No, it isn't true that the judge ordered that logs be turned over, became "very angry and confused" when she didn't get everything that had hit the RAM and then issued a technically impossible demand. You know, what you guys were actually talking about.
And obviously you had no idea what the facts were when you were holding forth on "idiots" who don't look into the facts; your point would have made no sense if it were referring to a legally questionable (maybe) but obviously technically feasible order.
With the latest version, installation was trouble-free and surprisingly well-mannered. In the past, Real had an irksome habit of planting icons on the desktop without an owner's permission, as well as making a power grab to associate all multimedia file extensions with the player.
This release of the software is very scrupulous about modifying a system that it has been invited to enter. What's more, the program, by default, will only claim as its own files not associated with any other applications on a computer.
Unfortunately this simulation is a bit... unsound. Not everyone that catches the flu shows symptoms, nor do they miss work. Instead, they just infect those that they work with, and I don't seen anything in the article that leads me to believe that they're factoring this in.
This isn't a simulation of flu transmission, it's a simulation of how your company works when a third of the people are telecommuting and another third are dead.
Perhaps we just disagree about the reasonableness?
Uh, no. You have the facts completely wrong. (At least the person who opened this tangent did, and you and your prodigious non-idiocy certainly didn't bother to clarify that your own name-calling is based on a complete misrepresentation of what actually happened.)
Yes but the difference is that an intelligent, non-technical person will know that they are beyond the area of their expertise and stop and ask a technical person about it whereas an idiot will happily charge in without a clue. Hence she is an idiot.
In fact, the judge made a perfectly reasonable order which all three of you have completely misunderstood before happily charging in without a clue.
So, who are the idiots?
Getting back to the original question, this exchange certainly demonstrates why managing developers (and IT people in general) is so difficult. I don't think there's any other field where people have such disproportionately inflated assessments of themselves and so much misplaced contempt for others.
It's quite simple, really. If you don't like the GPL, then *don't* redistribute GPL software. That wasn't so hard was it?
And if you think you might not like future versions of the GPL, don't redistribute any "v.x or later" or later software. And if you don't like the GPL, don't engage in any transaction with any party that the legal sages at Groklaw might construe as "redistribution".
The question is, is some small chance of successfully sticking it to Microsoft worth all the FUD that remains for any other company interested in providing Linux support?
Perhaps, but the original goals of the GPL included simplicity and universality, not convoluted legal trix0ry to trap one specific competitor over a specific document.
So does this mean MS is hoping to splinter FS development, into GPL 2 and 3?
No, Microsoft issued the vouchers as part of their deal with Novell, the FSF read the voucher text and then worded GPL 3 with the goal of trapping Microsoft into weakening their patent position. For better or worse, it's the FSF playing legal games here and Microsoft just trying to do business.
All the entries seem to be written that way. It's irritating and not even funny the first time, let alone repeatedly, but the practice of giving cited researchers a Chris Berman-esque nickname is a nice innovation in the world of science journalism. Even if the nicknames are hardly (and I never thought I'd write these words) up to Chris Berman's level of cleverness.
I had periodically wondered what the W stood for but had never connected it with "workstation", and doubt if many investors had. (Anyway, other posters are claiming plausibly that the link to "workstation" isn't even correct.)
Going from Chinese civil rights violations to nonsensical ranting about Microsoft in three steps isn't in itself remarkable. But doing it with an "In Soviet Russia..." post in the middle certainly is!
The game may be to get Hollywood and Microsoft, et al., to pressure Washington to cut a deal. But their influence may not be sufficient to move lawmakers on the question of online gambling.
No freaking way is Congress going to abandon all US copyrights over online poker. But if it did happen, which it won't, that would certainly put the lie to all of your paranoid raving about the M$AA controlling the government, no?
This being Slashdot though, all the cryptography "experts" will tell us how things should have been implemented.
Sorry, we can only communicate through analogies to either automobiles or door locks. Discussion of actual automotive door locks is therefore impossible, and referring to Belgium as "the Netherlands" will have to be the site's sole contribution.
After all, if all the recordings were at half the current level, then you'd just turn the volume dial to get the same loudness...since listeners will have the volume at minimum...Maybe you should just set yours there now.
You're at MIT? Set your iPod to minimum, walk over to Kendall T station and ride through the Broadway-Andrew-JFK section. How's that working for you?
I tend to keep music and TV volume very low at home, but still need to crank my iPod to near-full volume on the subway to play older music, and quieter parts still drop out. Music designed for today's listeners simply has to max out the CD format's volume and reduce the range.
To understand the escalation, it works better to think of someone listening to their Walkman or boombox or iPod, which is set to "shuffle"...
Yes, obviously I understand that and it may well be the original motivation and the primary motivation today. But I suspect that the continuing escalation (who listens to radio any more?) is driven also by the fact that the Who album I tried to listen to on the T the other day is simply inaudible in what is now a routine listening environment.
I'd imagine that one of the driving forces here is that listening to music is now an outdoor activity. This trend seems to have started in the days of the Walkman and boomboxes and now that everyone below 30 has headphones on for every waking hour, it's only going to accelerate.
When everyone on the subway is listening to headphones, you can see why the priorities of "audiophiles" take a back seat. Anyway, how badly do audiophiles need to listen to Lil' Flip or Chamillionaire?
Ah, I forgot that part: a positive test would have to be some significant amount higher in concentration than the water in the druggiest sewer in town.
... if any of the, uh, extruded chemicals are bound to DNA, say from cells shed from the drug user's intestinal wall.
I hit "Reply to This" to dismiss that possibility, but come to think of, it might not be completely impractical. What you'd need to do is collect individual intestinal cells out of the sewage stream, quantify the illegal drugs with mass-spec, amplify and type the DNA and run it against a database.
You might theoretically even be able to do it today (I don't know if the drug scan would work on one cell but single-cell DNA analysis is possible) but it would be an insanely expensive way to catch tweakers or potheads. But in 20 years, it might not be that insane.
I think he's referring to the "However, the common threat of lawsuits finally became a reality..." in the blurb here, not to the link. Of course, the blurb also spells the blogger's name two different ways.
My sympathy for Myers/Meyers is limited, though. If you want to build your reputation on kicking around crazies, occasionally getting bitten back is the price you pay.
1) Is there going to be a cap on reimbursed tuition? If not, what happens to, say, MIT tuition when 100% of the bill goes to the government? If so, how many schools are realistically going to be "free"?
2) Who provides employment for all these grads? Is there any plan beyond a superstitious faith that a supply of science grads automatically creates demands? If not, what happens to all the people who don't get jobs? How attractive are those fields going to be once they get flooded?
Those are the first two objections that come to mind. I'm sure there are plenty of others. Baucus may have thought this through, but you'd never know it from the article.
Slashdot Mirror
And obviously you had no idea what the facts were when you were holding forth on "idiots" who don't look into the facts; your point would have made no sense if it were referring to a legally questionable (maybe) but obviously technically feasible order.
C'mon, dude.
This isn't a simulation of flu transmission, it's a simulation of how your company works when a third of the people are telecommuting and another third are dead.
Uh, no. You have the facts completely wrong. (At least the person who opened this tangent did, and you and your prodigious non-idiocy certainly didn't bother to clarify that your own name-calling is based on a complete misrepresentation of what actually happened.)
In fact, the judge made a perfectly reasonable order which all three of you have completely misunderstood before happily charging in without a clue.
So, who are the idiots?
Getting back to the original question, this exchange certainly demonstrates why managing developers (and IT people in general) is so difficult. I don't think there's any other field where people have such disproportionately inflated assessments of themselves and so much misplaced contempt for others.
And if you think you might not like future versions of the GPL, don't redistribute any "v.x or later" or later software. And if you don't like the GPL, don't engage in any transaction with any party that the legal sages at Groklaw might construe as "redistribution".
The question is, is some small chance of successfully sticking it to Microsoft worth all the FUD that remains for any other company interested in providing Linux support?
Perhaps, but the original goals of the GPL included simplicity and universality, not convoluted legal trix0ry to trap one specific competitor over a specific document.
No, Microsoft issued the vouchers as part of their deal with Novell, the FSF read the voucher text and then worded GPL 3 with the goal of trapping Microsoft into weakening their patent position. For better or worse, it's the FSF playing legal games here and Microsoft just trying to do business.
Apparently Google showed up at the last moment to vote on the other side and they're by definition Not Evil. So, truly, they are not evil.
Hype here notwithstanding, this is not a "rootkit". It seems to be a bizarre form of write-protection.
All the entries seem to be written that way. It's irritating and not even funny the first time, let alone repeatedly, but the practice of giving cited researchers a Chris Berman-esque nickname is a nice innovation in the world of science journalism. Even if the nicknames are hardly (and I never thought I'd write these words) up to Chris Berman's level of cleverness.
I had periodically wondered what the W stood for but had never connected it with "workstation", and doubt if many investors had. (Anyway, other posters are claiming plausibly that the link to "workstation" isn't even correct.)
Going from Chinese civil rights violations to nonsensical ranting about Microsoft in three steps isn't in itself remarkable. But doing it with an "In Soviet Russia..." post in the middle certainly is!
Ummm, no. The truth of a proposition and the truth of its inverse are unrelated.
No freaking way is Congress going to abandon all US copyrights over online poker. But if it did happen, which it won't, that would certainly put the lie to all of your paranoid raving about the M$AA controlling the government, no?
Sorry, we can only communicate through analogies to either automobiles or door locks. Discussion of actual automotive door locks is therefore impossible, and referring to Belgium as "the Netherlands" will have to be the site's sole contribution.
You're at MIT? Set your iPod to minimum, walk over to Kendall T station and ride through the Broadway-Andrew-JFK section. How's that working for you?
I tend to keep music and TV volume very low at home, but still need to crank my iPod to near-full volume on the subway to play older music, and quieter parts still drop out. Music designed for today's listeners simply has to max out the CD format's volume and reduce the range.
To understand the escalation, it works better to think of someone listening to their Walkman or boombox or iPod, which is set to "shuffle"...
Yes, obviously I understand that and it may well be the original motivation and the primary motivation today. But I suspect that the continuing escalation (who listens to radio any more?) is driven also by the fact that the Who album I tried to listen to on the T the other day is simply inaudible in what is now a routine listening environment.
When everyone on the subway is listening to headphones, you can see why the priorities of "audiophiles" take a back seat. Anyway, how badly do audiophiles need to listen to Lil' Flip or Chamillionaire?
Ah, I forgot that part: a positive test would have to be some significant amount higher in concentration than the water in the druggiest sewer in town.
I know -- that part of the OP's plan wouldn't work, which is why you need to separate out individual intact cells.
I hit "Reply to This" to dismiss that possibility, but come to think of, it might not be completely impractical. What you'd need to do is collect individual intestinal cells out of the sewage stream, quantify the illegal drugs with mass-spec, amplify and type the DNA and run it against a database.
You might theoretically even be able to do it today (I don't know if the drug scan would work on one cell but single-cell DNA analysis is possible) but it would be an insanely expensive way to catch tweakers or potheads. But in 20 years, it might not be that insane.
Yes, you should. As the OP notes, crackpots behave like crackpots, by definition. That's the downside of scoring easy points off mentally ill people.
My sympathy for Myers/Meyers is limited, though. If you want to build your reputation on kicking around crazies, occasionally getting bitten back is the price you pay.
2) Who provides employment for all these grads? Is there any plan beyond a superstitious faith that a supply of science grads automatically creates demands? If not, what happens to all the people who don't get jobs? How attractive are those fields going to be once they get flooded?
Those are the first two objections that come to mind. I'm sure there are plenty of others. Baucus may have thought this through, but you'd never know it from the article.
"All but dead" means "just short of dead". It's an archaic usage of "all but".