I don't think so. As faulty as BIND is, I sure as hell don't want to rely on the limited resources available to a single vendor - which just so happens to own the software that controls DNS all over the world.
Uh uh. Save that crap for some alternate universe.
A missed implication of MS's way of doing things is that the customer is left entirely out of the loop. As a system administrator I don't want to be left in the dark for 30, or 60, or however many days while the vendor works out a fix; it's *my* goddamn system and *my* ass is on the line, so you'd better bloody well tell me where the break is and fill me in on what I can do to jury-rig the system until the vendor *does* provide a patch. If the vendor thinks no jury-rig is available, that's okay - at least I have the choice to disable the software until it's fixed, or turn to smarter heads outside the company for other options.
The arrogance of Microsoft in taking a non-disclosure line is amazing. Essentially they're saying that the vendor has a right to the information but the people who're actually responsible for the systems the faulty product is running on don't. Excuse me, but in what fucking universe does that crock of shit make sense? The vendor isn't *entitled* to non-disclosure; as the customer I *am* entitled to disclosure just as much as I'm entitled to know if the model of car I'm driving has a known brake line problem.
Screw this non-disclosure, delayed-disclosure, or whatever line of bull MS is selling. I don't give a rat's ass about the credibility or stock value of the company who sells a hackable product; all I care about is how I can secure my system until the hack is fixed, or if the product is so full of holes I should just toss it and migrate to something else. Neither MS nor anyone else gets to make this decision for me.
A buzzword, nothing more. Ask a dozen different people and you get a dozen different answers. Pundits (and a great many other pseudo-intellectuals) are enamored of vague buzzwords which mean, well, anything they damn well want them to mean at the time they use them.
Words like "globalism" help sell books. They make for great articles, especially those on the ranting side, which ultimately say nothing at all worth reading. They make otherwise average people feel that they're smarter than they actually are because they have a handle on the NewSpeak of the day. Best of all, by adopting the use of these words you get to pretend you're part of the group which 'really understands' how things work.
"Globalism" is one of those overused words that quickly becomes tiresome, eventually is derided by the same people who once gleefully used it in every other sentence, and then is replaced by the newest catch-phrase in the next version of i'm-so-hip-and-smart-look-at-me terminology. Like designer clothes, it's one of the 'chic' terms: sounds nice, but has no practical value other than how it looks to others.
These people enable your employers to exist, shut your piehole and appreciate them sometimes.
No, these people are often assholes without a lick of sense, only interested in stealing the ideas and achievements of other as a means of forwarding their own careers. But what do you expect from an academic degree in something as moronic as 'management'?
Another wrinkle to this argument is that it's often rather difficult to really know who invented what. Even if a student does come up with something that the professor hadn't thought of, what's the likelihood that the professor had nothing to do with it? In other words, what if an adviser's guidance contributed to 95% of the student's way of thinking?
So, what if a post of mine contributes to 95% of person x's way of thinking, resulting in a brainstorm that makes him or her ten million bucks? Guess it's only fair I get a piece of the pie, eh?
What if I write a book that does the same thing for computer geeks everywhere and some of those make truckloads of money off of new inventions? Gimme my cut!
What if my guidance with an emphasis on 'hard work' drove the student over the deep end and he gunned down half the department? Does that make me legally liable for mass murder?
And many will just blatantly say "everything you do is mine", which is something we do not want to encourage.
Hey, this just prepares them for the corporate world, where every good idea an underling had is stolen by the boss and presented to the boss' peers as the boss' own idea. Usually legally, if the employment contract is up to par.
What we're doing here is an injustice, convincing students that somehow, in some fashion, life will actually be fair once they leave college. I say we smash them under the bootheel of indiscriminate totalitarianism now so that they'll be properly prepared for corporate serfdom.
Besides, how else is the professor going to get revenge for the fact that his younger underling is able to get into the secretary's pants after just one date, while the professor has done nothing but strike out ever since the secretary got the job two years ago?
Vast wars already take place about what should or should not be in the Linux kernel.
What crack pipe are you smoking? Linus decides what's going to be in the kernel - end of discussion. Most everyone who actually does a fair amount of development on the kernel agrees with him most of the time.
What a bunch of non-contributing morons have to say on the subject means absolutely nothing to the project itself. These folks have no say on what does or does not get included in the kernel - I doubt Linus pays attention to them, or even knows that they exist. Why should he?
The rate of progress on all of these fronts together is approaching glacial.
Please, the rate of progress in kernel development has done nothing but increase. In fact, recently a number of people would argue that the changes are coming too quickly, especially in a production kernel.
Okay, so maybe VA is scrambling to become more profitable before the bankruptcy folks come a-knockin' at the door, and getting a bit desperate in the process. And if VA goes then Sourceforge, Freshmeat, etc. fall with it.
So - why isn't IBM making an attempt to set up an alternative? They're already spending a billion dollars pushing Linux, so hosting an alternative to these popular Linux sites would be a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, they'd get the PR and name-attachment coup associated with being the 'Linux-friendly' company.
If IBM sets up an alternative (and we know IBM isn't going anywhere anytime in the near future) they'd almost automatically inherit the user/developer base of Sourceforge et.al. if VA did go under. It'd be the easiest thing to do for the developers and users - just migrate to the IBM almost-clone.
I doubt the FSF folks would approve, but IBM stands a much better chance of being able to adequately fund the operation in an economic downturn than any FSF offering would.
Hell, you can set this up with Linux right now. Custom-compiled kernel cutting out everything you don't use, plus a single desktop and a limited amount of apps. It'll boot right quick for you and you'll be limited to 'word processing', 'spreadsheets', 'email', etc. - about a dozen apps on a floating menu panel.
I could make a package like this rather quickly. In fact, I've seen packages like this used in office environments where the company specifically doesn't want the user to have access to anything that isn't directly job-related; e.g., no screen savers, changing the background, themes, games, and so on. The boot on these systems is very fast since virtually nothing is loaded, and you can only run apps approved by the company.
If Joe Q. Public wants a machine that looks like this I can turn his general-purpose computer into one without breaking into a sweat. It doesn't require any new hardware at all.
Ah, yes, modded down to 'flamebait' by another RMS worshipper. I swear, these folks are one and the same with the Bill junkies - both are looking for strong authoritarian types to give it to them in the ass.
This is simply not true. According to Linus himself ("Just For Fun", page 163):
"Richard Stallman campaigned to change the name Linux to GNU/Linux, using the logic that I had relied on the GNU gcc compiler and other free software tools and applications to get Linux off the ground."
Note that no mention of the operating system is made. Stallman wanted the kernel renamed GNU/Linux for the reasons listed above. I actually remember this debate, so Linus' account jives with my own memory of events.
The whole goal of GPL is the rid the world of proprietary software. If you don't believe me, try reading the FAQ.
No, that's the goal of certain fanatics in the FSF. The GPL is just a form of copyright and therefore is incapable of having any 'goal'. I can use the GPL without subscribing to such silliness; just as I can use a proprietary license without automatically attempting to rid the world of free software in the process.
If you have a beef with the FSF, that's one thing. Trying to ascribe intent to a form of copyright is quite another - damned silly, actually.
Seems to me that if these are released into the environment you'd inevitably get reproduction with variation. Environmental stressors of all kinds could result in a 'faulty' reproductive act, which is essentially what any random biological mutation is - and that's the driving force of evolution.
Even so, most of the furor is over the fact that RMS insists that Linux be referred to as GNU/Linux, given the fact that a lot of the software in a Linux distro is part of the GNU project this is NOT an unfair suggestion.
It's not only unfair, it's ludicrous. Linux is the kernel of the operating system and has nothing whatsoever to do with GNU or Stallman. What apps a company bundles with Linux isn't controlled by Linus or any of the Linux developers, and this bundling doesn't entitle Stallman to label a kernel he doesn't own and has never worked on part of his pet GNU project.
Maybe it's time that GNOME went OSS altogether and forgot about the 'Free Software' part of the charter. FSF doesn't 'own' GNOME regardless of how GNOME started out.
I'm assuming because GPL advocates don't want to know the truth
You're assuming that being in favor of the GPL also makes you a card-carrying member of the FSF, RMS-style.
It does not. The GPL protects open source by disallowing corporate entities from stealing the code and using it in their own proprietary products; this is good, in my opinion. If I release code under the GPL I don't want company X to put it into their product and make a million bucks off my free labor. In fact, I release my product under the GPL precisely to prevent this from happening.
(Note: it still could, but it's unlikely since the company would have to release it's own product under the GPL, complete with sources. That's enough of a deterrant, I think, to keep them from trying to use my free labor to advance their own product.)
This view does not make me a free software advocate. I like free software, but I don't insist that everyone GPL everything under the sun, nor do I think that proprietary software is evil. I'm using proprietary software (Opera) to make this post right now, actually.
Don't confuse the GPL with Stallman or the FSF. Stallman might have come up with the idea but he has no ownership of it. It's a form of copyright, nothing more; using the GPL doesn't make one a free software advocate.
With this in mind, try to name one single case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable.
Opera, which I'm using right now to browse this site. I do not have access to the source code, nor is Opera GPL'd; therefore the software is proprietary.
Even so, I think Opera is the best browser available. (No browser wars, please, this is just my personal preference.) I find it both acceptable and valid. I can name a number of other proprietary products which meet my requirements for "valid or acceptable", but you only asked for a single case. So here it is.
You're not the one whose ass is on the line. Mr. Cox visits the US occasionally. He does not wish to be in danger of arrest and incarceration when he next sets foot on US soil. This is not an unreasonable "wish".
In which case the appropriate action would be to either a) hand off the responsibility entirely to someone else, or b) pass off the responsibility for publishing the U.S. version of the changelogs to a U.S. counterpart and let that person take the heat. Either one solves the problem for Cox personally. No fear of prosecution if he'd followed either of these courses of action.
But the fact was that he didn't. He chose this particular venue to make a political statement, which is inappropriate considering the very nature of Linux development. If Cox had wanted to make such a statement, he could've done so publicly and loudly without compromising administration of the changelogs. His stature would've assured that anything he had to say about the DCMA would've appeared in any number of Linux news sources.
Folks can yak on all they want about how they agree with Cox's views - I'm one who certainly does, since I live in the ever-beknighted U.S. of A. However, I do not, and will never, agree with the actions taken by Cox in this matter. Protesting is one thing; having a hissy fit using the changelogs as a personal political statement is quite another.
Here I am, sitting in the U.S., watching my Constitutional rights slowly being eroded and chipped away...2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, today the 5th and 6th Amendments, and even part of the 1st Amendment with the reactivation of the (clearly unconstitutional) Sedition Acts.
Now Europe seems to be engaged in its own form of idiocy, simultaneously berating us for 'giving up' freedom while at the same time actively attempting to muzzle its citizenry. God forbid that anyone indulge in hate speech! It might warp the fragile little minds of the chiiiillllddddrreeennn!
Has the whole world gone mad? Doesn't anyone give a shit for freedom anymore? And how hard is it to wrap one's mind around the fact that in order to truly have freedom that freedom must be applied to *everybody* - even fascist assholes? What is so difficult to understand here?
Hey Europe, take a look at the U.S. and see what you have in store for you! First they weaken one freedom, and then another, and another, a little at a time until some day your rights are nothing more than a hollow shell of what they once were. That's happening right here in my country as we speak - you want the same thing done to you?
This 21st century 'civilized' world seems to be on it's way to becoming nothing more than a factory for producing right-thinking, government-loving sheep. Perhaps a nice, violent revolution would be a good antidote to this lunacy...oops, I think I just violated the Sedition Acts, now I'm off to jail!
Astronomers weren't "unable to reproduce the exact path" of the system due to a lack of measurement, not some inability to record how the stars all travel.
Actually, their measurements were quite good, especially given the instruments of the day. However, prevaling Aristotelean theory couldn't account for the motions of the celestial bodies, giving rise to Copernicus' heliocentric view of the solar system. Tycho tried to counter the Copernican view because he objected to the sun being the center of the solar system on religious grounds, yet his models couldn't account for all observed motions. Kepler came along and further attempted to modify the model to keep the earth at the center of the solar system, yet after years of trying he finally admitted that the entire system didn't work unless the sun was at the center, not the Earth.
This has nothing to do with relative motion of any kind. It's about models and which of these models best explains observations. A geocentric view of the solar system isn't as efficient as a heliocentric one, not by a long shot. If it were we wouldn't have bothered giving up the geocentric view to begin with. If it were as efficient it would be more effective (and mathematically easier) to use the geocentric view when planning interplanetary satellite lauches - but you don't see NASA doing this.
It's clear to practically everyone that the sun is, indeed, at the center of the solar system, and that the Earth orbits the sun. All of our astronomical models are based upon this very simple, and easily observed, precept. Word play doesn't change any of this, nor does sitting on a bench and watching the sun travel from east to west.
You can argue until you're blue in the face over the definition of 'center', but the physics of the entire system become a hell of alot easier if you state that the center is the largest gravitational mass - the Sun, which is what we've been doing for the last 400 years. You can decide that any other point is the 'center' through symantics but observationally it makes no practical sense to do so - well, except perhaps to extend an argument on Slashdot.
I do stand by my assertion that the first amendment is being violated when valedvictorians are told that they cannot offer prayers at graduations and such, as this is clearly infringing on their right to practice their religion freely.
No, they don't have that right. Freedom of religion also means from from religion, and as a graduation ceremony is a public function funded with public tax dollars, government cannot 'respect' whatever religious wackiness is being offered up as part of the event. Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, it doesn't matter; that's public tax dollars which are being used to endorse a specific religious sentiment which, no matter how vague, would still devalue those with no religion (such as yours truly).
In other words, you don't use my tax dollars to push your religion, no matter how 'innocent' the act seems. If you want to practice your religion, do it on your own time and at your own expense.
1) Ashcroft is so utterly brain dead, as are all of his staff, the DOJ, and any lawyer or judge they may consult with on the issue, that the entire lot somehow think that throwing out attorney-client privilege will in some mystical, unknown fashion prevent future whackos from smashing a plane into a building; or
2) Ashcroft is more than a bit power-crazed and thinks this is a good excuse to bolster the authority of his office, regardless of the advice on constitutionality he may get from his staff, the DOJ, or any lawyer or judge he might happen to run into who hears about it.
Now, option number 1 means that I have to assume that a great many well-trained people are fucking morons, at least when it comes to this particular issue. Option number 2 means that I don't have to assume anything so far-fetched, just that one man is power-mad.
As I've a great many historical examples of power-madness, option number 2 doesn't seem unlikely at all.
Without inventing additional forces you cannot accurately describe the motions of all the heavenly bodies in the solar system assuming that the Earth is the center of the system. Great minds tried and failed miserably, completely unable to reproduce by any means the exact path of the planets and sun with the Earth as the stable center.
Which led to Galileo and a heliocentric view of the universe, aptly putting into perspective how things *really* work. The heliocentric model was *much* simpler and required only one force to explain everything - gravity.
Shrink Wrap License absolves microsoft from any responsibility.
Wrong. No court in the U.S. has ever held a EULA to be valid. In fact, given the sweeping denial of liability in most EULA's it's quite possible that fundamentally violate the basic precepts of commercial law, i.e., you're responsible for the quality of what you sell.
We'll find out as soon as a EULA is actually tested in court.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so. As faulty as BIND is, I sure as hell don't want to rely on the limited resources available to a single vendor - which just so happens to own the software that controls DNS all over the world.
Uh uh. Save that crap for some alternate universe.
Max
A missed implication of MS's way of doing things is that the customer is left entirely out of the loop. As a system administrator I don't want to be left in the dark for 30, or 60, or however many days while the vendor works out a fix; it's *my* goddamn system and *my* ass is on the line, so you'd better bloody well tell me where the break is and fill me in on what I can do to jury-rig the system until the vendor *does* provide a patch. If the vendor thinks no jury-rig is available, that's okay - at least I have the choice to disable the software until it's fixed, or turn to smarter heads outside the company for other options.
The arrogance of Microsoft in taking a non-disclosure line is amazing. Essentially they're saying that the vendor has a right to the information but the people who're actually responsible for the systems the faulty product is running on don't. Excuse me, but in what fucking universe does that crock of shit make sense? The vendor isn't *entitled* to non-disclosure; as the customer I *am* entitled to disclosure just as much as I'm entitled to know if the model of car I'm driving has a known brake line problem.
Screw this non-disclosure, delayed-disclosure, or whatever line of bull MS is selling. I don't give a rat's ass about the credibility or stock value of the company who sells a hackable product; all I care about is how I can secure my system until the hack is fixed, or if the product is so full of holes I should just toss it and migrate to something else. Neither MS nor anyone else gets to make this decision for me.
Max
A buzzword, nothing more. Ask a dozen different people and you get a dozen different answers. Pundits (and a great many other pseudo-intellectuals) are enamored of vague buzzwords which mean, well, anything they damn well want them to mean at the time they use them.
Words like "globalism" help sell books. They make for great articles, especially those on the ranting side, which ultimately say nothing at all worth reading. They make otherwise average people feel that they're smarter than they actually are because they have a handle on the NewSpeak of the day. Best of all, by adopting the use of these words you get to pretend you're part of the group which 'really understands' how things work.
"Globalism" is one of those overused words that quickly becomes tiresome, eventually is derided by the same people who once gleefully used it in every other sentence, and then is replaced by the newest catch-phrase in the next version of i'm-so-hip-and-smart-look-at-me terminology. Like designer clothes, it's one of the 'chic' terms: sounds nice, but has no practical value other than how it looks to others.
*That* is globalism.
Max
These people enable your employers to exist, shut your piehole and appreciate them sometimes.
No, these people are often assholes without a lick of sense, only interested in stealing the ideas and achievements of other as a means of forwarding their own careers. But what do you expect from an academic degree in something as moronic as 'management'?
Max
Another wrinkle to this argument is that it's often rather difficult to really know who invented what. Even if a student does come up with something that the professor hadn't thought of, what's the likelihood that the professor had nothing to do with it? In other words, what if an adviser's guidance contributed to 95% of the student's way of thinking?
So, what if a post of mine contributes to 95% of person x's way of thinking, resulting in a brainstorm that makes him or her ten million bucks? Guess it's only fair I get a piece of the pie, eh?
What if I write a book that does the same thing for computer geeks everywhere and some of those make truckloads of money off of new inventions? Gimme my cut!
What if my guidance with an emphasis on 'hard work' drove the student over the deep end and he gunned down half the department? Does that make me legally liable for mass murder?
Guidance doesn't grant entitlement.
Max
And many will just blatantly say "everything you do is mine", which is something we do not want to encourage.
Hey, this just prepares them for the corporate world, where every good idea an underling had is stolen by the boss and presented to the boss' peers as the boss' own idea. Usually legally, if the employment contract is up to par.
What we're doing here is an injustice, convincing students that somehow, in some fashion, life will actually be fair once they leave college. I say we smash them under the bootheel of indiscriminate totalitarianism now so that they'll be properly prepared for corporate serfdom.
Besides, how else is the professor going to get revenge for the fact that his younger underling is able to get into the secretary's pants after just one date, while the professor has done nothing but strike out ever since the secretary got the job two years ago?
Max
Vast wars already take place about what should or should not be in the Linux kernel.
What crack pipe are you smoking? Linus decides what's going to be in the kernel - end of discussion. Most everyone who actually does a fair amount of development on the kernel agrees with him most of the time.
What a bunch of non-contributing morons have to say on the subject means absolutely nothing to the project itself. These folks have no say on what does or does not get included in the kernel - I doubt Linus pays attention to them, or even knows that they exist. Why should he?
The rate of progress on all of these fronts together is approaching glacial.
Please, the rate of progress in kernel development has done nothing but increase. In fact, recently a number of people would argue that the changes are coming too quickly, especially in a production kernel.
Max
Well, except that the AtheOS guy is much further along than the 'team' doing Hurd....
Max
Okay, so maybe VA is scrambling to become more profitable before the bankruptcy folks come a-knockin' at the door, and getting a bit desperate in the process. And if VA goes then Sourceforge, Freshmeat, etc. fall with it.
So - why isn't IBM making an attempt to set up an alternative? They're already spending a billion dollars pushing Linux, so hosting an alternative to these popular Linux sites would be a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, they'd get the PR and name-attachment coup associated with being the 'Linux-friendly' company.
If IBM sets up an alternative (and we know IBM isn't going anywhere anytime in the near future) they'd almost automatically inherit the user/developer base of Sourceforge et.al. if VA did go under. It'd be the easiest thing to do for the developers and users - just migrate to the IBM almost-clone.
I doubt the FSF folks would approve, but IBM stands a much better chance of being able to adequately fund the operation in an economic downturn than any FSF offering would.
Max
Hell, you can set this up with Linux right now. Custom-compiled kernel cutting out everything you don't use, plus a single desktop and a limited amount of apps. It'll boot right quick for you and you'll be limited to 'word processing', 'spreadsheets', 'email', etc. - about a dozen apps on a floating menu panel.
I could make a package like this rather quickly. In fact, I've seen packages like this used in office environments where the company specifically doesn't want the user to have access to anything that isn't directly job-related; e.g., no screen savers, changing the background, themes, games, and so on. The boot on these systems is very fast since virtually nothing is loaded, and you can only run apps approved by the company.
If Joe Q. Public wants a machine that looks like this I can turn his general-purpose computer into one without breaking into a sweat. It doesn't require any new hardware at all.
Max
Ah, yes, modded down to 'flamebait' by another RMS worshipper. I swear, these folks are one and the same with the Bill junkies - both are looking for strong authoritarian types to give it to them in the ass.
Max
This is simply not true. According to Linus himself ("Just For Fun", page 163):
"Richard Stallman campaigned to change the name Linux to GNU/Linux, using the logic that I had relied on the GNU gcc compiler and other free software tools and applications to get Linux off the ground."
Note that no mention of the operating system is made. Stallman wanted the kernel renamed GNU/Linux for the reasons listed above. I actually remember this debate, so Linus' account jives with my own memory of events.
Unless you think we're both liars?
Max
The whole goal of GPL is the rid the world of proprietary software. If you don't believe me, try reading the FAQ.
No, that's the goal of certain fanatics in the FSF. The GPL is just a form of copyright and therefore is incapable of having any 'goal'. I can use the GPL without subscribing to such silliness; just as I can use a proprietary license without automatically attempting to rid the world of free software in the process.
If you have a beef with the FSF, that's one thing. Trying to ascribe intent to a form of copyright is quite another - damned silly, actually.
Max
Seems to me that if these are released into the environment you'd inevitably get reproduction with variation. Environmental stressors of all kinds could result in a 'faulty' reproductive act, which is essentially what any random biological mutation is - and that's the driving force of evolution.
Max
Even so, most of the furor is over the fact that RMS insists that Linux be referred to as GNU/Linux, given the fact that a lot of the software in a Linux distro is part of the GNU project this is NOT an unfair suggestion.
It's not only unfair, it's ludicrous. Linux is the kernel of the operating system and has nothing whatsoever to do with GNU or Stallman. What apps a company bundles with Linux isn't controlled by Linus or any of the Linux developers, and this bundling doesn't entitle Stallman to label a kernel he doesn't own and has never worked on part of his pet GNU project.
Max
Maybe it's time that GNOME went OSS altogether and forgot about the 'Free Software' part of the charter. FSF doesn't 'own' GNOME regardless of how GNOME started out.
Max
I'm assuming because GPL advocates don't want to know the truth
You're assuming that being in favor of the GPL also makes you a card-carrying member of the FSF, RMS-style.
It does not. The GPL protects open source by disallowing corporate entities from stealing the code and using it in their own proprietary products; this is good, in my opinion. If I release code under the GPL I don't want company X to put it into their product and make a million bucks off my free labor. In fact, I release my product under the GPL precisely to prevent this from happening.
(Note: it still could, but it's unlikely since the company would have to release it's own product under the GPL, complete with sources. That's enough of a deterrant, I think, to keep them from trying to use my free labor to advance their own product.)
This view does not make me a free software advocate. I like free software, but I don't insist that everyone GPL everything under the sun, nor do I think that proprietary software is evil. I'm using proprietary software (Opera) to make this post right now, actually.
Don't confuse the GPL with Stallman or the FSF. Stallman might have come up with the idea but he has no ownership of it. It's a form of copyright, nothing more; using the GPL doesn't make one a free software advocate.
Max
With this in mind, try to name one single case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable.
Opera, which I'm using right now to browse this site. I do not have access to the source code, nor is Opera GPL'd; therefore the software is proprietary.
Even so, I think Opera is the best browser available. (No browser wars, please, this is just my personal preference.) I find it both acceptable and valid. I can name a number of other proprietary products which meet my requirements for "valid or acceptable", but you only asked for a single case. So here it is.
Max
You're not the one whose ass is on the line. Mr. Cox visits the US occasionally. He does not wish to be in danger of arrest and incarceration when he next sets foot on US soil. This is not an unreasonable "wish".
In which case the appropriate action would be to either a) hand off the responsibility entirely to someone else, or b) pass off the responsibility for publishing the U.S. version of the changelogs to a U.S. counterpart and let that person take the heat. Either one solves the problem for Cox personally. No fear of prosecution if he'd followed either of these courses of action.
But the fact was that he didn't. He chose this particular venue to make a political statement, which is inappropriate considering the very nature of Linux development. If Cox had wanted to make such a statement, he could've done so publicly and loudly without compromising administration of the changelogs. His stature would've assured that anything he had to say about the DCMA would've appeared in any number of Linux news sources.
Folks can yak on all they want about how they agree with Cox's views - I'm one who certainly does, since I live in the ever-beknighted U.S. of A. However, I do not, and will never, agree with the actions taken by Cox in this matter. Protesting is one thing; having a hissy fit using the changelogs as a personal political statement is quite another.
Max
Here I am, sitting in the U.S., watching my Constitutional rights slowly being eroded and chipped away...2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, today the 5th and 6th Amendments, and even part of the 1st Amendment with the reactivation of the (clearly unconstitutional) Sedition Acts.
Now Europe seems to be engaged in its own form of idiocy, simultaneously berating us for 'giving up' freedom while at the same time actively attempting to muzzle its citizenry. God forbid that anyone indulge in hate speech! It might warp the fragile little minds of the chiiiillllddddrreeennn!
Has the whole world gone mad? Doesn't anyone give a shit for freedom anymore? And how hard is it to wrap one's mind around the fact that in order to truly have freedom that freedom must be applied to *everybody* - even fascist assholes? What is so difficult to understand here?
Hey Europe, take a look at the U.S. and see what you have in store for you! First they weaken one freedom, and then another, and another, a little at a time until some day your rights are nothing more than a hollow shell of what they once were. That's happening right here in my country as we speak - you want the same thing done to you?
This 21st century 'civilized' world seems to be on it's way to becoming nothing more than a factory for producing right-thinking, government-loving sheep. Perhaps a nice, violent revolution would be a good antidote to this lunacy...oops, I think I just violated the Sedition Acts, now I'm off to jail!
Max
Astronomers weren't "unable to reproduce the exact path" of the system due to a lack of measurement, not some inability to record how the stars all travel.
Actually, their measurements were quite good, especially given the instruments of the day. However, prevaling Aristotelean theory couldn't account for the motions of the celestial bodies, giving rise to Copernicus' heliocentric view of the solar system. Tycho tried to counter the Copernican view because he objected to the sun being the center of the solar system on religious grounds, yet his models couldn't account for all observed motions. Kepler came along and further attempted to modify the model to keep the earth at the center of the solar system, yet after years of trying he finally admitted that the entire system didn't work unless the sun was at the center, not the Earth.
This has nothing to do with relative motion of any kind. It's about models and which of these models best explains observations. A geocentric view of the solar system isn't as efficient as a heliocentric one, not by a long shot. If it were we wouldn't have bothered giving up the geocentric view to begin with. If it were as efficient it would be more effective (and mathematically easier) to use the geocentric view when planning interplanetary satellite lauches - but you don't see NASA doing this.
It's clear to practically everyone that the sun is, indeed, at the center of the solar system, and that the Earth orbits the sun. All of our astronomical models are based upon this very simple, and easily observed, precept. Word play doesn't change any of this, nor does sitting on a bench and watching the sun travel from east to west.
You can argue until you're blue in the face over the definition of 'center', but the physics of the entire system become a hell of alot easier if you state that the center is the largest gravitational mass - the Sun, which is what we've been doing for the last 400 years. You can decide that any other point is the 'center' through symantics but observationally it makes no practical sense to do so - well, except perhaps to extend an argument on Slashdot.
Max
I do stand by my assertion that the first amendment is being violated when valedvictorians are told that they cannot offer prayers at graduations and such, as this is clearly infringing on their right to practice their religion freely.
No, they don't have that right. Freedom of religion also means from from religion, and as a graduation ceremony is a public function funded with public tax dollars, government cannot 'respect' whatever religious wackiness is being offered up as part of the event. Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, it doesn't matter; that's public tax dollars which are being used to endorse a specific religious sentiment which, no matter how vague, would still devalue those with no religion (such as yours truly).
In other words, you don't use my tax dollars to push your religion, no matter how 'innocent' the act seems. If you want to practice your religion, do it on your own time and at your own expense.
Max
Wrong. The two actual explanations are:
1) Ashcroft is so utterly brain dead, as are all of his staff, the DOJ, and any lawyer or judge they may consult with on the issue, that the entire lot somehow think that throwing out attorney-client privilege will in some mystical, unknown fashion prevent future whackos from smashing a plane into a building; or
2) Ashcroft is more than a bit power-crazed and thinks this is a good excuse to bolster the authority of his office, regardless of the advice on constitutionality he may get from his staff, the DOJ, or any lawyer or judge he might happen to run into who hears about it.
Now, option number 1 means that I have to assume that a great many well-trained people are fucking morons, at least when it comes to this particular issue. Option number 2 means that I don't have to assume anything so far-fetched, just that one man is power-mad.
As I've a great many historical examples of power-madness, option number 2 doesn't seem unlikely at all.
Max
Without inventing additional forces you cannot accurately describe the motions of all the heavenly bodies in the solar system assuming that the Earth is the center of the system. Great minds tried and failed miserably, completely unable to reproduce by any means the exact path of the planets and sun with the Earth as the stable center.
Which led to Galileo and a heliocentric view of the universe, aptly putting into perspective how things *really* work. The heliocentric model was *much* simpler and required only one force to explain everything - gravity.
Max
Shrink Wrap License absolves microsoft from any responsibility.
Wrong. No court in the U.S. has ever held a EULA to be valid. In fact, given the sweeping denial of liability in most EULA's it's quite possible that fundamentally violate the basic precepts of commercial law, i.e., you're responsible for the quality of what you sell.
We'll find out as soon as a EULA is actually tested in court.
Max