Well. Interesting. See, I just write code to have fun. Besides, it may not run on all platforms, but it does run on 90% of all platforms, if you get my drift. What's the real multiplatform rub? That's been a crock for, like, ever. If you're willing to lose features to go multiplatform, try mono. They'll never be caught up with the M$ baseline, but at least they are C#.
From a vanity point of view, the C#/.NET community is pretty weak in open source contributors, so it shouldn't be the desire to open source stuff that's causing a negative interaction with multiplatform... so what is? I admit it does suck to have to have M$ on a server. Be that as it may...
Nobody program for Windows because he likes to program for Windows...
To the contrary. I work on Linux systems at work, and play on Windows, using.NET (C#) at home, for fun..NET is a genuine pleasure to work with: a better java than java, I say. It may be an asset of the evil empire, and it may not be multiplatform, but I find those to be its only weaknesses.
Just put everything on Public Domain, no accountability, no patent infringement (Maybe, but it's public domain, who are you going to sue?).
Patent law is different than copyright law. The use of the figurative "copy" is covered by patent law. You can sue the users. It's a common thing to do, actually. Easy to get money out of the customers of a patent infringing company.
...and then inside the DomU's you can have any OS you want...
Theoretically. As a matter of reduction to practice, if you don't make all those DomU's with EXACTLY the matching level of Xen kernel as the dom0, everything will fall through your fingers. Xen is really over hyped right now. The 64 bit stuff is flakely, live migration is flakey, hardware support is weak, the whole thing is still quite clearly in a beta state. Just peruse the list archives at http://lists.xensource.com/ to get an idea of what ordinary deployers of xen are routinely facing. Kernel panics are hardly unusual. In off the shelf SLES10, I can routinely crash dom0 (and by implication ALL guests) by simply issuing a migrate at the wrong time. Xen is still very young.
You will be right a year from now. The trend is clear. Not today, though.
If a cop wants to speed, or run red lights, or get free donuts, or whatever, that's cool with me. What's the problem?
The problem is that societies in which the enforcers and leadership usurp special privileges for themselves are societies of the very worst kind. He wants special privileges? Tough, he gets none.
I would have to admit that if one employee views porn at work, and another set of employees FUCK at work, and their treatments by management are starkly different, with this person approaching a big retirement pension, the situation rather does look something like selective preferential enforcement. One of the reasons corporate consul will recommended treating all employees the same and have equitable and equally enforced policy is exactly because disparate treatment makes a good argument for a hidden agenda in court.
We have a lot of these interesting little dichotomies. Take gun control:
"Humans aren't trustworthy enough to have guns". "Except the humans I like, I mean." "Um, uh".
It's as if we are unable to see that the people who work in and for government are people like any other. I happen to agree. Humans aren't particularly trustworthy. Concentrating a bunch of firepower amongst the select few? Bad, bad, idea!
North Korea has already had a nation-killing trump card for a good twenty years now, as anyone even vaguely acquainted with the matter is well-aware. NK is smart enough to understand quite clearly that no matter what weapons it HAS, it cannot engage in international terrorism, because then triggers would get pulled. Yes, Afghanistan was a good thing. If anything, our response was quite restrained.
It's different than, but related to, the reasons that North Korea is untouched. The North Korean situation is quite interesting. On the north side of the border: misery, despair, tyranny, and a seemingly psychotic despot. With this situation, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, many able to strike Seoul. We dare not move, lest one of the most vibrant economies in the area be destroyed.
Back the that reference to game theory, eh? Referenced psychotic despot has leeway to threaten, posture, abuse, accuse, and so on and so forth. We can do nothing insofar as his one primary card does not appear to be in play.
So now terrorist organizations, instead of using one nation as base of operations and primary sponsor, are now infiltrating private business, soliciting private sponsorship and otherwise operating as individual cells, thus making them much, much harder to track down.
While your comments are correct in observing the terrorists fleeing to the winds, what you have failed to grasp is how significantly more capable and malign nation states are when they turn to terror. You have simply no idea.
Removing the taliban had as much effect on global terrorism as Clinton had on teen abstinance
I intensely disagree with this! Deal is, we made it clear and obvious that if anything even remotely resembling a nation state sponsors or protects terrorists, we'll disassemble the government and install our own. Considering the basic fundamentals of game theory, I'm pretty happy with that.
I'm not happy with our involvement in Iraq one bit, but different subject, different day.
You think there is some federal law on the matter. There isn't. This varies state by state.
Suggest you try this google search:
"age of consent" "by state"
As for your assertion that they should "face the consequences," it is doubtful that they "broke the law" in normal sense of jurisprudence, where for any law above infraction the law is and always should be judged according to its intent. The purpose of these laws is to prevent minors from being exploited.
They can call the cops and detain you under suspicion of shoplifting.
That's not special for the security guard. I can do that, any ordinary citizen can do that, and the consequence is the same: the law does not allow you to be mistaken, and if you are, you have a house-sized legal bill coming 'round.
Perhaps. You'd have to say "per capita" for your observation to be correct though, and the original poster did mention something about the 9th circuit being a large one. Mind you, if you said it was overrepresented per capita, I'd believe you.
Companies sue each other all the time. It's pretty much just business as usual. However if the FSF engages in litigation or license maneuvers to protect our community's rights, we're to believe that somehow that this will give us a negative reputation. SNORT.
You're wrong about companies not "throwing tantrum's" also. They certainly will do that if you mess around with their rights. What exactly do you think the big army of corporate consuls are for? There's a reason that large companies keep attorneys around permanently on staff.
Finally your alarmist "companies just won't dare use open-source software" observation. Come now, cut it out. Like it or not, there's plenty of smart CTO's in the world (hint, hint: they don't get there by being DUMB), and they can see as plain as day the nature of Microsoft's maneuvering in this deal.
I suppose I love to hate Microsoft like anyone else. But this anti-Vista shit is just so Slashdot. I sat here -- literally! -- for five years reading my fellow Techsupremacists railing on Microsoft security. Microsoft gets serious about it, and. Well. There's no doubt in my mind, this is still Slashdot.
Really? I have a lot of sympathy for people too lazy to read ANY contract. Insofar as a contract is of insufficient importance to justify the intervention of a live human being to ascertain the comprehension of the terms of the deal, I don't think there should exist a contract at all.
This is a good point. If one were to deep dive on my mentioned appellate rulings regarding EULA's, you would quickly discover that while the courts have ruled them to be enforceable in at least one appellate district (meaning all states under its jurisdiction), that regardless of this the ruling itself (if I recall correctly) only applies to software that comes with a prominent display outside the box that there is a EULA hidden within.
Still; I don't like any kind of contract of adhesion, and rather of am the belief that if a contract is not of sufficient importance to explain verbally and go over every material detail of the contract, then it oughtn't be a contract at all.
How many people really read their 10 page mortgage application? Surprisingly few. And yet the agreement is legal.
The concept is referred to as a "contract of adhesion," where insofar as the terms in the contract are those that can be reasonably expected to be found in similar contracts for similar purpose, the contract is considered binding whether or not a "meeting of the minds" has occurred over the material details of the contract. I actually don't like contracts of adhesion at all, and wish they didn't exist. But they do.
In many states, and I believe now in at least one federal appellate district, EULA's have been ruled to be contracts of adhesion. You can imagine my alarm. So what I'm telling you is that that EULA you didn't read is likely legal. Evil, but legal.
Slashdot Mirror
*shrug*. I write code in Python, too. Most of these higher level languages have incoherent SDKs, so you have to take the bad with the good.
C//
Well. Interesting. See, I just write code to have fun. Besides, it may not run on all platforms, but it does run on 90% of all platforms, if you get my drift. What's the real multiplatform rub? That's been a crock for, like, ever. If you're willing to lose features to go multiplatform, try mono. They'll never be caught up with the M$ baseline, but at least they are C#.
From a vanity point of view, the C#/.NET community is pretty weak in open source contributors, so it shouldn't be the desire to open source stuff that's causing a negative interaction with multiplatform... so what is? I admit it does suck to have to have M$ on a server. Be that as it may...
C//
Nobody program for Windows because he likes to program for Windows...
.NET (C#) at home, for fun. .NET is a genuine pleasure to work with: a better java than java, I say. It may be an asset of the evil empire, and it may not be multiplatform, but I find those to be its only weaknesses.
To the contrary. I work on Linux systems at work, and play on Windows, using
C//
Who says only one? :)
So. I have Vista installed on my home computer.
Can I trade it for that beautiful and dangerous woman you are talking about?
Just put everything on Public Domain, no accountability, no patent infringement (Maybe, but it's public domain, who are you going to sue?).
Patent law is different than copyright law. The use of the figurative "copy" is covered by patent law. You can sue the users. It's a common thing to do, actually. Easy to get money out of the customers of a patent infringing company.
C//
...and then inside the DomU's you can have any OS you want...
Theoretically. As a matter of reduction to practice, if you don't make all those DomU's with EXACTLY the matching level of Xen kernel as the dom0, everything will fall through your fingers. Xen is really over hyped right now. The 64 bit stuff is flakely, live migration is flakey, hardware support is weak, the whole thing is still quite clearly in a beta state. Just peruse the list archives at http://lists.xensource.com/ to get an idea of what ordinary deployers of xen are routinely facing. Kernel panics are hardly unusual. In off the shelf SLES10, I can routinely crash dom0 (and by implication ALL guests) by simply issuing a migrate at the wrong time. Xen is still very young.
You will be right a year from now. The trend is clear. Not today, though.
C//
If a cop wants to speed, or run red lights, or get free donuts, or whatever, that's cool with me. What's the problem?
The problem is that societies in which the enforcers and leadership usurp special privileges for themselves are societies of the very worst kind. He wants special privileges? Tough, he gets none.
C//
Sex on a desk is only an issue if done in such a way that there is evidence of it having occurred...
Well. *cough*. There WAS evidence that it occurred. How could have the referenced employees be disciplined if there were not?
C//
I would have to admit that if one employee views porn at work, and another set of employees FUCK at work, and their treatments by management are starkly different, with this person approaching a big retirement pension, the situation rather does look something like selective preferential enforcement. One of the reasons corporate consul will recommended treating all employees the same and have equitable and equally enforced policy is exactly because disparate treatment makes a good argument for a hidden agenda in court.
C//
We have a lot of these interesting little dichotomies. Take gun control:
"Humans aren't trustworthy enough to have guns". "Except the humans I like, I mean." "Um, uh".
It's as if we are unable to see that the people who work in and for government are people like any other. I happen to agree. Humans aren't particularly trustworthy. Concentrating a bunch of firepower amongst the select few? Bad, bad, idea!
Hayek had that one right.
C//
North Korea has already had a nation-killing trump card for a good twenty years now, as anyone even vaguely acquainted with the matter is well-aware. NK is smart enough to understand quite clearly that no matter what weapons it HAS, it cannot engage in international terrorism, because then triggers would get pulled. Yes, Afghanistan was a good thing. If anything, our response was quite restrained.
C//
It's different than, but related to, the reasons that North Korea is untouched. The North Korean situation is quite interesting. On the north side of the border: misery, despair, tyranny, and a seemingly psychotic despot. With this situation, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, many able to strike Seoul. We dare not move, lest one of the most vibrant economies in the area be destroyed.
Back the that reference to game theory, eh? Referenced psychotic despot has leeway to threaten, posture, abuse, accuse, and so on and so forth. We can do nothing insofar as his one primary card does not appear to be in play.
C//
So now terrorist organizations, instead of using one nation as base of operations and primary sponsor, are now infiltrating private business, soliciting private sponsorship and otherwise operating as individual cells, thus making them much, much harder to track down.
While your comments are correct in observing the terrorists fleeing to the winds, what you have failed to grasp is how significantly more capable and malign nation states are when they turn to terror. You have simply no idea.
C//
Removing the taliban had as much effect on global terrorism as Clinton had on teen abstinance
I intensely disagree with this! Deal is, we made it clear and obvious that if anything even remotely resembling a nation state sponsors or protects terrorists, we'll disassemble the government and install our own. Considering the basic fundamentals of game theory, I'm pretty happy with that.
I'm not happy with our involvement in Iraq one bit, but different subject, different day.
C//
Heh. You mean you RTFS (read the effing site). GASP! How not-slashdot!
I noticed the same thing you did. His platform is vacuuous. All platitudes and generalities.
C//
Unfortunately, that legal cut-off age is 18....
You think there is some federal law on the matter. There isn't. This varies state by state.
Suggest you try this google search:
"age of consent" "by state"
As for your assertion that they should "face the consequences," it is doubtful that they "broke the law" in normal sense of jurisprudence, where for any law above infraction the law is and always should be judged according to its intent. The purpose of these laws is to prevent minors from being exploited.
C//
They can call the cops and detain you under suspicion of shoplifting.
That's not special for the security guard. I can do that, any ordinary citizen can do that, and the consequence is the same: the law does not allow you to be mistaken, and if you are, you have a house-sized legal bill coming 'round.
C//
Perhaps. You'd have to say "per capita" for your observation to be correct though, and the original poster did mention something about the 9th circuit being a large one. Mind you, if you said it was overrepresented per capita, I'd believe you.
C//
Companies sue each other all the time. It's pretty much just business as usual. However if the FSF engages in litigation or license maneuvers to protect our community's rights, we're to believe that somehow that this will give us a negative reputation. SNORT.
You're wrong about companies not "throwing tantrum's" also. They certainly will do that if you mess around with their rights. What exactly do you think the big army of corporate consuls are for? There's a reason that large companies keep attorneys around permanently on staff.
Finally your alarmist "companies just won't dare use open-source software" observation. Come now, cut it out. Like it or not, there's plenty of smart CTO's in the world (hint, hint: they don't get there by being DUMB), and they can see as plain as day the nature of Microsoft's maneuvering in this deal.
C//
I suppose I love to hate Microsoft like anyone else. But this anti-Vista shit is just so Slashdot. I sat here -- literally! -- for five years reading my fellow Techsupremacists railing on Microsoft security. Microsoft gets serious about it, and. Well. There's no doubt in my mind, this is still Slashdot.
C//
Really? I have a lot of sympathy for people too lazy to read ANY contract. Insofar as a contract is of insufficient importance to justify the intervention of a live human being to ascertain the comprehension of the terms of the deal, I don't think there should exist a contract at all.
C//
Of most interesting is consideration.
This is a good point. If one were to deep dive on my mentioned appellate rulings regarding EULA's, you would quickly discover that while the courts have ruled them to be enforceable in at least one appellate district (meaning all states under its jurisdiction), that regardless of this the ruling itself (if I recall correctly) only applies to software that comes with a prominent display outside the box that there is a EULA hidden within.
Still; I don't like any kind of contract of adhesion, and rather of am the belief that if a contract is not of sufficient importance to explain verbally and go over every material detail of the contract, then it oughtn't be a contract at all.
C//
"Most"?
Ha ha ha. Very funny.
Joe.
How many people really read their 10 page mortgage application? Surprisingly few. And yet the agreement is legal.
The concept is referred to as a "contract of adhesion," where insofar as the terms in the contract are those that can be reasonably expected to be found in similar contracts for similar purpose, the contract is considered binding whether or not a "meeting of the minds" has occurred over the material details of the contract. I actually don't like contracts of adhesion at all, and wish they didn't exist. But they do.
In many states, and I believe now in at least one federal appellate district, EULA's have been ruled to be contracts of adhesion. You can imagine my alarm. So what I'm telling you is that that EULA you didn't read is likely legal. Evil, but legal.
C//