Again, you make false assumptions, but fail to address my point.
I never said: "MS SUCKS USE ANYTHING BUT MS!!".
I use the term "fanboi" because it is a well understood term that refers to someone blindly passionately devoted to something and is unable to see any faults in it.
Again, you make an assumption about why I used the term. I do not think the term is cool.
Are you unable to respond to things I actually said rather than making up imaginary words, thoughts or motives?
Let me rewind to the original argument. You said "When will you people just admit that you're pissed that you're not rich and stop hating MS for being successful?". I responded that only a "fanboy" even raises such an argument. I work with one.
The fanboy mentality is that <Insert favorite artist/person/thing> is soooo great, able to do no wrong, a god, etc. and anyone who thinks differently must not have a legitimate reason, but must instead have bad motives for thinking anything negative.
I am not trying to convince you of anything, especially about Microsoft or Linux. I don't care if you consider my point of view. In fact, I expect that you won't. A true fanboy is unable to consider the very possibility that the object of their attention can have any faults whatsoever. Therefore, you raise the "jealous of success" argument, because if someone had actual reasons to dislike the object of your affection, then that would mean... gasp!!... there must be some fault in it.
I can understand someone being blindly in love with another person, to the point where they can see no faults. But when it is a global megacorporation, this is truly sad. I like Linux, Open Source, etc., but I don't think that they are perfect by any stretch. You cannot see any downside, anything wrong with Microsoft, hence the jealousy argument. In your mind, there could be no legitimate reason to dislike Microsoft.
Case in point. You said Microsoft has done nothing illegal, which is clearly, factually untrue.
Case in point. You cannot respond to my actual argument. You have to make up things that I didn't say, didn't think, or how you think I must feel, or how I must not use MS recent products, or how I must have some imaginary problem with them due to my hardware or incompetence.
You make personal attacks, but you never actually respond to the argument.
The argument is not about any of...
Linux
Microsoft's products
The quality of those products
Open source
Whether I am familiar with Microsoft products
Whether I am familiar with the history of Microsoft
Whether I am competent
Whether I am not rich (another assumption you originally made, but which I did not want to point out until now)
You said: If you want me to even consider your point of view, try providing an actual argument instead of that "I HATE MS!!".
I don't expect you to ever consider my point of view. I have provided an actual argument. You have failed several times to respond to it. You would prefer to change the subject to one of the above items, or something else.
The argument is about whether people can have a legitimate reason to dislike Microsoft. Can they? Or is it just jealousy of Microsoft's success?
That is the argument. You made it originally. I responded to it. Defend your point of view. Or just go back to: Microsoft == only good.
Your post is so full of lack of logic it is amazing.
Does Microsoft have to do something illegal before I dislike them? Assmuing that Microsoft has never done anything illegal, I must therefore like them?
Nonetheless, there is already clear evidence that they have done illegal things? (Remember Stacker?)
Does Microsoft have to make a bad product before I dislike them? I don't think they make decent products, but assume for argument sake that I belive they make decent products. If they make decent products, does this mean that I am required to like them? No matter what other things they might do? They might kill people, but because they (supposedly) make decent products, I must like them?
I am not expecting perfection from Microsoft. I DO expect Microsoft to do better than they are doing. And I believe that this is a reasonable expectation.
You are making the assumption that I have not tried Microsoft stuff post 98.
You are making an assumption that I've never used XP at work, or that I've had it crash, or that I accuse it of crashing. I made no such claim, btw. It is just your assumption.
What makes you think my hardware sucks, or that I am incompetent? What makes you think I have had any problems with my hardware, or software? I never implied any such thing.
I only said that I have legitimate reasons not to like Microsoft.
You are making all kinds of wild assumptions about what those reasons might be.
Finally, in your fanboi rant, you did not say a single thing that refuted my point. People might have legitimate reasons to dislike Microsoft without being jealous of Microsoft's success.
You sound just like the person that I mentioned which I work with. Microsoft == Only Good, anyone who dislikes Microsoft therefore must be bad or have bad motives.
When will the Microsoft fanboi's admit that people don't like Microsoft because of...
Microsoft's Business Practices
and not because of some jealosy of Microsoft's success. If the latter were true, then why don't all of the anti-Microsoft folk also dislike all other successful companies?
I have a Microsoft True Believer(tm) in my organization. I've spoken to him at length for years. He has made the "jealous of success" argument before. He can't let go of it. The one universal constant is that Microsoft == Good, and therefore anyone who does not like Microsoft must be Bad, and must have Bad motives for not liking Microsoft.
Has it ever occured to you that maybe I am not Evil for disliking Microsoft, and maybe I have legitimate reasons, yes, actual reasons for not liking Microsoft?
But no, just go back to your world view of Microsoft == Good, anything Anti-Microsoft == Bad.
I find it weird taking the laptop to the can with me... a print magazine seems so much better suited.
A print magazine is better suited. Consider how many minutes you spend there. If you don't spend long periods of time there, then a general print magazine (Newsweek, Time, etc.) may be the best. I'm certianly not planning to read something that is lengthy, or requires really deep thinking for an extended period.
Hint: I don't even use a print magazine. I pull out my...
...cell phone and use the WAP browser to check out CNN headlines, local news, local weather forecast, etc. Now I've just eliminated from my day the need to spend 30 minutes watching TV news to get the same info that I got during otherwise "unproductive" time.
The first and biggest one is that it doesn't help to entrench the MS Office monopoly. In fact, it tends to work against this goal, because other vendors can freely interoperate with ODF documents.
Another major problem with the ODF format is that nobody is able to impose a "tax", or to require special individual license permission for each new software which reads and writes the format.
Finally, ODF is tainted by that "open source" movement. Respected, successful business leaders of our nation have denounced it with phrases such as "...like a cancer" and "...infects other intellectual property", "is un-American", and other similar remarks.
Considering the above problems with ODF, and because I am cynical and have lost all faith in a system which is hopelessly corrupt, I don't expect ODF to actually be used by the government. It simply doesn't put money into the right pockets.
They all have the root password to their individual laptops.
....
If you bomb my server, I'm going to make sure you never have access to anything, ever.
The original article asked the question...
If you allow root access to your knowledgeable users (ie developers with Linux experience), what do you do to keep them 'in line'?"
How to keep those developers in line? Establish a policy...
If you get out of line, you'll end up on a Windows box!
You are right: SFU is a very misleading name. Everytime I read it, my brain interprets it as "Shut the Fuck Up".
SFU is NOT a very misleading name. Everytime I read it, my brain interprets it the same way that you do. Microsoft carefully chose the name SFU, just as they carefully choose every name; because they want Unix to SFU and go away.
If you use a LGPL library, your application does not have to be open source, but it must mention somewhere it uses the library.
Um, please read the LGPL text.
If you use an LGPL library you have more obligations than to simply "mention somewhere" that you use the library.
You must make the source code of the library available in exactly the same way(s) as if the library were GPL.
You must provide the end user with the ability to re-link a different version of the LGPL library with your code. That means you must provide linker-ready object modules.
Laptop and home users also have the right to run an insecure PC
Defending this supposed "right" to run the insecure PC is like saying...
...have a right to dump pollution into the local water supply
...have a right to dump litter on public roadways
How are these two very different from an insecure PC spewing out pollution and litter?
I am so happy that Microsoft is stepping up to defend my "right" to have an insecure PC.
I think the comparison to pollution and litter is a particularly good one. Like litter, if I were the only one doing it, it would not really matter. If I were the only one dumping pollution into the air, it wouldn't matter. If I had the only insecure PC, it wouldn't matter.
(If I were the only spammer, it wouldn't really make much difference. So comparing spam to litter/pollution is also interesting.)
Like both litter and pollution, the real problems of the insecure PC only occurs once many people are doing it. Even though some people don't litter or pollute (or maybe even go further and recycle, etc.) the problem still exists because of the critical mass of people who continue to pollute.
It is as if Microsoft is defending my right to both litter and pollute.
And what's more, they're talking of making us pay for it, in the form of a media levy.
Instead of a media levy, why not just add an electricity levy?
While I live in the US, I am still one of those evil communist people who actually have the gall to record television programs and watch them at a later time. Even worse, I'll admit to having copied CD tracks to a personal mp3 player.
My television recording is done using a hard disk.
My copying from CD to mp3 player does not involve using any blank media.
Therefore, my horrible crimes would not be paying any tax to the media executiv... er, um, I meant to the artists.
Since I, and people like me must use electricity to carry out these acts, maybe a tax on electricity would be better? Or a tax on computers? Or maybe a tax on anything digital? Maybe a tax on digits?
Ultimately, this situation can be fixed in a fair and equal way by simply making all media available to everyone for free and imposing upon every person a tax on hearing and seeing. This tax would go to the existing copyright holders so that they could be properly compensated forever and ever and ever. Amen.
It seems to me that Microsoft should release patches ASAP.
If the system administrators don't like installing and testing the patches that often, they can accumulate patches and install them all at once according to their own internal corporate five-year update/patch/test cycle.
Let's see...
Microsoft doesn't get criticized for not releasing patches
People who need security patches right now will get them
People who would like to apply security patches on a five year cycle are free to do so
Government should NEVER dicate what file formats people are allowed to use
I strongly disagree.
If government doesn't dictate some standards, then there is anarchy. Nobody can communicate with anyone else.
Rather, government's place is to dictate standards which everyone can use. Like ODF.
What government should not dictate is which vendor's product to buy. But those products should be compatible with a standard -- which is dictated.
Microsoft is free to make their product comply with the standard. Microsoft is also free to propose a new standard -- a real open standard which, as I described, everyone can freely use without strings, forever. It is Microsoft's choice to do niether of these because they want government to dictate which software to use.
If government does nothing, status quo, or even worse, dictates Microsoft software or closed formats, then make no mistake that they are dictating both a format standard, and dictating that the citizens must do business with a particular vendor, or suffer with less than perfect compatibility.
I'll have to disagree with you. I always find Enderle's articles to be extremely Inciteful.
Not quite as inciteful as MOG's "reporting". That is, Enderle has yet to incite a huge revold as MOG did, resulting in MOG getting canned. But Enderle is Inciteful nonetheless.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this means....
I respectfully believe you are wrong.
Nokia wrote...
Nokia also believes that a party should not enjoy use of Nokia's patents and at the same time threaten the development of the Linux Kernel by assertion of its own patents. Therefore, Nokia's commitment shall not apply with regard to any party asserting its patents against any Linux Kernel.
Here is what I think it means.
Let's suppose there is some third party. Let's call this hypothetical party "Mega Monopol-O-Soft", or just MS for short.
Suppose MS sues Xyzzy because (1) Xyzzy uses Linux, and (2) Linux infringes on an MS patent. Therefore, Xyzzy is infringing an MS patent by Xyzzy's use of Linux.
"....Nokia's commitment shall not apply with regard to any party(i.e. MS in this hypothetical) asserting its patents (meaning MS patents) against any Linux Kernel." This means that MS shall not enjoy the use of Nokia's patents. If MS infringes a Nokia patent, Nokia is reserving the right to sue MS for infringement of the Nokia patent. It would not matter if MS is using Linux or not. Even if MS's infringement of Nokia's patent were as a direct result of MS using Linux, Nokia is reserving the right to sue over patent infringement.
I read this similar to Novel's promise to use their patent arsenel against anyone who asserts patents against open source.
I suspect IBM would sue someone over infringement of IBM patents (patents unrelated to Linux) if that someone asserted patents against Linux users, thus affecting the Linux kernel, and IBM's huge investment in Linux.
All it would take for us to see such a nuclear war would be for some hypothetical party (the hypothetical "MS" I used for example) to start the patent nuclear war against Linux.
If only more journalists follows principles like this.... [...list of unprofitable ethical principals deleted....]
With unprofitable principals like that, it's a good thing you didn't add...
11. Profit.
But seriously, ethics don't seem to rank as highly as profit. So maybe someone should come out with a more modern, up to date set of Ten Journalistic Principals that begins the list with profitability, and reporting what big advertisers want.
Oh, sorry forgot about the Notice part. I only paid attention to the Registration part.
It is true that notice is not required in order to have a copyright. Copyright now exists the moment the work is fixed in tangable form or some fixed medium of expression. Having a clear notice affects your ability to collect damages. An infringer defendant cannot claim ignorance.
Filing a copy with the copyright office (i.e. "registering" a copyright) is not necessary for copyright protection. But it *is* necessary to bring an infringement lawsuit. I believe, from my Growlaw readings, that not having registered within a certian time (unsure how long) of publication will affect your ability to collect damages. Therefore, anything worth suing over is worth registering.
Copyright Notice - The contents of this site are the intellectual property of David McKenzie.
The GP does not even have a proper legal copyright notice.
To be valid, a copyright notice must have
The word Copyright, or the circle C symbol. The C with parenthesis around it, by itself, may not necessarily hold up, hasn't been tested AFAIK.
The year of first publication.
the name of the owner of the copyright
I suppose I could have added: 4. Profit.
An example of an improper, and invalid copyright notice would be...
Copyright Notice - The contents of this site are the intellectual property of David McKenzie.
An example of a proper and valid copyright notice would be....
Copyright 2005 David McKenzie
The proper notice would be legally valid no matter what other text you add. In some countries, you get additional protection if you add "All rights reserved", but then this seems to go against offering some subset of rights to others, so I tend to avoid it.
In the US, last I knew, if you have an improper copyright notice, you have five years to make a good faith effort to correct it on all copies and still maintain your copyright protection.
Back in about 1989, where I was working at the time, the lawyers came to the engineers and gave us all printed copies of the copyright act, made us read them, and then had a meeting to answer any questions that engineers had about how copyright worked. (Yes, really.) What I said above is based on what I learned in 1989, so it might be dated.
Hey, at least, the GP poster didn't use the idiotic non-word "copywrite" which is seen on slashdot frequently.
So MoG tracks down PJ's mother, who it would seem is older than the PJ (who MoG alleges is 61). MoG then prints the location and pictures of PJ's mother's home -- right before Mother's Day.
If, PJ is 61, as MoG believes, then MoG could infer that her mother is probably at least 80?
PJ's 80'ish year old mother is completely irrelevant to:
SCO's losing court case
SCO's lack of evidence
SCO's lack of a product, service or lawsuit that anyone wants to buy
Darl's big mouth
Groklaw's analysis and compiled facts about SCO, et. all.
Yet MoG is happy to publish the home address and photo of a woman that MoG would have to believe to be in her 80's, who is unconnected to Groklaw or SCO, right before Mother's Day.
First. Suppose I want to create a group of publications that try to con, mislead or deceive people into which operating system they should use.
These publications will be named after the system that I DO NOT want them to use. So I would give them names such as Microsoft-Insider. Microsoft Business News. Microsoft Gram. Etc.
Thinking of names of publications is easy. Just follow the pattern.
Second. I would want to form a holding company that owns all of these collective publications.
Herein lies the problem. What to name the holding company? I am stumped.
The purpose of the publications are to CON, mislead, or deceive; about which operating SYStem to use. So I naturally thought of the name SYS-CON. But alas, I see that name is already taken. And for a similar purpose, it would seem.
Oh dear, oh dear. What name should I give to the parent holding company?
(and NO, I did not steal this from a Groklaw posting, as I just posted it there minutes ago.)
No , its a lie. Again a lie. Again a lie. Again a lie.
Anonymous Troll. The grandparent is exactly correct. Obviously you have never read the old YaST license (prior to YaST being licensed under the GPL). You make lots of noise about the GP being a liar, but you offer no evidence to refute each of his claims. Yet the GP correctly characterises the old YaST license.
I don't go back far enough to know who came first, SuSE or Red Hat. But I think it is completely silly to assert that if YaST had been GPL from the beginning that somehow Red Hat would never have existed. Maybe you should have taken this to its logical conclusion and asserted that no other Linux distributions would ever have existed if YaST had been GPL from the start?
At first we were really excited about the GlucoWatch until we looked more deeply into it. It was pretty disappointing. Supplies for it are very expensive. By contrast, insulin pump therapy supplies are inexpensive. (All of the various brands of pumps we looked at ranged between $5,500 and $6,000.) I was also not real impressed by the accuracy of the GlucoWatch.
Pump therapy is good and getting better. Our hospital has told us that within the year that the MiniMed pump (Medtronics) will have an upgrade that can monitor BG levels and alert you if they are falling (or rising). They are supposed to already be in clinical trials.
The pump trainer (employed by the hospital) also said that in a generation or so of pump, they expect to have a closed loop system where the pump will adjust your insulin dose without user interaction for rising BG, and alert you for falling BG.
Even the current generation pumps (which we have in hand, but have not yet installed batteries nor had the 24 hour hospital stay to begin using) have a radio link between the glucometer and the pump. If you are taking BG readings frequently enough, the pump always knows your BG levels and can automatically suggest a bolus.
We were very impressed by the sophistication of the current pumps. The fact that MiniMed often has a $200 yearly upgrade was a major selling point for their particular brand.
Pumps are supposedly bullet proof (and water proof), but I wouldn't want to test this.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said: "MS SUCKS USE ANYTHING BUT MS!!".
I use the term "fanboi" because it is a well understood term that refers to someone blindly passionately devoted to something and is unable to see any faults in it.
Again, you make an assumption about why I used the term. I do not think the term is cool.
Are you unable to respond to things I actually said rather than making up imaginary words, thoughts or motives?
Let me rewind to the original argument. You said "When will you people just admit that you're pissed that you're not rich and stop hating MS for being successful?". I responded that only a "fanboy" even raises such an argument. I work with one.
The fanboy mentality is that <Insert favorite artist/person/thing> is soooo great, able to do no wrong, a god, etc. and anyone who thinks differently must not have a legitimate reason, but must instead have bad motives for thinking anything negative.
I am not trying to convince you of anything, especially about Microsoft or Linux. I don't care if you consider my point of view. In fact, I expect that you won't. A true fanboy is unable to consider the very possibility that the object of their attention can have any faults whatsoever. Therefore, you raise the "jealous of success" argument, because if someone had actual reasons to dislike the object of your affection, then that would mean... gasp!!... there must be some fault in it.
I can understand someone being blindly in love with another person, to the point where they can see no faults. But when it is a global megacorporation, this is truly sad. I like Linux, Open Source, etc., but I don't think that they are perfect by any stretch. You cannot see any downside, anything wrong with Microsoft, hence the jealousy argument. In your mind, there could be no legitimate reason to dislike Microsoft.
Case in point. You said Microsoft has done nothing illegal, which is clearly, factually untrue.
Case in point. You cannot respond to my actual argument. You have to make up things that I didn't say, didn't think, or how you think I must feel, or how I must not use MS recent products, or how I must have some imaginary problem with them due to my hardware or incompetence.
You make personal attacks, but you never actually respond to the argument.
The argument is not about any of...
You said: If you want me to even consider your point of view, try providing an actual argument instead of that "I HATE MS!!".
I don't expect you to ever consider my point of view. I have provided an actual argument. You have failed several times to respond to it. You would prefer to change the subject to one of the above items, or something else.
The argument is about whether people can have a legitimate reason to dislike Microsoft. Can they? Or is it just jealousy of Microsoft's success?
That is the argument. You made it originally. I responded to it. Defend your point of view. Or just go back to: Microsoft == only good.
Your post is so full of lack of logic it is amazing.
Does Microsoft have to do something illegal before I dislike them? Assmuing that Microsoft has never done anything illegal, I must therefore like them?
Nonetheless, there is already clear evidence that they have done illegal things? (Remember Stacker?)
Does Microsoft have to make a bad product before I dislike them? I don't think they make decent products, but assume for argument sake that I belive they make decent products. If they make decent products, does this mean that I am required to like them? No matter what other things they might do? They might kill people, but because they (supposedly) make decent products, I must like them?
I am not expecting perfection from Microsoft. I DO expect Microsoft to do better than they are doing. And I believe that this is a reasonable expectation.
You are making the assumption that I have not tried Microsoft stuff post 98.
You are making an assumption that I've never used XP at work, or that I've had it crash, or that I accuse it of crashing. I made no such claim, btw. It is just your assumption.
What makes you think my hardware sucks, or that I am incompetent? What makes you think I have had any problems with my hardware, or software? I never implied any such thing.
I only said that I have legitimate reasons not to like Microsoft.
You are making all kinds of wild assumptions about what those reasons might be.
Finally, in your fanboi rant, you did not say a single thing that refuted my point. People might have legitimate reasons to dislike Microsoft without being jealous of Microsoft's success.
You sound just like the person that I mentioned which I work with. Microsoft == Only Good, anyone who dislikes Microsoft therefore must be bad or have bad motives.
When will the Microsoft fanboi's admit that people don't like Microsoft because of...
Microsoft's Business Practices
and not because of some jealosy of Microsoft's success. If the latter were true, then why don't all of the anti-Microsoft folk also dislike all other successful companies?
I have a Microsoft True Believer(tm) in my organization. I've spoken to him at length for years. He has made the "jealous of success" argument before. He can't let go of it. The one universal constant is that Microsoft == Good, and therefore anyone who does not like Microsoft must be Bad, and must have Bad motives for not liking Microsoft.
Has it ever occured to you that maybe I am not Evil for disliking Microsoft, and maybe I have legitimate reasons, yes, actual reasons for not liking Microsoft?
But no, just go back to your world view of Microsoft == Good, anything Anti-Microsoft == Bad.
I find it weird taking the laptop to the can with me... a print magazine seems so much better suited.
...cell phone and use the WAP browser to check out CNN headlines, local news, local weather forecast, etc. Now I've just eliminated from my day the need to spend 30 minutes watching TV news to get the same info that I got during otherwise "unproductive" time.
A print magazine is better suited. Consider how many minutes you spend there. If you don't spend long periods of time there, then a general print magazine (Newsweek, Time, etc.) may be the best. I'm certianly not planning to read something that is lengthy, or requires really deep thinking for an extended period.
Hint: I don't even use a print magazine. I pull out my...
There are major technical problems with ODF.
The first and biggest one is that it doesn't help to entrench the MS Office monopoly. In fact, it tends to work against this goal, because other vendors can freely interoperate with ODF documents.
Another major problem with the ODF format is that nobody is able to impose a "tax", or to require special individual license permission for each new software which reads and writes the format.
Finally, ODF is tainted by that "open source" movement. Respected, successful business leaders of our nation have denounced it with phrases such as "...like a cancer" and "...infects other intellectual property", "is un-American", and other similar remarks.
Considering the above problems with ODF, and because I am cynical and have lost all faith in a system which is hopelessly corrupt, I don't expect ODF to actually be used by the government. It simply doesn't put money into the right pockets.
If you bomb my server, I'm going to make sure you never have access to anything, ever.
The original article asked the question...
How to keep those developers in line? Establish a policy...
If you get out of line, you'll end up on a Windows box!
Um, please read the LGPL text.
If you use an LGPL library you have more obligations than to simply "mention somewhere" that you use the library.
You must make the source code of the library available in exactly the same way(s) as if the library were GPL.
You must provide the end user with the ability to re-link a different version of the LGPL library with your code. That means you must provide linker-ready object modules.
- ...have a right to dump pollution into the local water supply
- ...have a right to dump litter on public roadways
How are these two very different from an insecure PC spewing out pollution and litter?I am so happy that Microsoft is stepping up to defend my "right" to have an insecure PC.
I think the comparison to pollution and litter is a particularly good one. Like litter, if I were the only one doing it, it would not really matter. If I were the only one dumping pollution into the air, it wouldn't matter. If I had the only insecure PC, it wouldn't matter. (If I were the only spammer, it wouldn't really make much difference. So comparing spam to litter/pollution is also interesting.)
Like both litter and pollution, the real problems of the insecure PC only occurs once many people are doing it. Even though some people don't litter or pollute (or maybe even go further and recycle, etc.) the problem still exists because of the critical mass of people who continue to pollute.
It is as if Microsoft is defending my right to both litter and pollute.
While I live in the US, I am still one of those evil communist people who actually have the gall to record television programs and watch them at a later time. Even worse, I'll admit to having copied CD tracks to a personal mp3 player.
My television recording is done using a hard disk.
My copying from CD to mp3 player does not involve using any blank media.
Therefore, my horrible crimes would not be paying any tax to the media executiv... er, um, I meant to the artists.
Since I, and people like me must use electricity to carry out these acts, maybe a tax on electricity would be better? Or a tax on computers? Or maybe a tax on anything digital? Maybe a tax on digits?
Ultimately, this situation can be fixed in a fair and equal way by simply making all media available to everyone for free and imposing upon every person a tax on hearing and seeing. This tax would go to the existing copyright holders so that they could be properly compensated forever and ever and ever. Amen.
I think what he's stating, is that MS will just decide to STOP providing product and services to ANY EU country.
Oh please God, let it happen in the US too!
If the system administrators don't like installing and testing the patches that often, they can accumulate patches and install them all at once according to their own internal corporate five-year update/patch/test cycle.
Let's see...
- Microsoft doesn't get criticized for not releasing patches
- People who need security patches right now will get them
- People who would like to apply security patches on a five year cycle are free to do so
- Everybody wins
Am I missing something?Government should NEVER dicate what file formats people are allowed to use
I strongly disagree.
If government doesn't dictate some standards, then there is anarchy. Nobody can communicate with anyone else.
Rather, government's place is to dictate standards which everyone can use. Like ODF.
What government should not dictate is which vendor's product to buy. But those products should be compatible with a standard -- which is dictated.
Microsoft is free to make their product comply with the standard. Microsoft is also free to propose a new standard -- a real open standard which, as I described, everyone can freely use without strings, forever. It is Microsoft's choice to do niether of these because they want government to dictate which software to use.
If government does nothing, status quo, or even worse, dictates Microsoft software or closed formats, then make no mistake that they are dictating both a format standard, and dictating that the citizens must do business with a particular vendor, or suffer with less than perfect compatibility.
Write comments about the boss's attachments. Then see if there is any reaction. If so, then you know your e-mail is being monitored.
I'll have to disagree with you. I always find Enderle's articles to be extremely Inciteful.
Not quite as inciteful as MOG's "reporting". That is, Enderle has yet to incite a huge revold as MOG did, resulting in MOG getting canned. But Enderle is Inciteful nonetheless.
I respectfully believe you are wrong.
Nokia wrote...
Here is what I think it means.
Let's suppose there is some third party. Let's call this hypothetical party "Mega Monopol-O-Soft", or just MS for short.
Suppose MS sues Xyzzy because (1) Xyzzy uses Linux, and (2) Linux infringes on an MS patent. Therefore, Xyzzy is infringing an MS patent by Xyzzy's use of Linux.
"....Nokia's commitment shall not apply with regard to any party (i.e. MS in this hypothetical) asserting its patents (meaning MS patents) against any Linux Kernel." This means that MS shall not enjoy the use of Nokia's patents. If MS infringes a Nokia patent, Nokia is reserving the right to sue MS for infringement of the Nokia patent. It would not matter if MS is using Linux or not. Even if MS's infringement of Nokia's patent were as a direct result of MS using Linux, Nokia is reserving the right to sue over patent infringement.
I read this similar to Novel's promise to use their patent arsenel against anyone who asserts patents against open source.
I suspect IBM would sue someone over infringement of IBM patents (patents unrelated to Linux) if that someone asserted patents against Linux users, thus affecting the Linux kernel, and IBM's huge investment in Linux.
All it would take for us to see such a nuclear war would be for some hypothetical party (the hypothetical "MS" I used for example) to start the patent nuclear war against Linux.
If only more journalists follows principles like this.... [...list of unprofitable ethical principals deleted....]
With unprofitable principals like that, it's a good thing you didn't add...
11. Profit.
But seriously, ethics don't seem to rank as highly as profit. So maybe someone should come out with a more modern, up to date set of Ten Journalistic Principals that begins the list with profitability, and reporting what big advertisers want.
Oh, sorry forgot about the Notice part. I only paid attention to the Registration part.
It is true that notice is not required in order to have a copyright. Copyright now exists the moment the work is fixed in tangable form or some fixed medium of expression. Having a clear notice affects your ability to collect damages. An infringer defendant cannot claim ignorance.
Filing a copy with the copyright office (i.e. "registering" a copyright) is not necessary for copyright protection. But it *is* necessary to bring an infringement lawsuit. I believe, from my Growlaw readings, that not having registered within a certian time (unsure how long) of publication will affect your ability to collect damages. Therefore, anything worth suing over is worth registering.
The GP does not even have a proper legal copyright notice.
To be valid, a copyright notice must have
- The word Copyright, or the circle C symbol. The C with parenthesis around it, by itself, may not necessarily hold up, hasn't been tested AFAIK.
- The year of first publication.
- the name of the owner of the copyright
I suppose I could have added: 4. Profit.An example of an improper, and invalid copyright notice would be... An example of a proper and valid copyright notice would be.... The proper notice would be legally valid no matter what other text you add. In some countries, you get additional protection if you add "All rights reserved", but then this seems to go against offering some subset of rights to others, so I tend to avoid it.
In the US, last I knew, if you have an improper copyright notice, you have five years to make a good faith effort to correct it on all copies and still maintain your copyright protection.
Back in about 1989, where I was working at the time, the lawyers came to the engineers and gave us all printed copies of the copyright act, made us read them, and then had a meeting to answer any questions that engineers had about how copyright worked. (Yes, really.) What I said above is based on what I learned in 1989, so it might be dated.
Hey, at least, the GP poster didn't use the idiotic non-word "copywrite" which is seen on slashdot frequently.
"Hey, they didn't have any lawyers to fight us with before...but now that they have a big well educated team lets go blow some cash!"
I knew MS always wants to find ways to blow the contents of its warchest
Hey, it worked for SCO didn't it?
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
If, PJ is 61, as MoG believes, then MoG could infer that her mother is probably at least 80?
PJ's 80'ish year old mother is completely irrelevant to:
- SCO's losing court case
- SCO's lack of evidence
- SCO's lack of a product, service or lawsuit that anyone wants to buy
- Darl's big mouth
- Groklaw's analysis and compiled facts about SCO, et. all.
Yet MoG is happy to publish the home address and photo of a woman that MoG would have to believe to be in her 80's, who is unconnected to Groklaw or SCO, right before Mother's Day.I write to have your advice.
First. Suppose I want to create a group of publications that try to con, mislead or deceive people into which operating system they should use.
These publications will be named after the system that I DO NOT want them to use. So I would give them names such as Microsoft-Insider. Microsoft Business News. Microsoft Gram. Etc.
Thinking of names of publications is easy. Just follow the pattern.
Second. I would want to form a holding company that owns all of these collective publications.
Herein lies the problem. What to name the holding company? I am stumped.
The purpose of the publications are to CON, mislead, or deceive; about which operating SYStem to use. So I naturally thought of the name SYS-CON. But alas, I see that name is already taken. And for a similar purpose, it would seem.
Oh dear, oh dear. What name should I give to the parent holding company?
(and NO, I did not steal this from a Groklaw posting, as I just posted it there minutes ago.)
No , its a lie. Again a lie. Again a lie. Again a lie.
Anonymous Troll. The grandparent is exactly correct. Obviously you have never read the old YaST license (prior to YaST being licensed under the GPL). You make lots of noise about the GP being a liar, but you offer no evidence to refute each of his claims. Yet the GP correctly characterises the old YaST license.
I don't go back far enough to know who came first, SuSE or Red Hat. But I think it is completely silly to assert that if YaST had been GPL from the beginning that somehow Red Hat would never have existed. Maybe you should have taken this to its logical conclusion and asserted that no other Linux distributions would ever have existed if YaST had been GPL from the start?
Therefore, I call Troll.
I'm not diabetic, but have a type 1 child.
At first we were really excited about the GlucoWatch until we looked more deeply into it. It was pretty disappointing. Supplies for it are very expensive. By contrast, insulin pump therapy supplies are inexpensive. (All of the various brands of pumps we looked at ranged between $5,500 and $6,000.) I was also not real impressed by the accuracy of the GlucoWatch.
Pump therapy is good and getting better. Our hospital has told us that within the year that the MiniMed pump (Medtronics) will have an upgrade that can monitor BG levels and alert you if they are falling (or rising). They are supposed to already be in clinical trials.
The pump trainer (employed by the hospital) also said that in a generation or so of pump, they expect to have a closed loop system where the pump will adjust your insulin dose without user interaction for rising BG, and alert you for falling BG.
Even the current generation pumps (which we have in hand, but have not yet installed batteries nor had the 24 hour hospital stay to begin using) have a radio link between the glucometer and the pump. If you are taking BG readings frequently enough, the pump always knows your BG levels and can automatically suggest a bolus.
We were very impressed by the sophistication of the current pumps. The fact that MiniMed often has a $200 yearly upgrade was a major selling point for their particular brand.
Pumps are supposedly bullet proof (and water proof), but I wouldn't want to test this.