Perhaps because that joke sucks when used in a movie?
Do yourself a favour before talking any futher about this movie - go rent/buy/borrow the original BBC series (it's available on DVD and VHS.) You'll look a lot less like an idiot.
In the BBC series, that joke is delivered perfectly, and it's damn funny.
If course, if you do see it, and still don't think it's funny, then you wouldn't have found the books funny either.
if you take out every single project you mentioned out of a distribution, you still have a working OS.
Define "working". You have a working command-line OS - you do not have a working desktop OS.
What happens when you take out glibc, GCC, bash, and so forth?
Well, with GCC, you *still* have a working OS - even more so that if you removed Mozilla/KDE/X11/Etc.
With the others, you replace them with other versions. Glibc isn't the *only* c library. Bash isn't the *only* shell (hell, it isn't even the only Bourne shell.)
By the way, this is a FAQ:
And it's a FAQ (IMHO) argues that you shouldn't call it GNU/Linux - their answer is "What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit."
IMHO, Linus is the principal developer, *NOT* Stallman.
They also say "a long name [...] becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it", and then in the next paragraph say "one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is 'Linux'"
If that answer was written by one person, that person is a hypocrite. If it's written by multiple people, then the GNU project itself is hypcritical.
While spammers would argue that spam DOES count as free speech, I'd argue that it doesn't.
And you would not be alone.
"[Spammers] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First Amendment stands."
- US Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin:
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
- Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court (emphasis mine)
*sigh* can you not read? It is *not* a tax, it is a levy. They are Two. Different. Things.
It is through government force. If it wasn't, no one would have to pay it, would they?
No, but it *still* wouldn't make it a tax.
Whether or not I like it, it is still a tax.
No, it is a levy. Just because you want to call it a tax does not make it a tax.
you are forgetting thata more traditional (federal sales tax) is applied to the full price of the item, including the levy.
I'm not forgetting it, it's just not relevant.
You pay tax on pretty much everything, does that make *everything you buy* a tax? By your logic, your car is a tax, your food is a tax. Your TV is a tax. Paying tax on something means that it is a taxed good or service. It does not *make* it a tax.
Here are some other references
Just because someone misuses a term, does not make that term correct. And you provided no links - just text. Please provide *links* where someone *who actually knows what the words mean* states *that it is a tax and not a levy*.
Like Yellow Pages does - puts fake companies in, and catch people using the Yellow Pages (against it's terms) to find companies for business.
Sorry, I read this three times, and it doesn't make any sense.
Are you trying to say that the Yellow Pages doesn't want people to search for companies they want to do business with? That's pretty wacky.. "Hey, pay us money to list your business in our book. Oh, but we forbid anyone from using our book to look you up."
Don't make a distinction that does not exist in order to make it sound better.
Don't lump two things together when they really are different, just because you don't like them.
This particular money is collected by the government and then given to CRIA.
No, it is not. It is collected by the Canadian Private Copying Collective (which is *NOT* the government), and then disbursed to copyright holders (including, but not only, the CRIA) and artists. From the CPCC's site:
The Canadian Private Copying Collective is the non-profit agency charged with collecting and distributing private copying royalties. Established in 1999, CPCC is an umbrella organization that represents songwriters, recording artists, music publishers and record companies. These are the groups on whose behalf the royalties are collected. CPCC is not an arm of government. (Emphais mine.)
(a) there really is a link, and if the system hadn't spotted it an astute detective might have or (b) there really is no such connection, in which case the detective will swear at the system for wasting his time and get on with his job.
You forgot (c): the detective, after experiencing (b) a dozen times, and being grilled by his superior as to why he's not had any arrests in X months, will *make* a connection where there was none.
MAPS has been around (and doing this) for *years*. Companies such as SWBell, Telus, AT&T, and BT have all been listed, have all threatened legal action, and have ALL backed down, because there is no legal case.
If my co-loc was taken down like this, and I couldn't get it resolved all weekend, I would have been in court at 9 AM Monday morning and in front of a judge by 9:30.
And then laughed out of court by 10:00.
You're just so full of shit your eyes should be brown.
Some blocklist implementations trash the sender's email silently
Please list them. *IF* this is true, then the people who did the implementation are idiots - but I suspect it's just that you're full of shit.
if the sender _is_ a spammer, that feedback would let them listwash and verify which addresses were valid and can be sold for more money.
Bullshit.
First of all, the whole point of blocklists is to conserve your bandwidth (otherwise you would use a content filter). The *only* way you can do that is to reject the mail at the beginning. Every RBL implementation I've seen replies with a rejection right after the MAIL FROM: or HELO (which means that the SMTP client never even gets the chance to send the destination address.)
Second, accepting the mail does nothing to verify an address. A "550: you're in MAPS" tells the spammer nothing about whether the address is valid or not. In fact, silently discarding spam has the exact opposite effect: the spammer thinks that the address is valid, because the spam wasn't rejected.
Please provide some links of the broken RBL implementations you're talking about.
They used to be 17 years from the date they issued, but that changed sometime in the last couple of years.
Thank you - I stand corrected.
If it's a dumb idea that doesn't work, what's the harm?
Because it *might* be possible, and a patent for something for an "idea" that the patent-holder not only can't do, but doesn't even know how to implement, can stop legitimate researchers from pursuing.
If it's a great idea that does work, apparently Sony's R&D team came up with it first
No, they didn't. They came up with an *idea* of how someone *might* do it. There is a huge difference between inventing something, and coming up with an idea on *how* to invent something.
The point is it doesn't have to be a spam friendly ISP. All it takes is some server at the colo getting cracked and used for spam. Or some idiot setting up an open relay at the colo because they don't know what they are doing.
Bullshit.
MAPS (and almost every other RBL) won't blacklist an entire ISP for one machine.
They start with one machine (the one sending the spam), and if the ISP does nothing about it, the block starts growing.
See, read the article - they were blocked because of repeated complaints. This is not just one machine.
If we got several years of significantly increased productivity, for the cost of two brief SCCS transitions (one onto BK, the other off from BK), is that such a bad deal?
That entirely depends on how much productivity we gained, versus how much was (and will be) lost due to the transitions, whether or not that same (or a similar) productivity gain would have been realized if Linus had chosen an open-source SCCM from the beginning.
In TFA Linus is quoted as saying "three years of using BitKeeper has made some profound improvements to the workflow"
So linus apparently thinks that the increased productivity over the three years is enough to offset the pain that he must now endure to switch to a new system.
WHAT!?!?! How do you get that?
Saying "This helped a lot" is not the same as saying "the help this provides is enough to overcome X mount of trouble".
I think you've been influenced by the Underpants Gnomes - you've skipped an essential step in your logic there.
Note the difference betweeen ignroing patents from OTHER nations and not caring about IP. Obviously the US cared about IP. Their own IP.
Wrong. It's pretty well known that Hollywood became the movie-making center of the US because movie makers didn't want to pay patent fees to Edison - their solution was to move as far away as possible (Edison was in NY) to avoid prosecution.
Umm, exactly what do you think the two people are doing in that chair, that they would sweat so much?.. and why would *anyone* want to hold a contest to see who's the sweatiest?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps because that joke sucks when used in a movie?
Do yourself a favour before talking any futher about this movie - go rent/buy/borrow the original BBC series (it's available on DVD and VHS.) You'll look a lot less like an idiot.
In the BBC series, that joke is delivered perfectly, and it's damn funny.
If course, if you do see it, and still don't think it's funny, then you wouldn't have found the books funny either.
As Lucas has aged his sexual tastes have drifted
Am I the only one who now imagines him talking in Troy Mclure's voice?
if you take out every single project you mentioned out of a distribution, you still have a working OS.
Define "working". You have a working command-line OS - you do not have a working desktop OS.
What happens when you take out glibc, GCC, bash, and so forth?
Well, with GCC, you *still* have a working OS - even more so that if you removed Mozilla/KDE/X11/Etc.
With the others, you replace them with other versions. Glibc isn't the *only* c library. Bash isn't the *only* shell (hell, it isn't even the only Bourne shell.)
By the way, this is a FAQ:
And it's a FAQ (IMHO) argues that you shouldn't call it GNU/Linux - their answer is "What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit."
IMHO, Linus is the principal developer, *NOT* Stallman.
They also say "a long name [...] becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it ", and then in the next paragraph say "one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is 'Linux'"
If that answer was written by one person, that person is a hypocrite. If it's written by multiple people, then the GNU project itself is hypcritical.
the industry has no way to test the laptop except by loading and running an OS
Bullshit. There are burn-in diagnostic programs, and pretty much every shop I've ever seen uses them.
Selling it without an OS would require someone to write a standalone diagnostic.
Gee, you mean like this one? Or this one? Or perhaps this one?
And you would not be alone. I'd say you're in good company.
It's a tax.
*sigh* can you not read? It is *not* a tax, it is a levy. They are Two. Different. Things.
It is through government force. If it wasn't, no one would have to pay it, would they?
No, but it *still* wouldn't make it a tax.
Whether or not I like it, it is still a tax.
No, it is a levy. Just because you want to call it a tax does not make it a tax.
you are forgetting thata more traditional (federal sales tax) is applied to the full price of the item, including the levy.
I'm not forgetting it, it's just not relevant.
You pay tax on pretty much everything, does that make *everything you buy* a tax? By your logic, your car is a tax, your food is a tax. Your TV is a tax. Paying tax on something means that it is a taxed good or service. It does not *make* it a tax.
Here are some other references
Just because someone misuses a term, does not make that term correct. And you provided no links - just text. Please provide *links* where someone *who actually knows what the words mean* states *that it is a tax and not a levy*.
Like Yellow Pages does - puts fake companies in, and catch people using the Yellow Pages (against it's terms) to find companies for business.
Sorry, I read this three times, and it doesn't make any sense.
Are you trying to say that the Yellow Pages doesn't want people to search for companies they want to do business with? That's pretty wacky.. "Hey, pay us money to list your business in our book. Oh, but we forbid anyone from using our book to look you up."
No, it isn't.
Don't make a distinction that does not exist in order to make it sound better.
Don't lump two things together when they really are different, just because you don't like them.
This particular money is collected by the government and then given to CRIA.
No, it is not . It is collected by the Canadian Private Copying Collective (which is *NOT* the government), and then disbursed to copyright holders (including, but not only, the CRIA) and artists. From the CPCC's site:
(a) there really is a link, and if the system hadn't spotted it an astute detective might have or (b) there really is no such connection, in which case the detective will swear at the system for wasting his time and get on with his job.
You forgot (c): the detective, after experiencing (b) a dozen times, and being grilled by his superior as to why he's not had any arrests in X months, will *make* a connection where there was none.
don't think it doesn't happen
use of that "tool" is plainly wrong
IN YOUR OPINION
if not outright illegal
Bullshit.
MAPS has been around (and doing this) for *years*. Companies such as SWBell, Telus, AT&T, and BT have all been listed, have all threatened legal action, and have ALL backed down, because there is no legal case.
If my co-loc was taken down like this, and I couldn't get it resolved all weekend, I would have been in court at 9 AM Monday morning and in front of a judge by 9:30.
And then laughed out of court by 10:00.
You're just so full of shit your eyes should be brown.
Some blocklist implementations trash the sender's email silently
Please list them. *IF* this is true, then the people who did the implementation are idiots - but I suspect it's just that you're full of shit.
if the sender _is_ a spammer, that feedback would let them listwash and verify which addresses were valid and can be sold for more money.
Bullshit.
First of all, the whole point of blocklists is to conserve your bandwidth (otherwise you would use a content filter). The *only* way you can do that is to reject the mail at the beginning. Every RBL implementation I've seen replies with a rejection right after the MAIL FROM: or HELO (which means that the SMTP client never even gets the chance to send the destination address.)
Second, accepting the mail does nothing to verify an address. A "550: you're in MAPS" tells the spammer nothing about whether the address is valid or not. In fact, silently discarding spam has the exact opposite effect: the spammer thinks that the address is valid, because the spam wasn't rejected.
Please provide some links of the broken RBL implementations you're talking about.
mandrake is also a natural laxative.
Maybe, but it's a bitch swallowing all eight CDs.
do you pronounce Mandriva as "Man-drive-ah" or as "Man-dree-vah"?
:o)
Well, if their new logo changes to this then, I'd guess the former
They used to be 17 years from the date they issued, but that changed sometime in the last couple of years.
Thank you - I stand corrected.
If it's a dumb idea that doesn't work, what's the harm?
Because it *might* be possible, and a patent for something for an "idea" that the patent-holder not only can't do, but doesn't even know how to implement, can stop legitimate researchers from pursuing.
If it's a great idea that does work, apparently Sony's R&D team came up with it first
No, they didn't. They came up with an *idea* of how someone *might* do it. There is a huge difference between inventing something, and coming up with an idea on *how* to invent something.
The preceding subject was brought to you by the Magic 8-ball :o)
More specifically:
will this ever be profitable?
Possibly - see below.
Don't patents last less than 10 years?
No. In the US, patents last 17 years from the date the patent is granted.
Is this going to be a commercially viable technology within the patents lifetime?
I'd guess not.
Are Sony just going to use it to sue the pants off of all the research institutions that will undoubtedly be implementing this technology first?
That would be my guess. So much for "promoting the useful arts and sciences".
The point is it doesn't have to be a spam friendly ISP. All it takes is some server at the colo getting cracked and used for spam. Or some idiot setting up an open relay at the colo because they don't know what they are doing.
Bullshit.
MAPS (and almost every other RBL) won't blacklist an entire ISP for one machine.
They start with one machine (the one sending the spam), and if the ISP does nothing about it, the block starts growing.
See, read the article - they were blocked because of repeated complaints. This is not just one machine.
If we got several years of significantly increased productivity, for the cost of two brief SCCS transitions (one onto BK, the other off from BK), is that such a bad deal?
That entirely depends on how much productivity we gained, versus how much was (and will be) lost due to the transitions, whether or not that same (or a similar) productivity gain would have been realized if Linus had chosen an open-source SCCM from the beginning.
In TFA Linus is quoted as saying "three years of using BitKeeper has made some profound improvements to the workflow"
So linus apparently thinks that the increased productivity over the three years is enough to offset the pain that he must now endure to switch to a new system.
WHAT!?!?! How do you get that?
Saying "This helped a lot" is not the same as saying "the help this provides is enough to overcome X mount of trouble".
I think you've been influenced by the Underpants Gnomes - you've skipped an essential step in your logic there.
Note the difference betweeen ignroing patents from OTHER nations and not caring about IP. Obviously the US cared about IP. Their own IP.
Wrong. It's pretty well known that Hollywood became the movie-making center of the US because movie makers didn't want to pay patent fees to Edison - their solution was to move as far away as possible (Edison was in NY) to avoid prosecution.
I got the point.. I was just seizing the opportunity to be a smartass. :o)
Jonathan Schwarz is the Ransom Love of our time
:o)
Hmm.. I thought that Ransom Love was the Ransom Love of our time.
The assumption was New Mexico.
If you're an American without a passport, just come back through California, Mexico, and Arizona.
Yes, because these states all share a border with Canada, right?
I think you might wanna brush up on your geography a little.
sweat contest
.. and why would *anyone* want to hold a contest to see who's the sweatiest?
Umm, exactly what do you think the two people are doing in that chair, that they would sweat so much?
I'm all for it if she shows some boobies
:o)
You mean hers, or someone else's?
If you meant hers, I think she'll have to get some first.
Of you meant someone elses, I vote for Lindsay Lohan's.