I think they were mostly water, with some sort of green water-plant, and tiny shrimp or some such, for a "complete" plant-animal symbiotic environment.
Anyhow, they were supposed to cycle "forever?" in their closed, balanced system. Assuming you gave it enought sunlight, but didn't over-cook it
Never heard of these things, but what you describe doesn't entirely sound like a completely closed, balanced environment. After all, there was an external source of energy--much like this rock with a thin layer of air we live on.
And second of all, why was IndyMedia waiting for the return of the drives before restoring sites? Didn't they have backups?
A lot of IMCs are run on shoestring, if any, budgets by volunteers who aren't exactly well-off. Hosting and bandwidth aren't cheap, and I think it's likely the people handling Ahimsa didn't even have empty drives available to restore to, never mind back up to.
"The next Mohammed Atta is not going to be found in commercial databases," Griffin said, referring to the tactical leader of the 9/11 attacks. "We are going to stop him running a red light somewhere, and we are going to run relationships associations with this guy and we are going to say, gee, you have things in common with guys on watch lists. That's how you are going to find the guy -- not because he has bad credit.""
Anyone else reminded of the overreaction to the Columbine High School shootings, where anyone who fit a "goth" or "geek" profile, or had anything judged remotely in common with Harris and Klebold, got the dangerous criminal treatment for months afterward?
The Supreme Court, the group the Constitution created to interpret the laws, correctly have held that there are limits to speech that a free and safe society must have. The old "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" adage and inciting a riot.
If you understood the circumstances of the case where that line was used, you might not be so comfortable about the court's ruling.
That's really what I find so disgusting about Darl's anti-FOSS stance. He publicly seems to absolutely discount the possibility that anyone would work on something for no monetary compensation, so he wishes to deny everyone that choice, starting with usurping control of (possibly) the biggest free software project in existence today. Never mind that the latest version of his company's flagship product relies heavily on freely-developed software, and is built on a codebase that was once distributed freely.
Privately, he's likely either a complete and total dunce and thus no different from his public appearance, or he's knowingly trying to commit some kind of fraud, legal or financial. The only question to me at this point is "what's the real story behind SCO's suicide dive?"
Touchy, touchy. I don't recall your parent poster specifically bashing the Republicrats or Demublicans, only pointing out the most recent, egregious example of the tendency to toss people in cages for attempting to express their political viewpoints in public.
Right now, I'm doing a heck of a lot with an ancient Pentium II--browsing, playing da muzik, typing up copy and papers, serving a website and maintaining a DNS, that kinda stuff.
Now, if I wanted to play Doom 3, or run ProTools (or Nuendo:-), I would want to get my hands on something up-to-date, with a stupid-fast CPU and gobs of RAM and storage. Really, though, whenever friends need to use this machine, they don't miss anything. I have a web browser. I have an IM client. I have an IRC client. I have a word processor. It all Just Works. Aside from games or media production, what would I need a P4 3.6GHz or dual G5 for?...and now that I've typed that, the hard drive will finally die after years of abuse...
The phrase "united front" mean anything to the linux community?
Maybe not, but my hackles tend to go up when I hear terms like "unity" and "united front" tossed around, perhaps because they tend to be used by Troktskyites and other vanguardists wanting everyone to follow their way, and only their way.
Yes, I hang around in some fringe circles. Hang around for a moment, this is going somewhere.
An anarchist would be more concerned with solidarity between groups that share common goals--you can have tens, even thousands of different projects and groups, but they work best when sharing ideas and supporting each other instead of each group demanding that everyone else follow behind their glorious leadership.
How might this esoteric political argument apply to software?
I cringe whenever I hear about "the next killer distro that will take over" or silly distro holy wars over Debian vs. Gentoo vs. Mandrake vs. Fedora as "the desktop distro." OTOH, cooperative efforts like freedesktop.org, the Linux Standards Base, and some of the efforts to bridge the KDE and GNOME desktops with common protocols make me smile. In situations like these, software "solidarity" can allow for numerous distributions aimed at different groups of people to work well together because they share common protocols and technologies, interchangeable stuff when possible.
Mind you, this submission bugged the crap out of me, precisely because the submitter came across in a combative, pseudo-underdog fashion that seems intended to bleed mindshare from other distributions in favour of one group's (or individual's) ego, rather than trying to just make a better collection of software or doing one thing better so that others can learn and benefit.
Bah, I'm exhausted, and I'm not sure this made much sense, but there you have it--I think what the real problem facing the FOSS community is false unity versus real solidarity.
Re:All of this could easily have been avoided.
on
Mambo Users Threatened
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's obvious to anyone that this scenario could easily have been avoided. The issue here is the restrictive nature of the GPL. Had this code been released under the more flexible and free BSD license, none of these issues would arise.
WRONG.
The issue here is that Connolly claims Sakic inserted code under a restrictive licence into a GPL program without the copyright holder's permission. Replace "GPL" with "BSD", and the argument made by Connolly is the same, regardless of its legal backing.
At most, the only additional right Sakic would have if Mambo were BSD would be the ability to relicence Mambo code into a proprietary program whether or not he is the original author; credit need only be given. Under the GPL, Sakic would have to be the original author in order to relicence the code.
However, Connolly's argument arises from the appearance of similar functionality in Mambo after it was added to his own proprietary program. He claims the code was lifted from the modifications made by Sakic; the programmer says he reimplemented the functionality in a clean situation. BSD or GPL, Connolly would still argue that Sakic had no right to contribute the code to Mambo that was written for Furthermore and licenced under tight restrictions. BSD or GPL, Sakic would still argue that he rewrote entirely new code for Mambo.
Connolly still got his damn code in the first place, and since he isn't distributing it, the GPL as it applies to Furthermore is dormant (recall that the code Sakic modified for Furthermore was under the GPL). The GPL would only kick in if Connolly distributes Furthermore and if Sakic was not the original author, and thus would have had had no right to relicence the Mambo code.
As far as my understanding of the GPL goes, in order for him to have commissioned the modification of it, he must accept the GPL
IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot...
If Sakic was the original author of the Mambo lines in question, and he did not reassign his copyright over those lines to another entity (such as some kind of legal shell for Mambo or the FSF or whatnot), then he could legally relicence his code for another recipient under request. If Sakic did not originally write the code, then he would have had no right without permission to modify the program with the intent of placing it under non-GPL terms, as Connolly supposedly intended.
However, Sakic says the later Mambo modification used none of the code written for Connolly.
No matter how you slice it, Sakic is the one in trouble here, and the Mambo project itself is clean:
1) If the original GPL code was written by Sakic and Connolly asked him to modify under non-GPL terms, only a non-compete clause in the contract could stop Sakic from reimplementing the function in Mambo.
1a) If this non-compete clause exists, then Sakic violated it, and Connolly has a solid case against Sakic. At most, Section 7 of the GPL may kick in since Sakic provided the modification while he was under a legal restriction that would contradict his rights and responsibilities under the GPL, and the whole mess reverts to standard copyright law until the tainted code is removed and reimplemented by someone who is not tainted by extra restrictions on their modification and distribution rights. This would put no restrictions on existing use of the software, just distribution until clean code went out; the users are safe as long as they don't knowingly distribute tainted code. One of the Linux kernel NTFS folks had to wait almost two years before working on the NTFS code again due to a non-compete in a contract he signed during a job for Microsoft.
1b) If there is no non-compete, then Sakic and Mambo are legally clear, though future contractors may wish to put a strict non-compete in Sakic's future contracts, something that might restrict future involvement in writing Mambo or deny him paid work if he refuses and the contractor doesn't back down.
2) If the original GPL code was not written by Sakic, then he made a promise he could not fulfill if, as claimed, he wrote the code with the intent of placing it outside of the GPL. In this case, Connolly might have a fraud case against Sakic. Again, without that non-compete, Mambo is clean and the users can spread it all they want.
Not entirely accurate. According to the guy who wrote the code, he just wrote a different implementation of the idea, and gave that to Mambo.
Then this cases hinges on whether Sakic's contract with Connolly includes some kind of non-compete clause. If not, then Connolly can whine and complain all he wants, but it still won't give him a legal leg to stand on. If it does, then Sakic may have violated that part of his contract by providing the reimplementation to Mambo, and he is in legal jeopardy.
It sounds like the code in question is legally clean since it was derived from GPL-covered source, and that other potential customers know to put a non-compete into Sakic's contracts in the future--if he ever gets such contracts again.
If you've never seen the show, you probably won't get it. If you do... you can imagine what the look on her face was probably like. I couldn't see that far, so I didn't get a look at her reaction, but it couldn't have been good.
I had a chance to see GitS2:I at the Toronto International Film Festival last week. I'll need to see it again before I can properly critcize or praise it (I was a bit stoked about just having the chance to see it), but my first impressions are that it is visually stunning.
I don't know how the storyline or certain philosophical aspects of the script will be taken by North American audiences (it's practically Confucian at times), but there were some moments of genuine humour that I think the first movie lacked. The animation style is interesting, and it looks damn good. One person who saw the movie with me said she was hooked by the animation in the trailer, which stunned her. She works at an animation company, so she has some idea of quality animation versus crap.
At least the iPod, as a storage device, has some scholastic merit. Penn State subsidising Napster subscriptions using student tuition and fees is absoutely appaling.
Unless Penn State was placed in a situation where a certain four-letter-acronym organization threatened to unleash their legion of attack lawyers, unless the university chose to "voluntarily" sign up students to the new Napster, including the cost in the student fees. In other words, Penn State may be the victim of legal and financial blackmail.
What makes them think the general non-science public will.
Must everything be justifiable in terms of lowest-common-denominator mass-market economics?
I don't expect my ex-girlfriend to understand superstring theory; hell, I can still barely wrap my brain around the basis and effects of relativity theory. However, there are almost certainly people interested in this kind of information, people who might be able to make use of it or build upon it despite not being employed by Boeing, GlaxoSmithKline, or any other major recipient of corporate welfare. If nothing else, I think we're all better off if research funded with tax dollars--money extorted from you and I--be made available to everyone who paid for it--again, you and I, and those others who can make use of it, for applications or for simple education.
In a way, you propose a cathedral-based justification as an opposing viewpoint to a bazaar-based proposal; the plebes won't understand it anyway, so why should they be allowed to sully our holy works?
I haven't switched [from Konqueror], and will not switch anytime soon
That's perfectly KO--the main thing is, you haven't gone back to Windows and IE.
I think all of these intra-OSS browser wars, while perhaps useful for creating a bit of competition, ultimately can do greater harm to browser development. Instead of poaching users from other non-IE browsers, one purpose of these OSS browsers should be to get enough people off IE that Microsoft no longer has a browser monopoly. Gecko-based browsers are good. KHTML-based browsers are good. I personally use the latest version of Galeon; many others here use Firefox on Windows. Ultimately, the pages we look at should all look close to the same, and not require the use of proprietary, OS-specific extensions or allowances for bad coding practices, like IE often does.
If the new browsers can become widespread enough that the IE monopoly is cracked, webpage writers will have to write standards-compliant pages that don't require MS-only functionality, lest they lock out, say, 20% of their potential market. Once that happens, there will be fewer IE-only coders going into corporate settings to design intranets, fewer people growing up on writing VB apps for their own uses before going into the corporate world, presenting an even greater threat to the other MS monopoly--the desktop.
I use Galeon, you use Konq--neither of us use IE, and that's a good thing.
Glad I was one of the people that decided to wait and see what it was all about instead of taking it as a sign that our government was overextending itself.
To me, it's a sign of just how much people trust their rulers and law enforcement to Do the Right Thing--which is to say, they don't.
What will the new features and code in X.org's next release mean for people still futzing around on sub-Pentium III machines? I'm running FC2 on a PII-266 with 224 MB of RAM, with an ancient ATI All-in-Wonder (not pro, not 128, not Radeon--just AIW!). It runs reasonably well with a fairly glitzy GNOME 2 theme, considering that I have a webserver and nameserver running as well. If and when the next release is included in a future FC milestone, should I expect things to run slower, faster, or about the same as now?
Never had this odd thing that the left bar overlaps the comments?
On a couple of rare occasions, I've run into very slight overlap, but I can count the number of times I've countered this on my left hand. I can take a screenshot if you'd like, but under Mozilla 1.7.2/Epiphany 1.2.7, Slashdot renders fine.
My machine is secure. I'd sooner have an insecure browser than does what I need it to do than a secure browser than doesn't.
If you're using an insecure browser, then your machine is not secure.
I don't know what websites you're using that don't render under Gecko properly, or refuse to acknowledge anything other than an MSIE user agent string. When I run into one of those sites*, I make a note to avoid it. If it's something "essential", like a government site, I either find a workaround, see if there is an offline alternative, and lacking that, complain.
* So far, I've only run into one government site that refused a Galeon user agent. I know it wasn't anything more than that, because changing the user agent string allowed me to access the site--signing up for Canadian employment insurance benefits, incidentally. Beyond that, I haven't run into any sites that don't render properly under Gecko. My bank's site has run fine since Mozilla still used M designations for its milestone releases.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they were mostly water, with some sort of green water-plant, and tiny shrimp or some such, for a "complete" plant-animal symbiotic environment.
Anyhow, they were supposed to cycle "forever?" in their closed, balanced system. Assuming you gave it enought sunlight, but didn't over-cook it
Never heard of these things, but what you describe doesn't entirely sound like a completely closed, balanced environment. After all, there was an external source of energy--much like this rock with a thin layer of air we live on.
And second of all, why was IndyMedia waiting for the return of the drives before restoring sites? Didn't they have backups?
A lot of IMCs are run on shoestring, if any, budgets by volunteers who aren't exactly well-off. Hosting and bandwidth aren't cheap, and I think it's likely the people handling Ahimsa didn't even have empty drives available to restore to, never mind back up to.
"The next Mohammed Atta is not going to be found in commercial databases," Griffin said, referring to the tactical leader of the 9/11 attacks. "We are going to stop him running a red light somewhere, and we are going to run relationships associations with this guy and we are going to say, gee, you have things in common with guys on watch lists. That's how you are going to find the guy -- not because he has bad credit.""
Anyone else reminded of the overreaction to the Columbine High School shootings, where anyone who fit a "goth" or "geek" profile, or had anything judged remotely in common with Harris and Klebold, got the dangerous criminal treatment for months afterward?
The Supreme Court, the group the Constitution created to interpret the laws, correctly have held that there are limits to speech that a free and safe society must have. The old "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" adage and inciting a riot.
If you understood the circumstances of the case where that line was used, you might not be so comfortable about the court's ruling.
Yes?
Yes, if the individual developers choose so.
That's really what I find so disgusting about Darl's anti-FOSS stance. He publicly seems to absolutely discount the possibility that anyone would work on something for no monetary compensation, so he wishes to deny everyone that choice, starting with usurping control of (possibly) the biggest free software project in existence today. Never mind that the latest version of his company's flagship product relies heavily on freely-developed software, and is built on a codebase that was once distributed freely.
Privately, he's likely either a complete and total dunce and thus no different from his public appearance, or he's knowingly trying to commit some kind of fraud, legal or financial. The only question to me at this point is "what's the real story behind SCO's suicide dive?"
You know this is the exact same tactic Julius Caesar used against the nations he conquered, and he was one of Rome's greatest leaders.
History is written by the victorious, and Caesar's actions helped bring an end to the Roman Republic.
Is this really a historical parallel you want to explore?
Touchy, touchy. I don't recall your parent poster specifically bashing the Republicrats or Demublicans, only pointing out the most recent, egregious example of the tendency to toss people in cages for attempting to express their political viewpoints in public.
Right now, I'm doing a heck of a lot with an ancient Pentium II--browsing, playing da muzik, typing up copy and papers, serving a website and maintaining a DNS, that kinda stuff.
...and now that I've typed that, the hard drive will finally die after years of abuse...
Now, if I wanted to play Doom 3, or run ProTools (or Nuendo:-), I would want to get my hands on something up-to-date, with a stupid-fast CPU and gobs of RAM and storage. Really, though, whenever friends need to use this machine, they don't miss anything. I have a web browser. I have an IM client. I have an IRC client. I have a word processor. It all Just Works. Aside from games or media production, what would I need a P4 3.6GHz or dual G5 for?
The phrase "united front" mean anything to the linux community?
Maybe not, but my hackles tend to go up when I hear terms like "unity" and "united front" tossed around, perhaps because they tend to be used by Troktskyites and other vanguardists wanting everyone to follow their way, and only their way.
Yes, I hang around in some fringe circles. Hang around for a moment, this is going somewhere.
An anarchist would be more concerned with solidarity between groups that share common goals--you can have tens, even thousands of different projects and groups, but they work best when sharing ideas and supporting each other instead of each group demanding that everyone else follow behind their glorious leadership.
How might this esoteric political argument apply to software?
I cringe whenever I hear about "the next killer distro that will take over" or silly distro holy wars over Debian vs. Gentoo vs. Mandrake vs. Fedora as "the desktop distro." OTOH, cooperative efforts like freedesktop.org, the Linux Standards Base, and some of the efforts to bridge the KDE and GNOME desktops with common protocols make me smile. In situations like these, software "solidarity" can allow for numerous distributions aimed at different groups of people to work well together because they share common protocols and technologies, interchangeable stuff when possible.
Mind you, this submission bugged the crap out of me, precisely because the submitter came across in a combative, pseudo-underdog fashion that seems intended to bleed mindshare from other distributions in favour of one group's (or individual's) ego, rather than trying to just make a better collection of software or doing one thing better so that others can learn and benefit.
Bah, I'm exhausted, and I'm not sure this made much sense, but there you have it--I think what the real problem facing the FOSS community is false unity versus real solidarity.
It's obvious to anyone that this scenario could easily have been avoided. The issue here is the restrictive nature of the GPL. Had this code been released under the more flexible and free BSD license, none of these issues would arise.
WRONG.
The issue here is that Connolly claims Sakic inserted code under a restrictive licence into a GPL program without the copyright holder's permission. Replace "GPL" with "BSD", and the argument made by Connolly is the same, regardless of its legal backing.
At most, the only additional right Sakic would have if Mambo were BSD would be the ability to relicence Mambo code into a proprietary program whether or not he is the original author; credit need only be given. Under the GPL, Sakic would have to be the original author in order to relicence the code.
However, Connolly's argument arises from the appearance of similar functionality in Mambo after it was added to his own proprietary program. He claims the code was lifted from the modifications made by Sakic; the programmer says he reimplemented the functionality in a clean situation. BSD or GPL, Connolly would still argue that Sakic had no right to contribute the code to Mambo that was written for Furthermore and licenced under tight restrictions. BSD or GPL, Sakic would still argue that he rewrote entirely new code for Mambo.
Connolly still got his damn code in the first place, and since he isn't distributing it, the GPL as it applies to Furthermore is dormant (recall that the code Sakic modified for Furthermore was under the GPL). The GPL would only kick in if Connolly distributes Furthermore and if Sakic was not the original author, and thus would have had had no right to relicence the Mambo code.
Now, get off your soapbox.
As far as my understanding of the GPL goes, in order for him to have commissioned the modification of it, he must accept the GPL
IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot...
If Sakic was the original author of the Mambo lines in question, and he did not reassign his copyright over those lines to another entity (such as some kind of legal shell for Mambo or the FSF or whatnot), then he could legally relicence his code for another recipient under request. If Sakic did not originally write the code, then he would have had no right without permission to modify the program with the intent of placing it under non-GPL terms, as Connolly supposedly intended.
However, Sakic says the later Mambo modification used none of the code written for Connolly.
No matter how you slice it, Sakic is the one in trouble here, and the Mambo project itself is clean:
1) If the original GPL code was written by Sakic and Connolly asked him to modify under non-GPL terms, only a non-compete clause in the contract could stop Sakic from reimplementing the function in Mambo.
1a) If this non-compete clause exists, then Sakic violated it, and Connolly has a solid case against Sakic. At most, Section 7 of the GPL may kick in since Sakic provided the modification while he was under a legal restriction that would contradict his rights and responsibilities under the GPL, and the whole mess reverts to standard copyright law until the tainted code is removed and reimplemented by someone who is not tainted by extra restrictions on their modification and distribution rights. This would put no restrictions on existing use of the software, just distribution until clean code went out; the users are safe as long as they don't knowingly distribute tainted code. One of the Linux kernel NTFS folks had to wait almost two years before working on the NTFS code again due to a non-compete in a contract he signed during a job for Microsoft.
1b) If there is no non-compete, then Sakic and Mambo are legally clear, though future contractors may wish to put a strict non-compete in Sakic's future contracts, something that might restrict future involvement in writing Mambo or deny him paid work if he refuses and the contractor doesn't back down.
2) If the original GPL code was not written by Sakic, then he made a promise he could not fulfill if, as claimed, he wrote the code with the intent of placing it outside of the GPL. In this case, Connolly might have a fraud case against Sakic. Again, without that non-compete, Mambo is clean and the users can spread it all they want.
Not entirely accurate. According to the guy who wrote the code, he just wrote a different implementation of the idea, and gave that to Mambo.
Then this cases hinges on whether Sakic's contract with Connolly includes some kind of non-compete clause. If not, then Connolly can whine and complain all he wants, but it still won't give him a legal leg to stand on. If it does, then Sakic may have violated that part of his contract by providing the reimplementation to Mambo, and he is in legal jeopardy.
It sounds like the code in question is legally clean since it was derived from GPL-covered source, and that other potential customers know to put a non-compete into Sakic's contracts in the future--if he ever gets such contracts again.
"HEY NEVE, I LOVED YOU IN CATWALK!"
If you've never seen the show, you probably won't get it. If you do... you can imagine what the look on her face was probably like. I couldn't see that far, so I didn't get a look at her reaction, but it couldn't have been good.
Hey, you were there too? Were you near the point where the line was split for the "fire zone"?
If so... remember what the one guy near the front of the back half yelled to Neve Campbell when she was waiting to enter her limo?:-)
I wasn't the guy, but I was standing close to him, a bit in front.
I had a chance to see GitS2:I at the Toronto International Film Festival last week. I'll need to see it again before I can properly critcize or praise it (I was a bit stoked about just having the chance to see it), but my first impressions are that it is visually stunning.
I don't know how the storyline or certain philosophical aspects of the script will be taken by North American audiences (it's practically Confucian at times), but there were some moments of genuine humour that I think the first movie lacked. The animation style is interesting, and it looks damn good. One person who saw the movie with me said she was hooked by the animation in the trailer, which stunned her. She works at an animation company, so she has some idea of quality animation versus crap.
Yeah. Worth a view, maybe two!
At least the iPod, as a storage device, has some scholastic merit. Penn State subsidising Napster subscriptions using student tuition and fees is absoutely appaling.
Unless Penn State was placed in a situation where a certain four-letter-acronym organization threatened to unleash their legion of attack lawyers, unless the university chose to "voluntarily" sign up students to the new Napster, including the cost in the student fees. In other words, Penn State may be the victim of legal and financial blackmail.
Someone want to look into this?
What makes them think the general non-science public will.
Must everything be justifiable in terms of lowest-common-denominator mass-market economics?
I don't expect my ex-girlfriend to understand superstring theory; hell, I can still barely wrap my brain around the basis and effects of relativity theory. However, there are almost certainly people interested in this kind of information, people who might be able to make use of it or build upon it despite not being employed by Boeing, GlaxoSmithKline, or any other major recipient of corporate welfare. If nothing else, I think we're all better off if research funded with tax dollars--money extorted from you and I--be made available to everyone who paid for it--again, you and I, and those others who can make use of it, for applications or for simple education.
In a way, you propose a cathedral-based justification as an opposing viewpoint to a bazaar-based proposal; the plebes won't understand it anyway, so why should they be allowed to sully our holy works?
I haven't switched [from Konqueror], and will not switch anytime soon
That's perfectly KO--the main thing is, you haven't gone back to Windows and IE.
I think all of these intra-OSS browser wars, while perhaps useful for creating a bit of competition, ultimately can do greater harm to browser development. Instead of poaching users from other non-IE browsers, one purpose of these OSS browsers should be to get enough people off IE that Microsoft no longer has a browser monopoly. Gecko-based browsers are good. KHTML-based browsers are good. I personally use the latest version of Galeon; many others here use Firefox on Windows. Ultimately, the pages we look at should all look close to the same, and not require the use of proprietary, OS-specific extensions or allowances for bad coding practices, like IE often does.
If the new browsers can become widespread enough that the IE monopoly is cracked, webpage writers will have to write standards-compliant pages that don't require MS-only functionality, lest they lock out, say, 20% of their potential market. Once that happens, there will be fewer IE-only coders going into corporate settings to design intranets, fewer people growing up on writing VB apps for their own uses before going into the corporate world, presenting an even greater threat to the other MS monopoly--the desktop.
I use Galeon, you use Konq--neither of us use IE, and that's a good thing.
In most cases anyway a judge will let the jury decide.
Unless I'm mistaken, there is no jury in either of these civil cases. Judge Kimball is the sole decision-maker here.
You really haven't been following this case, have you?
Darl just described SCOX's 3rd quarter as "active & productive". Riiiiight.
They generated tons of bullshit, didn't they?
Glad I was one of the people that decided to wait and see what it was all about instead of taking it as a sign that our government was overextending itself.
To me, it's a sign of just how much people trust their rulers and law enforcement to Do the Right Thing--which is to say, they don't.
Sign of the times, I suppose.
I'm very serious about this. Emp almost packeted my company out of existance.
And now he's trying to mod your comment out of existence!
Potentially dumb question:
What will the new features and code in X.org's next release mean for people still futzing around on sub-Pentium III machines? I'm running FC2 on a PII-266 with 224 MB of RAM, with an ancient ATI All-in-Wonder (not pro, not 128, not Radeon--just AIW!). It runs reasonably well with a fairly glitzy GNOME 2 theme, considering that I have a webserver and nameserver running as well. If and when the next release is included in a future FC milestone, should I expect things to run slower, faster, or about the same as now?
What about Slashdot?
Never had this odd thing that the left bar overlaps the comments?
On a couple of rare occasions, I've run into very slight overlap, but I can count the number of times I've countered this on my left hand. I can take a screenshot if you'd like, but under Mozilla 1.7.2/Epiphany 1.2.7, Slashdot renders fine.
My machine is secure. I'd sooner have an insecure browser than does what I need it to do than a secure browser than doesn't.
If you're using an insecure browser, then your machine is not secure.
I don't know what websites you're using that don't render under Gecko properly, or refuse to acknowledge anything other than an MSIE user agent string. When I run into one of those sites*, I make a note to avoid it. If it's something "essential", like a government site, I either find a workaround, see if there is an offline alternative, and lacking that, complain.
* So far, I've only run into one government site that refused a Galeon user agent. I know it wasn't anything more than that, because changing the user agent string allowed me to access the site--signing up for Canadian employment insurance benefits, incidentally. Beyond that, I haven't run into any sites that don't render properly under Gecko. My bank's site has run fine since Mozilla still used M designations for its milestone releases.