This is all starting to become like nuclear weapons in and after the cold war.
In the game-theoretic sense, it's almost exactly the same. Both policies rely on some form of mutually assured destruction (literally with war, financially with patents), and both create "superpowers" that get to dictate to the other guys...
You're right, device.exe is part of the core of Windows CE. It's a kind of modified microkernel design, with all device drivers running inside the device.exe process. This choice has unfortunate consequences for overall stability since a bug in any driver can bring down the whole system. I suspect it was chosen because there's a limit of 31 processes.
What's really wrong about forbidding capitalism? Don't answer "that's against free speech", because capitalism is basically promoting free markets, with is morally and ethically just wrong. and by not forbidding it you indirectly promote it.
There is no objective test that determines the wrongness of any idea. Which means that if wrongness is a valid criteria for forbidding 'speech', then who decides? The answer, of course, is those in power. Then, frequently anything that might disturb the status quo is wrong.
...this all started with Compaq reverse engineering IBM's BIOS, which was patented at the time...
If it was patented, there would have been no point reverse engineering it. It wasn't. It was copyrighted (and still is). IBM published the source code to the BIOS, which made it difficult to clone, because it was difficult to find engineers who hadn't seen it (and therefore hadn't been contaminated). Compaq went to considerable trouble to find engineers who hadn't seen the BIOS. They divided the engineers into two groups. One read the BIOS listing and produced a detailed specification from it, which the other group then implemented, producing a fully compatible but non-infringing implementation.
It is correct that I think the actions taken by the US government were excessive. However, I doubt that it is really as little as 5% who share this view. Can you direct me to your source for that? And would I be right in thinking that by people you mean US citizens?
I'll not argue with you about the more obscure interpretation of Christianity, since you obviously know what you're talking about, and I don't.
It's the prostletyizing atheists who claim to have sure knowledge of His nonexistance that irk me.
Ah, "evangelical atheists." Yes, I agree. I find people who insist on pressing their views annoying too. Religion (including "radical" atheism) relies upon faith. It is incredibly annoying when people try to push their faith onto oneself, even when one basically agrees with them.
Don't EULAs rely on the (dubious) idea that you are making a temporary copy in RAM, and therefore need permission? If so, surely this doesn't apply to ROM software (executed from ROM, that is). So can a EULA for an embedded device have even the remotest validity? I say not, but I am not a lawyer...
Hmm. Interesting. I think perhaps that explains the difference in attitude, because you see I personally find killing those people unacceptable. So that was a very good example. Thanks.
So a moment ago you were advocating throwing tomatoes and even fists at MS, but now you say you love them. I'm confused. I admit that it has been some time since I last read the Bible, but as I recall, he wasn't keen on punishment, preferring to leave it to daddy if it had to be done. And I don't recall him ever hurting anyone. God yes, Jesus no. Am I wrong?
You're either Agnostic (don't know) or atheist (know that there's nothing.) Please pick one.
Ok, that one's easy. An agnostic says that one cannot know whether there is a god or not. An atheist can deny the existence of a god, OR can simply fail to believe in such a god. I fall into the latter category - looking at the available evidence, I think it is more probable that there isn't, but that isn't a belief, and I accept that I may be wrong. Hence I am an agnostic atheist. Happy?
In reply to your sig, no problem whatsoever. I personally admire your faith, though I do not share it.
Maybe if God does exist, he'd be happy as long as people were acting in a moral fashion, for whatever reason.
Actually, the amendment is absolute. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." It does not then go on to say "...except in such cases as..."
By a strange interpretation of the word "no," this is not the present judicial thinking. But the amendment is as absolute as the statement "Objects accellerate towards earth at 9.81 metres per second per second."
If you are an atheist as you say, then you believe that there isn't a God. That's a religion, as valid as any other. You can't prove your belief, but you're willing to take it on faith.
If you truly believe that United States is going to snatch you off the streets for your beliefs, its time to leave America. There is not point in living in a country that makes you fear the Government.
Well, it's really irrelevant whether you're in the habit of doing so or not. What actually matters is whether the government accuses you of doing so. In which case they can quite happily deny you any of your rights, apparently.
And of course, you can't prove your innocence, because you don't have the right to do so, and you don't deserve justice. Remember, you're in the habit of flying to terror sponsoring nations etc. How do we know? The government said so.
The more cynical amongst us might suggest that the parlimentary representative for California and the other US states is Mr George W Bush. Like many of the more influential people in UK politics, he is unelected and, I understand, has the Prime Minister's ear...;)
Looking at it another way, if the commercial is for something I'm simply genetically not going to buy, say any of the vividly advertised female products while I'm male, am I contractually obligated to buy the product?
You're contractually obliged to have gender reassignment surgery, if you bother to check the fine print.
Slashdot Mirror
This is all starting to become like nuclear weapons in and after the cold war. In the game-theoretic sense, it's almost exactly the same. Both policies rely on some form of mutually assured destruction (literally with war, financially with patents), and both create "superpowers" that get to dictate to the other guys...
I'm using both my 5120i and my 5165 right now.
One for each ear?
You're right, device.exe is part of the core of Windows CE. It's a kind of modified microkernel design, with all device drivers running inside the device.exe process. This choice has unfortunate consequences for overall stability since a bug in any driver can bring down the whole system. I suspect it was chosen because there's a limit of 31 processes.
Windows CE is already scaled down.
It's not exactly "scaled down." It's a fresh implementation of a subset of the Win32 API.
It already has had the bugs cleaned out (they are on the fourth version now).
It has less bugs, true.
And, as of CE 3.0, it is a real-time OS.
Correct, it is now marketed as a real-time OS. And it is, for certain definitions of real-time.
What's really wrong about forbidding capitalism? Don't answer "that's against free speech", because capitalism is basically promoting free markets, with is morally and ethically just wrong. and by not forbidding it you indirectly promote it.
There is no objective test that determines the wrongness of any idea. Which means that if wrongness is a valid criteria for forbidding 'speech', then who decides? The answer, of course, is those in power. Then, frequently anything that might disturb the status quo is wrong.
Is that age or IQ?
department of redundancy department
That intentional?
If it was patented, there would have been no point reverse engineering it. It wasn't. It was copyrighted (and still is). IBM published the source code to the BIOS, which made it difficult to clone, because it was difficult to find engineers who hadn't seen it (and therefore hadn't been contaminated). Compaq went to considerable trouble to find engineers who hadn't seen the BIOS. They divided the engineers into two groups. One read the BIOS listing and produced a detailed specification from it, which the other group then implemented, producing a fully compatible but non-infringing implementation.
It is correct that I think the actions taken by the US government were excessive. However, I doubt that it is really as little as 5% who share this view. Can you direct me to your source for that? And would I be right in thinking that by people you mean US citizens?
I'll not argue with you about the more obscure interpretation of Christianity, since you obviously know what you're talking about, and I don't.
It's the prostletyizing atheists who claim to have sure knowledge of His nonexistance that irk me.
Ah, "evangelical atheists." Yes, I agree. I find people who insist on pressing their views annoying too. Religion (including "radical" atheism) relies upon faith. It is incredibly annoying when people try to push their faith onto oneself, even when one basically agrees with them.
Don't EULAs rely on the (dubious) idea that you are making a temporary copy in RAM, and therefore need permission? If so, surely this doesn't apply to ROM software (executed from ROM, that is). So can a EULA for an embedded device have even the remotest validity? I say not, but I am not a lawyer...
Hmm. Interesting. I think perhaps that explains the difference in attitude, because you see I personally find killing those people unacceptable. So that was a very good example. Thanks.
So a moment ago you were advocating throwing tomatoes and even fists at MS, but now you say you love them. I'm confused. I admit that it has been some time since I last read the Bible, but as I recall, he wasn't keen on punishment, preferring to leave it to daddy if it had to be done. And I don't recall him ever hurting anyone. God yes, Jesus no. Am I wrong?
You're either Agnostic (don't know) or atheist (know that there's nothing.) Please pick one.
Ok, that one's easy. An agnostic says that one cannot know whether there is a god or not. An atheist can deny the existence of a god, OR can simply fail to believe in such a god. I fall into the latter category - looking at the available evidence, I think it is more probable that there isn't, but that isn't a belief, and I accept that I may be wrong. Hence I am an agnostic atheist. Happy?
In reply to your sig, no problem whatsoever. I personally admire your faith, though I do not share it.
Maybe if God does exist, he'd be happy as long as people were acting in a moral fashion, for whatever reason.
Actually, the amendment is absolute. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." It does not then go on to say "...except in such cases as..."
By a strange interpretation of the word "no," this is not the present judicial thinking. But the amendment is as absolute as the statement "Objects accellerate towards earth at 9.81 metres per second per second."
For that reason alone MS and it's employees deserve every rotten egg, tomato or a fist thrown in their direction.
Hmm. Interesting. Now think for a second, what would Jesus have to say about that remark?
For the record, I'm an agnostic-atheist pacifist, and I disagree. Morality can come from logic as easily as it can from religious teachings.
Has anyone looked at the FreeBSD .NET compatibility library that MS wrote? Could this be the beginning of such a product?
If you are an atheist as you say, then you believe that there isn't a God. That's a religion, as valid as any other. You can't prove your belief, but you're willing to take it on faith.
Hang on, a minority of Muslims may not believe that 9/11 was murder, but it is a grossly inaccurate generalisation to claim that all do not.
If you truly believe that United States is going to snatch you off the streets for your beliefs, its time to leave America. There is not point in living in a country that makes you fear the Government.
What makes you think I live in America?
There's no conflict there, once you recognise that large corporations (especially monopolies) resemble governments more than they do individuals.
Well, it's really irrelevant whether you're in the habit of doing so or not. What actually matters is whether the government accuses you of doing so. In which case they can quite happily deny you any of your rights, apparently.
And of course, you can't prove your innocence, because you don't have the right to do so, and you don't deserve justice. Remember, you're in the habit of flying to terror sponsoring nations etc. How do we know? The government said so.
The more cynical amongst us might suggest that the parlimentary representative for California and the other US states is Mr George W Bush. Like many of the more influential people in UK politics, he is unelected and, I understand, has the Prime Minister's ear... ;)
How much do DVD writers and DVD-R blanks cost?
Militia:
Sure?
Looking at it another way, if the commercial is for something I'm simply genetically not going to buy, say any of the vividly advertised female products while I'm male, am I contractually obligated to buy the product?
You're contractually obliged to have gender reassignment surgery, if you bother to check the fine print.