Actually I think you have that ass-backwards. You can't legally do what you are suggesting, but it would be possible for a group to fork the kernel and leave Linus out. If push comes to shove, I'd be looking at a kernel replacement.
"Linux should be *open* to using either. If not than it's not really a [sic] "open" tool."
Ah, that old conflict between short-term gains at the cost of long-term growth. This is, in a nut shell, the whole "Open" vs "Free" debate, where laurels for Pragmatism seemingly are based solely upon the time frame you are most comfortable using.
I could be totally mistaken, but I sure thought that VMWare Workstation supported 3D hardware, but the server version didn't. From VMTN Discussion Forums :
> When will 3d graphics be supported/available in GSX server?
The GSX does not support 3D graphics and I am not sure that this will be ported over from Workstation into a server product, like VMware Server.
and also
Won't work, not likely to ever work.
Server always runs VMs using a VNC-like remote connection which cannot handle 3D acceleration.
Workstation always runs locally, so certain optimizations are possible. One of these optimizations is 3D graphics.
It's in the codebase; but the UI that can make use of those 3D settings isn't a part of Server, and it's not possible to mix-and-match different UIs.
Besides, "workstations" use fancy 3D graphics, not "servers"!;-)
Agreed that it is really about trying to (more so) bullet proof the process, rather than shooting oneself in the foot and then delevoping great band aid systems. I have to admit that when I saw ADA at University I was amazed and a little awed. Frankly, though, I've never choosen it when I grabbed a tool to make something happen. Most of what I do do is done in either Mathematica (which is available for linux at a great student discount,) or Python. I most certainly don't write anything resembling an application.
Agreed: Market Cap (intraday): RHat 5.00B, vs. NOVL 2.98B
And yet if you consider their 2005 Balance Sheets:
Total Current Assets:
RHat 385,253,000 vs NOVL 2,009,053,000
Total Assets:
RHat 1,134,036, vs NOVL 2,761,858 (where Red Hat's long term investments make up somewhat)
Total Current Liabilities
RHat 139,199,000 vs NOVL 752,930,000
Total Liabilities
RHat 772,365,000 vs NOVL 1,366,022,000
Total Stockholder Equity
RHat 361,671,000 vs NOVL 1,386,486,000
Note the difference between market cap and Stockholder Equity (which is based on book value rather than market value).
book value definition
A company's common stock equity as it appears on a balance sheet, equal to total assets minus liabilities, preferred stock, and intangible assets such as goodwill. This is how much the company would have left over in assets if it went out of business immediately. Since companies are usually expected to grow and generate more profits in the future, market capitalization is higher than book value for most companies. Since book value is a more accurate measure of valuation for companies which aren't growing quickly, book value is of more interest to value investors than growth investors.
All I'm suggesting is that it isn't as simple as comparing market caps. Consider also the cash flows:
Net Income
RHat 45,426,000 vs NOVL 376,722,000
Total Cash Flow From Operating Activities
RHat 122,217,000 vs NOVL 500,414,000
Change In Cash and Cash Equivalents
RHat ($321,135,000) vs NOVL $376,834,000
It doesn't look like either is ready to purchase the other, but suggesting that Red Hat is "Red Hat is worth about 60% more than Novell" is perhaps naive. It is surely easier to imagine Novell buying Red Hat in the future than the other way around.
Re:Nothing beats yahoo and mutt
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
Couldn't you just use screen and run more than one version of pine? As many as you have memory for, in fact?
Talking about someone who would rather use Latex than a WP is like talking about someone who'd rather use a CAD package than MS Paint. It isn't so much about "rather" than it is about what you can do with it. "But the rest of the world PREFERS MS Paint", just doesn't matter...
Document the strategy, yes. Document the tactics, too, though. And document the implementation, also, for those who are learning maintence and must somehow see that the latter relates even at all to these former two...
Agreed. Please excuse the following rant: unusual, unexpected, and bizzare side effects *suck* and anyone who has ever programmed with a team member whose simply named functions turned out to do unrelated things (to global variables!) knows that (since we can't just shoot them) a language that prevents them from shooting us in the foot isn't a bad thing at all.
If we could just shoot them, then we wouldn't need to...no, must not think bad thoughts;-)
Well as I recall it was (1) flipping switches (machine code), then (2) assemblers, then (3) macroassemblers, then (4) fortran, then (6) lisp. I'm pretty sure that the first 5 didn't have garbage collection.
Eiffel users continuously demonstrate that they can produce between two and ten times as much software in a given amount of time as can be achieved using other IDEs and tool sets. Eiffel has thus gained prominence in challenging enterprise environments in the financial, insurance, manufacturing, and government sectors as well as among independent development teams.
"I am 100% in favor of companies trying to sell us a new language...", but since Eiffel dates back to 1985-86, I don't know what you mean.
"Another great example of a language that is probably better but has never picked up steam is Scheme. Every compiler developer in the world loves scheme. It is by far the most heavily optimized compiled language on the planet. It has great merits. But the fact is that with the exception of the scheme compilers written in scheme and and an ocassional university project", which is what it was designed for: Scheme was meant to be simple rather than useful, in order to further the study of such things as program correctness (software algorthims studied as mathematics) by academia. The industrial version is Common Lisp.
When discussing the right tool for the job, comments regarding the attempt to use a thermometer as a hammer (Scheme vs Common Lisp) make it hard to take your C++ vs Eiffel seriously, especially since you seem to think a 21 year old language is "new". It is old enough to drink.
But the GPL isn't an End User License Agreement, it is rather a copyright license. The GPL doesn't tell you how to use, or not use, the software. You don't even have to agree to the GPL to use the software.
"The US can afford maintaining bases in Iraq, he argues. US defense spending now amounts to a bit more than 4 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's output of goods and services. It might rise as a result of Iraq bases to 5 percent of GDP, still less than the 6.5 percent of GDP in the cold war or the 10 percent during the Vietnam War."
Well, first, if you really want to find the URL, since it is straight cut and paste, you could just google it: www.amsa.org/pdf/genepatents.pdf.
Second, "naturally occurring genes are not patentable", and yet they have been patented. This feels like responding to a flat-earth proponet.
In terms of novelty, the first one to sequence it has "discovered" it, and this seems to be what is used. It is "novel", perhaps, in that no one else knew it?
Furthermore, while you claim the PTO will not grant a patent to human DNA, National Geographic claims:
One-Fifth of Human Genes Have Been Patented, Study Reveals
Of the nearly 24000 human genes found in human DNA, more than 4000 have been
patented by private firms and universities, a new study finds....
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_0510 13_gene_patent.html
"A new study shows that 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities."
Big difference between "finding people guilty by whom they choose to associate with", and finding people who conspire to commit murder, guilty. Bottom line is that anyone who knowingly gives aid or comfort to those who commit murder is an accomplice.
"Not to mention unions, who have a history of being linked with violence and ironically the mob."
Actually it was business that hired pinkertons to attack the unions. Thus any "link" to violence must begin with unions as the victim of organized and well funded violence. To quote you about yourself:
"That is a complete and utter distortion."
"Violence is NOT tacitly accepted." The fact that there was discussion (or arguement) before the vote to kill doesn't mean it isn't an act of violence. People who shoot doctors should go to jail for a long time, and the organizations which supported them in their acts of violence are no better. Please understand that such actions have tainted any possible message, and get over it, and find some other way to express your discomfort with the legal actions of others. Thank you.
Scientific principles are not patentable. However, "Courts have interpreted the patent laws such that the laws of nature, basic physical phenomena, and completely abstract ideas may not be patented. A "composition of matter" is one of the things which is explicitly declared patentable. Since the canonical form of a gene is a string of nucleotides, which is a specific and unique composition of matter, genes have been declared patentable."
Thus, "whether the patent is properly categorized as a scientific principle or not" is not relevant, since no patent is attempted on a scientific principle. Rather, a chemical composition is patented (DNA is a chemical).
A "product of nature" may not be patented per se.
"New plant strains have also been judged patentable, except for plants found "in an uncultivated state".
Since a patented discovery must be somehow useful, only DNA sequences which have some practical
medical or laboratory use are patentable. To date, this has included patents on genes, tests for the
presence of genes, proteins, and tests for the presence of proteins. A single patent may cover the
entire pathway from gene to protein to therapy, or these items may be split among multiple patents. In
one particularly egregious display, Chiron Corporation has obtained patents covering essentially the entire
hepatitis C virus genome, tests for the presence of viral DNA, the protein products of the viral genome, and
vaccines based on those proteins."
"A patent on a gene (or on anything else) gives the holder the exclusive right to say what may and may
not be done with that gene, at least in the commercial arena. Whether selling copies of the DNA strand
to academic researchers or putting it into a gene therapy vector, whoever holds the patent makes the rules
for the 20 years until the patent expires. In a very real sense, the patent holder owns the gene. That same
gene is found in every person on this planet (except for those who have a deleterious mutation, and who
would very much like that patented normal copy). At least in the United States, it is specifically illegal to
demand licensing fees from ordinary people just for having a patented gene in their bodies. However, the
ownership over all "unnatural" uses of that gene remains."
Indeed, it is not an invention. It is in fact an observation. But since they were the first to claim to have observed this fact, they "discovered" it. Patents don't just apply to inventions.
Perhaps they confused "Right to Work" (which disolved the unions) with "Employment At-Will", which
means that employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers. As an at-will employee under the doctrine, you may quit your job whenever and for whatever reason you want, usually without consequence. In turn, at-will employers may terminate you whenever and for whatever reason they want, usually without consequence.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I think you have that ass-backwards. You can't legally do what you are suggesting, but it would be possible for a group to fork the kernel and leave Linus out. If push comes to shove, I'd be looking at a kernel replacement.
"Linux should be *open* to using either. If not than it's not really a [sic] "open" tool."
Ah, that old conflict between short-term gains at the cost of long-term growth. This is, in a nut shell, the whole "Open" vs "Free" debate, where laurels for Pragmatism seemingly are based solely upon the time frame you are most comfortable using.
More links: Enabling Accelerated 3-D for a Virtual Machine, and also checkout Experimental Support for Direct3D for limitations and issues.
Too late when I posted, too little sleep this last week, and frankly I get confused when I'm sleepy and perhaps I missed my thumb when I counted? ;-)
Agreed that it is really about trying to (more so) bullet proof the process, rather than shooting oneself in the foot and then delevoping great band aid systems. I have to admit that when I saw ADA at University I was amazed and a little awed. Frankly, though, I've never choosen it when I grabbed a tool to make something happen. Most of what I do do is done in either Mathematica (which is available for linux at a great student discount,) or Python. I most certainly don't write anything resembling an application.
And yet if you consider their 2005 Balance Sheets:
Total Current Assets:
RHat 385,253,000 vs NOVL 2,009,053,000
Total Assets:
RHat 1,134,036, vs NOVL 2,761,858 (where Red Hat's long term investments make up somewhat)
Total Current Liabilities
RHat 139,199,000 vs NOVL 752,930,000
Total Liabilities
RHat 772,365,000 vs NOVL 1,366,022,000
Total Stockholder Equity
RHat 361,671,000 vs NOVL 1,386,486,000
Note the difference between market cap and Stockholder Equity (which is based on book value rather than market value). All I'm suggesting is that it isn't as simple as comparing market caps. Consider also the cash flows:
Net Income
RHat 45,426,000 vs NOVL 376,722,000
Total Cash Flow From Operating Activities
RHat 122,217,000 vs NOVL 500,414,000
Change In Cash and Cash Equivalents
RHat ($321,135,000) vs NOVL $376,834,000
It doesn't look like either is ready to purchase the other, but suggesting that Red Hat is "Red Hat is worth about 60% more than Novell" is perhaps naive. It is surely easier to imagine Novell buying Red Hat in the future than the other way around.
Couldn't you just use screen and run more than one version of pine? As many as you have memory for, in fact?
Talking about someone who would rather use Latex than a WP is like talking about someone who'd rather use a CAD package than MS Paint. It isn't so much about "rather" than it is about what you can do with it. "But the rest of the world PREFERS MS Paint", just doesn't matter...
Document the strategy, yes. Document the tactics, too, though. And document the implementation, also, for those who are learning maintence and must somehow see that the latter relates even at all to these former two...
Agreed. Please excuse the following rant: unusual, unexpected, and bizzare side effects *suck* and anyone who has ever programmed with a team member whose simply named functions turned out to do unrelated things (to global variables!) knows that (since we can't just shoot them) a language that prevents them from shooting us in the foot isn't a bad thing at all.
;-)
If we could just shoot them, then we wouldn't need to...no, must not think bad thoughts
Well as I recall it was (1) flipping switches (machine code), then (2) assemblers, then (3) macroassemblers, then (4) fortran, then (6) lisp. I'm pretty sure that the first 5 didn't have garbage collection.
I'm confused. It would seem that Eiffel is a Software Engineer's language, designed (like ADA) specificly for large scale programs. Like ADA, there are programmer constraint issues...but these are in place specificly for such longterm, large scale programs, yes?
According to the ECMA:
"I am 100% in favor of companies trying to sell us a new language...", but since Eiffel dates back to 1985-86, I don't know what you mean.
"Another great example of a language that is probably better but has never picked up steam is Scheme. Every compiler developer in the world loves scheme. It is by far the most heavily optimized compiled language on the planet. It has great merits. But the fact is that with the exception of the scheme compilers written in scheme and and an ocassional university project", which is what it was designed for: Scheme was meant to be simple rather than useful, in order to further the study of such things as program correctness (software algorthims studied as mathematics) by academia. The industrial version is Common Lisp.
When discussing the right tool for the job, comments regarding the attempt to use a thermometer as a hammer (Scheme vs Common Lisp) make it hard to take your C++ vs Eiffel seriously, especially since you seem to think a 21 year old language is "new". It is old enough to drink.
But the GPL isn't an End User License Agreement, it is rather a copyright license. The GPL doesn't tell you how to use, or not use, the software. You don't even have to agree to the GPL to use the software.
"The US can afford maintaining bases in Iraq, he argues. US defense spending now amounts to a bit more than 4 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's output of goods and services. It might rise as a result of Iraq bases to 5 percent of GDP, still less than the 6.5 percent of GDP in the cold war or the 10 percent during the Vietnam War."
Well, *-based is what I meant by "flavor", as in: Mandrake started as a "flavor" of redhat.
Second, "naturally occurring genes are not patentable", and yet they have been patented. This feels like responding to a flat-earth proponet.
In terms of novelty, the first one to sequence it has "discovered" it, and this seems to be what is used. It is "novel", perhaps, in that no one else knew it?
Furthermore, while you claim the PTO will not grant a patent to human DNA, National Geographic claims: "A new study shows that 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities."
Big difference between "finding people guilty by whom they choose to associate with", and finding people who conspire to commit murder, guilty. Bottom line is that anyone who knowingly gives aid or comfort to those who commit murder is an accomplice.
"Not to mention unions, who have a history of being linked with violence and ironically the mob."
Actually it was business that hired pinkertons to attack the unions. Thus any "link" to violence must begin with unions as the victim of organized and well funded violence. To quote you about yourself: "That is a complete and utter distortion."
"Violence is NOT tacitly accepted." The fact that there was discussion (or arguement) before the vote to kill doesn't mean it isn't an act of violence. People who shoot doctors should go to jail for a long time, and the organizations which supported them in their acts of violence are no better. Please understand that such actions have tainted any possible message, and get over it, and find some other way to express your discomfort with the legal actions of others. Thank you.
Scientific principles are not patentable. However, "Courts have interpreted the patent laws such that the laws of nature, basic physical phenomena, and completely abstract ideas may not be patented. A "composition of matter" is one of the things which is explicitly declared patentable. Since the canonical form of a gene is a string of nucleotides, which is a specific and unique composition of matter, genes have been declared patentable."
Thus, "whether the patent is properly categorized as a scientific principle or not" is not relevant, since no patent is attempted on a scientific principle. Rather, a chemical composition is patented (DNA is a chemical).
A "product of nature" may not be patented per se.
"New plant strains have also been judged patentable, except for plants found "in an uncultivated state". Since a patented discovery must be somehow useful, only DNA sequences which have some practical medical or laboratory use are patentable. To date, this has included patents on genes, tests for the presence of genes, proteins, and tests for the presence of proteins. A single patent may cover the entire pathway from gene to protein to therapy, or these items may be split among multiple patents. In one particularly egregious display, Chiron Corporation has obtained patents covering essentially the entire hepatitis C virus genome, tests for the presence of viral DNA, the protein products of the viral genome, and vaccines based on those proteins."
"A patent on a gene (or on anything else) gives the holder the exclusive right to say what may and may not be done with that gene, at least in the commercial arena. Whether selling copies of the DNA strand to academic researchers or putting it into a gene therapy vector, whoever holds the patent makes the rules for the 20 years until the patent expires. In a very real sense, the patent holder owns the gene. That same gene is found in every person on this planet (except for those who have a deleterious mutation, and who would very much like that patented normal copy). At least in the United States, it is specifically illegal to demand licensing fees from ordinary people just for having a patented gene in their bodies. However, the ownership over all "unnatural" uses of that gene remains."
Indeed, it is not an invention. It is in fact an observation. But since they were the first to claim to have observed this fact, they "discovered" it. Patents don't just apply to inventions.
The Mandrake Club is what moved me back to Debian, too. Running the Ubuntu flaovr of Debian, these days, and not looking back :-)