You are not being a Debian zealot. You are being an apt zealot. And you are quite right. Thats exactly why they have gone to such pains to port (successfuly, I might add) apt for rpm.
Well, looks like the cat is out of the bag already. I can't confirm much of this, but it WILL be named UBL. About who will make the distro, or about IBM leading this, I have no idea. And I too agree that UBL is a very unfortunate choice of a name. But, hey, we have to stick to tree letters, don't we ?
I think you are wrong. First, with companies like Intel and ABN AMRO Bank behind this, you can be very sure there is money involved. Someone mentioned on another forum that looks like Intel has money on all these companies. Can anyone confirm (or deny) that ?
We don't need any standarization of GNU/Linux ? Why ? Because the only GNU/Linux distribution is Debian. RH, Caldera, SuSE, MDK, Conectiva etc are not GNU/Linux distributions. They are just plain Linux distributions.
This is starting to get funny. I'll do like Scott Adams, and create some statistics of my own.
According to a recent study from some very important scientists (which are important, but not enough to make me remember their names), 80% of all statitics are faked (including this one).
Also, on that same study, the number for the opening of these movies are slightly different. SpiderMan opened on exactly 13 theaters, on the same time, at a given sample time point. A different number shows up for AOTC. It opened on exactly 5 theaters, on a single, but different, time point.
Anyone cares to provide with any other statisticaly irrelevant data ?
They probably are, as well as many others (Terra, for once, is working on something like this).
You know what ? Why should I care ?
People that use MS Passport are basicaly all Windows/IE users. Their data is already avaliable to Microsoft. Hotmail ? Sure, Microsoft will never look into your data, or change
your preferences so it can send your information to everybody and dog.
You see, even before using Passport, the "potention" Passport user already trust MS with their data.
I'm not a Windows user. Also, obviously, I don't use IEand Passport. Do I miss it ? Am I giving up
access to anything for not using it ? Surely not
I don't think Passport should be regulated. I think it should be outlawed. It's a stupid thing. Why should I need something like this ? So I don't have to enter my data to every other site ? There are lots of programs that do that automaticaly. So I have an unified login/password ? Bad idea. I use a different password for every site. How do I remember them all ? If you have to do it, you will, like myself, came up with some password creation logic, where you don't have to remember all the passwords.
All in all, Passport-like systems are a bad idea. I don't give all my data to any company. I changed supermarkets couse they started asking my telefone number when I was paying with my debit card. Why should I trust MS with any of my data ?
Also, it's valid to remember I live in a country (Brazil) where there are no privacy related regulations, and where Microsoft pretty much has a hand on the government's pocket (and, I dare say, several government members have a hand on Microsoft's pocket).
Well, Mozilla has been doing it for some time now. Not that this is a big surprise. Guess where most of NS7 code comes from ? Galeon (which I use) also has tab browsing.
Hiya Eliphas. LTNS. Let me just add something to your post...
Conectiva will not only be selling Caldera products in Brazil. It will be taking over the whole Caldera operation on Latin America, including consulting and support works. I was not mentioned on the PR, but I think it also include SCO and friends.
At least in Brazil (yeah, we have Easyband here, marketed by Embratel), the reports I received is that it works with Linux, but not very well, once it seems to depend on some kind of software that runs only on Windows.
The exactly value varies, but seems it's somewhat 40-60% slower on Linux.
That is interesting once, for some time now, it's known that, contrary to popular belief, fingerprints are not unique. If I can use an analogy, the same applies for network card MAC addresses. Btw, the chances of finding similar fingerprints are greater then MAC addresses. Now, I wonder why people continue to use non unique data as identification methods. It really scaries me, then I think about the kind of trouble one get get into on these issues.
One thing just poped in my mind. If they do the audit, and find nothing wrong, they say they will pay for the audit. Fair and square. But what about all the time and effort your organization put on it ? What about lost of profit becouse of the downtime ? Would it be possible to sue BSA for it ? It would make them think twice before doing this kind of audit.
I can't. I just use Privoxy (next generation of JunkBuster).
Hey, that really looks like an ad. And since Privoxy filters slashdot ads, will Slashdot filter privoxy's ads ?
Anyway, I started using JunkBuster right after the subscription system was introduced. I later moved to privoxy (which was named ijb-swa at the time), once JunkBuster did not met my standards. Now, I have less ads then before the subscription system. Isn't that interesting ?
As I said, either you are for reduced greenhouse gases or not.
I am. The USA are too, as long as it doesn't cost them a penny.
I distinctly recall where Environmental Groups from the US are buying up Amazon Rain Forest to protect them. I could probably find a reference, if you are interested
Trying to buy. Brazil never sold an inch. And it's not only these so called Environmental Groups (of which about 70% are nothing more then ecoterrorists, although I have to agree some very few are serious). Several other parties have tried to buy parts of the forest.
Are we pressuring you into not cutting them down? Is that the problem?
Not exactly. The point is that the USA are trying to boss over it, telling it's a world natural resource. Well, so is oil. Would you be happy is Brazil started to boss over USA about what to do with its oil resources ?
And Brazil is wrong to let the forest go, the way it is. But USA has no right to tell us HOW (and that is the point I'm bitching about) we have to act. If USA wants to help, welcome. But not bossing aroung the way it is now.
We were talking about production of greenhouse gases
Sure. Just remember CO2 is not the only green house gas, or factor, for that matter.
if you were changing the subject
I'm not.
Perhaps a chemist or other knowledgeable person could clear this up
Kyoto has more to do with transfer of economic power from the US to other countries than it does with reducing greenhouse gases. This treaty is a sham designed to hurt the US
A sham to hust US ? You can't be serious. And of course it would hurts the USA. US would have to spend money to decrease poluting gasses production. Know what else ? All others would too.
If you don't like losing them, stop selling them to us.
Again, you must be kidding. Brazil never sold one inch of the rain forest to USA, or any other country, for that matter.
And USA is trying to dictate what Brazil can do and can't do with the rain forest that is on its own territory.
stop blaming the US on all the ills of the world
I'm blamming the US on all the ills of the US, not all the ills of the world. Please, reread my post.
We may have increased our consumption our trees from Brazil,
Where did I say anything agains it ? If the Brazil is selling trees, what is wrong with USA buying it ? If there is something wrong with it, it's with Brazil seeing, not USA buying. But that has nothin to do with what I was saying.
I'm no chemist, but I think you'll find that alcohol produces very similar CO2 output to Gasoline for the same energy produced. Alcohol doesn't produce the Sulphur, CO1 and other nasty pollution that Gasoline produces, but similar CO2, I believe.
Read what I said: we managed to reduce the polution created by cars in about 20%
Not: we managed to reduce the CO2 emission.
And again, it does produce less CO2. Not that much less, but some.
Although I think others besides Cyprus and Romania did ratify it, I agree that it's not an US only issue, and that there are lots of EU countries that are not doing all they could, but at least from an external viewpoint (not USA, not EU), they are doing much more then USA (with a couple of notable exceptions).
Well, isn't that tipical. Hey, let USA produce CO2 and all other green house gasses, and let the rest of the world take care of it. Sorry, I don't mean to attack you personaly, but this is something really anoying. Why has the USA refused (AFAIK, the only one to refuse) to sign that protocol/treat that would stablish rules about CO2 production (and other atmospheric emissions) ? The USA is currently the country that polutes our atmosphere the most, while also trying to boss all other countries what they can do with their forests. I live in Brazil, so I know every well how much USA is bossing about the Amazon Forest. Then I ask, where are YOUR forests ? Oh, did you cut all the trees ? Thought. Now, take care of your all problem. If you really want to have a part of the Amazon forest, what compensations do you of offer ? And that is not only the USA. It's a thing we see all contries doing. Brazil does it too with other countries (not about forest, but about other issues). It's the same old story about dumping ones junk on the neighbour's year. If each country would be primarily concerned about it's own junk, we would solve most of the problem. This CO2 extractor follows the same principle. It tries to circunvect the problem, not solve it. How long before the production of CO2 is greater then these extractors can handle ? Brazil is a small fish of a country, but we managed to reduce the polution created by cars in about 20%, using alchool based fuels, and another few percent points by mixing some of this alchool on out gas. As far as I know, it's the only country where the usage of alchool fuel for cars really worked (not like ethanol in USA, where it's only in some isolated places). Yes, removing some of the CO2 from the atmosphere is good, but we don't work on reducing the amount of polution produced, we are only delaying the inevitable.
I have already seen some of his stories (some chapters of one of his books, which I guess is the first) on TV. It was on the USA Network (Brazil). USA Network is SciFi Channel, as far as I gathered, or buy a lot of stuff from it. But if it is to became a movie, with good f/x, this is really something to look forward to.
Same is true for Brazil. They are everywhere. Street signs, newspapers, e-mail SPAM etc Looks like this is a worldwide problem. Looks like the article (I only managed to read the first page) draws the conclusing that it's only 1 company. It would be interesting to find out if it's this same one company that is doing it worldwide.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not being a Debian zealot. You are being an apt zealot. And you are quite right.
Thats exactly why they have gone to such pains to port (successfuly, I might add) apt for rpm.
Well, looks like the cat is out of the bag already.
I can't confirm much of this, but it WILL be named UBL.
About who will make the distro, or about IBM leading this, I have no idea.
And I too agree that UBL is a very unfortunate choice of a name. But, hey, we have to stick to tree letters, don't we ?
I think you are wrong.
First, with companies like Intel and ABN AMRO Bank behind this, you can be very sure there is money involved.
Someone mentioned on another forum that looks like Intel has money on all these companies. Can anyone confirm (or deny) that ?
Okey, time to burn some karma.
We don't need any standarization of GNU/Linux ? Why ? Because the only GNU/Linux distribution is Debian.
RH, Caldera, SuSE, MDK, Conectiva etc are not GNU/Linux distributions. They are just plain Linux distributions.
I would have to agree with you on that one.
Can you say "massive layoffs" ? I'm sure you can.
(I think I read somewhere that he was demanding THX-certified sound systems) I don't know about AOTC, but that certaly was the case for Episode 1.
This is starting to get funny. I'll do like Scott Adams, and create some statistics of my own.
According to a recent study from some very important scientists (which are important, but not enough to make me remember their names), 80% of all statitics are faked (including this one).
Also, on that same study, the number for the opening of these movies are slightly different. SpiderMan opened on exactly 13 theaters, on the same time, at a given sample time point. A different number shows up for AOTC. It opened on exactly 5 theaters, on a single, but different, time point.
Anyone cares to provide with any other statisticaly irrelevant data ?
:-)
They probably are, as well as many others (Terra, for once, is working on something like this).
You know what ? Why should I care ?
People that use MS Passport are basicaly all Windows/IE users. Their data is already avaliable to Microsoft. Hotmail ? Sure, Microsoft will never look into your data, or change your preferences so it can send your information to everybody and dog.
You see, even before using Passport, the "potention" Passport user already trust MS with their data.
I'm not a Windows user. Also, obviously, I don't use IEand Passport. Do I miss it ? Am I giving up access to anything for not using it ? Surely not
I don't think Passport should be regulated. I think it should be outlawed. It's a stupid thing. Why should I need something like this ? So I don't have to enter my data to every other site ? There are lots of programs that do that automaticaly. So I have an unified login/password ? Bad idea. I use a different password for every site. How do I remember them all ? If you have to do it, you will, like myself, came up with some password creation logic, where you don't have to remember all the passwords.
All in all, Passport-like systems are a bad idea. I don't give all my data to any company. I changed supermarkets couse they started asking my telefone number when I was paying with my debit card. Why should I trust MS with any of my data ?
Also, it's valid to remember I live in a country (Brazil) where there are no privacy related regulations, and where Microsoft pretty much has a hand on the government's pocket (and, I dare say, several government members have a hand on Microsoft's pocket).
Well, Mozilla has been doing it for some time now. Not that this is a big surprise. Guess where most of NS7 code comes from ?
Galeon (which I use) also has tab browsing.
Your analogy is incorrect.
If it was true, then DeCSS is also not a circunvection device. Your computer processor is. Or your DVD-Drive.
Hiya Eliphas. LTNS. Let me just add something to your post...
Conectiva will not only be selling Caldera products in Brazil. It will be taking over the whole Caldera operation on Latin America, including consulting and support works. I was not mentioned on the PR, but I think it also include SCO and friends.
At least in Brazil (yeah, we have Easyband here, marketed by Embratel), the reports I received is that it works with Linux, but not very well, once it seems to depend on some kind of software that runs only on Windows.
The exactly value varies, but seems it's somewhat 40-60% slower on Linux.
If you need to run Lotus Notes, try CrossOver Office, from CodeWeavers. It seens to run Lotus Notes quite nicely.
That is interesting once, for some time now, it's known that, contrary to popular belief, fingerprints are not unique. If I can use an analogy, the same applies for network card MAC addresses. Btw, the chances of finding similar fingerprints are greater then MAC addresses.
Now, I wonder why people continue to use non unique data as identification methods. It really scaries me, then I think about the kind of trouble one get get into on these issues.
One thing just poped in my mind.
If they do the audit, and find nothing wrong, they say they will pay for the audit. Fair and square. But what about all the time and effort your organization put on it ? What about lost of profit becouse of the downtime ? Would it be possible to sue BSA for it ? It would make them think twice before doing this kind of audit.
I can live with ads popping in slashdot.
I can't. I just use Privoxy (next generation of JunkBuster).
Hey, that really looks like an ad. And since Privoxy filters slashdot ads, will Slashdot filter privoxy's ads ?
Anyway, I started using JunkBuster right after the subscription system was introduced. I later moved to privoxy (which was named ijb-swa at the time), once JunkBuster did not met my standards. Now, I have less ads then before the subscription system. Isn't that interesting ?
I beg your pardon. 1990 ? Everybody is using it since the industrial revolution, or maybe even before that.
I am. The USA are too, as long as it doesn't cost them a penny.
Trying to buy. Brazil never sold an inch. And it's not only these so called Environmental Groups (of which about 70% are nothing more then ecoterrorists, although I have to agree some very few are serious). Several other parties have tried to buy parts of the forest.
Not exactly. The point is that the USA are trying to boss over it, telling it's a world natural resource. Well, so is oil. Would you be happy is Brazil started to boss over USA about what to do with its oil resources ?
And Brazil is wrong to let the forest go, the way it is. But USA has no right to tell us HOW (and that is the point I'm bitching about) we have to act. If USA wants to help, welcome. But not bossing aroung the way it is now.
Sure. Just remember CO2 is not the only green house gas, or factor, for that matter.
I'm not.
I could not agree more. Someone ?
I don't know, but I would be happy to receive them :-)
- Kyoto has more to do with transfer of economic power from the US to other countries than it does with reducing greenhouse gases.
A sham to hust US ? You can't be serious. And of course it would hurts the USA. US would have to spend money to decrease poluting gasses production. Know what else ? All others would too.This treaty is a sham designed to hurt the US
- If you don't like losing them, stop selling them to us.
Again, you must be kidding. Brazil never sold one inch of the rain forest to USA, or any other country, for that matter.And USA is trying to dictate what Brazil can do and can't do with the rain forest that is on its own territory.
- stop blaming the US on all the ills of the world
I'm blamming the US on all the ills of the US, not all the ills of the world. Please, reread my post.- We may have increased our consumption our trees from Brazil,
Where did I say anything agains it ? If the Brazil is selling trees, what is wrong with USA buying it ? If there is something wrong with it, it's with Brazil seeing, not USA buying. But that has nothin to do with what I was saying.- I'm no chemist, but I think you'll find that alcohol produces very similar CO2 output to Gasoline for the same energy produced. Alcohol doesn't produce the Sulphur, CO1 and other nasty pollution that Gasoline produces, but similar CO2, I believe.
Read what I said:we managed to reduce the polution created by cars in about 20%
Not: we managed to reduce the CO2 emission.
And again, it does produce less CO2. Not that much less, but some.
Although I think others besides Cyprus and Romania did ratify it, I agree that it's not an US only issue, and that there are lots of EU countries that are not doing all they could, but at least from an external viewpoint (not USA, not EU), they are doing much more then USA (with a couple of notable exceptions).
Well, isn't that tipical. Hey, let USA produce CO2 and all other green house gasses, and let the rest of the world take care of it.
Sorry, I don't mean to attack you personaly, but this is something really anoying. Why has the USA refused (AFAIK, the only one to refuse) to sign that protocol/treat that would stablish rules about CO2 production (and other atmospheric emissions) ?
The USA is currently the country that polutes our atmosphere the most, while also trying to boss all other countries what they can do with their forests. I live in Brazil, so I know every well how much USA is bossing about the Amazon Forest. Then I ask, where are YOUR forests ? Oh, did you cut all the trees ? Thought. Now, take care of your all problem.
If you really want to have a part of the Amazon forest, what compensations do you of offer ?
And that is not only the USA. It's a thing we see all contries doing. Brazil does it too with other countries (not about forest, but about other issues). It's the same old story about dumping ones junk on the neighbour's year. If each country would be primarily concerned about it's own junk, we would solve most of the problem.
This CO2 extractor follows the same principle. It tries to circunvect the problem, not solve it. How long before the production of CO2 is greater then these extractors can handle ?
Brazil is a small fish of a country, but we managed to reduce the polution created by cars in about 20%, using alchool based fuels, and another few percent points by mixing some of this alchool on out gas. As far as I know, it's the only country where the usage of alchool fuel for cars really worked (not like ethanol in USA, where it's only in some isolated places).
Yes, removing some of the CO2 from the atmosphere is good, but we don't work on reducing the amount of polution produced, we are only delaying the inevitable.
I have already seen some of his stories (some chapters of one of his books, which I guess is the first) on TV. It was on the USA Network (Brazil).
USA Network is SciFi Channel, as far as I gathered, or buy a lot of stuff from it.
But if it is to became a movie, with good f/x, this is really something to look forward to.
Same is true for Brazil. They are everywhere. Street signs, newspapers, e-mail SPAM etc
Looks like this is a worldwide problem.
Looks like the article (I only managed to read the first page) draws the conclusing that it's only 1 company. It would be interesting to find out if it's this same one company that is doing it worldwide.
Just check if their e-mail address is at @aol.com. Would answer that question quickier.
</flamebait>