So after twenty years of denying the bleedin' obvious, Apple has responded to crticism that one mouse button is not enough by producing a mouse with no buttons at all?! Way to isolate the rest of the world, Apple!
The source isn't Wiki, it's a documentary called "The Power of Nightmares". Wiki is just one site which talks about it. There's no debate about Al Qaeda being around for a long time, but what is Al Qaeda? Is it some central organisation that plans terror attacks? Or is it some central organisation that listens to would-be terrorists' plans and decides whether or not to fund them? In other words, are these terrorists "members" of Al Qaeda, or is Al Qaeda just what they dedicate themselves to when they've pulled off an attack? What would happen if Bin Laden and Al Zawhiri were killed? Do you think that would end islamic terrorists in the West? One argument of "the Power of Nightmares" was that it wouldn't; the would-be attackers would simply find another source of funding. Personally, I would be very surprised if Bin Laden and Al Zawhiri had any connection to today's atrocity.
The list you present is rather controversial. There is no doubt that muslim fundamentalists carried out all these attacks, but the extent to which Al Qaeda is a group which organizes as opposed to funds such things is dubious. Nowadays, however, everyone knows the name of Al Qaeda, so it suits the sort of people who would murder people by the hundred to ally themselves with this name. This is a good discussion on this issue of what Al Qaeda actually is. The documentary mentioned on that page suggests that Bin Laden's contribution to the whole thing is mostly financial. The brains behind the movement (whatever it is) belong to an Egyptian named Al Zawhiri, who first posited the idea of international jihad, as opposed to purely national attempts to impose islamic fundamentalism. Al Zawhiri (so the argument goes) was a very big cheese in Egypt but not wealthy - it took Bin Laden's money to fund the Sept 11th atrocity.
The minister is talking to companies in Norway, or to put it another way, to organizations that the Norwegian government can influence. Obviously, if they get a.doc from another government they're going to have to read it. However, a company that wants a government contract is going to have to send its tender documents in an open format.
More likely, the Norwegian Government will become irrelevant to everybody else, when their Word and Excel documents are rejected and sent back.
Not inside Norway. Like any other government, Norway's government will be one of the biggest customers for Norwegian companies. They are not just going to say, "OK we won't supply our government any more because we'd rather continue to use Microsoft products", are they?
Instead of romanticizing Linux, let's not forget it's first and foremost, a software project. Because it is a project it should have well-defined objectives. Because it is software it must avoid failings such as redundancy and unnecesary complexity.
If a "software project" needs to have well-defined objectives, then by definition Linux is not a software project. Linux has no well-defined objectives, so why do you think it is a "software project" in your terms? And you're confusing one of the characteristics of good software (lack of redundancy) with the process of developing Linux.
I try to be a linux user and grieve that I still have to use Windows for several uses, including desktop because linux (insert distro name here) just can't compete in such areas.
I read this kind of thing here a lot, but I'm often frustrated because the authors don't specify what they are missing. So what is it that prevents you from using Linux? I'm not doubting your view, but I think it's just too easy to say "Linux isn't quite there yet", because everyone says it. But just saying what everyone says is slovenly so I prefer to hear specifics.
Linux is free software, but freedom should be accompanied by responsibility. It should be a priority of the community to act as such, instead of breaking into isolated islands everytime they disagree.
This paragraph reflects the overall tone of your message by suggesting that free software developers have a responsibility to do something. But why should they? If they worked for Linux Incorporated, that might make sense, but most of the creators of distributions just do it because they want to. There's no should about it unless it comes from within. It's a hobby and the only thing they should do is whatever they want. To understand this activity, you have to stop thinking in terms of what an employee must do.
Well, Boom Town was slow, but it also included some of the very best writing you will see. In fact, I thought the episode was at its weakest when it speeded up towards the end. Until then, the slow-burning debate between the Doctor and his adversary was just wonderful to behold.
I should have been more helpful. Further down the list of comments somebody has posted a link to the Google Cache of the page. That's where I read his comment about his wife and kids.
Under Section 3b of the GPL, the source must be given to any third party that requests it.
This is not correct. They must offer the source code to anyone they distribute the binary to. They are not obliged to offer the source to "third parties". They can't prevent anyone that they do give the source to from giving the source to other people.
I don't understand why you lump Sony and MS together and say they are successful, while downplaying Nintendo's success. According to figures presented at the BBC, the proportions of the console market are:
43% Playstation 2
19% Xbox
14% Gamecube
It would be more accurate to say that MS and Nintendo are about as successful as each other, but nowhere near as successful as Sony. But this does demonstrate the wisdom of your comment:
There's a reason why Sony and MS are successful (and why even Nintendo was successful in the 80's and early 90's), and it wasn't because they hung back and let their bigger competitors hog all the media attention.
Slashdot Mirror
So after twenty years of denying the bleedin' obvious, Apple has responded to crticism that one mouse button is not enough by producing a mouse with no buttons at all?! Way to isolate the rest of the world, Apple!
The Women in Games conference is in Dundee, not in Edinburgh. This is the conference page.
The source isn't Wiki, it's a documentary called "The Power of Nightmares". Wiki is just one site which talks about it. There's no debate about Al Qaeda being around for a long time, but what is Al Qaeda? Is it some central organisation that plans terror attacks? Or is it some central organisation that listens to would-be terrorists' plans and decides whether or not to fund them? In other words, are these terrorists "members" of Al Qaeda, or is Al Qaeda just what they dedicate themselves to when they've pulled off an attack? What would happen if Bin Laden and Al Zawhiri were killed? Do you think that would end islamic terrorists in the West? One argument of "the Power of Nightmares" was that it wouldn't; the would-be attackers would simply find another source of funding. Personally, I would be very surprised if Bin Laden and Al Zawhiri had any connection to today's atrocity.
The list you present is rather controversial. There is no doubt that muslim fundamentalists carried out all these attacks, but the extent to which Al Qaeda is a group which organizes as opposed to funds such things is dubious. Nowadays, however, everyone knows the name of Al Qaeda, so it suits the sort of people who would murder people by the hundred to ally themselves with this name. This is a good discussion on this issue of what Al Qaeda actually is. The documentary mentioned on that page suggests that Bin Laden's contribution to the whole thing is mostly financial. The brains behind the movement (whatever it is) belong to an Egyptian named Al Zawhiri, who first posited the idea of international jihad, as opposed to purely national attempts to impose islamic fundamentalism. Al Zawhiri (so the argument goes) was a very big cheese in Egypt but not wealthy - it took Bin Laden's money to fund the Sept 11th atrocity.
I'm looking forward to President Bush's explanation when it turns out that Tempel 1 did not, after all, have any WMDs.
I find it amazing that you believe this. Try looking here: the history of http.
Any Norwegian company that wants to sell goods and services to the Norwegian government must care, surely? That is the point of this.
The minister is talking to companies in Norway, or to put it another way, to organizations that the Norwegian government can influence. Obviously, if they get a .doc from another government they're going to have to read it. However, a company that wants a government contract is going to have to send its tender documents in an open format.
Not inside Norway. Like any other government, Norway's government will be one of the biggest customers for Norwegian companies. They are not just going to say, "OK we won't supply our government any more because we'd rather continue to use Microsoft products", are they?
If a "software project" needs to have well-defined objectives, then by definition Linux is not a software project. Linux has no well-defined objectives, so why do you think it is a "software project" in your terms? And you're confusing one of the characteristics of good software (lack of redundancy) with the process of developing Linux.
I read this kind of thing here a lot, but I'm often frustrated because the authors don't specify what they are missing. So what is it that prevents you from using Linux? I'm not doubting your view, but I think it's just too easy to say "Linux isn't quite there yet", because everyone says it. But just saying what everyone says is slovenly so I prefer to hear specifics.
This paragraph reflects the overall tone of your message by suggesting that free software developers have a responsibility to do something. But why should they? If they worked for Linux Incorporated, that might make sense, but most of the creators of distributions just do it because they want to. There's no should about it unless it comes from within. It's a hobby and the only thing they should do is whatever they want. To understand this activity, you have to stop thinking in terms of what an employee must do.
This is the internet. If you put a message up on your journal, surely it's fair game to write about it?
What are you talking about? Tourney is a valid abbreviation of tournament in English. What I say has been true for at least three decades.
Where did you get the idea that they are not real bins? As far as I can tell, they are bins and also works of art.
Well, Boom Town was slow, but it also included some of the very best writing you will see. In fact, I thought the episode was at its weakest when it speeded up towards the end. Until then, the slow-burning debate between the Doctor and his adversary was just wonderful to behold.
I should have been more helpful. Further down the list of comments somebody has posted a link to the Google Cache of the page. That's where I read his comment about his wife and kids.
I think his wife and three kids might not appreciate that comment!
My dear fellow, what is "chippin"?
RTFA, where T = this:
More informative article on the Mattel JuiceBox
Which ones are socialists?
Socialist? How are RIAA, MPAA or any branch of your government "socialist"?
This is not correct. They must offer the source code to anyone they distribute the binary to. They are not obliged to offer the source to "third parties". They can't prevent anyone that they do give the source to from giving the source to other people.
It would be more accurate to say that MS and Nintendo are about as successful as each other, but nowhere near as successful as Sony. But this does demonstrate the wisdom of your comment:
I think that is more true than you know!
Did anyone else look at that controller and think, "steering wheel". I wonder what is inside it.
Why? Microsoft can either fuck off, or become like us. We're happy to win by turning them into us. :-)
Add it to the price of the X86 box.