Ah, obviously a druggie talking. You have no problems with dugs flooding our streets for our children to get hooked on and ruin their lives before they start?
Who's the real idiot here buddy?
Let me get this straight... Laws that make narcotics illegal do absolutely NOTHING good? All they do, ALL THEY DO, is make the world a worse place?
You really believe that you genius?
Tell you what... go back to the shower, bend over and take yours, because only someone in jail for running drugs would hold the views you do.
And what you call abuse of power, I call getting scum-sucking bastards that will hurt my children off the streets.
F you. Your an a-hole, plain and simple.
(I just LOVE sinking to this level... It's so damned easy).
If your going to hammer a piece of legislation, especially one as hammerable as this one generally is, can you site better examples please?
I mean, a guy running a meth lab is up for a life sentence, and someone is claiming that's a BAD thing?
Say it with me folks... DON'T RUN A F'ING METH LAB!
Poor, poor drug dealers... They may have to take it up the ass a few more years in the federal pen because they were prosecuted as chemical weapons specialists? BIG F'ING DEAL!
Seriously... there is plenty of legitimate grips to make about the Patriot Act and it's coming addition, but these examples are NOT them. In fact, these are probably examples of where it has done some good.
Lord knows we ain't stoppin' no terrorists with it.
Anyone here that slams MS for spending money on education is an asswipe, plain and simple.
Whether you are talking about a poor inner city or a well-to-do suburban school, a major company like this putting in a good chunk of change to help educate our children is a good thing, and any negative spin you try and put on it does nothing but make you look like a fool.
This country is quickly falling behind when it comes to education (at least that's the way it seems based on all the bad press about scores, teacher strikes, lack of funding, etc.). You want to complain that Microsoft is securing themselves future coders and admins? ESPECIALLY when we're talking about poorer communities, these kids might not even get the chance to USE a computer, and your going to complain about what software is on it? Ridiculous.
This is just a pre-emptive strike, as the subject says. I haven't read through the posts yet and I know there are people complaining about this. Your a dead wrong on this one to those that are.
Your right, to an extent. Even if I click on an infected attachment from Outlook, I still get Norton popping up when I try and execute it.
Assuming a worm or virus can be detected by a virus scanner at all, then simply keeping the def file up to date solves the problem, even if I am a stupid user.
Better that I'm NOT a stupid user in the first place, but even the idiots should be protected.
This is where you get into a philosophical debate about whether it really is a good idea to have auto updates for any software or OS.
These latest worms are good supporting evidence that the auto-upates are a good idea, because patches were available before the exploits were exploited. Those of us that keep up with patches had no trouble in the first place, but those that did would have been saved had updates been automatic.
It's not as clear-cut as that of course, especially where Microsoft is involved, but it's an argument worthy of debate either way you view it.
I think most antivirus scanner do have some form of heuristic scanning (Norton certainly does, I think it's called Bloodhound).
There's always the nasty issue of false-positives with a purely activity-based scanning engine though. Norton does a decent job with this, so the concept seems to have merit.
How long before virus writers smarten up enough to work around such a scan though? Pretty quickly I would bet.
Maybe we should follow things to it's logical conclusion and fully mimic biological workings...
Let's release weakened forms of viruses into the wild so that "antibodies" can be built up against them!
Ummm... not sure how to define a weakened virus... or antibodies in terms of software (antivirus scanners don't really fit the definition because they don't adapt for the most part).
Microsoft got where they are today because until very recently, there really was no viable alternative.
Don't try and say Mac was an option... Until OS X it was always behind technologically.
Don't try and tell me OS/2 because it suffered the same problem Linux still does, which is it's overly complex for most users.
So, the best option didn't float to the top, the ONLY option floated to the top. Not exactly a ringing endorsement I admit, but it does describe reality.
Now, we could get into how they KEEP the dominant position, but that's a whole other post.
There is this common problem with so many people's thought pattern that goes something like this...
Most Windows users are clueless and that's the main reason Windows virii and worms are so prevalent.
Or perhaps something like...
If people that use computers would simply learn just a little bit about their systems, they could avoid most problems.
The problem here, and this is a problem in general that the Linux community, and the open-source community as a whole to some extent, suffer from, is that they have a problem with how easy Microsoft has made computer use (relatively speaking).
Think about how difficult, relatively speaking, it used to be to drive a car. There was a time when automatic transmissions didn't exist. Even before then there were how many different controls that you had to manipulate?
No one complains thar cars have gotten easier to use, and more accessible to the masses. And no one seems to complain that it's now easier to run someone over because you aren't going to stall the car by slipping of the clutch.
Computers are becoming a commodotized appliance largely because of Microsoft. I hate this as much as the next guy, and I can readily admit why: for most of my life working with computers, I've frankly been flat out superior to most of the people around me in my knowledge and expertise. I was special.
That isn't the case any more, and for all but a very select few in the world, isn't true for very many at all.
But, the number of AVERAGE users has risen dramatically. Is this a good thing?
Depends on which day you ask me:)
But it IS a fact, and it's also a fact that the majority of people in the world WANT THAT TREND TO CONTINUE. Part of the cost of that trend is security because security by it's very nature demands a certain level of expertise.
If you pick a fight with an accomplished martial artist, you only stand a chance either (a) having a big gun and using it before you get hammered, or (b) have a similar skillset to combat him with. Same with security. You can't expect mom & pop to have that level of exertise required to do security right.
But, mom & pop want to use a computer. They don't WANT to develop that skillset. THEY ARE THE MAJORITY.
Microsoft realizes this, and they cater to that desire, and they obviously do so more successfully than anyone else does. The Linux community by contrast may know better when it comes to security, among other things, but the majority simply do not care.
So, the minority position continues to fight the good fight, but in the end, as is the case with most minority groups, the will of the majority will win out, whehter the human race is bettered because of it or not is irrelevant. This is a sad observation of our world, but it also happens to be accurate.
What is my point after the rambling, pointless post? Very simple:
The world is the way it is because most people want it to be that way (or are weak and allow it to become that way, the effect is the same so the result hardly matters). Microsoft is a success despite the problems they unleash on the world because most people view the benefits of their products as outweighing the negatives. Simple as that.
The sooner the Linux community comes to that realization and stops trying to convince the world they are right (which they probably are, but that doesn't matter), the sooner they stand a chance. Understand, the progress we've seen Linux make against Windows isn't really important, because in the end, the majority does not WANT Linux to win.
They are happy with the status quo, and that's that.
Sorry to hit you with a realism bomb, but there it is.
The article pretty clearly states that the idea is that the updates will be downloaded and installed automatically, UNLESS THE USER SPECIFICALY REFUSES TO ACCEPT THEM.
So, in typpical Slashdot form, the headline makes it sound much more ominous than it likely will be.
They will simply turn on by default the downloading and installing of patches, WHICH CAN BE DONE ON TODAY'S WINDOWS SYSTEMS. They are just changing the default setting, and I think most of us would say this is a good idea, given all the security problems we see day in and day out that result almost entirely because people don't patch their systems, home users and admins alike!
As long as you can disable the feature, there is no real privacy concern here. Yes, it should be stated clearly what is going on and that you can choose to disable it, but even if it's not, it's not that big a deal.
If they DON'T do this, then they get killed for having a flawed OS. And my grandmother shouldn't have to know about patching her system, right? But if they do this, then they are big brother trying to take over the world.
Show me the position they can take that is good for them AND us. And don't trot out the "they should just build better software" argument. Yes, they should. Now please rejoin the regularly scheduled program called REALITY, because it's not going to happen.
Back to semi-lucidity...
Now, if I *CAN'T* turn this proposed feature off, I'll jump to Linux full-time faster than anyone, believe me. But I don't think this will be the case at all, and the article states that I am right, so let's not overblow this, at least until we KNOW it's a problem.
I actually thought it was the USSR, but I wasn't sure, and I was too lazy to type less than five words into Google.
Geez, *I* don't deserve to exist either in light of that!
Thanks for the correction though. I wouldn't want to short-change any nation in the race to see who can be the more foolish and pop off the bigger bomb.
Actually, we currently have a number of megaton+ weapons in the stockpile.
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/ja98 nu kenote.html
Actually, to be honest, I don't know that they are currently in the inventory, only that they were as of 1998. But, the point is that we did build them that big for purposes other than tests (ok, not the 100 megaton test shots, they were pretty much just a political ploy to scare the Soviets, and them us), but 1.2 megatons should be enough for anyone (to paraphrase Bill Gates)
Any species that looks at a 100-megaton nuclear explosion and thinks "yeah, that's nice, but it's NOT QUIT BIG ENOUGH" probably doesn't deserve to exist.
I love the documentary I watched a few weeks ago on the development of the atomic bomb and the tit-for-tat between the U.S. and Soviet Union for a couple of decades. I was actually laughing. To paraphrase:
"The United States today detonated a 10 kiloton nuclear weapon. The Soviet Union replied by saying 'that's nice, here's a 25 kiliton blast for ya'. Not being deterrred, the U.S. test-fires the first one megaton nuclear weapon. The U.S.S.R., not especially impressed, replied by detonating a 10 megaton weapon. The U.S., thinking it wasn't quite big enough, shot a 25-megaton weapon off. The U.S.S.R. snidly commented that they could do better, and moments later detonated a 50 megaton bomb. The U.S., not to be outdone, popped off the first 100 megaton blast".
And no one looked at one of the first three and said "yeah, that'll do just fine"?!? No, let's keep kicking it up a notch, until we can eliminate an entire continent with one blow.
Look, I'll be the first to say that this argument as put forward by SCO's councel seems pretty damned thin. Anorexic. Thin-sliced deli meat.
They may wind up being right of course, but that's not my point here...
I'm wondering why everyone is posting in a manner that suggests they didn't even understand the argument?
What SCO is claiming is that since the JPL is not a recognized framework under the law, but U.S. copyright law of course is, any contradiction between the two should result in what U.S. copyright law saying winning out.
They then further say that since U.S. copyright law allows for only one backup copy, any provision stating otherwise in the JPL is null and void under U.S. copyright law.
(One presumes they are only claiming this applies in the United States, they're flakier than we all think if they're claiming otherwise).
Those two points, when taken together, is their argument. And contrary to what so many seem to be saying, it is a logical conclusion to draw.
I'm not saying they are right... You have to use some discretion when applying law, that's what judges are ultimately for, and I, like everyone else, suspect that a judge is going to laugh about this.
But, it does make sense on the surface, and I'm surprised so many of you uber-geeks don't seem to see the argument for what it is, which is a massively stretched piece of logic, but a piece of logic none the less.
While I don't doubt that the original is biased towards Windows artificially, the rebuttal did nothing to dissuade me. The arguments forward were nearly always of the "I have experience that differs from the report, therefore the report must be invalid " type.
Please, if you want to refute a claim, do so based on facts that can be proven (especially if the original is based on what might well be quasi-facts or spin). Simply saying the original conclusions were invalid doesn't make it so, even if they actually were.
Am I incorrect in my understanding that in order to run Windows in Wine on Linux, you will need to purchase a Windows license? Piracy aside that is...
If that is true, how exactly is this a good thing and a move in the right direction for the community?
Your still paying for Windows, now you just have another layer between you and the OS to slow things down and maybe make it a little less stable (I haven't used Wine, DON'T take this as a put-down, I have no knowledge of how it does or does not perform).
When I can run it natively without having to purchase the Windows license, give me a call, then it's worth someting. Until then, this is non-news as far as I'm concerned.
(Assuming my basic presumption is correct... if it's not, the rest of the argument is of course invalid).
All of this theoretical stuff is great, but what practical applications does knowing how the universe will begin and end have? What fantastic new products will I be able to purchase because we know the state of the universe to within a quadrillionth of a second after the Big Bang? What disease does knowing the fate of it all cure? It may sound extremely cynical to ask this question, but it's quite obvious to me that a large part of the general public (the majority I would be sold bold as to say) thinks along these lines, not about the intangible benefits that are usually sited as the reason for the continued drive to understand the universe.
That's my question, now my comments...
Let me make clear that I am what you could quite properly term a "science freak". I can't get enough of theoretical mussings. I should also point out that as someone that is woefully poor at high mathematics, I deal with 99.9999% of it on a purely conceptual basis. I think this is relevant because that's the only way most members of the general public CAN deal with topics such as the birth and death of the universe. We simply don't have the mathematical tools to deal with it otherwise.
It always amazes me when people I know AREN'T amazed by some of the discoveries being made today. I'm shocked when they aren't as much in awe of the latest theories as I am. There's a certain degree of "I just don't get it, so it doesn't thrill me" to be sure. More of it I believe however is simply not seeing the bigger picture.
Striving to understand our surrounderings is possibly the single most important defining characteristic of the human race as a whole. It's also of course one of the basic foundations on which the definition of self-awareness is based.
So when I see the majority of the human race, or at best a substantial portion of it, seemingly forget this basic strive to want to understand, it makes me very sad.
I'm proud to say that I am raising my children to be inquisitive and to always want answers to progressively more difficult questions. This is something that the Slashdot community, as a subset of the open-source/hacker community, idealizes. It's also one of the primary reasons I keep coming back here, even if I find myself disagreeing with a large portion of what is posted here. Sparking thought and debate in each other is a gift we shouldn't ever overlook.
I'm already thinking here... At $10.99 a pop, I can think of two things that make it worth something... (1) I can buy a bunch of these and have myself a nice collection of 2 megapixel sensor arrays... (2) I won't mind buying a couple to reverse-engine the interface circuitry.
I'm thinking... I could probably hook myself up with a 100 megapixel camera for around $1,000 or so.
It IS correct to compare C++ with KDE It is NOT correct to compare Qt with Quicktime It IS correct to compare KWin with DOS It is NOT correct to compare Gcc with VC++ It IS correct to compare the Lindberg baby with Monica Lewinsky It is NOT correct to compare Kato Kaelin with a white Ford Bronco It IS correct to compare herpies with Apples (if you are an Orange) It is NOT correct to compare Bill Gates with a philanthropist
I don't think anyone would argue that shadowing really is more than simply eye candy. On the gripping hand, there really are far more important things that effort could be going into.
One of the greatest benefits of open-source, that each person can work on what they want to when they want to, is also one of it's biggest failings: stated another way, it's just an unorganized mess. I have to say, it's amazing that it works as well as it does!
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, obviously a druggie talking. You have no problems with dugs flooding our streets for our children to get hooked on and ruin their lives before they start?
Who's the real idiot here buddy?
Let me get this straight... Laws that make narcotics illegal do absolutely NOTHING good? All they do, ALL THEY DO, is make the world a worse place?
You really believe that you genius?
Tell you what... go back to the shower, bend over and take yours, because only someone in jail for running drugs would hold the views you do.
And what you call abuse of power, I call getting scum-sucking bastards that will hurt my children off the streets.
F you. Your an a-hole, plain and simple.
(I just LOVE sinking to this level... It's so damned easy).
A valid point. And if you want to say that we should monitor these things very closely, you'll find that I agree 110%.
My point was, as you stated it, that's I think this is OK in THIS situation.
I may feel differently in the next, and I'll be on the line fighting with you if the cause is important enough.
That's right buddy. Don't like a thought opposite your own, so just insult the person making the statement.
You want to make a point that starting down a slippery slop is dangerous?
Fine. Do it without oppressing a point of view that you don't agree with. That's AT LEAST as dangerous as what your protesting in the first place.
If your going to hammer a piece of legislation, especially one as hammerable as this one generally is, can you site better examples please?
I mean, a guy running a meth lab is up for a life sentence, and someone is claiming that's a BAD thing?
Say it with me folks... DON'T RUN A F'ING METH LAB!
Poor, poor drug dealers... They may have to take it up the ass a few more years in the federal pen because they were prosecuted as chemical weapons specialists? BIG F'ING DEAL!
Seriously... there is plenty of legitimate grips to make about the Patriot Act and it's coming addition, but these examples are NOT them. In fact, these are probably examples of where it has done some good.
Lord knows we ain't stoppin' no terrorists with it.
Anyone here that slams MS for spending money on education is an asswipe, plain and simple.
Whether you are talking about a poor inner city or a well-to-do suburban school, a major company like this putting in a good chunk of change to help educate our children is a good thing, and any negative spin you try and put on it does nothing but make you look like a fool.
This country is quickly falling behind when it comes to education (at least that's the way it seems based on all the bad press about scores, teacher strikes, lack of funding, etc.). You want to complain that Microsoft is securing themselves future coders and admins? ESPECIALLY when we're talking about poorer communities, these kids might not even get the chance to USE a computer, and your going to complain about what software is on it? Ridiculous.
This is just a pre-emptive strike, as the subject says. I haven't read through the posts yet and I know there are people complaining about this. Your a dead wrong on this one to those that are.
Your right, to an extent. Even if I click on an infected attachment from Outlook, I still get Norton popping up when I try and execute it.
Assuming a worm or virus can be detected by a virus scanner at all, then simply keeping the def file up to date solves the problem, even if I am a stupid user.
Better that I'm NOT a stupid user in the first place, but even the idiots should be protected.
This is where you get into a philosophical debate about whether it really is a good idea to have auto updates for any software or OS.
These latest worms are good supporting evidence that the auto-upates are a good idea, because patches were available before the exploits were exploited. Those of us that keep up with patches had no trouble in the first place, but those that did would have been saved had updates been automatic.
It's not as clear-cut as that of course, especially where Microsoft is involved, but it's an argument worthy of debate either way you view it.
That's only a recipe for disaster for the moose.
Mmmmmmmm... creamed moose.... AHAHGAGAGHAGHGAHAGHAGAH.
Geez, I got modded up pretty well, and here I thought it was a stupid, obvious thought!
Well, I hereby patent, trademark, copyright and otherwise declare no one can ever have this same thought again lest I sue you into the ground.
Ok, on second thought, never mind.
(Who said that anyway?!?)
I think most antivirus scanner do have some form of heuristic scanning (Norton certainly does, I think it's called Bloodhound).
There's always the nasty issue of false-positives with a purely activity-based scanning engine though. Norton does a decent job with this, so the concept seems to have merit.
How long before virus writers smarten up enough to work around such a scan though? Pretty quickly I would bet.
Maybe we should follow things to it's logical conclusion and fully mimic biological workings...
Let's release weakened forms of viruses into the wild so that "antibodies" can be built up against them!
Ummm... not sure how to define a weakened virus... or antibodies in terms of software (antivirus scanners don't really fit the definition because they don't adapt for the most part).
Ok, on second thought, never mind.
Ummm... uhhh... what?!?
Microsoft got where they are today because until very recently, there really was no viable alternative.
Don't try and say Mac was an option... Until OS X it was always behind technologically.
Don't try and tell me OS/2 because it suffered the same problem Linux still does, which is it's overly complex for most users.
So, the best option didn't float to the top, the ONLY option floated to the top. Not exactly a ringing endorsement I admit, but it does describe reality.
Now, we could get into how they KEEP the dominant position, but that's a whole other post.
There is this common problem with so many people's thought pattern that goes something like this...
:)
Most Windows users are clueless and that's the main reason Windows virii and worms are so prevalent.
Or perhaps something like...
If people that use computers would simply learn just a little bit about their systems, they could avoid most problems.
The problem here, and this is a problem in general that the Linux community, and the open-source community as a whole to some extent, suffer from, is that they have a problem with how easy Microsoft has made computer use (relatively speaking).
Think about how difficult, relatively speaking, it used to be to drive a car. There was a time when automatic transmissions didn't exist. Even before then there were how many different controls that you had to manipulate?
No one complains thar cars have gotten easier to use, and more accessible to the masses. And no one seems to complain that it's now easier to run someone over because you aren't going to stall the car by slipping of the clutch.
Computers are becoming a commodotized appliance largely because of Microsoft. I hate this as much as the next guy, and I can readily admit why: for most of my life working with computers, I've frankly been flat out superior to most of the people around me in my knowledge and expertise. I was special.
That isn't the case any more, and for all but a very select few in the world, isn't true for very many at all.
But, the number of AVERAGE users has risen dramatically. Is this a good thing?
Depends on which day you ask me
But it IS a fact, and it's also a fact that the majority of people in the world WANT THAT TREND TO CONTINUE. Part of the cost of that trend is security because security by it's very nature demands a certain level of expertise.
If you pick a fight with an accomplished martial artist, you only stand a chance either (a) having a big gun and using it before you get hammered, or (b) have a similar skillset to combat him with. Same with security. You can't expect mom & pop to have that level of exertise required to do security right.
But, mom & pop want to use a computer. They don't WANT to develop that skillset. THEY ARE THE MAJORITY.
Microsoft realizes this, and they cater to that desire, and they obviously do so more successfully than anyone else does. The Linux community by contrast may know better when it comes to security, among other things, but the majority simply do not care.
So, the minority position continues to fight the good fight, but in the end, as is the case with most minority groups, the will of the majority will win out, whehter the human race is bettered because of it or not is irrelevant. This is a sad observation of our world, but it also happens to be accurate.
What is my point after the rambling, pointless post? Very simple:
The world is the way it is because most people want it to be that way (or are weak and allow it to become that way, the effect is the same so the result hardly matters). Microsoft is a success despite the problems they unleash on the world because most people view the benefits of their products as outweighing the negatives. Simple as that.
The sooner the Linux community comes to that realization and stops trying to convince the world they are right (which they probably are, but that doesn't matter), the sooner they stand a chance. Understand, the progress we've seen Linux make against Windows isn't really important, because in the end, the majority does not WANT Linux to win.
They are happy with the status quo, and that's that.
Sorry to hit you with a realism bomb, but there it is.
The article pretty clearly states that the idea is that the updates will be downloaded and installed automatically, UNLESS THE USER SPECIFICALY REFUSES TO ACCEPT THEM.
So, in typpical Slashdot form, the headline makes it sound much more ominous than it likely will be.
They will simply turn on by default the downloading and installing of patches, WHICH CAN BE DONE ON TODAY'S WINDOWS SYSTEMS. They are just changing the default setting, and I think most of us would say this is a good idea, given all the security problems we see day in and day out that result almost entirely because people don't patch their systems, home users and admins alike!
As long as you can disable the feature, there is no real privacy concern here. Yes, it should be stated clearly what is going on and that you can choose to disable it, but even if it's not, it's not that big a deal.
If they DON'T do this, then they get killed for having a flawed OS. And my grandmother shouldn't have to know about patching her system, right? But if they do this, then they are big brother trying to take over the world.
Show me the position they can take that is good for them AND us. And don't trot out the "they should just build better software" argument. Yes, they should. Now please rejoin the regularly scheduled program called REALITY, because it's not going to happen.
Back to semi-lucidity...
Now, if I *CAN'T* turn this proposed feature off, I'll jump to Linux full-time faster than anyone, believe me. But I don't think this will be the case at all, and the article states that I am right, so let's not overblow this, at least until we KNOW it's a problem.
I actually thought it was the USSR, but I wasn't sure, and I was too lazy to type less than five words into Google.
Geez, *I* don't deserve to exist either in light of that!
Thanks for the correction though. I wouldn't want to short-change any nation in the race to see who can be the more foolish and pop off the bigger bomb.
Actually, we currently have a number of megaton+ weapons in the stockpile.
8 nu kenote.html
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/ja9
Actually, to be honest, I don't know that they are currently in the inventory, only that they were as of 1998. But, the point is that we did build them that big for purposes other than tests (ok, not the 100 megaton test shots, they were pretty much just a political ploy to scare the Soviets, and them us), but 1.2 megatons should be enough for anyone (to paraphrase Bill Gates)
Any species that looks at a 100-megaton nuclear explosion and thinks "yeah, that's nice, but it's NOT QUIT BIG ENOUGH" probably doesn't deserve to exist.
I love the documentary I watched a few weeks ago on the development of the atomic bomb and the tit-for-tat between the U.S. and Soviet Union for a couple of decades. I was actually laughing. To paraphrase:
"The United States today detonated a 10 kiloton nuclear weapon. The Soviet Union replied by saying 'that's nice, here's a 25 kiliton blast for ya'. Not being deterrred, the U.S. test-fires the first one megaton nuclear weapon. The U.S.S.R., not especially impressed, replied by detonating a 10 megaton weapon. The U.S., thinking it wasn't quite big enough, shot a 25-megaton weapon off. The U.S.S.R. snidly commented that they could do better, and moments later detonated a 50 megaton bomb. The U.S., not to be outdone, popped off the first 100 megaton blast".
And no one looked at one of the first three and said "yeah, that'll do just fine"?!? No, let's keep kicking it up a notch, until we can eliminate an entire continent with one blow.
Yeah, WE deserve to exist.
Look, I'll be the first to say that this argument as put forward by SCO's councel seems pretty damned thin. Anorexic. Thin-sliced deli meat.
They may wind up being right of course, but that's not my point here...
I'm wondering why everyone is posting in a manner that suggests they didn't even understand the argument?
What SCO is claiming is that since the JPL is not a recognized framework under the law, but U.S. copyright law of course is, any contradiction between the two should result in what U.S. copyright law saying winning out.
They then further say that since U.S. copyright law allows for only one backup copy, any provision stating otherwise in the JPL is null and void under U.S. copyright law.
(One presumes they are only claiming this applies in the United States, they're flakier than we all think if they're claiming otherwise).
Those two points, when taken together, is their argument. And contrary to what so many seem to be saying, it is a logical conclusion to draw.
I'm not saying they are right... You have to use some discretion when applying law, that's what judges are ultimately for, and I, like everyone else, suspect that a judge is going to laugh about this.
But, it does make sense on the surface, and I'm surprised so many of you uber-geeks don't seem to see the argument for what it is, which is a massively stretched piece of logic, but a piece of logic none the less.
I read the original report. I read the rebuttal.
While I don't doubt that the original is biased towards Windows artificially, the rebuttal did nothing to dissuade me. The arguments forward were nearly always of the "I have experience that differs from the report, therefore the report must be invalid " type.
Please, if you want to refute a claim, do so based on facts that can be proven (especially if the original is based on what might well be quasi-facts or spin). Simply saying the original conclusions were invalid doesn't make it so, even if they actually were.
Ah, ok, fair enough. Please mod me as IGNORE DUE TO CLUELESSNESS then :)
I am suitably impressed with the accomplishment this news item describes now. Kudos.
Am I incorrect in my understanding that in order to run Windows in Wine on Linux, you will need to purchase a Windows license? Piracy aside that is...
If that is true, how exactly is this a good thing and a move in the right direction for the community?
Your still paying for Windows, now you just have another layer between you and the OS to slow things down and maybe make it a little less stable (I haven't used Wine, DON'T take this as a put-down, I have no knowledge of how it does or does not perform).
When I can run it natively without having to purchase the Windows license, give me a call, then it's worth someting. Until then, this is non-news as far as I'm concerned.
(Assuming my basic presumption is correct... if it's not, the rest of the argument is of course invalid).
I'm start with the question, then my comment:
All of this theoretical stuff is great, but what practical applications does knowing how the universe will begin and end have? What fantastic new products will I be able to purchase because we know the state of the universe to within a quadrillionth of a second after the Big Bang? What disease does knowing the fate of it all cure? It may sound extremely cynical to ask this question, but it's quite obvious to me that a large part of the general public (the majority I would be sold bold as to say) thinks along these lines, not about the intangible benefits that are usually sited as the reason for the continued drive to understand the universe.
That's my question, now my comments...
Let me make clear that I am what you could quite properly term a "science freak". I can't get enough of theoretical mussings. I should also point out that as someone that is woefully poor at high mathematics, I deal with 99.9999% of it on a purely conceptual basis. I think this is relevant because that's the only way most members of the general public CAN deal with topics such as the birth and death of the universe. We simply don't have the mathematical tools to deal with it otherwise.
It always amazes me when people I know AREN'T amazed by some of the discoveries being made today. I'm shocked when they aren't as much in awe of the latest theories as I am. There's a certain degree of "I just don't get it, so it doesn't thrill me" to be sure. More of it I believe however is simply not seeing the bigger picture.
Striving to understand our surrounderings is possibly the single most important defining characteristic of the human race as a whole. It's also of course one of the basic foundations on which the definition of self-awareness is based.
So when I see the majority of the human race, or at best a substantial portion of it, seemingly forget this basic strive to want to understand, it makes me very sad.
I'm proud to say that I am raising my children to be inquisitive and to always want answers to progressively more difficult questions. This is something that the Slashdot community, as a subset of the open-source/hacker community, idealizes. It's also one of the primary reasons I keep coming back here, even if I find myself disagreeing with a large portion of what is posted here. Sparking thought and debate in each other is a gift we shouldn't ever overlook.
I'm already thinking here... At $10.99 a pop, I can think of two things that make it worth something... (1) I can buy a bunch of these and have myself a nice collection of 2 megapixel sensor arrays... (2) I won't mind buying a couple to reverse-engine the interface circuitry.
I'm thinking... I could probably hook myself up with a 100 megapixel camera for around $1,000 or so.
Allright asswipes, let's get this straight:
It IS correct to compare C++ with KDE
It is NOT correct to compare Qt with Quicktime
It IS correct to compare KWin with DOS
It is NOT correct to compare Gcc with VC++
It IS correct to compare the Lindberg baby with Monica Lewinsky
It is NOT correct to compare Kato Kaelin with a white Ford Bronco
It IS correct to compare herpies with Apples (if you are an Orange)
It is NOT correct to compare Bill Gates with a philanthropist
Does that clear this mess up for everyone?!?
I don't think anyone would argue that shadowing really is more than simply eye candy. On the gripping hand, there really are far more important things that effort could be going into.
One of the greatest benefits of open-source, that each person can work on what they want to when they want to, is also one of it's biggest failings: stated another way, it's just an unorganized mess. I have to say, it's amazing that it works as well as it does!
Only on Slashdot is someone pointing out the painfully obvious moderated as a troll.
Come on people, it's a valid point. THIS is the biggest concern someone had?