germany, they can pick up a good German accent), and in general, no one would have ever guessed that I was American except by the color and look of my passport.
It's not a mistake, if it's intentional. I was entirely aware that you never said "stupid n00b" during our thread.
I WAS MOCKING YOU, IDIOT!
I won't retract the statement, because I knew that I wasn't quoting you, and I knew that I was misrepresenting you, and I didn't care. By giving it a mocking and stupid tone; I figured that other people would figure out that I was mocking you, too, without the need to say it explicitly.
When the MPAA and studio initially refused to comply, the ADLPotMA representative turned the MPAA lawyer into a newt - a change many felt was for the better.
After I posted it, I realized I should have posted AC so as not to look like a Karma whore. I just don't normally post anonymously, so it never occured to me when I was posting it.
You're right though, it's easy to karma whore by just putting a relavent wikipedia article in response. I regret not having posted anonymously for the sake of not looking like a jerk.
Your not wanting me to use the word "innovation" is stifling my innovative use of the word innovation!
Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
Actually, if memory (and the above referenced web page) serves, gathering evidence from a car after an arrest is specifically covered in the law, as is "plain sight". Neither of those need proof of exigent circumstances to apply. (Though I suspect these rules were added because the applicable situation often did represent an exigent circumstance.)
Yes, search and seizure at point of arrest according to one of the above links definitely does fall under this. I'm thinking more of a situation where the police don't have a reason to arrest you, but still need to either search, or seize something in your possession.... Say, you're in your car at a stop light with your windows down, and some drug dealer runs by and throws something into your car, you don't notice, but the police do. They know you're not involved (most likely) but they still need to search your car, and seize the evidence that the criminal threw into your car. They don't need a search warrant, because waiting for a warrant to obtain the evidence would result in the evidence being long gone. Meanwhile, they have no real reason to detain you while waiting for the warrant in order to search your car, and any evidence found in this manner would definitely be legally seizeable. But only when pertenant to the criminal who ditched the stuff in your car. Anything the cops come across that they wouldn't have otherwise known about, and wasn't in plain sight, and could be used to implicate you in a crime would be a hassle in court.
Not only that, but if the show "Law & Order" is any reference (and I realize it often isn't, but in this case I think it is), the police aren't allowed to wait for you to enter your car to arrest you in order to search your car. Creating situations in order to utilise the allowances of the written law as loopholes is not permissible and results in exclusion of what would otherwise be perfectly admissible evidence if police had bothered with obtaining a warrant.
Yes, actually, I was thinking of another Law and Order during lunch. They come up to an apartment and say, "Police, open up." No answer. Lenny really wants in, and looks to the other guy (I think the landlord) and says, "Did you hear that? Someone called for 'help'." That would also classify as creating exigent circumstances in order to provoke a search. And if I recall in the episode, the evidence was thrown out.
Actually, as my understanding is, Law and Order generally uses real-life situations, and real-life results. In those situations, it serves as a reasonable example. (It's just dramatised real-life events in that case.) If you try and extrapolate too much detail from it though, then you're screwed.
Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
Not only all that, but cops are not allowed to cause the existence of an exigent cirumstance in order to perform a search.
If a police officer had setup with a phone guy to call 911 from that house in order to gain access through exigent circumstances; he would have *so* gotten into some deep shit.
Exigent Circumstances can actually be used to collect evidence. This is generally the reason used to collect evidence from a motor vehicle. Since the likelihood of loss of evidence is very great (the car can just take off) they can use exigent circumstances to collect any evidence that was in plain view. (Note, without sufficent reason they can't search the car) Meh, plain view is kind of a bad example anyways, if there's heroin visible in your car, the police don't really need to obtain a search warrant to find it. They just need justification to seize it. (Thus the exigent circumstance here.)
But there's a catch. In that exigent cirucmstance doesn't give a catch all to collecting evidence in a motor vehicle. I imagine, if the vehicle was closed and locked, and no one was around who might enter the car and take off, they would likely need a search warrant in order to sieze the evidence, since getting a search warrant wouldn't be inhibitive to collecting the evidence. Plus, entering the vehicle might require damaging the property, and that would be inexcusable without a warrant, or exigent circumstances that the evidence would disappear.
Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
Totally not on topic... I don't care what happened to them, the guy who the cops were there for wasn't my friend that I was playing video games with.
The guy was some arbitrary guy a few rooms down from us, and our room just happened to provide reasonable, and available concealment. The cops never entered our room more than just into the doorway, and never looked for anything that were illegal.
The point is, sometimes the cops use private property for reasonable purposes, without a search warrant, despite the fact that they may uncover evidence of a crime while they were there.
Slashdot Mirror
Straight off TFA
DotNetNuke because it is not part of a fully Open Source stack ( at this point in time DotNetNuke runs on ASP.NET, a services layer which is only available for the Windows platform - a situation which the Mono project is trying to address ).
I wouldn't be saying this stuff if TFA didn't freaking say itself that Mono was insufficient.
You know there are probably patents on the design of the keyboard people type the open source code with, that's note really pure open source in your opinion?
I don't care about this, because I don't depend upon any specific keyboard to get my job done. I can use any keyboard I want. That's freedom.
Being forced in ASP.NET running on Windows is not freedom.
*sigh* yes, I read the article, and I read about Mono, it says though, that Mono is insufficient.
No one minds this cross-platform usage. No one has ever told Sebastian or me that they didn't think that PearPC is open enough because it runs on Windows.
TFA says that they built their project on ASP.NET, which is non-free. So the question is how free can something be, if it's dependent upon non-free requirements.
Imagine a state where real full free speech was allowed, but there's a catch. You have to be a member of The Party in order to get this right for free speech. Sure, anyone could receive your free speech, but to participate, people would have to give up freedoms.
Free Software is about promoting freedom, not about giving up freedom here, for freedom there.
RTFA, because the Summary sucks. The tool in question is built on ASP.NET, which is unavailable for Linux.
Fundamentally, this is an issue of free (as in limited free-speech) software. Yeah, you're free to do whatever you want with it, but first you have to consent to give up a number of freedoms just to be able to use the code.
Yes, his source meets the terms of Free and Open in the terms of what we define to be Free and Open, but there's an important point to consider here: Since everything is standing on the shoulders of giants, can you call yourself Open Source if you're standing on a proprietary giant?
It's not about it running only on Windows, it's about it running on ASP.NET, which is only available for Windows. They're distributing something that is free (as in speech) that can only be used on a proprietary non-free toolkit. (for the time, Mono is trying to fix this.)
If there were Open Source alternatives for ASP.NET that were source level compatible, then there wouldn't be a problem. But forcing someone to purchase a license for windows, and ASP.NET is generally unacceptable from a free standpoint.
It's like saying "You can say whatever you want, but in order to say it, you have to first write it down on this handy Gov-o-matic Scratchpad!"
The issue TFA has is not that their project is designed to run on Windows, but rather that it's designed to run under ASP.NET, which almost entirely eliminates any hope to get it running on any architecture other than Windows.
Again, PearPC runs in Windows, and the majority of people that use it run it in Windows. Why don't we get any complaints about not being "true open source"? Because you can compile PearPC to run on a number of architectures, and it's not built upon a proprietary tool that is non-free to obtain.
Open Source Software is a good idea, and it's a solid way to develop programs, and I applaud the guys in TFA for making their source code available, but fundamentally, it's built upon a toolset and architecture that make it inherantly non-free.
Get off it. Even in at that dinner where the politicians lampoon themselves, (where the Bush comment (paraphrased): Some call you the rich; I call you my base. came from) he jokingly said, "It's nice to be at this dinner, which unlike the Internet, I actually can say that I invented."
Al Gore's a smart guy, he knows we're just kidding when we chide him over "inventing" the internet.
Now grow some nuggets and take a joke.
Yeah, me and a roommate commented once about ad-words. They're real words, but no one uses them except for ad companies. As the prime example: hearty.
I mean, put "hearty" into a sentence, and you take a reasonable sentence and make it sound like you pulled it out of a commercial.
Well, I'm not attempting to affirm that Bush *isn't* doing anything fucked up with Yucca mountain. I just don't have evidence either way. But what I do have evidence of, and posted, is that Clinton had the same thing going on.
Plus, New Mexico does have nuclear waste storage, it's called WIPP. Although, yes, it is low level radioactive, mostly things that radioactive as a result of having been exposed to radio active materials, not actually radioactive materials itself, but this is due to the geological nature of the facility. The wikipedia link I gave explains more or less what can be stored there, and why.
The Yucca Mountain facility is much more geologically suitable for long-term storage than WIPP. That's just kind of hard to argue.
Of course, everyone was fighting WIPP when it was coming out, too, suggesting that they don't want radioactive goo stored in their backyard. They rarely ever realized that there wasn't going to be any spent fuel used. It was all going to be stuff that was low-level radioactive. They can't even store any liquids there anyways due to geological concerns. Didn't stop the protesters for being upset at Bill Clinton.
It's always politics "We don't want it here," and you better believe that people can come up with reasonable concerns that haven't been addressed indefinitely. It always happens, it really does. This isn't something new that Bush invented. Unless you mean, "invented" the same way that Al Gore invented the internet.
WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) in Carlsbad, New Mexico was entirely completed during the Clinton era.
It *also* had the same sort of sensationalistic criticism, as people are now attributing only to Bush.
Every administration that tries to do anything about getting rid of nuclear waste is going to hit resistence by the public, who are going to detest whoever is in charge, whether they ask them nicely or not.
Now that is a cool site! :)
German from Google's automated translation.
Hallo Jack,
würden Sie sich kümmern, um wenn ich an Ihrem Platz heute abend abbrach?
Der ist Mörder!
Die ist die Bombe!
Yeah ist es ein Knall.
Jim
Apparently at least back in the day, Paleo-anthropology had a real big problem with fraud. Piltdown Man comes to mind immediately. They presented their evidence, everyone said, "Yep, that's what we expected, excellent work", then the evidence was locked away without further examination.
In modern years someone wanted to run some DNA tests on Piltdown Man and got permission. While the lab tech was drilling a whole to the marrow to try and find some DNA, they smelt burning bone. Fossilised bone doesn't burn (at least not with a hand drill.) and they found that the bones were not only modern age, but were also not even from the same animal.
Anyone so deeply into the research as to know how things get done is pretty capable of falsifying just about anything.
Sorry, I don't speak Canadian.
How does Canadian look different than American?
I've found that in Germany (the foreign country I spent the most time) that people couldn't tell that I wasn't German just by looking at me, and one of my German teachers in an advanced level class couldn't make out that I was American by my accent (she guessed French, likely because being so relatively close to Germany, they can pick up a good German accent), and in general, no one would have ever guessed that I was American except by the color and look of my passport.
Of course, because the last thing I want to do in a foreign country is walk around with my passport in a tinfoil cover.
Can't we get a fairaday sleeve sort of thing, where a fairaday cage is wooven into a fabric sleeve/bag, that we can put our passport into.
Sure tinfoil is a cheap solution, but gol' darn it if that weren't gonna be a sucky thing to keep in your pocket as a tourist.
Now I'll be able to walk right through Customs without stopping.
Of course you can... if you're entering most (all?) countries other than the US.
It's not a mistake, if it's intentional. I was entirely aware that you never said "stupid n00b" during our thread.
I WAS MOCKING YOU, IDIOT!
I won't retract the statement, because I knew that I wasn't quoting you, and I knew that I was misrepresenting you, and I didn't care. By giving it a mocking and stupid tone; I figured that other people would figure out that I was mocking you, too, without the need to say it explicitly.
Obviously. You don't give a shit, though.
When the MPAA and studio initially refused to comply, the ADLPotMA representative turned the MPAA lawyer into a newt - a change many felt was for the better.
I hear he got be'ah.
After I posted it, I realized I should have posted AC so as not to look like a Karma whore. I just don't normally post anonymously, so it never occured to me when I was posting it.
You're right though, it's easy to karma whore by just putting a relavent wikipedia article in response. I regret not having posted anonymously for the sake of not looking like a jerk.
First person to comment on it. Yep, it's c
Your not wanting me to use the word "innovation" is stifling my innovative use of the word innovation!
Actually, if memory (and the above referenced web page) serves, gathering evidence from a car after an arrest is specifically covered in the law, as is "plain sight". Neither of those need proof of exigent circumstances to apply. (Though I suspect these rules were added because the applicable situation often did represent an exigent circumstance.)
Yes, search and seizure at point of arrest according to one of the above links definitely does fall under this. I'm thinking more of a situation where the police don't have a reason to arrest you, but still need to either search, or seize something in your possession.... Say, you're in your car at a stop light with your windows down, and some drug dealer runs by and throws something into your car, you don't notice, but the police do. They know you're not involved (most likely) but they still need to search your car, and seize the evidence that the criminal threw into your car. They don't need a search warrant, because waiting for a warrant to obtain the evidence would result in the evidence being long gone. Meanwhile, they have no real reason to detain you while waiting for the warrant in order to search your car, and any evidence found in this manner would definitely be legally seizeable. But only when pertenant to the criminal who ditched the stuff in your car. Anything the cops come across that they wouldn't have otherwise known about, and wasn't in plain sight, and could be used to implicate you in a crime would be a hassle in court.
Not only that, but if the show "Law & Order" is any reference (and I realize it often isn't, but in this case I think it is), the police aren't allowed to wait for you to enter your car to arrest you in order to search your car. Creating situations in order to utilise the allowances of the written law as loopholes is not permissible and results in exclusion of what would otherwise be perfectly admissible evidence if police had bothered with obtaining a warrant.
Yes, actually, I was thinking of another Law and Order during lunch. They come up to an apartment and say, "Police, open up." No answer. Lenny really wants in, and looks to the other guy (I think the landlord) and says, "Did you hear that? Someone called for 'help'." That would also classify as creating exigent circumstances in order to provoke a search. And if I recall in the episode, the evidence was thrown out.
Actually, as my understanding is, Law and Order generally uses real-life situations, and real-life results. In those situations, it serves as a reasonable example. (It's just dramatised real-life events in that case.) If you try and extrapolate too much detail from it though, then you're screwed.
Not only all that, but cops are not allowed to cause the existence of an exigent cirumstance in order to perform a search.
If a police officer had setup with a phone guy to call 911 from that house in order to gain access through exigent circumstances; he would have *so* gotten into some deep shit.
Exigent Circumstances can actually be used to collect evidence. This is generally the reason used to collect evidence from a motor vehicle. Since the likelihood of loss of evidence is very great (the car can just take off) they can use exigent circumstances to collect any evidence that was in plain view. (Note, without sufficent reason they can't search the car) Meh, plain view is kind of a bad example anyways, if there's heroin visible in your car, the police don't really need to obtain a search warrant to find it. They just need justification to seize it. (Thus the exigent circumstance here.)
But there's a catch. In that exigent cirucmstance doesn't give a catch all to collecting evidence in a motor vehicle. I imagine, if the vehicle was closed and locked, and no one was around who might enter the car and take off, they would likely need a search warrant in order to sieze the evidence, since getting a search warrant wouldn't be inhibitive to collecting the evidence. Plus, entering the vehicle might require damaging the property, and that would be inexcusable without a warrant, or exigent circumstances that the evidence would disappear.
Totally not on topic... I don't care what happened to them, the guy who the cops were there for wasn't my friend that I was playing video games with.
The guy was some arbitrary guy a few rooms down from us, and our room just happened to provide reasonable, and available concealment. The cops never entered our room more than just into the doorway, and never looked for anything that were illegal.
The point is, sometimes the cops use private property for reasonable purposes, without a search warrant, despite the fact that they may uncover evidence of a crime while they were there.