here in Europe it's obvious that you're going to provide your ID if you're asked
In the UK you're under no general obligation to have any ID, let alone to carry it around with you, let alone to show it to someone. Drivers do have to have a license but don't have to carry it around with them.
I sometimes have my cheque card with me, if that counts, but frequently I don't have any sort of ID when I go out. Never known it to be an issue.
But, this should be a CIVIL case in a local court over the way the police assaulted the daughter
Why should that be restricted to being a civil case? If we assume that the force used was unreasonable then it was a serious criminal offense (and if we assume the force used was reasonable then that's the end of it either way).
If someone from outside looked into the United States and saw your comment, they'd think that people are getting beat up by cops on every corner, and that we are in a facist state.
Actually, as someone from outside the US who's reading these comments, I'm more struck by the ones that suggest that the police are in constant fear of being shot at by anyone they talk to.
How would he win if he loses? If he can't use the name Lindows anymore, then all the publicity around the name will have been worthless.
But he'll get publicity for the new name in all the news stories telling about how the name was changed following the court battle. That in itself will be enhanced by the previous publicity i.e. when stories say "Lindows now called Rapple", or whatever, fewer people will be wondering who Lindows were. By hinting at appeals, maybe make a competition for the new name, that sort of thing, he can get further publicity riding off of the old publicity.
If you're already in the news then that makes it a lot easier to stay in the news.
I don't have to be a master builder to say the roof shouldn't leak. I don't have to be a master carpenter to say that a table shouldn't wobble. I don't have to be a a great author to criticise a book. I live in a house, I use tables and I read books. I also watch movies. Those are all the credentials I need in order to form opinions on those things.
I happen to like the films a lot. I'm amazed at how well they were done and how true they remained to the books. Most of the changes were fine by me. Some I'm less keen on but overall a great deal was done very right for my tastes. But I certainly don't think that I shouldn't criticise anything just because I'm not a film producer. I think the idea is silly.
And in closing, if you don't like people's nit-picking posts about the films then why don't you write your own superior nit-picking posts about the films rather than whining about the ones other people have made?:p
That's why they would rather pay the relatively paltry sum than waste the lawyer's and executive's time with something whose best outcome is saving the company $1000.
Sure, so you do it and let us know how it works out. Call Google, or large company of your choice, explain to them that it's much cheaper to give you $1,000 than to waste the lawyer's and executive's time and see how it works out. Best of luck.
Parent describes a perfectly credible tactic SCO might use: sign nominal but paltry deals with high-profile Linux user(s) and then bleat to the press about it (without disclosing the paltry terms).
Yep, whenever I need cash I just phone up a large company and ask them for $1,000. Once I've explained that it's peanuts they're always happy to hand it over. I don't see why it shouldn't work for SCO as well.
I would guess that it is considered a troll because Qt does allow you to keep your source closed.
Okay, step by step:
1. You can't normally link proprietary software to QT without paying licensing fees, agreed? No criticism here, no condemnation, just those are the rules, agreed?
2. GTK normally does allow you to link with proprietary software without requiring licensing fees, agreed?
3. The system this article is about apparently allows you to use some QT functionality with your GTK apps.
So the question if I understood it correctly was, can you legally use this system in conjunction with a proprietary GTK-using app? If I understand correctly this would be the user making this choice not the developer, but maybe I've misunderstood how this system works.
That question seems to me to be a valid and reasonable one. I don't think you have answered or even addressed it, but either way it does not appear to be a troll.
ESR is adamant that there's no philosophical issue other than a simple issue of how to frame the movement so that people's prejudices aren't rankled.
I don't think that's an accurate representation of what he said in the statement you linked to.
In that statement ESR first waffles around the issue of philosophical differences (e.g. talking about how he cares about rights too but not at yet commenting on whether he cares about or believes in the same rights as RMS) then recognises that there ARE philosophical differences ("The Open Source Initiative does not have a position for or against RMS's goals", I don't think you can get a much more clear cut difference than that) THEN having acknowledged that difference he says that the real difference is over "tactics and rhetoric."
But tactics to achieve what? Presumably the open source movement must have some sort of goals, since he talks at length over how well it is achieving them. I don't think he ever says what the goals are but if the open source movement doesn't take a position on RMS' goals then its goals must be different to RMS'. Surely if they have different goals, then that has to be more fundamental than the differences in tactics. In fact having different goals would seem like one likely explanation of differences in tactics.
The only basis left for saying that there is no difference in philosophy between open source and free software is to say that RMS doesn't get to say what free software stands for. Fair enough in itself, but we'd have to knock ESR off his perch on the same basis.
The difference between Galileo's writings and an unfashionable idea is that Galileo expressed a TRUE statement.
No, I think he's correct that Galileo's idea was both unfashionable AND true, which creates a particular conflict. Many true ideas, even completely new ones, do not create any great controversy or animosity. Some ideas are clearly objectionable in some times and places, and not in others. I don't think it's unreasonable to describe that as "fashion". Not all newly discovered truths are unfashionable. Galileo's were.
Capitalism is a democracy in and of itself in that if something is too racist to be sold, no one will buy it and the company will either change its tactics or be put out of business.
If capitalism was a government type it'd be a plutocracy, not a democracy. Not a criticism of capitalism, that's how it works, and that's how it's supposed to.
I think this is eventaully a given. IBM is only in bed with Linux so they can ditch AIX. Once their customers are moved over to Linux, IBM can start doing whatever they want with the OS.
The point of Linux being free software is that IBM (or anyone else) can do almost whatever they like with it. The only restriction is that they can't make it proprietary but I don't see IBM wanting to do that. They already have their own proprietary operating systems and can create or buy more if they desperately want to. They are using Linux because they see advantages that arise from it being open source.
So that being the case, I don't see why you think it's eventually a given that "The Linux community will turn on IBM". Of course some people in the Linux community will condemn IBM for all sorts of things, they already do:) and various people will attack Red Hat, Novel, Mandrake, Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Rob Malda etc etc but that's nothing new.
I agree with everything else you said, I just don't see how it supports your conclusion.
Okay, I lied it wasn't sunfreeware.com *blush* it's clearly what the original poster was talking about as sun freeware though, he didn't mention sunfreeware.com.
Liabilities are debts, amounts you owe to people. The amount of liabilities at the balance sheet date doesn't in itself tell you anything about the amount of cash outflow during the year, which I think is what you were using it for.
At the cinema you don't get to control when the movie starts, when it pauses for you to argue over the plot, or when it gets rewound to prove a point. You don't even get to decide which movies are showing.
I appreciate that none of those things may matter to you, but that's the point, not everyone makes choices based on what YOU are looking for from a movie.
Yes it was greedy, but come on, an old guy and his wife get wiped out and you think they got what they deserved?
I have sympathy for the wife, but the guy's intention was to help some supposed bank employees to get their hands on the contents of one of the accounts at the bank. If the scheme had been real then he should be facing prosecution and potentially prison. That he lost his money doesn't seem any great tragedy to me.
Slashdot Mirror
here in Europe it's obvious that you're going to provide your ID if you're asked
In the UK you're under no general obligation to have any ID, let alone to carry it around with you, let alone to show it to someone. Drivers do have to have a license but don't have to carry it around with them.
I sometimes have my cheque card with me, if that counts, but frequently I don't have any sort of ID when I go out. Never known it to be an issue.
But, this should be a CIVIL case in a local court over the way the police assaulted the daughter
Why should that be restricted to being a civil case? If we assume that the force used was unreasonable then it was a serious criminal offense (and if we assume the force used was reasonable then that's the end of it either way).
If someone from outside looked into the United States and saw your comment, they'd think that people are getting beat up by cops on every corner, and that we are in a facist state.
Actually, as someone from outside the US who's reading these comments, I'm more struck by the ones that suggest that the police are in constant fear of being shot at by anyone they talk to.
HURD is the GNU kernel. Debian is Linux distro, hence not HURD.
Debian is an operating system with a wide range of choice in configuration, including a choice of kernels.
How would he win if he loses? If he can't use the name Lindows anymore, then all the publicity around the name will have been worthless.
But he'll get publicity for the new name in all the news stories telling about how the name was changed following the court battle. That in itself will be enhanced by the previous publicity i.e. when stories say "Lindows now called Rapple", or whatever, fewer people will be wondering who Lindows were. By hinting at appeals, maybe make a competition for the new name, that sort of thing, he can get further publicity riding off of the old publicity.
If you're already in the news then that makes it a lot easier to stay in the news.
I can honestly say it was the first I'd heard of a 'Myth that you can't go to work in India'.
I'd call it propaganda rather than myth, but it gets at least a few mentions in most Slashdot stories that cover outsourcing.
I don't have to be a master builder to say the roof shouldn't leak. I don't have to be a master carpenter to say that a table shouldn't wobble. I don't have to be a a great author to criticise a book. I live in a house, I use tables and I read books. I also watch movies. Those are all the credentials I need in order to form opinions on those things.
:p
I happen to like the films a lot. I'm amazed at how well they were done and how true they remained to the books. Most of the changes were fine by me. Some I'm less keen on but overall a great deal was done very right for my tastes. But I certainly don't think that I shouldn't criticise anything just because I'm not a film producer. I think the idea is silly.
And in closing, if you don't like people's nit-picking posts about the films then why don't you write your own superior nit-picking posts about the films rather than whining about the ones other people have made?
What's SUSE to do now? All of SUSE's server products are based on United Linux 1.0.
I thought that UnitedLinux 1.0 was based on SuSE's server products.
Such a victory would cost not only many thousands in legal fees but could cost millions if it scares investors away from Google's impending IPO.
Whereas paying off every con man on the planet will be cheap and won't worry investors at all.
That's why they would rather pay the relatively paltry sum than waste the lawyer's and executive's time with something whose best outcome is saving the company $1000.
Sure, so you do it and let us know how it works out. Call Google, or large company of your choice, explain to them that it's much cheaper to give you $1,000 than to waste the lawyer's and executive's time and see how it works out. Best of luck.
Parent describes a perfectly credible tactic SCO might use: sign nominal but paltry deals with high-profile Linux user(s) and then bleat to the press about it (without disclosing the paltry terms).
Yep, whenever I need cash I just phone up a large company and ask them for $1,000. Once I've explained that it's peanuts they're always happy to hand it over. I don't see why it shouldn't work for SCO as well.
I would guess that it is considered a troll because Qt does allow you to keep your source closed.
Okay, step by step:
1. You can't normally link proprietary software to QT without paying licensing fees, agreed? No criticism here, no condemnation, just those are the rules, agreed?
2. GTK normally does allow you to link with proprietary software without requiring licensing fees, agreed?
3. The system this article is about apparently allows you to use some QT functionality with your GTK apps.
So the question if I understood it correctly was, can you legally use this system in conjunction with a proprietary GTK-using app? If I understand correctly this would be the user making this choice not the developer, but maybe I've misunderstood how this system works.
That question seems to me to be a valid and reasonable one. I don't think you have answered or even addressed it, but either way it does not appear to be a troll.
ESR is adamant that there's no philosophical issue other than a simple issue of how to frame the movement so that people's prejudices aren't rankled.
I don't think that's an accurate representation of what he said in the statement you linked to.
In that statement ESR first waffles around the issue of philosophical differences (e.g. talking about how he cares about rights too but not at yet commenting on whether he cares about or believes in the same rights as RMS) then recognises that there ARE philosophical differences ("The Open Source Initiative does not have a position for or against RMS's goals", I don't think you can get a much more clear cut difference than that) THEN having acknowledged that difference he says that the real difference is over "tactics and rhetoric."
But tactics to achieve what? Presumably the open source movement must have some sort of goals, since he talks at length over how well it is achieving them. I don't think he ever says what the goals are but if the open source movement doesn't take a position on RMS' goals then its goals must be different to RMS'. Surely if they have different goals, then that has to be more fundamental than the differences in tactics. In fact having different goals would seem like one likely explanation of differences in tactics.
The only basis left for saying that there is no difference in philosophy between open source and free software is to say that RMS doesn't get to say what free software stands for. Fair enough in itself, but we'd have to knock ESR off his perch on the same basis.
Thank you for demonstrating so perfectly that he is Not Allowed to Say these things.
Yeah, because other people might *shudder* Say Things Back!
The difference between Galileo's writings and an unfashionable idea is that Galileo expressed a TRUE statement.
No, I think he's correct that Galileo's idea was both unfashionable AND true, which creates a particular conflict. Many true ideas, even completely new ones, do not create any great controversy or animosity. Some ideas are clearly objectionable in some times and places, and not in others. I don't think it's unreasonable to describe that as "fashion". Not all newly discovered truths are unfashionable. Galileo's were.
You can't comment on Slashdot moderation policies, or criticize Slashdot policies openly in the forums.
I'm not sure what general 'Slashdot policies' you have in mind, but criticising the moderation system happens very frequently.
Capitalism is a democracy in and of itself in that if something is too racist to be sold, no one will buy it and the company will either change its tactics or be put out of business.
If capitalism was a government type it'd be a plutocracy, not a democracy. Not a criticism of capitalism, that's how it works, and that's how it's supposed to.
I think this is eventaully a given. IBM is only in bed with Linux so they can ditch AIX. Once their customers are moved over to Linux, IBM can start doing whatever they want with the OS.
:) and various people will attack Red Hat, Novel, Mandrake, Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Rob Malda etc etc but that's nothing new.
The point of Linux being free software is that IBM (or anyone else) can do almost whatever they like with it. The only restriction is that they can't make it proprietary but I don't see IBM wanting to do that. They already have their own proprietary operating systems and can create or buy more if they desperately want to. They are using Linux because they see advantages that arise from it being open source.
So that being the case, I don't see why you think it's eventually a given that "The Linux community will turn on IBM". Of course some people in the Linux community will condemn IBM for all sorts of things, they already do
I agree with everything else you said, I just don't see how it supports your conclusion.
Okay, I lied it wasn't sunfreeware.com *blush* it's clearly what the original poster was talking about as sun freeware though, he didn't mention sunfreeware.com.
I see. I think what might have confused some of us was this line at the start of the second paragraph of the article:
The one with the link to sunfreeware.com.
If you're having trouble finding it, it's just above a big screenshot of sunfreeware.com, labeled "Figure 1: Sun Solaris Freeware Web Site".
Liabilities are debts, amounts you owe to people. The amount of liabilities at the balance sheet date doesn't in itself tell you anything about the amount of cash outflow during the year, which I think is what you were using it for.
Okay, you're right. Sorry if I was being overly argumentative :)
Obviously tastes vary.
At the cinema you don't get to control when the movie starts, when it pauses for you to argue over the plot, or when it gets rewound to prove a point. You don't even get to decide which movies are showing.
I appreciate that none of those things may matter to you, but that's the point, not everyone makes choices based on what YOU are looking for from a movie.
Computers are just not the best way of playing a movie
:)
Sounds like you don't have a decent projector
Yes it was greedy, but come on, an old guy and his wife get wiped out and you think they got what they deserved?
I have sympathy for the wife, but the guy's intention was to help some supposed bank employees to get their hands on the contents of one of the accounts at the bank. If the scheme had been real then he should be facing prosecution and potentially prison. That he lost his money doesn't seem any great tragedy to me.