Microsoft thinks to itself ~if we change it these ways, and don't point out what we changed, lots of people won't notice they're writing "Java" that runs only on our systems~ (this is documented in the antitrust findings of fact)
Sun takes umbrage at M$ breaking their contract and trying to hijack their product. Sun takes M$ to court, and wins.
M$ then blames Sun for the fallout, and whines
The Microsoft virtual machine has a long history of outperforming [unspecified] other
virtual machines and offers the best real world compatibility of any virtual
machine. It is also the only virtual machine that offers an integrated
applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer
-- I especially love the "real world compatibility" part: compatibility, that is, with Microsoft's trojans, designed to get their corrupted "Java" in.
Lord, how I pity the honest people who work there.
Naww, c'mon. We all recognize this sequence, right? The hard work's done, the product does what it was built to do, the people who built it have moved on or nodded off, and who's left running the show?
the preamble you quote has been held not to be legally meaningful
But, unfortunately for your argument, the relevant bits of that preamble reappear in the first-named power of Congress. You asked where they got the authority, and mentioned the Constitution. That's where they got the authority.
If you'd read and think before posturing and preaching, you'd notice that I anticipated the new questions you raised, and addressed those, too.
But you won't notice. You're having too much fun trumpeting your parrotted authoritarian dogma to notice where it's leading you.
<shrug> oh well. Nobody can do your seeing for you. Maybe you'll learn that one in time.
Why, and by what legal and constitutional authority does the Federal government of the United States derive its interest [in] education?
I share much of your apparent desire for more local power, and find what the state and federal governments are doing to education often appalling, and in some cases outrageous.
I object because I believe what they're doing will produce the appalling and outrageous combination of ignorance, illogic and stridency you've been displaying, which was, so you say, fortunately not produced with government funds.
Here's a clue-by-four: the answer to your question is somewhere in this list:
in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
whose source you might be able to discover by asking one of those expensive teachers whose services, as you so proudly point out, your parents bought for you.
The minimum terms of such license shall grant the University the right to use the original work in its internally administered programs of teaching, research, and public service on a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis.
So, does the GPL meet those minimums? Plainly yes: it's perpetual, royalty-free and non-exclusive, even if you distribute. If there are other requirements on the license, the answer might change, but this looks straightforward to my NAL eyes.
Enough to do it yourself? All the necessary data are online. You could probably construct it, publish it and maintain it without ever leaving your seat.
Don't be fooled:
NO corporation pays taxes, only CONSUMERS.
Don't be fooled: NO consumer pays taxes, only CORPORATIONS.
Either's as accurate as the other. I'm sceptical of anti-profits sentiment too, but I have to ask who fed you that line, and how hard you thought about it before tossing out accusations of
blindly following a group of jerks with their own hidden agenda.
Now... Studies have shown, and I personally have seen effects of those studies, that a large portion of people who recreated with `weed' often graduated on to harder drugs.
The question you have to ask yourself is: is it the pot that got them to try the harder drugs, or the lie?
Because "pot kills" is a lie. Does it surprise anyone that kids who are told their parents lied about pot, and find that accusation true, are absolute suckers for the false accusation?
FP has never been the mainframe's forte. This may be changing with the addition of binary FP support in the new boxes -- I haven't seen them -- but what mainframes are built for is throughput on multitasking commercial workloads. Memory bandwidth is just the start of it.
When the central authority
determines that a source application is out of funds, it reports the
source application's bankruptcy to all bundle agents; from that time
on, all service requests and packets received from that source
application are rejected.
violates so many different principles it's hard to know where to start.
Mmm. Have you noticed what micro-slush-for-brains is doing for media tools these days? Can you say UCITA? Have you ever heard of it?
In case you haven't, "every cynical prediction you ever heard is coming true" is a fair summary.
Plenty of questions remain about Microsoft and its practices. Did the company ruthlessly, or illegally, discourage competition? Did Microsoft make it too difficult or in some cases, impossible, for consumers to remove IE from their desktops? Did Microsoft unfairly -- or, more to the point, illegally --wipe out or damage potential competitors? But there are civil, criminal and other remedies for this behavior, if it occurred, short of chopping up the company.
No, those questions have been settled, legally. The judge found that in fact Microsoft's practices constitute an "obsessive" and "malevolent" use of "monopoly" power.
That a judge could be vocally angry and even judgemental after being treated to the kind of sneering contempt ladled out by a seemingly endless list of Microsoft executives, techies and lawyers has apparently shocked -- shocked! -- a lot of people.
Read the findings. Ask yourself what Microsoft was trying to achieve by treating a Federal judge that way, and whether we're seeing the results of their success. How rude of him, after all. Just think how many rice bowls he might upset. Consider the consequences for me^W^W.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft thinks to itself ~if we change it these ways, and don't point out what we changed, lots of people won't notice they're writing "Java" that runs only on our systems~ (this is documented in the antitrust findings of fact)
Sun takes umbrage at M$ breaking their contract and trying to hijack their product. Sun takes M$ to court, and wins.
M$ then blames Sun for the fallout, and whines
-- I especially love the "real world compatibility" part: compatibility, that is, with Microsoft's trojans, designed to get their corrupted "Java" in.Lord, how I pity the honest people who work there.
Naww, c'mon. We all recognize this sequence, right? The hard work's done, the product does what it was built to do, the people who built it have moved on or nodded off, and who's left running the show?
If you'd read and think before posturing and preaching, you'd notice that I anticipated the new questions you raised, and addressed those, too.
But you won't notice. You're having too much fun trumpeting your parrotted authoritarian dogma to notice where it's leading you.
<shrug> oh well. Nobody can do your seeing for you. Maybe you'll learn that one in time.
I share much of your apparent desire for more local power, and find what the state and federal governments are doing to education often appalling, and in some cases outrageous.
I object because I believe what they're doing will produce the appalling and outrageous combination of ignorance, illogic and stridency you've been displaying, which was, so you say, fortunately not produced with government funds.
Here's a clue-by-four: the answer to your question is somewhere in this list:
whose source you might be able to discover by asking one of those expensive teachers whose services, as you so proudly point out, your parents bought for you.How much would you like to see it?
Enough to do it yourself? All the necessary data are online. You could probably construct it, publish it and maintain it without ever leaving your seat.
How long do you think it would take to get a warrant for that?
Look at the arguments:
Why stop thinking about consequences?
Jim
Don't be fooled: NO consumer pays taxes, only CORPORATIONS.
Either's as accurate as the other. I'm sceptical of anti-profits sentiment too, but I have to ask who fed you that line, and how hard you thought about it before tossing out accusations of
The question you have to ask yourself is: is it the pot that got them to try the harder drugs, or the lie?
Because "pot kills" is a lie. Does it surprise anyone that kids who are told their parents lied about pot, and find that accusation true, are absolute suckers for the false accusation?
FP has never been the mainframe's forte. This may be changing with the addition of binary FP support in the new boxes -- I haven't seen them -- but what mainframes are built for is throughput on multitasking commercial workloads. Memory bandwidth is just the start of it.
This notion:
violates so many different principles it's hard to know where to start.Denial of service is a last resort.
Mmm. Have you noticed what micro-slush-for-brains is doing for media tools these days? Can you say UCITA? Have you ever heard of it? In case you haven't, "every cynical prediction you ever heard is coming true" is a fair summary.
No, those questions have been settled, legally. The judge found that in fact Microsoft's practices constitute an "obsessive" and "malevolent" use of "monopoly" power.
That a judge could be vocally angry and even judgemental after being treated to the kind of sneering contempt ladled out by a seemingly endless list of Microsoft executives, techies and lawyers has apparently shocked -- shocked! -- a lot of people.
Read the findings. Ask yourself what Microsoft was trying to achieve by treating a Federal judge that way, and whether we're seeing the results of their success. How rude of him, after all. Just think how many rice bowls he might upset. Consider the consequences for me^W^W.
That's what I'm asking, myself.