...then they technically could step and stop almost all corporate mergers.
No they couldn't. That's like saying you would starve to death if the price of gasoline went up (no gas = no drive = no work = no food). You'd just pay more for gasoline, wouldn't you? Be realistic...
Yeah that's pretty bad. Would you buy a notebook because it said Porche on it? Would you buy a toaster because it said Lexus on it? Or a breakfast cereal because it said Sony on it? This is goofy on so many levels...
What's sad is that most of us would probly look more closely at this thing than some other brand, because it says Porche on it. OOooo Porche! It must be a really nice laptop! And fast too! But I'm holding out for the Ferrari.
And then, it makes front page on/dot. Ugh. I wonder if it would have made it if the Taco had actually looked at the company description. It's obviously not the same Porche that makes nice cars.
Yay for/dot, free advertisement for new companies with fancy names. Sad.
1) They use the Internet, by virtue of TCP/IP,
as "proof" of their thesis.
Is that somehow a bad example?
2) They state that you cannot improve OR adopt OR commercialize GPL software.
The GPL presents restrictions on traditional software commercialization styles (i.e. closed source development) that other licences do not.
3) They state that you cannot integrate GPL'd software with proprietery software.
And as far as 'proprietery' means 'closed source', which it usually does, you really can't integrate GPL'd code.
4) They say you should keep publicly funded code away from the public sector, so that proprietary interests can make money from the work.
How would using a more liberal licence, such as BSD, keep publicly funded code away from the public sector? It allows anyone to make use of the code. This is an inflamatory and totally unsubstantiated claim.
5) They equate a lack of understanding of the GPL with valid reasoning against it.
Blah blah, more inflamatory rhetoric.
In essence, that non-proprietary interests should not be allowed to use, adopt, improve, or make money from the work. That taxpayers should pay for it twice. And that nobody should be able to stop commercial entities from taking publicly funded code, they will then close off.
Where is this coming from? What a huge steaming load of FUD.
Publicly funded means funded by tax dollars. Taxes are paid by corperations as well as individuals. As much as I would love to screw MS out of some free code, I cannot in good concious support something so unfair. They pay their taxes just like everybody else, and as such they're just as entitled to use publicly funded works as the rest of us, even if some of us don't much like what they do with it. The way to
I wonder what would have happened if the IP suite had been licenced under a GPL-like licence. Hmm, how many OS's would have implemented it? Would we still be in the midst of a protocol war? What a lovely thought; the Compuserve/Prodigy/AOL days with no escape. Think about it.
I realize that "dismissed with prejudice" was used in the headline for the purpose of sensasionalism (given the nature of the case), but what does it actually mean?
Any karma-whores/lawyers like to explain it please?
What a joke! How do you define 'reasonable'? I find it very very hard to believe a settlement would be proposed with wording that allows what MS is trying to do here. What good are open protocol specs when a 'reasonable' fee and (*choke*) a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT stand between us and them? Who in their right mind can't see this coming from MS? How does this stuff happen?
For the settlement to have any teeth with respect to protocols, MS will have to be forced to release at least a few protocols to public standards bodies, and any protocol they release will have to be released without fee, without NDA, without any way for MS to know who is looking at the specs. There needs to be very specific wording that disallows ANY restriction. If the agreement allows MS to tell me I can't use a MS protocol to connect a Mac to a Palm through a proxy running on a Sun box using Python and Java, then the wording IMHO is off.
That said, I just couldn't leave the following nonsense alone...
From the article:
"Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment."
This is just FUD. When are people going to realize that the GPL states specifically that GPL'd software CAN BE SOLD? The artical, in one breath, says Red Hat sells a version of Linux, and in another spews the above. Sheesh.
Read any good books lately? They're full of naughty little pieces of bad grammar. It's what your english teacher forgot to tell you: Perfect grammer is boring!
Maybe somebody should email Microsoft and let them know that the Mac has had all of these things for years now
Sounds a little like all those slashdotters going around saying Linux has preemptive multi-tasking and memory protection and Windows doesn't... Maybe somebody should have emailed them and told them there is a little thing called NT? Ah well, too late I guess.
Anyhow, the article is pretty lame. At least the Apple commercials have a hint of originality and some of them even make me snicker. Look at the computer geek! He's even geekier than me! Microsoft's web page is the same old boring copy-cat unbelievable drivel. Just like the Linux myths ones... blah blah blah! I wonder what the Bill Gates lap dogs will come up with next.
Your angry at a bunch of hackers because they haven't ported a software package for free? Sheesh! As if you have some god given right to run Postgres on windows or something... Sure it would be nice to have a Windows native port, but come on, if you have such a big problem with it, maybe you should shush up and join the porting effort.
I don't think it was even the core Postgres team that ported to Netware (I'm on the mailing lists, seems like I would have seen something about it). It was probly Novell that did (or is doing) the porting. So go get pissed at Microsoft for not porting Postgres to Windows:-)
Slashdot. Vapor for nerds. Stuff that won't matter for years.
Not that I'm complaining about new breakthroughs, but it sure seems like the vapor:substance ratio is sucking eggs lately, at least on slashdot. When someone offers an actual working product for some reasonable cost, maybe then I'll get excited. Until then I'll just stuff this into the mental round file.
We've had a few particles (nothing bigger than a carbon molecule) disappear without any net gain in energy (which would be a violation of the 2nd Law) that we've been unable to explain...
Did you check the couch cushions? Those carbon molecule gnomes can be a tricky bunch.
Sometimes, those strings cross, and you get phenomina such as Deja Vu.
OK, I'm gonna get anal here, but Deja Vu is simply your brain incorrectly triggering a memory based on a SIMILAR event. Saying that Deja Vu is evidence of some multi-reality thing is just silly.
For that to be valid, it has to be accelleration that's the key, not speed. Since speed is relative (someone should make a theory about that...), I never understood how it could play any role in time dialation. Without a static frame of reference we have no way to know who is moving faster and who is moving slower. The only other way to explain it seems to be accelleration, which in relativistic terms is the act of changing speed in either direction. This would seem to imply that running back and forth really fast would slow time down.
If someone did come back from the future and made his/her presence known, then it would become common knowledge that time travel is possible and every physicist in existence would commence working it out, which would result in time travel being invented much earlier than it originally was. That might well mean that by the time our time traveller was born, time travel would be old news and he/she would not be interested in it and would therefore not travel back in time and tell us about it.
ANY interaction with the past would cause a paradox, and each effect on the past grows more significant as time passes, so if you went far enough in the past and took one breath of air, you could conceivably change the future catastrophically.
Therefore, I think it's safe to say that even if time travel is possible and if we are not able to refrain from taking such huge risks, we should at least be smart enough not to TELL PEOPLE WE'RE FROM THE FUTURE!!! I mean you might just as well murder your mother before you're born.
"Instead of including costly hardware and OS support to provide these features"...
Said hardware won't be expensive for long. And the OS support for such things is well understood these days anyway, so it's not much of an issue.
That said, I find the idea of application domains somewhat interesting from a programmer's point of view, I just don't see it as a proper way to decrease software footprint.
Yeah, I feel your pain. I especially like the way the cable people come up with digital cable, which allows them to fit a whole buttload more content on the same bandwidth, effectively lowering their cost of operation, and then proceed to charge a higher price for it.
Cars allow people to run over and kill innocent children. Kitchen knives can be used to cut, torture, and kill innocent children. Rocks can be used to bash in the skulls of innocent children.
Video recorders can be used to make (shitty) copies of movies which can then be distributed on the Internet and viewed by innocent children.
Box knives can be used to hijack airliners, which can in turn be used to kill innocent children.
And of course a ReplayTV unit can be used to record porno flics from TV which can then be sent to innocent children for viewing.
We should outlaw anything that can be used for any sort of illegal purpose. It's simple, really.
Slashdot Mirror
Watching some idiot gnaw his way through microwaved bacon: priceless.
...the middle will be cold, but the outside will be hot enough to ignite helium.
Yeah that's pretty bad. Would you buy a notebook because it said Porche on it? Would you buy a toaster because it said Lexus on it? Or a breakfast cereal because it said Sony on it? This is goofy on so many levels...
/dot. Ugh. I wonder if it would have made it if the Taco had actually looked at the company description. It's obviously not the same Porche that makes nice cars.
/dot, free advertisement for new companies with fancy names. Sad.
What's sad is that most of us would probly look more closely at this thing than some other brand, because it says Porche on it. OOooo Porche! It must be a really nice laptop! And fast too! But I'm holding out for the Ferrari.
And then, it makes front page on
Yay for
Ugh!!
Is that somehow a bad example?
The GPL presents restrictions on traditional software commercialization styles (i.e. closed source development) that other licences do not.
And as far as 'proprietery' means 'closed source', which it usually does, you really can't integrate GPL'd code.
How would using a more liberal licence, such as BSD, keep publicly funded code away from the public sector? It allows anyone to make use of the code. This is an inflamatory and totally unsubstantiated claim.
Blah blah, more inflamatory rhetoric.
Where is this coming from? What a huge steaming load of FUD.
Publicly funded means funded by tax dollars. Taxes are paid by corperations as well as individuals. As much as I would love to screw MS out of some free code, I cannot in good concious support something so unfair. They pay their taxes just like everybody else, and as such they're just as entitled to use publicly funded works as the rest of us, even if some of us don't much like what they do with it. The way to
I wonder what would have happened if the IP suite had been licenced under a GPL-like licence. Hmm, how many OS's would have implemented it? Would we still be in the midst of a protocol war? What a lovely thought; the Compuserve/Prodigy/AOL days with no escape. Think about it.
Any karma-whores/lawyers like to explain it please?
For the settlement to have any teeth with respect to protocols, MS will have to be forced to release at least a few protocols to public standards bodies, and any protocol they release will have to be released without fee, without NDA, without any way for MS to know who is looking at the specs. There needs to be very specific wording that disallows ANY restriction. If the agreement allows MS to tell me I can't use a MS protocol to connect a Mac to a Palm through a proxy running on a Sun box using Python and Java, then the wording IMHO is off.
That said, I just couldn't leave the following nonsense alone...
From the article:
This is just FUD. When are people going to realize that the GPL states specifically that GPL'd software CAN BE SOLD? The artical, in one breath, says Red Hat sells a version of Linux, and in another spews the above. Sheesh.
Oh my... Acclaim is censoring their own game screenshots!
but not until I get to check out the screen shots!!!
Read any good books lately? They're full of naughty little pieces of bad grammar. It's what your english teacher forgot to tell you: Perfect grammer is boring!
Sounds a little like all those slashdotters going around saying Linux has preemptive multi-tasking and memory protection and Windows doesn't... Maybe somebody should have emailed them and told them there is a little thing called NT? Ah well, too late I guess.
Anyhow, the article is pretty lame. At least the Apple commercials have a hint of originality and some of them even make me snicker. Look at the computer geek! He's even geekier than me! Microsoft's web page is the same old boring copy-cat unbelievable drivel. Just like the Linux myths ones... blah blah blah! I wonder what the Bill Gates lap dogs will come up with next.
oh man... thanx for painting that lovely picture for us all... I just ate dinner... thanx alot.
Your angry at a bunch of hackers because they haven't ported a software package for free? Sheesh! As if you have some god given right to run Postgres on windows or something... Sure it would be nice to have a Windows native port, but come on, if you have such a big problem with it, maybe you should shush up and join the porting effort.
:-)
I don't think it was even the core Postgres team that ported to Netware (I'm on the mailing lists, seems like I would have seen something about it). It was probly Novell that did (or is doing) the porting. So go get pissed at Microsoft for not porting Postgres to Windows
Slashdot. Vapor for nerds. Stuff that won't matter for years.
Not that I'm complaining about new breakthroughs, but it sure seems like the vapor:substance ratio is sucking eggs lately, at least on slashdot. When someone offers an actual working product for some reasonable cost, maybe then I'll get excited. Until then I'll just stuff this into the mental round file.
Here's the standard solution.
Or you could have a little fun.
which will plummet to earth as soon as he let's fly a good long shot of hot fire breath.
*Rooooaaaasssssstttt....... WHUMP!!!*
Did you check the couch cushions? Those carbon molecule gnomes can be a tricky bunch.
OK, I'm gonna get anal here, but Deja Vu is simply your brain incorrectly triggering a memory based on a SIMILAR event. Saying that Deja Vu is evidence of some multi-reality thing is just silly.
For that to be valid, it has to be accelleration that's the key, not speed. Since speed is relative (someone should make a theory about that...), I never understood how it could play any role in time dialation. Without a static frame of reference we have no way to know who is moving faster and who is moving slower. The only other way to explain it seems to be accelleration, which in relativistic terms is the act of changing speed in either direction. This would seem to imply that running back and forth really fast would slow time down.
If someone did come back from the future and made his/her presence known, then it would become common knowledge that time travel is possible and every physicist in existence would commence working it out, which would result in time travel being invented much earlier than it originally was. That might well mean that by the time our time traveller was born, time travel would be old news and he/she would not be interested in it and would therefore not travel back in time and tell us about it.
ANY interaction with the past would cause a paradox, and each effect on the past grows more significant as time passes, so if you went far enough in the past and took one breath of air, you could conceivably change the future catastrophically.
Therefore, I think it's safe to say that even if time travel is possible and if we are not able to refrain from taking such huge risks, we should at least be smart enough not to TELL PEOPLE WE'RE FROM THE FUTURE!!! I mean you might just as well murder your mother before you're born.
Said hardware won't be expensive for long. And the OS support for such things is well understood these days anyway, so it's not much of an issue.
That said, I find the idea of application domains somewhat interesting from a programmer's point of view, I just don't see it as a proper way to decrease software footprint.
Yeah, I feel your pain. I especially like the way the cable people come up with digital cable, which allows them to fit a whole buttload more content on the same bandwidth, effectively lowering their cost of operation, and then proceed to charge a higher price for it.
Cars allow people to run over and kill innocent children. Kitchen knives can be used to cut, torture, and kill innocent children. Rocks can be used to bash in the skulls of innocent children.
Video recorders can be used to make (shitty) copies of movies which can then be distributed on the Internet and viewed by innocent children.
Box knives can be used to hijack airliners, which can in turn be used to kill innocent children.
And of course a ReplayTV unit can be used to record porno flics from TV which can then be sent to innocent children for viewing.
We should outlaw anything that can be used for any sort of illegal purpose. It's simple, really.
And how would you propose the networks pay for the content you enjoy watching, if they were unable to use commercials to do so?