Wow: So the future success of the LHC in producing the Higgs Boson is so abhorrent to nature that it causes a bad solder connection it it's own past!? Huh?
This seems to assume that:
backwards time travel is possible - on a scale sufficient to cause bad solder connections
we have some intelligence involved here - rather than physics just being particles, energy and space: it has very specific and subtle effects on the past (e.g. a bad solder connection), rather than e.g. random energy discharges
and all t just to cause a LHC version of the grandfather paradox!?
Well... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... Until then: move along, nothing (sensible) to see here...
FOSS has no way to deal with a project's sole maintainer dieing.
Sorry - this is too far from the truth to be caused by mere ignorance...
Obviously, FOSS cannot revive the maintainer (but neither can proprietary software projects). But in FOSS projects, the death of a maintainer will not (by itself) force the death of the project. The only thing that kills FOSS projects is lack of interest.
Anybody can step up to the plate and take on the role of maintainer, simply because the code is still available. If nobody does, then the project is likely to die. But that will only happen if nobody is interested enough to help.
Please please please for the sake of ${DEITY:-everybody} do not say that out loud. There's bound to be a PHB somewhere who thinks that's a good idea....
Wrong analogy.
With variables, changing the name is *cheap* and *easy*.
You are unlikely to re-use a variable for a different purpose (ever assigned a temperature to "counter"?)
For servers, their own names tend to stick - even when the server is re-purposed, so you end up with prdbostondb01 being repurposed as the dev build server in the broom cupboard...
My solution: Configure Exchange to enable IMAP - and things work again.
Yes: I know that exchange and imap are not the best of friends. And not everybody can talk their windows system admin into opening up exchange for the standard protocols. But In my (limited) experience, it works better that way.
If statements can only be refuted in the first "few years" - yes: you're correct.
I assumed that this was similiar to the radioactive half-life: 33% refuted within a certain period => even more will be refuted during a longer period. And thus we will get closer and closer to 100% over time.
Strange... Let us see how this works out: 33% of papers are refuted in later-published papers. But of those later-published papers, 33% of those are refuted too. And of those, 33% are refuted...
If my maths is right, then over time *all* research will have been refuted!? (I don't recall anybody refuting the general theory of relativity...)
Luckily, this piece of science will then also be refuted - which then wipes out the basis of my argument...
G'ah - this science stuff is complicated!
But they won't. Why? Because improving cross-browser compatibility is bad for Microsoft (the very thought of making it possible for customers to escape vendor lock-in is the epitome of heresy!), despite it being good for the world in general.
Since this is a decision that Microsoft has to take (it's their product after all), the outcome should not really surprise anybody: They'll always do what's best for them, regardless of the consequences for others. Nothing new here.
4. Not unless a court says. Obviously if you violate the GPL you are taking a major risk of somebody finding out and forcing your code out into the open.
Wrong.
If the customer has been given rights to the code (and you keep the code away from them), this might happen.
But such rights cannot be granted by 3rd-party modules - only by the copyright holder - i.e. YOU.
Basically: If you violate the license of a 3rd party module, this (by itself) will not force your code into the open. The license of the 3rd party modules do not cover the code that you write.
But you would have to cure the violation (stop distributing or obtain a license that allows distribution) and you may have to pay some sort of damages. This would amount to Bad PR, a lighter wallet and bad karma
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
... His deliberate use of phraseology that implicity argues or accepts the point he is trying to explain is sophmoric...
Hang on a second here: I think you'll find that this is the way that most people argue(!) - Why would anybody deliberately use phraseology that goes against the point they're trying make?
And it works - just read any discussion by politicians, *IAA*. The writings on "Network Neutrality" are a very good example of this too.
Bottom line: People have to think for themselves, regardless of who they're listening to.
You make it sound like you need a reason to hate America!?
Joking aside: Please notice that "Yourup" (thanks a lot Mr Bush!) is not a single country. It is lots of different countries, with separate identities and (mostly) with their own languages.
A european country in europe does NOT compare to a state in the US - such a comparison shows ignorance and is borderline offensive.
For example there is not a "european" language, which makes for fun and games for all sorts of meetings and conferences: Ever tried to have a bi-lingual conference? Tri-lingual? Good luck...
2. Visible light-emitting devices produce higher bandwidths and can consequently send information much faster.
Faster? In practical terms: not really. They may be able to transmit umpteen terabits/second but with latencies measured in decades, the bandwidth is of little significance. Any form of communication is going to be difficult, both for us and for the aliens - unless they've spent a few centuries talking to somebody even further away from us.
How much information is actually needed in each message before we should wait for a reply? A few kilobytes? I don't know about inter-civilisation etiquette, but if it's anything like dating, then giving out your complete life story before the first encounter is likely to be a bad idea...
5. Existing lasers can produce nanosecond pulses that can outshine a star by 30 times.
Probably true. But one big problem with lasers is that they are directional - they need to be aimed. If we add lenses to make them somewhat unidirectional, the power drops accordingly which makes the whole thing pointless.
Lasers will only become relevant once we and the aliens have a fix on each other, so we both know where to aim the thing, and where to look for responses. A fraction of a degree off, and rest assured that the message is never received, so we have to aim precisely!
Unfortunately the effect of 'packet loss' increases with the latency, and with such enormous latencies it would not take many lost packets before the effective bandwidth drops to a trickle... I'd prefer reliable communication, lest they think we're giving them the cold shoulder treatment!
They can't just drop the lawsuit. They can drop their side of it - but they'll still have to deal with IBM's counter claims, unless IBM decides to let bygones be bygones. And this is unlikely - just IBM's attorney fees must be in the millions. Millions which SCO cannot spare at the moment. Even if SCO had those millions, they still have to stop Novell from getting them (Remember the license fees that SCO collected and should have paid to Novell?)
Liabilities? I'm not so sure about that - the "EULA" goes a loooong way to covering their backside all the way down....
I agree that it's unlikely to be intentional though.
"If If Microsoft ever switches to ODF compliance, you might be ahead of the game!" !?
Sorry, But I cannot see why Microsoft would switch to (or even willingly support) ODF.
Why? Because it is in Microsoft's interest to ensure that customers' data are kept in Microsoft-proprietary formats. This ensures that customers will continue to buy MS Office, and thus prevents the death of the cash cow. This is why Microsoft sees ODF as a threat: It allows customers (and their data) a "way out".
I expect Microsoft to continue
their attempts to confuse with their Open XML "standard" (I don't think it is an accident that they chose a name so similar to Open Office XML yet with the opposite meaning of "Open")
to claim that ODF = OpenOffice - regardless of how many applications use ODF (because users understand attacks on specific applications - better than the fuzzy concept of file formats)
FUD about the capability of ODF
FUD a bit more: write a ODF-to-Microsoft-Open"XML utility. This will be used in "success stories" of how customers "saved/improved/leveraged/streamlined/${BUZZWORD}" their existing investments.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, you'd be surprised by the amount of trouble "normal" people are willing to go through just to avoid learning new things. Windows-users especially.
If you have ever tried educating a windows user about Linux, you probably have ecountered the look of shock and horror followed by the words "but that's not how I did it Windows", or "... but I'm used to... ". At that point it is extremely difficult to get them back on track: they have already started pedalling away.
For most users, fear of the unknown will dominate. And they will run at the mere thought of a surprising dialogue box which actually demands they read and understand it...
Bottom line? They'll follow the devil they know, until the fear of licenses (bah! - only money! who cared about the first-born anyway?), viruses ("always happens to other people, not me" right?) malware and identity theft exceedes their fear of the unknown.
EULAs may well be available online. But legally, they bear no relation to the contents of the box on the shelf...
So... if I was considering buying Microsoft Windows, should I have to hunt for the EULA on the microsoft web site? or perhaps on the PC World web site?
The basic principle still holds: If you're only *told* about the full terms and conditions AFTER you've bought the goods, a refund is in order. If this is not the case, then I'm moving into the sales business - looks like I can make a lot of money there!
Go with http://www.zenadsl.co.uk./ They're slightly more expensive than the others, but their helpdesk know what they're doint and I've never had a problem with them. They're linux-friendly and will even set up a reverse dns for you too.
Disclaimer: no: I don't work for zen. But I'm a customer of theirs.
PS: If you do switch, please don't use the full bandwith! Less for me then!
"Debian aren't going to change the world with this system, and they're just going to make it hard for people to have a complete system as they want."
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either it's OK for Debian to have principles (and thus Debian is doing the "right thing") or Debian should forego the principles to make it easier for you to not abide them?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow: So the future success of the LHC in producing the Higgs Boson is so abhorrent to nature that it causes a bad solder connection it it's own past!? Huh?
This seems to assume that:
and all t just to cause a LHC version of the grandfather paradox!?
Well... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... Until then: move along, nothing (sensible) to see here...
Sorry - this is too far from the truth to be caused by mere ignorance...
Obviously, FOSS cannot revive the maintainer (but neither can proprietary software projects). But in FOSS projects, the death of a maintainer will not (by itself) force the death of the project. The only thing that kills FOSS projects is lack of interest.
Anybody can step up to the plate and take on the role of maintainer, simply because the code is still available. If nobody does, then the project is likely to die. But that will only happen if nobody is interested enough to help.
Please please please for the sake of ${DEITY:-everybody} do not say that out loud. There's bound to be a PHB somewhere who thinks that's a good idea....
What? There are people on facebook who actually understand the Barber Paradox?
Wrong analogy. With variables, changing the name is *cheap* and *easy*. You are unlikely to re-use a variable for a different purpose (ever assigned a temperature to "counter"?) For servers, their own names tend to stick - even when the server is re-purposed, so you end up with prdbostondb01 being repurposed as the dev build server in the broom cupboard...
Yes it is brittle.
My solution: Configure Exchange to enable IMAP - and things work again.
Yes: I know that exchange and imap are not the best of friends. And not everybody can talk their windows system admin into opening up exchange for the standard protocols. But In my (limited) experience, it works better that way.
My next step: Remove exchange.
If statements can only be refuted in the first "few years" - yes: you're correct. I assumed that this was similiar to the radioactive half-life: 33% refuted within a certain period => even more will be refuted during a longer period. And thus we will get closer and closer to 100% over time.
Strange... Let us see how this works out: 33% of papers are refuted in later-published papers. But of those later-published papers, 33% of those are refuted too. And of those, 33% are refuted... If my maths is right, then over time *all* research will have been refuted!? (I don't recall anybody refuting the general theory of relativity...) Luckily, this piece of science will then also be refuted - which then wipes out the basis of my argument... G'ah - this science stuff is complicated!
I agree. That is what they should do.
But they won't. Why? Because improving cross-browser compatibility is bad for Microsoft (the very thought of making it possible for customers to escape vendor lock-in is the epitome of heresy!), despite it being good for the world in general.
Since this is a decision that Microsoft has to take (it's their product after all), the outcome should not really surprise anybody: They'll always do what's best for them, regardless of the consequences for others. Nothing new here.
Wrong.
If the customer has been given rights to the code (and you keep the code away from them), this might happen.
But such rights cannot be granted by 3rd-party modules - only by the copyright holder - i.e. YOU.
Basically: If you violate the license of a 3rd party module, this (by itself) will not force your code into the open. The license of the 3rd party modules do not cover the code that you write.
But you would have to cure the violation (stop distributing or obtain a license that allows distribution) and you may have to pay some sort of damages. This would amount to Bad PR, a lighter wallet and bad karma
Hang on a second here: I think you'll find that this is the way that most people argue(!) - Why would anybody deliberately use phraseology that goes against the point they're trying make?
And it works - just read any discussion by politicians, *IAA*. The writings on "Network Neutrality" are a very good example of this too.
Bottom line: People have to think for themselves, regardless of who they're listening to.
You make it sound like you need a reason to hate America!?
Joking aside: Please notice that "Yourup" (thanks a lot Mr Bush!) is not a single country. It is lots of different countries, with separate identities and (mostly) with their own languages.
A european country in europe does NOT compare to a state in the US - such a comparison shows ignorance and is borderline offensive.
For example there is not a "european" language, which makes for fun and games for all sorts of meetings and conferences: Ever tried to have a bi-lingual conference? Tri-lingual? Good luck...
Faster? In practical terms: not really. They may be able to transmit umpteen terabits/second but with latencies measured in decades, the bandwidth is of little significance. Any form of communication is going to be difficult, both for us and for the aliens - unless they've spent a few centuries talking to somebody even further away from us.
How much information is actually needed in each message before we should wait for a reply? A few kilobytes? I don't know about inter-civilisation etiquette, but if it's anything like dating, then giving out your complete life story before the first encounter is likely to be a bad idea...
Probably true. But one big problem with lasers is that they are directional - they need to be aimed. If we add lenses to make them somewhat unidirectional, the power drops accordingly which makes the whole thing pointless.
Lasers will only become relevant once we and the aliens have a fix on each other, so we both know where to aim the thing, and where to look for responses. A fraction of a degree off, and rest assured that the message is never received, so we have to aim precisely!
Unfortunately the effect of 'packet loss' increases with the latency, and with such enormous latencies it would not take many lost packets before the effective bandwidth drops to a trickle... I'd prefer reliable communication, lest they think we're giving them the cold shoulder treatment!
They can't just drop the lawsuit. They can drop their side of it - but they'll still have to deal with IBM's counter claims, unless IBM decides to let bygones be bygones. And this is unlikely - just IBM's attorney fees must be in the millions. Millions which SCO cannot spare at the moment. Even if SCO had those millions, they still have to stop Novell from getting them (Remember the license fees that SCO collected and should have paid to Novell?)
As PJ says: SCO is toast...
You haven't RTFA'd but you still think you know enough to comment on it!? Now that's funny :-)
Liabilities? I'm not so sure about that - the "EULA" goes a loooong way to covering their backside all the way down.... I agree that it's unlikely to be intentional though.
Sounds like a good reason to perform backups... (unless they've been seized too)
I've got to get one of these. It can store data in ROM! Windows Mobile must be pure magic...
I know. My mistake. I actually read the article. I'm sorry....
"If If Microsoft ever switches to ODF compliance, you might be ahead of the game!" !?
Sorry, But I cannot see why Microsoft would switch to (or even willingly support) ODF.
Why? Because it is in Microsoft's interest to ensure that customers' data are kept in Microsoft-proprietary formats. This ensures that customers will continue to buy MS Office, and thus prevents the death of the cash cow. This is why Microsoft sees ODF as a threat: It allows customers (and their data) a "way out".
I expect Microsoft to continue
I know that I'm a cynic. Prove me wrong.
"It just needs some learning"
I think you hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, you'd be surprised by the amount of trouble "normal" people are willing to go through just to avoid learning new things. Windows-users especially.
If you have ever tried educating a windows user about Linux, you probably have ecountered the look of shock and horror followed by the words "but that's not how I did it Windows", or "... but I'm used to ... ". At that point it is extremely difficult to get them back on track: they have already started pedalling away.
For most users, fear of the unknown will dominate. And they will run at the mere thought of a surprising dialogue box which actually demands they read and understand it...
Bottom line? They'll follow the devil they know, until the fear of licenses (bah! - only money! who cared about the first-born anyway?), viruses ("always happens to other people, not me" right?) malware and identity theft exceedes their fear of the unknown.
EULAs may well be available online. But legally, they bear no relation to the contents of the box on the shelf...
So... if I was considering buying Microsoft Windows, should I have to hunt for the EULA on the microsoft web site? or perhaps on the PC World web site?
The basic principle still holds: If you're only *told* about the full terms and conditions AFTER you've bought the goods, a refund is in order. If this is not the case, then I'm moving into the sales business - looks like I can make a lot of money there!
Go with http://www.zenadsl.co.uk./ They're slightly more expensive than the others, but their helpdesk know what they're doint and I've never had a problem with them. They're linux-friendly and will even set up a reverse dns for you too.
Disclaimer: no: I don't work for zen. But I'm a customer of theirs.
PS: If you do switch, please don't use the full bandwith! Less for me then!
Actually... The universe is a closed system by definition. A bit on the large side perhaps, but closed never the less...
"I'm really glad they have principles."...
"Debian aren't going to change the world with this system, and they're just going to make it hard for people to have a complete system as they want."
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either it's OK for Debian to have principles (and thus Debian is doing the "right thing") or Debian should forego the principles to make it easier for you to not abide them?
Logic Error. Parsing abandoned.
And exactly how does this solve the power problem?