I have to agree. The 1st and 3rd books were great. The other two were okay. Most of the 4th book turns out to be completely rigged at the end -- a bit of letdown, I'd say.
Do you have any idea how many games of chess are possible? It's something on the order of 10**18, or even greater (I don't have the number handy). Divide that by the total number of computers on the planet and you still have an impossibly big number. Sorry.
But OS/2 Warp came out at the end of 1994 and there was (supposedly) a big showdown between it an Windows 95 at that time. The main reason Windows 95 won (easily) is because it supported Windows 3.1 16-bit apps much better. Plus, let's face it, Windows 95 was one of the first non-crap products that MS ever produced.
I suspect you don't have any young children. Parents and children have better uses for their time together than this.
Reviewing your own surfing with your child is a bad idea. Is a young child going to understand what you're doing on Slashdot, or what makes The Onion funny? No.
Also, it's not obvious what a child has been viewing just by looking at the URL in a log file. Checking out every URL this way would be very time consuming.
Huh? Can you please explain what neodarwinism and fascism have to do with each other? I thought I understood these terms, but I'm not sure what they're doing modifying the same noun. Thanks.
Much has been made of the manner is which the GPL "infects" derivative works. My question is: What constitutes a derivative work?
For example, consider the following scenarios:
I create a web application that runs under Apache on Linux.
I use GCC (the GNU C compiler) to write and compile a standalone command-line program.
I use GCC to write and compile a program that runs under KDE.
I use GCC to write a program that is dynamically linked to a GPL'ed library.
I use GCC to write a program that is statically linked to a GPL'ed library.
I modify the source code of a GLP'ed library.
If I wish to distribute the software I created in these scenarios, in which cases must I use the GPL? Obviously, I must GPL in the last case and I need not GPL in the first case. What about the other cases?
But if there was no intellectual property (IP) law, the GPL would not be *needed*. All code would be free for everyone to use.
Oh, come on. Without IP law, source code would only be free if you could obtain it via legitimate means (e.g. without illegally breaking into a server to steal it).
you could still... reverse engineer it
IANAL, but IP law does not prevent reverse engineering (in America, anyway). It does happen, but as a practical matter, it's very difficult to do.
Okay, let's say there are 8,000,000 people in North Carolina. And let's say you have a 3,000,000,000,000 byte database. That amounts to 375KB worth of data for every man, woman, and child in the state.
What exactly do you keep in this database? Compromising pictures of every citizen?
You are continuing to redefine the language to suit your purposes. The defintion of take is "to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control". Nothing in the definition "suggests deprivity".
By the way, "deprivity" isn't even a word, but I'm sure you'll soon be telling me that people are using it the wrong way.
Um, okay... but that's what the words mean, for crying out loud! If you don't believe me, here's the Merriam-Webster entry for steal:
intransitive sense 1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
transitive sense 1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b : to take away by force or unjust means <they've stolen our liberty> c : to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss>
Nothing in this definition distinguishes between moving and copying as you do. Now here's the defintion of theft:
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
In this case, meaning 1a agrees with you, but 1b (arguably) does not.
On the whole, I'd say that your desire to redefine the English language in order to suit your personal political preference is nearly Orwellian.
If you really object to steal and theft so much, I ask you to suggest an alternative. Can you think of a common English word that means "taking something that isn't yours, but not stealing it"?
Sorry, but I think you're wrong. People use the words "steal" and "theft" to mean "taking something that isn't yours". It doesn't matter whether you're copying or moving it.
The DoE and their ilk are a plague on the education of our children.
Okay, Mr. Dogma. What "ilk" is that exactly? Does it include people like President Bush, who intends to increase funding to the DoE in his upcoming budget?
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree. The 1st and 3rd books were great. The other two were okay. Most of the 4th book turns out to be completely rigged at the end -- a bit of letdown, I'd say.
-- Brian
Good point. You're right.
-- Brian
Somebody mod this puppy up. W2K is not installed default on W2K Pro.
-- Brian
This is false. IIS does not run as root by default. It runs using its own IUSR_machinename account, which has limited local privileges.
MS software is crappy enough without you exaggerating its problems.
-- Brian
Great idea. I've been trying to find a friendly way to notify these suckers. Net Send does the trick perfectly. Thanks.
-- Brian
What "echo Y" trick? I think I know what you're trying to do, but I'd like to know how to do it. (For theoretical purposes, of course.)
-- Brian
Do you have any idea how many games of chess are possible? It's something on the order of 10**18, or even greater (I don't have the number handy). Divide that by the total number of computers on the planet and you still have an impossibly big number. Sorry.
-- Brian
You just had to go and make sense, didn't you? Party pooper.
-- Brian
But OS/2 Warp came out at the end of 1994 and there was (supposedly) a big showdown between it an Windows 95 at that time. The main reason Windows 95 won (easily) is because it supported Windows 3.1 16-bit apps much better. Plus, let's face it, Windows 95 was one of the first non-crap products that MS ever produced.
-- Brian
Eh, you're probably right.
I'm also DEFINITELY able to spell, which really makes me an outcast around here.
-- Brian
Because "geek humor" in general isn't funny.
-- Brian
I suspect you don't have any young children. Parents and children have better uses for their time together than this.
Reviewing your own surfing with your child is a bad idea. Is a young child going to understand what you're doing on Slashdot, or what makes The Onion funny? No.
Also, it's not obvious what a child has been viewing just by looking at the URL in a log file. Checking out every URL this way would be very time consuming.
-- Brian
Listen to me very carefully: The Beatles are not "ICKY". Okay? Okay.
-- Brian
that is neodarwinian fascist nonsense
Huh? Can you please explain what neodarwinism and fascism have to do with each other? I thought I understood these terms, but I'm not sure what they're doing modifying the same noun. Thanks.
-- Brian
Much has been made of the manner is which the GPL "infects" derivative works. My question is: What constitutes a derivative work?
For example, consider the following scenarios:
- I create a web application that runs under Apache on Linux.
- I use GCC (the GNU C compiler) to write and compile a standalone command-line program.
- I use GCC to write and compile a program that runs under KDE.
- I use GCC to write a program that is dynamically linked to a GPL'ed library.
- I use GCC to write a program that is statically linked to a GPL'ed library.
- I modify the source code of a GLP'ed library.
If I wish to distribute the software I created in these scenarios, in which cases must I use the GPL? Obviously, I must GPL in the last case and I need not GPL in the first case. What about the other cases?-- Brian
But if there was no intellectual property (IP) law, the GPL would not be *needed*. All code would be free for everyone to use.
Oh, come on. Without IP law, source code would only be free if you could obtain it via legitimate means (e.g. without illegally breaking into a server to steal it).
you could still ... reverse engineer it
IANAL, but IP law does not prevent reverse engineering (in America, anyway). It does happen, but as a practical matter, it's very difficult to do.
-- Brian
Just post the diffs. I think this would be considered fair use.
-- Brian
Not alot of hockey being played in the middle of summer, though.
-- Brian
Would that be the "Los Angeles Bay", then? South Bay is Silicon Valley. The bay in question is San Francisco. It's about 400 miles from LA.
-- Brian
Okay. And how exactly does any of this demonstrate the "fallacies of OOP"?
-- Brian
Okay, let's say there are 8,000,000 people in North Carolina. And let's say you have a 3,000,000,000,000 byte database. That amounts to 375KB worth of data for every man, woman, and child in the state.
What exactly do you keep in this database? Compromising pictures of every citizen?
-- Brian
You are continuing to redefine the language to suit your purposes. The defintion of take is "to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control". Nothing in the definition "suggests deprivity".
By the way, "deprivity" isn't even a word, but I'm sure you'll soon be telling me that people are using it the wrong way.
-- Brian
I think people should stop.
Um, okay... but that's what the words mean, for crying out loud! If you don't believe me, here's the Merriam-Webster entry for steal:
Nothing in this definition distinguishes between moving and copying as you do. Now here's the defintion of theft:
In this case, meaning 1a agrees with you, but 1b (arguably) does not.
On the whole, I'd say that your desire to redefine the English language in order to suit your personal political preference is nearly Orwellian.
If you really object to steal and theft so much, I ask you to suggest an alternative. Can you think of a common English word that means "taking something that isn't yours, but not stealing it"?
I didn't think so.
-- Brian
Sorry, but I think you're wrong. People use the words "steal" and "theft" to mean "taking something that isn't yours". It doesn't matter whether you're copying or moving it.
For example, consider this article from today's Slashdot front page: Code for Running GPS Satellites Stolen .
Or from the AP: Navy Investigating Theft of Guidance Data From Computer.
Nice try, though. You had me going for awhile.
-- Brian
The DoE and their ilk are a plague on the education of our children.
Okay, Mr. Dogma. What "ilk" is that exactly? Does it include people like President Bush, who intends to increase funding to the DoE in his upcoming budget?
-- Brian