In case you don't get the allusion, listerine invented a disease called halitosis and claimed that Listerine cured it--very much like what today's anti-virus industry is doing.
Now, they use it as a scientific-sounding term for bad breath
That was blatently plagerized from a humour site (http://bbspot.com/News/2000/9/linux_laid.html) You changed the name of a random fictional kernel hacker to Linus Torvalds for some reason, and posted it here very irrelevently.
This is obviously a great example for Microsoft to use in it's "Linux is cancer that eats away other's intellectual property" campaign.
Because TiVo decided to use Linux, they were "forced" to release the source, allowing malicious hackers to figure out all their trade secrets and steal the intellectual property of television networks and producers on a mass scale.
I'm sure AOL can come up with another way to get AOL to every human being in the world...
How about this?
Send installation discs through the mail to everybody with a mailing address. And then leave huge racks full of discs in stores and the sorts for the homeless!
Sounds like a brilliant plan to me!
GWB is NOT billingual. I don't know where you got that idea from, but I suspect maybe it's because he reads speeches and campaigned in Spanish.
He's not billingual; anyone who speaks Spanish could tell you that he's horrible at it. Most appreciate the effort, though. He just memorizes a few phrases and reads from a paper.
I'm a Bush supporter too; but if you're going to support him, get the facts straight.
Although the service's founder originally claimed that it was inspired by his daughter, Madeline's, Instant Messaging software, we were later told that his daughter is named Aimee, and that she is the one who programmed it. It was also named after her. We also learned that she looks cute in a bikini.
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,43441-1,00.ht ml
Surely they can't be prevented from using a girl's name!
I especially liked the hypocracy on talking about support. First, service folk will typically not give support to modified versions of their software. I find this not to be true. With the source available, it's easy to go through the program and find exactly where the error is. If changes have been made, support people have acceess to the changes and can help. Further, they are criticizing the fact that we don't support people who modify the program. Obviously, this is not easily done with MS products. But, lets say, I open up win.com in a hex editor and start arbitrarily changing bytes. I've modified the software, do you think Microsoft is going to walk me through the whole process of getting it to work? They'll tell me to reinstall it, and maybe bring me to court for violating the license.
They say that MS support is better. Personally, if I had a problem with MS software and needed help, I'd take my luck with the psychic friends network before calling Microsoft.
One one hand, MS has to add enough features to get people to upgrade. I think that the UI will attract people to upgrade considerably.
On the other hand, they face charges of monopolization whenever they try to attract these new customers.
The problem is, even if MS made an operating system 5 times more stable, twice as fast, and used half the system resources, the average end user wouldn't be compelled to buy it. Make it look pretty and throw in a DVD player, and they will.
A note from the Free Software Foundation:
on
AtheOS Interview
·
· Score: 3
Looks like it uses some of our GPL'ed code. Should be GNU/AtheOS.
Oh, right, I'd probably need credentials or something. I think that Eric S. Reynolds does a very good job at promoting open source. Linus also does a great job at this, IMHO. He's well spoken, intelligent, and most importantly, the media think of him as the father of open source because he shares a name with a certain popular open source project.
Poor Richard Stallman, he actually was responsible for the whole thing, yet he rarely gets much credit. Unfortunately, he seems too bitter about that to make an effective spokesperson.
I say, that Linus and ESR are the best choices. Fortunately, the whole community-oriented nature of open source means that anyone can write a press release for it. Just don't expect it to be published unless you have some sort of importance.
The day we start seeing press releases in newspapers written by "Anonymous Coward," is the day I stop reading newspapers.
Many of the legal issues we see constantly are a big corporation going after a small, non-profit open source project. The open source project has not enough money and other resources to properly defend itself.
What would be the best way for people who can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves? What laws should they be most familiar with?
Maybe this is an attempt to save face after looking like a moron with that Mundie speech.
Here we are saying "This software is yours, do whatever you want with it," as it was in the beginning.
Then Microsoft came along and implemented a version of BASIC and said, pay me for this, and you can use it.
Then it said, pay me, and you can use this version, and no other version, and nobody else can use this version -- he's gotta pay too.
And finally evolved into, "This software is not yours. It's ours. But if you pay us, we'll let you use it--but only in ways officially sanctioned by us. After all, it's our software. And we won't tell you how you're allowed to use it until you've already agreed to the terms."
At this point, we gain popularity, stemming from the days in the beginning when all was pure and good: "Software is owned by people. We shall not stifle creativity, talent, and the wants of users for the sake of profit. Brothers and sisters hear me, this software belongs to you. Do with it as you please."
But these calls were stifled by Microsoft, "All your software are belong to us," they called. But, people got tired of giving money to Microsoft whenever Microsft said so. Microsoft can only make money when people buy more software... if people don't upgrade, Microsoft loses. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself.
"Lo", they said, "your software belongs to us. No longer shall you be constrained to ancient practices of 'purchasing,' you will now rent your software from us. You shall pay us money, and we shall let you use our software for a month."
The free-software prophets said, "You own your own software. Do not succumb to the demands of the false gods of Redmond." And they were right. And the people agreed.
Microsoft realized they were in trouble. "We shall persuade the people that it makes no sense to let people have `property' on their hard drive." The RIAA and MPAA agreed. Microsoft told the people, "Behold, do not believe the lies told to you by the Free Software Foundation. They go against the ideals of our society. They are un-American"
And DMCA had been passed for the government was duped.
But the people were wise; they should own their files. They scorned and laughed at Microsoft.
Microsoft was angered. "We shall try to trick them into thinking that they do own their sofware. For we have a 'Shared-source' policy." They were full of crap.
Microsoft was again scorned at. "Perhaps," they said, "it will look like they owned their software if we didn't explicitly say that we were only letting them rent it." And it was so.
And michael said, "Microsoft has dropped the Office XP subscription plan , at least for the near future. Wonder if this means they were getting too much heat from IT managers, or if they have something else up their sleeve."
I'd say that they probably had some contract problems with Clippy the office assistant. There's probably some term in there that requires him to be in any subscription based software.
To all you stating that now this is a "standard" organizations will start "breaking" it:
It is not a standard, it is an official W3C recommendation. And part of the process of making it a standard is for developers to experiment with it to see what works and what doesn't. So whereas some propietary extensions die out, some survive and become part of the standard.
An interesting whitepaper on display technologies:
http://www.euro.dell.com/countries/ie/enu/gen/topi cs/vectors_1999-displayt.htm
I'd also like to mention that Liquid Crystals were first discovered in 1888 by Austrian botanist Fiedrich Reinitzer who discovered them by melting a type of cholesterol.
Now, if someone could find out what they were rubbing with velvet in 1900, I'd appreciate it!:)
What I don't get is the argument we've all heard over and over again about jeopardizing intellectual rights of entities that utilize the GPL.
If you're so hip to protecting intellectual rights, you shouldn't be using other people's copyrighted software at all. If I release something under the GPL, it IS my intellectual property, appropriately copyrighted as such. I give others the privilege, not the right to use it. Don't complain about the terms of my license, instead, right your own software that you can copyright and protect under whatever license you want.
You don't see us complaining about Microsoft's license... oh, yeah, right.
Slashdot Mirror
United States v. Lucite ball containing lunar material (an actual case, I'm not making this up, folks)
Uh-oh. Lucy's getting sued by the government? Ricky's never gonna let her play with the band now!
Be sure to look out for the new halitosis worm!
In case you don't get the allusion, listerine invented a disease called halitosis and claimed that Listerine cured it--very much like what today's anti-virus industry is doing.
Now, they use it as a scientific-sounding term for bad breath
If he's typing "Doe" instead of "Does" and "my" instead of "by," don't you think maybe he's typing out of his ass?
No RPMs or tarballs either. Some very nice scented candles, though.
But, it does report a bunch of open ports. ftp www.wehavethewayout.com returns:I'm betting it is a Windows server.
It's also running vnc--uh-oh
I can't wait for my tee shirt featuring DeCSS in CSS!!
That was blatently plagerized from a humour site (http://bbspot.com/News/2000/9/linux_laid.html) You changed the name of a random fictional kernel hacker to Linus Torvalds for some reason, and posted it here very irrelevently.
This is obviously a great example for Microsoft to use in it's "Linux is cancer that eats away other's intellectual property" campaign.
Because TiVo decided to use Linux, they were "forced" to release the source, allowing malicious hackers to figure out all their trade secrets and steal the intellectual property of television networks and producers on a mass scale.
Oooh, I'm trembling.
I'm sure AOL can come up with another way to get AOL to every human being in the world... How about this? Send installation discs through the mail to everybody with a mailing address. And then leave huge racks full of discs in stores and the sorts for the homeless! Sounds like a brilliant plan to me!
GWB is NOT billingual. I don't know where you got that idea from, but I suspect maybe it's because he reads speeches and campaigned in Spanish.
He's not billingual; anyone who speaks Spanish could tell you that he's horrible at it. Most appreciate the effort, though. He just memorizes a few phrases and reads from a paper.
I'm a Bush supporter too; but if you're going to support him, get the facts straight.
Although the service's founder originally claimed that it was inspired by his daughter, Madeline's, Instant Messaging software, we were later told that his daughter is named Aimee, and that she is the one who programmed it. It was also named after her. We also learned that she looks cute in a bikini. http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,43441-1,00.ht ml
Surely they can't be prevented from using a girl's name!
We are no longer allowed to discuss the DMCA on the Internet, as it is protected under the DMCA.
I especially liked the hypocracy on talking about support. First, service folk will typically not give support to modified versions of their software. I find this not to be true. With the source available, it's easy to go through the program and find exactly where the error is. If changes have been made, support people have acceess to the changes and can help. Further, they are criticizing the fact that we don't support people who modify the program. Obviously, this is not easily done with MS products. But, lets say, I open up win.com in a hex editor and start arbitrarily changing bytes. I've modified the software, do you think Microsoft is going to walk me through the whole process of getting it to work? They'll tell me to reinstall it, and maybe bring me to court for violating the license.
They say that MS support is better. Personally, if I had a problem with MS software and needed help, I'd take my luck with the psychic friends network before calling Microsoft.
One one hand, MS has to add enough features to get people to upgrade. I think that the UI will attract people to upgrade considerably.
On the other hand, they face charges of monopolization whenever they try to attract these new customers.
The problem is, even if MS made an operating system 5 times more stable, twice as fast, and used half the system resources, the average end user wouldn't be compelled to buy it. Make it look pretty and throw in a DVD player, and they will.
Looks like it uses some of our GPL'ed code. Should be GNU/AtheOS.
I'll do it!!
Oh, right, I'd probably need credentials or something. I think that Eric S. Reynolds does a very good job at promoting open source. Linus also does a great job at this, IMHO. He's well spoken, intelligent, and most importantly, the media think of him as the father of open source because he shares a name with a certain popular open source project.
Poor Richard Stallman, he actually was responsible for the whole thing, yet he rarely gets much credit. Unfortunately, he seems too bitter about that to make an effective spokesperson.
I say, that Linus and ESR are the best choices. Fortunately, the whole community-oriented nature of open source means that anyone can write a press release for it. Just don't expect it to be published unless you have some sort of importance.
The day we start seeing press releases in newspapers written by "Anonymous Coward," is the day I stop reading newspapers.
Many of the legal issues we see constantly are a big corporation going after a small, non-profit open source project. The open source project has not enough money and other resources to properly defend itself.
What would be the best way for people who can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves? What laws should they be most familiar with?
Maybe this is an attempt to save face after looking like a moron with that Mundie speech.
Here we are saying "This software is yours, do whatever you want with it," as it was in the beginning.
Then Microsoft came along and implemented a version of BASIC and said, pay me for this, and you can use it.
Then it said, pay me, and you can use this version, and no other version, and nobody else can use this version -- he's gotta pay too.
And finally evolved into, "This software is not yours. It's ours. But if you pay us, we'll let you use it--but only in ways officially sanctioned by us. After all, it's our software. And we won't tell you how you're allowed to use it until you've already agreed to the terms."
At this point, we gain popularity, stemming from the days in the beginning when all was pure and good: "Software is owned by people. We shall not stifle creativity, talent, and the wants of users for the sake of profit. Brothers and sisters hear me, this software belongs to you. Do with it as you please."
But these calls were stifled by Microsoft, "All your software are belong to us," they called. But, people got tired of giving money to Microsoft whenever Microsft said so. Microsoft can only make money when people buy more software... if people don't upgrade, Microsoft loses. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself.
"Lo", they said, "your software belongs to us. No longer shall you be constrained to ancient practices of 'purchasing,' you will now rent your software from us. You shall pay us money, and we shall let you use our software for a month."
The free-software prophets said, "You own your own software. Do not succumb to the demands of the false gods of Redmond." And they were right. And the people agreed.
Microsoft realized they were in trouble. "We shall persuade the people that it makes no sense to let people have `property' on their hard drive." The RIAA and MPAA agreed. Microsoft told the people, "Behold, do not believe the lies told to you by the Free Software Foundation. They go against the ideals of our society. They are un-American"
And DMCA had been passed for the government was duped.
But the people were wise; they should own their files. They scorned and laughed at Microsoft.
Microsoft was angered. "We shall try to trick them into thinking that they do own their sofware. For we have a 'Shared-source' policy." They were full of crap.
Microsoft was again scorned at. "Perhaps," they said, "it will look like they owned their software if we didn't explicitly say that we were only letting them rent it." And it was so.
And michael said, "Microsoft has dropped the Office XP subscription plan , at least for the near future. Wonder if this means they were getting too much heat from IT managers, or if they have something else up their sleeve."
I'd say that they probably had some contract problems with Clippy the office assistant. There's probably some term in there that requires him to be in any subscription based software.
PING heart.chest (10.63.32.153) from 127.0.0.1 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from heart.chest (10.63.32.153): icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=10.025 msec rate=73 bpm
I disagree about Fermi. One of my favourite quotations is by him: (paraphrased)
If I could remember the names of all these particles, I'd become a botanist.
To all you stating that now this is a "standard" organizations will start "breaking" it:
It is not a standard, it is an official W3C recommendation. And part of the process of making it a standard is for developers to experiment with it to see what works and what doesn't. So whereas some propietary extensions die out, some survive and become part of the standard.
An interesting whitepaper on display technologies: http://www.euro.dell.com/countries/ie/enu/gen/topi cs/vectors_1999-displayt.htm
I'd also like to mention that Liquid Crystals were first discovered in 1888 by Austrian botanist Fiedrich Reinitzer who discovered them by melting a type of cholesterol.
Now, if someone could find out what they were rubbing with velvet in 1900, I'd appreciate it! :)
What I don't get is the argument we've all heard over and over again about jeopardizing intellectual rights of entities that utilize the GPL. If you're so hip to protecting intellectual rights, you shouldn't be using other people's copyrighted software at all. If I release something under the GPL, it IS my intellectual property, appropriately copyrighted as such. I give others the privilege, not the right to use it. Don't complain about the terms of my license, instead, right your own software that you can copyright and protect under whatever license you want.
You don't see us complaining about Microsoft's license... oh, yeah, right.
Did I read that correctly: "Microsoft's move toward open source" ?! How much do you NYU people pay each semester?