Such a deal clearly makes Novell appear as "the clean Linux" while any other distributors are smeared as "those patents thiefs".
Basically they are abrogating for themselves a role that nobody bestowed into them with the work of the whole community.
I have no idea if the contrived contracts both companies signed allow for this to be done legally (there have been noises from people better informed than myself abot the deal actually contravening the GPL from both sides of this disgraceful agreement) but I am as sure as hell that this "deal" is a slap in the face to all the people contributing to Linux that do not work for Novell and to any Linux users that do not buy Novell's LInux offerings.
They agreed not to sue the pants of each other, but Novell knew there was nothing to be sued for. So actually that would imply they took advantage of MS weak position, and all this using as a tool software that they only distribute and for which they have no moral standing to use in such manner.
We can spin it in many different ways, the one above amuses me the most, the reality is that no matter what, Novell come in no way looking good.
We knew who MS are. We learned who Novell is. Novell will have to work real hard to re-gain any trust they so easily squandered.
What you were told is that you are an ungrateful bastard, good manners demand that at the very least you would treat the man with some respect since you are benefitting from his work.
Nobody demanded that you stop using computers, the other poster suggested that you stop being such an hypocrate by moudbathing the hand that has fed your software needs. That is not totalitarianism, that is common sense and requesting basic good manners.
There is nothing wrong with expressing different ideas and airing them.
But your position is quite stalinist (or chose your dictator here, be free to do so, at least other people respect your right to express yourself).
Stallman is a very important voiced that needs to be heard, if anything he has been consistent and is inmovable principles have allowed software for all to thrive.
This would have been impossible with BSD licensing, where everybody would have run away with the goodies of others and then would have sued any other people trying to use the same source code.
I am not religious and have absolutely no problem to learn about creationism in the correct context where it belongs: that of religious beliefs.
In a biology class creationism should be kicked out immediately, since it is not science.
Each individual should decide what is more important to him, but if you go to a science class you should go in the expectation that things that are not based in demonstrable facts and the scientific method wont interfere with your education.
If parents (idiotic ones) belive that evolution clashes with their beliefs, they can change school, remove the child from the science class or provide more religious education. What is completely unadmissible is that science is compromissed because a few Ayatollahs can't stomach the way science works.
Creationism is very specific about who created what. Hint: it is not talking about humans thinkering with genes in a fish.
The most fundamental idea behind creationism is that all beings were created simultaneously in a puff (if a divinity is involved or not is frankly beyond the point). This is demonstrably false, there is absolutely no observable fact whatsoever supporting this.
Assuming, without conceding, that hydrocarbons and DNA limits the number of ways life evolvs, this still does not invalidate evolution theory. The materials of evolution may be limited (and this who knows, we have observed life in only one planet, and once in a while we are surprised by new discoveries) but the mechanism that uses those materials works and needs no outside intervention of any creature, god or whatever you wnat to call it.
Who is to say the universe is intelligent? Well, define intelligence and tests to check if one is in play. Evolution is full of examples of dumb turns and jumps which show that it is a blind, random process.
Unscientific is going babbling about an "intelligent Universe" without any proof more substantial than wishful thinking or baseless speculation.
If the transmission of knowledge from god to us poor humans is so unreliable, then how religious peeople can use it a source of scientific knowledge?
Sorry, but the more people try to find justification for the complete shambles that creationism is, the most ludicrous it sounds as a credible explanation of how things work.
Look, this is how it works: you put a website and people can link to it. No permission is required to link to your content.
If you don't want your content to be public there are several acknoledged mechanisms for this to happen.
If your content is public, anyone can refer to it by menas of links.
That is how the web was designed. People and companies not prepared to abide by the design rules can go and create their own network. AOL for example. See how popular that was.
All companies have commercial and ethical policies about how they are going to behave in the market place.
We have enough information about MS (emails and memos leaked, legal proceedings, anecdotal and in the public domain like the recent deals with Novell, the inuendo about FOSS violating patents, etc.) that we can form a fair opinion about the kind of company MS aims to be.
We have as much information about Google.
So no, we are not kids babbling Google's press releases. We are people checking the facts and forming our opinions about these and other companies.
In my book it is tumbs up to Google, and despise bordering on hate for MS, but YMMV since you may be an MS shareholder or employee, so it may very well be that you only have beautiful things to say about MS.
I, as a former user and interested party, have little positive to say about the company (wait, they make some very good hardware. It even works with Linux out of the box).
People that are servile to the current Bush administration use liberally the anti USian tag whenever they lose an argument.
If your illiterate President would have listened to the "anti Americans" many innocent lifes would have been spared and terrorism would have not worsened all around the world (the dumbsters Blair and Aznar made targets of their countries for blindly not being anti American. The other friend of the US, Silvio Berlusconni, enacted laws to avoid legal prosecuttion while still in office, those are the friends of the US ).
When Steve Jobs went public on his dislike of DRM his comments were summarily dismissed as anything but the momentous announcement they were.
You are just seeing what you want to see, Apple has received unmitigated criticism for their DRM policies (forced on them by the music industry, as it is pretty apparent now).
It does not scale. May help to explain fishy stink
on
A Million Zunes Sold
·
· Score: 1
That is the beauty of the Internet.
If MS says we sold x million of trinkets, and the geeks of the world say, "Whoa! I have not seen any", although the evidence would be completely anecdotal, it would point to a probable disconnect between reality and the press release.
As some pople have already pointed out, it seems like MS is talking about HD players, shipped, not sold to final users.
They could narrow it a bit more to brown players, manufactured by companies whose name starts with M. I think they have achieved 100% shipped units on that deparment.
Do you know what they say about lies and statistics?
But that does not mean that it necessarily had a technical, artistic or aesthtetic value any worth mentioning.
The use of the English language in the HP books is pedestrian to say the least.
When you read "The Great Gatsby", "Lolita" or "In cold blood" you know you are in the presence of genius. When you read Harry Potter you are grateful for the good entertainment, but frankly would be mad to compare the output of JK Rowling with any masters of literature in the English language who can provide more insight into the human condition in a couple of pages than JK Rowling does in a complete book.
Slashdot Mirror
Such a deal clearly makes Novell appear as "the clean Linux" while any other distributors are smeared as "those patents thiefs".
Basically they are abrogating for themselves a role that nobody bestowed into them with the work of the whole community.
I have no idea if the contrived contracts both companies signed allow for this to be done legally (there have been noises from people better informed than myself abot the deal actually contravening the GPL from both sides of this disgraceful agreement) but I am as sure as hell that this "deal" is a slap in the face to all the people contributing to Linux that do not work for Novell and to any Linux users that do not buy Novell's LInux offerings.
I honestly want to know.
They agreed not to sue the pants of each other, but Novell knew there was nothing to be sued for. So actually that would imply they took advantage of MS weak position, and all this using as a tool software that they only distribute and for which they have no moral standing to use in such manner.
We can spin it in many different ways, the one above amuses me the most, the reality is that no matter what, Novell come in no way looking good.
We knew who MS are. We learned who Novell is. Novell will have to work real hard to re-gain any trust they so easily squandered.
A magistral performance. Honestly, well done.
You took us for the ride. I fell for it initially.
Pat yourself in the back, wonderful performance.
Mods, wakey, wakey.
Or trolling.
Or both.
What you were told is that you are an ungrateful bastard, good manners demand that at the very least you would treat the man with some respect since you are benefitting from his work.
Nobody demanded that you stop using computers, the other poster suggested that you stop being such an hypocrate by moudbathing the hand that has fed your software needs. That is not totalitarianism, that is common sense and requesting basic good manners.
There is nothing wrong with expressing different ideas and airing them.
But your position is quite stalinist (or chose your dictator here, be free to do so, at least other people respect your right to express yourself).
Stallman is a very important voiced that needs to be heard, if anything he has been consistent and is inmovable principles have allowed software for all to thrive.
This would have been impossible with BSD licensing, where everybody would have run away with the goodies of others and then would have sued any other people trying to use the same source code.
Neither of them have control on people.
In many Catholic countries people turn a blind eye to the "teachings of the church" and use contraception and have abortions.
Just in Mexico City there are around 8000 abortions every year, it being a very Catholic country.
In Spain gay marriage was legalized last year, another country not being fazed by Mr Benedict the Pope.
If you are a christian you should be thouroughly ashamed of yourself.
Read the ten commandments please.
Even an atheist like me knows some of them.
I am not religious and have absolutely no problem to learn about creationism in the correct context where it belongs: that of religious beliefs.
In a biology class creationism should be kicked out immediately, since it is not science.
Each individual should decide what is more important to him, but if you go to a science class you should go in the expectation that things that are not based in demonstrable facts and the scientific method wont interfere with your education.
If parents (idiotic ones) belive that evolution clashes with their beliefs, they can change school, remove the child from the science class or provide more religious education. What is completely unadmissible is that science is compromissed because a few Ayatollahs can't stomach the way science works.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.h tml
There are plenty of methods to accurately measue the age of rocks and fossils.
What is your point exactly anyway?
Creationism is very specific about who created what. Hint: it is not talking about humans thinkering with genes in a fish.
The most fundamental idea behind creationism is that all beings were created simultaneously in a puff (if a divinity is involved or not is frankly beyond the point). This is demonstrably false, there is absolutely no observable fact whatsoever supporting this.
Assuming, without conceding, that hydrocarbons and DNA limits the number of ways life evolvs, this still does not invalidate evolution theory. The materials of evolution may be limited (and this who knows, we have observed life in only one planet, and once in a while we are surprised by new discoveries) but the mechanism that uses those materials works and needs no outside intervention of any creature, god or whatever you wnat to call it.
Who is to say the universe is intelligent? Well, define intelligence and tests to check if one is in play. Evolution is full of examples of dumb turns and jumps which show that it is a blind, random process.
Unscientific is going babbling about an "intelligent Universe" without any proof more substantial than wishful thinking or baseless speculation.
If the transmission of knowledge from god to us poor humans is so unreliable, then how religious peeople can use it a source of scientific knowledge?
Sorry, but the more people try to find justification for the complete shambles that creationism is, the most ludicrous it sounds as a credible explanation of how things work.
So we have to accept that words can be redefined to probe whatever we want to probe?
That is nonsense frankly.
If one wants to follow textually what the bible says then one day is one day, you can't both have your cake and eat it.
Look, this is how it works: you put a website and people can link to it. No permission is required to link to your content.
If you don't want your content to be public there are several acknoledged mechanisms for this to happen.
If your content is public, anyone can refer to it by menas of links.
That is how the web was designed. People and companies not prepared to abide by the design rules can go and create their own network. AOL for example. See how popular that was.
Physical media is not searchable and you can't reorganize it, cut bits and pieces and recall them easily later.
As soon as electronic paper becomes cheap to produce a thin device the size of a book will replace the print media in no time.
... is censorship.
....
My oh my.
There are people that truly are learning nought from history
All companies have commercial and ethical policies about how they are going to behave in the market place.
We have enough information about MS (emails and memos leaked, legal proceedings, anecdotal and in the public domain like the recent deals with Novell, the inuendo about FOSS violating patents, etc.) that we can form a fair opinion about the kind of company MS aims to be.
We have as much information about Google.
So no, we are not kids babbling Google's press releases. We are people checking the facts and forming our opinions about these and other companies.
In my book it is tumbs up to Google, and despise bordering on hate for MS, but YMMV since you may be an MS shareholder or employee, so it may very well be that you only have beautiful things to say about MS.
I, as a former user and interested party, have little positive to say about the company (wait, they make some very good hardware. It even works with Linux out of the box).
A proper advertising campaign outside Google may work perfectly fine.
Google is very important, but it is not the end of it all when it comes to the Internet.
People that are servile to the current Bush administration use liberally the anti USian tag whenever they lose an argument.
If your illiterate President would have listened to the "anti Americans" many innocent lifes would have been spared and terrorism would have not worsened all around the world (the dumbsters Blair and Aznar made targets of their countries for blindly not being anti American. The other friend of the US, Silvio Berlusconni, enacted laws to avoid legal prosecuttion while still in office, those are the friends of the US ).
When Steve Jobs went public on his dislike of DRM his comments were summarily dismissed as anything but the momentous announcement they were.
You are just seeing what you want to see, Apple has received unmitigated criticism for their DRM policies (forced on them by the music industry, as it is pretty apparent now).
That is the beauty of the Internet.
If MS says we sold x million of trinkets, and the geeks of the world say, "Whoa! I have not seen any", although the evidence would be completely anecdotal, it would point to a probable disconnect between reality and the press release.
As some pople have already pointed out, it seems like MS is talking about HD players, shipped, not sold to final users.
They could narrow it a bit more to brown players, manufactured by companies whose name starts with M. I think they have achieved 100% shipped units on that deparment.
Do you know what they say about lies and statistics?
That would be perhaps the only instance in which *you* downloading to a *Cooperative* owned server would be considered the same.
Where is all logical thinking gone?
THis is so contrived that is completely useless.
You have to define more riguroulsy what is a "good literary work" and a "good book".
As long as you only refer to your own taste, any explanation you give is completely useless.
But that does not mean that it necessarily had a technical, artistic or aesthtetic value any worth mentioning.
The use of the English language in the HP books is pedestrian to say the least.
When you read "The Great Gatsby", "Lolita" or "In cold blood" you know you are in the presence of genius. When you read Harry Potter you are grateful for the good entertainment, but frankly would be mad to compare the output of JK Rowling with any masters of literature in the English language who can provide more insight into the human condition in a couple of pages than JK Rowling does in a complete book.