Every totalitarian state has a plan like this. It is some comfort that, when one of these states falls, it is usually the indoctrinated youth who give the biggest push... --
If the U.S. government institutes a policy that de facto infringes the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment, you can rest assured that it can be declared unconstitutional. The precedents set in court cases concerning racial and sexual discrimination have made it clear that it is the effect that matters, not the alleged intent.
This story is also front page news on at least the online versions of the two major British broadsheets, the Times and the Daily Telegraph. Both of the stories make it clear that it is Microsoft who is reponsible for the security breach (I don't believe that the Times even used either of the "-acker" words) and refer to other recent Microsoft security problems.
> Microsoft said that the company would welcome > any constructive suggestions from Firefly > community members. > "When they provide us with some actionable > suggestions, we will be looking into them," > Miller said.
I guess Microsoft is getting used to the process that gets them into court.
> --> Does this mean you are NOT allowed to > disassemble something when a minimum > level of documentation has been reached. Does > that documentation have to be correct > and how could you prove it if you can't > disassemble.
You'd code to the published interface and see if it works. Whether or not you could disassemble if it didn't work, I don't know. It seems to me that you ought to be able to on the grounds that there must be some part of the interface for which information is not readily available.
> So how does one organize real political parties > when the traditional electoral system is > demarcated by physical borders whereas the > issues/.ers are interested in are culture, > nation and planet wide.
The same way, I imagine, that the current political parties organize their state or provincial bodies into a national party.
Also, in a sense, organizations like Greenpeace are already political parties that span international boundaries. They certainly pursue political remedies to the problems they see. They just don't put forward candidates for election under the organization's name. It really wouldn't take much for them to do so, though.
Do the various Green parties coordinate their activities?
And the greybeard spake unto to the youth, saying "Consider the programmer, how he toils, and how he has done so for decades. Yea, even before the personal computer did he toil. And his number is Legion." Well, that's the way they talked when *I* was in my youth. You might get out and meet some of us old fogies.
Hmmm, the FSF is certainly the initiator of the GNU project, but I'm not sure how you get that they initiated Linux. If Linus doesn't decide to play around with kernel development, we're still waiting for an OSS operating system.
Why are Open Source people selling Open Source big? Because they think that it works. If it works, who needs the political messages?
I think that you're making the incorrect assumption that OSS could not survive without the FSF. That may have been true once, but RMS's little child is big enough to stand alone now.
Small differences will be magnified into great divides in any movement where people feel as strongly as they do about OSS (cf. Christianity, Islam, the U.S. civil rights movement, Bolshevism). And because the whole movement is important enough to proselytize, the individual branches are perceived as important enough to proselytize.
I think that RMS feels that the name Linux, in and of itself, does not shout OSS loudly enough, and there are many who side with him either out of the same belief or out of respect for what he's done. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the current visibility of OSS among the general population would never have been achieved without the advent of the Linux kernel, some of whom think that RMS is just tooting his own horn. Because this difference has to do with the growth of OSS as a whole, it's taken pretty seriously.
I think that this is an issue that people just have to agree to differ on, even though that's difficult, just because they do take it so seriously. Everyone's heard the gloom-and-doomers/FUDers who say that Linux will be torn apart by the different distributions, and we all get worked up about that. This is the same sort of thing -- let's not give them any more ammunition.
Or at least it did a decade-and-a-half ago, when I was working in the UK and had an account with National Westminster Bank. They appended Esq to my name on all the mail they sent me (and me just a humble chemical engineer).
Slashdot Mirror
Every totalitarian state has a plan like this. It is some comfort that, when one of these states falls, it is usually the indoctrinated youth who give the biggest push...
--
If the U.S. government institutes a policy that de facto infringes the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment, you can rest assured that it can be declared unconstitutional. The precedents set in court cases concerning racial and sexual discrimination have made it clear that it is the effect that matters, not the alleged intent.
This story is also front page news on at least the online versions of the two major British broadsheets, the Times and the Daily Telegraph. Both of the stories make it clear that it is Microsoft who is reponsible for the security breach (I don't believe that the Times even used either of the "-acker" words) and refer to other recent Microsoft security problems.
And the nice thing is that the paper goes to bed before the U.S. does -- tomorrow's paper shows up at about 9pm Eastern time.
It's been done -- years ago. It's called IRC.
> Microsoft said that the company would welcome
> any constructive suggestions from Firefly
> community members.
> "When they provide us with some actionable
> suggestions, we will be looking into them,"
> Miller said.
I guess Microsoft is getting used to the process that gets them into court.
> --> Does this mean you are NOT allowed to
> disassemble something when a minimum
> level of documentation has been reached. Does
> that documentation have to be correct
> and how could you prove it if you can't
> disassemble.
You'd code to the published interface and see if it works. Whether or not you could disassemble if it didn't work, I don't know. It seems to me that you ought to be able to on the grounds that there must be some part of the interface for which information is not readily available.
> So how does one organize real political parties /.ers are interested in are culture,
> when the traditional electoral system is
> demarcated by physical borders whereas the
> issues
> nation and planet wide.
The same way, I imagine, that the current political parties organize their state or provincial bodies into a national party.
Also, in a sense, organizations like Greenpeace are already political parties that span international boundaries. They certainly pursue political remedies to the problems they see. They just don't put forward candidates for election under the organization's name. It really wouldn't take much for them to do so, though.
Do the various Green parties coordinate their activities?
History also gives us examples like the Wobblies.
And the greybeard spake unto to the youth, saying "Consider the programmer, how he toils, and how he has done so for decades. Yea, even before the personal computer did he toil. And his number is Legion." Well, that's the way they talked when *I* was in my youth. You might get out and meet some of us old fogies.
And the bright and positive sides and uses for
alcohol are?
You've made this Yank curious. Just what is my
attitude toward the troubles in Northern Ireland?
Not planning on using open-source software when
you're an old man?
Hmmm, the FSF is certainly the initiator of the GNU project, but I'm not sure how you get that they initiated Linux. If Linus doesn't decide to play around with kernel development, we're still waiting for an OSS operating system.
Why are Open Source people selling Open Source big? Because they think that it works. If it works, who needs the political messages?
I think that you're making the incorrect assumption that OSS could not survive without the FSF. That may have been true once, but RMS's little child is big enough to stand alone now.
Small differences will be magnified into great divides in any movement where people feel as strongly as they do about OSS (cf. Christianity, Islam, the U.S. civil rights movement, Bolshevism). And because the whole movement is important enough to proselytize, the individual branches are perceived as important enough to proselytize.
I think that RMS feels that the name Linux, in and of itself, does not shout OSS loudly enough, and there are many who side with him either out of the same belief or out of respect for what he's done. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the current visibility of OSS among the general population would never have been achieved without the advent of the Linux kernel, some of whom think that RMS is just tooting his own horn. Because this difference has to do with the growth of OSS as a whole, it's taken pretty seriously.
I think that this is an issue that people just have to agree to differ on, even though that's difficult, just because they do take it so seriously. Everyone's heard the gloom-and-doomers/FUDers who say that Linux will be torn apart by the different distributions, and we all get worked up about that. This is the same sort of thing -- let's not give them any more ammunition.
Or at least it did a decade-and-a-half ago, when I was working in the UK and had an account with National Westminster Bank. They appended Esq to my name on all the mail they sent me (and me just a humble chemical engineer).