It's unfortunate I was modded troll, because I was really asking. I suppose I can see why somebody misinterpreted me, though.
So, what am I missing, Run4yourlives? I re-read the entire sentence, and it still doesn't make sense to me. They're saying SuSE is the first "complete linux package" to offer KDE 3.3, Gnome 2.6, and Linux 2.6. So, the question is: What do they mean by "complete linux package"? If they mean simply "distribution" then they're wrong; I've had these things in my distro for at least a month or two before this announcment. It's generally more useful to pre-judge in the positive direction, and I can't imagine that someone wanted to lie, so they must not mean simply "distribution". So what do they mean? That's my question. And I re-read the entire sentence.
When Amazon first got their infamous 1-Click patent, the response Jeff Bezos gave to the people who were up in arms over the patent issue was that it was defensive patenting. He said Amazon was patenting it just so that somebody else wouldn't and then sue them. It appears this story is a case of "I told you so", for Bezos.
I understand that porting Photoshop to Linux costs a lot of money. Money that you maybe can't make a "business case" for. So, tell you what, Adobe. Open source it and we'll do it for you.
It is the first complete Linux package to harness both the improved Linux kernel 2.6 and the recently enhanced GNOME 2.6 and KDE 3.3 user desktop environments.
What are they talking about? I've been using those three packages, via my distribution, for at least several months now. What do they mean by "first complete Linux package"?
You're more right than you (may) know. I served on a nuclear sub, as a reactor operator. In the two years of schooling we get, there's much emphasis on rote memorization as well as understanding. One list we had to memorize is "negative public consequences if there were an accident", one of them being "negative public reaction to the naval nuclear program". We were operating in secret. We were taught that a major part of the reason that the naval nuclear program even still exists is because it's never (ever) had an actual accident. ("Accident" being a strict government policy-defined term.) The only reason we can get away with six nuclear reactors bobbing up and down in San Diego's bay right at this moment is because people really honestly don't know they're there. They're not in the news, they have a low physical profile. "Well yeah", nuclear subs have been operating in secret.
With this new engine, it seems that an inexpensive trip to Mars is now firmly within our grasp. Will we rise to the challenge?
Not that anyone's listening, but it's gotta be said. Who's this "we"? Why not ask, "Will someone rise to the challenge?" The biggest lesson of the X-Prize is that there doesn't have to be a "we" in space travel.
Is this cybersquatting, or is it a fair expression of political speech?
Well, it's not "cybersquatting". And I wouldn't call it a fair expression of speech. But I would say that the actual letters in a domain name should never ever be fair game for trademark, copyright or otherwise. It's like telling a website whose domain name is "YouCSD.com" that they're violating the "UCSD" trademark. There's no reason for domain names to be protected by anything, and it's not very practical to pretend that there is.
I don't we'll ever agree on this because we disagree about the fundamentals. You believe in a "right to earn a living from intellectual property" and I don't.
If you're concerned about fundamentals, I suggest you start with figuring out what a "right" is in the first place. If you hold the common view, that "rights" are something "society" grants, then I don't see how you have any basis for saying that someone *doesn't* have the right to earn a living form IP. Since, in the case of IP, society has granted that "right".
The right to anything is necessarily preceded by the concept of 'right' itself.
I think a certain W recently put a cap in Stem Cell research (that may have helped thousands of people) as well.
That W you speak of put a cap on stem cell research done by the government. Private persons and organizations can still do stem cell research. Isn't that a good thing? If you compare the stem cell situation to the space situation, it would be like passing laws that say the government can't work on space travel, leaving plenty of room for the privateers, so long as they don't take money from the government to do it.
I don't know about you, but I'd certainly like to see that happen.
but some big companies are loosing money on the setup
Yeah, well, they're also getting free market R&D. This guy forges new territory and accepts all the risks inherent in doing that. Once he establishes what works and what doesn't, an intelligent risk-minimizing company can come in and buy him out or hire him as a consultant.
It doesn't need to actually leak out. Someday, mark my words, Microsoft will be claiming that some kind of source code made its way into an open source program, and this code release is the card they're playing to make that future claim more plausible.
Oh no! It's more evidence that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Not only that, but it's Microsoft!! No!! The answer is clear. We must call in the government to to fix the situation. They'll get us out of anything.
According to Lemley, while 'free riding' off of someone else's land or other physical property rights is always undesirable, freely benefitting from someone else's intellectual property rights is often the best way to form a free and creative society.
So, IP is not P because the effects are undesirable? Man, it's really frickin' hot in San Diego right now, I guess the sun must not be a burning ball of gas and plasma, because the effects are undesirable.
Lemley's distinction also points to the unusual fact that in IP, traditional liberals are often calling for less and less government
"Traditional" liberals have always been calling for less government, in this and all things. I think the poster should have left out "traditional".
while conservatives demand regulation in order to protect their exclusive right to use their intellectual creations.
Another misspeak. If IP is not P, then conservatives don't have a 'right' whose protection is required. By saying they're protecting their rights, the poster has conceded victory. I'm all for rights, myself.
I'll also second the post that suggested that this forum should look at politics everywhere, not just the US.
Personally, I couldn't care less about some peon political game-playing in non-U.S. countries. Which, actually, is why I'd rather there not be a "politics" section at all.
That question is just another version of "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Yes, but... This is a political quiz. You think it's a false dichotomy, other people may not. That's politics. You're just supposed to agree or not agree with the statement. Obviously, you disagree with the statement.
And then, someday, when some lawyer's expert witness says this "artificial life" is virtually non-virtual and not so artificial anymore, the company gets to sue you for alimony when you stop paying money for the program/service. Whimsical, sure, but it can't hurt to train the humans to start treating the machines as alive...
On the other hand, this might be a shoe-in to legalize prostitution.
So, first we say that the RIAA must serve the people. Then we say that, once the people have spoken, and the RIAA obeys, it's still not good enough. Now the RIAA has to read minds! For everyone who trotted out the "spirit of the law" shtick, fuck you.
Gee, that seems to be something Merriam-Webster does, too. They say diversity is, "the condition of being different or having differences" and variety is, "something differing from others of the same general kind". In fact, they list variety and diversity as being synonyms.
Cute little form of argument, Ted, but nothing but a sound byte, ripe for the quoting elsewhere. Like Slashdot.
Use a domain less than 3 chars - can't exist, according to standards
They can exist, it's just that they were set aside early on. But not early enough to stop x.org, q.com, z.com, x.com, 3.dk and probably a number of other one letter domain registrations. And then we have the hundreds of two letter domains you can find here. You've never visited aa.com, the site for American Airlines? What about xe.com, to do currency conversion?
And if you want to get really technical, every ccTLD is in an example of a domain less than three characters.
Slashdot Mirror
It's unfortunate I was modded troll, because I was really asking. I suppose I can see why somebody misinterpreted me, though.
So, what am I missing, Run4yourlives? I re-read the entire sentence, and it still doesn't make sense to me. They're saying SuSE is the first "complete linux package" to offer KDE 3.3, Gnome 2.6, and Linux 2.6. So, the question is: What do they mean by "complete linux package"? If they mean simply "distribution" then they're wrong; I've had these things in my distro for at least a month or two before this announcment. It's generally more useful to pre-judge in the positive direction, and I can't imagine that someone wanted to lie, so they must not mean simply "distribution". So what do they mean? That's my question. And I re-read the entire sentence.
When Amazon first got their infamous 1-Click patent, the response Jeff Bezos gave to the people who were up in arms over the patent issue was that it was defensive patenting. He said Amazon was patenting it just so that somebody else wouldn't and then sue them. It appears this story is a case of "I told you so", for Bezos.
I understand that porting Photoshop to Linux costs a lot of money. Money that you maybe can't make a "business case" for. So, tell you what, Adobe. Open source it and we'll do it for you.
What are they talking about? I've been using those three packages, via my distribution, for at least several months now. What do they mean by "first complete Linux package"?
Well, yeah...
You're more right than you (may) know. I served on a nuclear sub, as a reactor operator. In the two years of schooling we get, there's much emphasis on rote memorization as well as understanding. One list we had to memorize is "negative public consequences if there were an accident", one of them being "negative public reaction to the naval nuclear program". We were operating in secret. We were taught that a major part of the reason that the naval nuclear program even still exists is because it's never (ever) had an actual accident. ("Accident" being a strict government policy-defined term.) The only reason we can get away with six nuclear reactors bobbing up and down in San Diego's bay right at this moment is because people really honestly don't know they're there. They're not in the news, they have a low physical profile. "Well yeah", nuclear subs have been operating in secret.
Not that anyone's listening, but it's gotta be said. Who's this "we"? Why not ask, "Will someone rise to the challenge?" The biggest lesson of the X-Prize is that there doesn't have to be a "we" in space travel.
Well, it's not "cybersquatting". And I wouldn't call it a fair expression of speech. But I would say that the actual letters in a domain name should never ever be fair game for trademark, copyright or otherwise. It's like telling a website whose domain name is "YouCSD.com" that they're violating the "UCSD" trademark. There's no reason for domain names to be protected by anything, and it's not very practical to pretend that there is.
If you're concerned about fundamentals, I suggest you start with figuring out what a "right" is in the first place. If you hold the common view, that "rights" are something "society" grants, then I don't see how you have any basis for saying that someone *doesn't* have the right to earn a living form IP. Since, in the case of IP, society has granted that "right".
The right to anything is necessarily preceded by the concept of 'right' itself.
That W you speak of put a cap on stem cell research done by the government. Private persons and organizations can still do stem cell research. Isn't that a good thing? If you compare the stem cell situation to the space situation, it would be like passing laws that say the government can't work on space travel, leaving plenty of room for the privateers, so long as they don't take money from the government to do it.
I don't know about you, but I'd certainly like to see that happen.
So?
Yeah, well, they're also getting free market R&D. This guy forges new territory and accepts all the risks inherent in doing that. Once he establishes what works and what doesn't, an intelligent risk-minimizing company can come in and buy him out or hire him as a consultant.
Oh, and... 8.
Article 1 and Article 2.
Both articles describe using a Soekris box with OpenBSD.
Microsoft telling the RIAA what to do is like watching Alien vs. Predator.
Power to the Person.
So, IP is not P because the effects are undesirable? Man, it's really frickin' hot in San Diego right now, I guess the sun must not be a burning ball of gas and plasma, because the effects are undesirable.
Lemley's distinction also points to the unusual fact that in IP, traditional liberals are often calling for less and less government
"Traditional" liberals have always been calling for less government, in this and all things. I think the poster should have left out "traditional".
while conservatives demand regulation in order to protect their exclusive right to use their intellectual creations.
Another misspeak. If IP is not P, then conservatives don't have a 'right' whose protection is required. By saying they're protecting their rights, the poster has conceded victory. I'm all for rights, myself.
Vote "NO" in 2004.
Personally, I couldn't care less about some peon political game-playing in non-U.S. countries. Which, actually, is why I'd rather there not be a "politics" section at all.
Yes, but... This is a political quiz. You think it's a false dichotomy, other people may not. That's politics. You're just supposed to agree or not agree with the statement. Obviously, you disagree with the statement.
And then, someday, when some lawyer's expert witness says this "artificial life" is virtually non-virtual and not so artificial anymore, the company gets to sue you for alimony when you stop paying money for the program/service. Whimsical, sure, but it can't hurt to train the humans to start treating the machines as alive...
On the other hand, this might be a shoe-in to legalize prostitution.
Or I could have been angry. One or the other, surely.
Of course! The threat model! Everything Microsoft does is a strategic military move against the Resistance.
I hate the RIAA, but I like objective law.
Gee, that seems to be something Merriam-Webster does, too. They say diversity is, "the condition of being different or having differences" and variety is, "something differing from others of the same general kind". In fact, they list variety and diversity as being synonyms.
Cute little form of argument, Ted, but nothing but a sound byte, ripe for the quoting elsewhere. Like Slashdot.
They can exist, it's just that they were set aside early on. But not early enough to stop x.org, q.com, z.com, x.com, 3.dk and probably a number of other one letter domain registrations. And then we have the hundreds of two letter domains you can find here. You've never visited aa.com, the site for American Airlines? What about xe.com, to do currency conversion?
And if you want to get really technical, every ccTLD is in an example of a domain less than three characters.