No offense, but if simply knowing that a lot of code was taken from BSD satisfies the "geek" in you, then it would stand to reason that even Windows would satisfy the "geek" in you.
Actually, it is I who ought to be offended, because I wish I were less of a geek. OS X just isn't geeky enough for me.
A company that makes money by selling support for Linux.
That's not really an accurate statement, is it? There have been no new releases of Linux since 2001
Ok, I'm going to have to get nitpicky--what are you talking about when you mean "Linux?" Do you mean the kernel? 2.6.0 came out in December of '03.
There has been no significant work on the user experience since 2001, when Eazel closed its doors.
Not true at all. I'm using Gnome 2.8, and it is a lot different from Gnome around that time. I have a spatial browser, most usb devices get automatically detected and set up via dbus/hal, the ui for changing file associations has been significantly improved. Actually, if you want to get a real feel for ui improvements, you'll have to go over the changelogs for each major version bump. And that's just for Gnome. There have also been improvements in XFCE, KDE, GNUStep, and every other environment. Even X has seen some radical improvements.
Linux has been essentially stagnant, and there's no sign that that's going to change any time soon.
In all respect, I starting to think you don't know what you're talking about.
There have been no real functional enhancements since before 2001. What's worse, there is no roadmap for the delivery of new core features like metadata and search.
This is just absurd. Have you heard of Beagle? Functional enhancements? We're pretty close to making Linux a full featured digital audio workstation (DAW)--does that count as a feature enhancement? I don't know what you mean--I think you're limiting Linux to being a Windows clone/replacement. I prefer using Gnome to using Windows--I find the ui very backward, actually.
The reputation of Linux has been permanently soiled by its legal entanglements. Nobody in his right mind would choose to invest either time or money in it now.
This is a bunch of crap. Linux is at best equally likely to let legally questionable code to seep into it than proprietary code. The only difference is that individual developers cannot afford to defend themselves in bogus trials. However, in the business world (which you apparently know so much about), you hire another company to deploy Linux for you, like RedHat or IBM. Companies which also fight for you in court if you get sued over using Linux.
The notion of suing customers is relatively new and it's merely a tactic to scare people away from Linux. You claim that it's working, but I just don't see that. Companies aren't afraid of using something IBM sold them.
No, it's not. Go read his screed. And it's not an analogy, it's a metaphor. And it's not a metaphor as much as it is a bald-faced insult to everybody who's ever invented anything.
Why do you so obstinately refuse to back up your overdramatic statements? It is restricted to software patents, first of all, and even if you disagree with the wording, it still makes sense and is a coherent argument, which is more than you have provided me.
Of course he is. What are you talking about now?
Stallman is an advocate for software freedom, first and foremost. His primary motive is to ensure that there is a free operating system for everyone in the world with a computer to use. He is not interested in getting more companies to adopt Linux, nor is he interested in getting more end users to adopt Linux (this is the difference between the Free Software and the Open Source movements). He is, however, interested in getting more people to care about software freedom. You find that freedom to be worthless. You call him a zealot. I find that freedom important. I do not. No surprises here.
Yeah, yeah, we all know about Stallman's insane political agenda. The less said about that, the better. The man's a freak. Must you sully his reputation further by giving detailed examples of exactly how he's a freak?
It was the "next big thing" five years ago, and it's the "next big thing" today, and it'll be the "next big thing" five years hence, and everybody is starting to realize it.
You see the Linux world through the press releases of Linux-based companies. I suppose I should say "for-profit" companies. At any rate, I'm of the mind that Linux will succeed because of the process behind it. For the last five years, Linux has been progressing really quickly. Every year, more and more companies decide that Linux is now ready for a certain part of their IT infrastructure. It's getting put on desktops. It's been in the back office. Linux-related sales have gone from the couple millions to the couple billions. Companies that switch to Linux save lots of money. The real issues keeping most companies from switching to Linux on their desktops are that they have already invested a lot of capital in their existing Windows setup, and they can't read Office documents reliably without Microsoft Office.
Everyone used to be talking about it. Now everyone is talking about why Apple and even Microsoft -- albeit at a much slower pace -- have delivered on their promises, while Linux has never delivered on any of its promises.
Linux never made a promise. "For profit" companies might have, but they are not in charge of Linux. This comment reeks of trying to understand Linux from the perspective of Linux being "yet another software company," which it is not. Not even "failed promises" could keep Linux from progressing, because it doesn't require capital for growth, just interest and mindshare. Which it has.
Linux cannot be defeated by any competing business model. If Linux never had corporate backing, it would still exist. Only litigation poses any kind of threat, and only because the cost to defend oneself against companies like SCO is too much for an independent developer to handle. You don't actually think SCO has a legitimate case, do you?
Yes, but not in a good way. To the non-IT mind, Linux means "that thing that sank TiVo," or "that thing that everybody is getting sued over."
This depends on who you talk to. The invalidity of your argument, however, does not.
Linux is made by that guy who said that anybody who owns a patent is a blood-sucker who's a parasite on society. These are not good brand associations.
RMS's analogy is restricted to software patents and companies like SCO who rely on litigation of such patents as a means of income. You are more than welcome to read why he said what he said and determine if you agree with him or not, and state why you feel that way. You have neglected to do so. Your entire argument seems to be that advocates of "Linux" (which Stallman is not, by the way) should do more to appeal to certain corporate "sentiments." Again, "Linux" doesn't have to. People that sell Linux to companies do, however, and I think you'll find they tow a completely different party line than RMS.
I guess you don't understand how the Internet works.
It is understood that someone's personal opinions shared with others in a casual conversation needn't use the same language as someone would use in a business setting. I guess you don't understand how the...actually, I don't want to stoop to that level.
Besides, the far bigger problem is that Stallman guy, who actually had the blinding lack of good sense to write a published op-ed in which he accused people who own patents of being parasites. Guess what, ya dumbass: People who own patents are your customers. You just went out there and called a million of your own customers blood-sucking parasites. On what planet is this considered anything other than commercial suicide?
Again, Stallman doesn't need to curry favor with other companies and businessmen because he isn't in the business of selling Linux. Not even in the "broad" term of trying to get more people to use it. His primary goal
You're making a terrible breach of logic. You left reasoning behind when you made the jump from "developing a Free (as in speech) alternative to proprietary operating systems" to "[destroying] the software industry as we know it."
If his work happens destroy the software industry, it's not his fault, because he just wanted to develop an alternative.
They have no right to make that decision for me. None whatsoever.
If they don't have the right to make that decision, what are they doing that is illegal or immoral? The development of GNU can hardly be considered making any decision for you, because you don't have to choose to use it.
My point here is that you're being overdramatic and unreasonable. RMS may be a communist, facist, *ist, but his personal views don't matter. All that matters is the aims and terms of the GPL, and the development of GNU and the defending of it's stated philosophies (a subset of RMS's philosophies). None of these suggest an aim to destroy anything, merely make sure no one is forced to use non-free software, and that those who choose to develop Free software can have several essential freedoms defended. Depending on your stance, either one of those freedoms defended is the freedom to ensure no one will take your code, modify it, and deny new users your code, or specifically not defend your right to allow others to take your code and deny new users the modifications.
Either way, the difference is only semantic, and hardly constituting a hostile takeover of a massive industry. You're really making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
My reasoning is that writing a piece of software automatically makes you the preferred party to support that software.
Software is devalued, but then again it was worth more than it should have been to begin with. See, it's worth whatever the market is willing to charge for it. If the market is willing to give it away, then it's not worth much.
The condition is the achievement of the FSF's goal: have all software everywhere be covered by the GPL. This is the explicit goal of their organization, and the goal to which the GPL was expressly designed.
No, the goal is to create an entire computer system called "GNU" who's license complies with the philosophies RMS has on how software ought to be licensed. Nowhere is the aim to destroy other software, merely to provide an alternative to those who value freedom and refuse to use non-free software.
More correctly, the freedom to choose proprietary software. What the hell gives them the right to make that choice for me, or demand that I give up such freedom?
Umm, as far as I can tell, and unless you've had unique dealings with them, they're not imposing their will on you. They are, however, asking you to not make choices that restrict the freedoms of others.
Just read the discussion of when they recommend the GPL vs. the LGPL for one example.
Again, you need to learn the distinction between someone telling you that you ought to do (or not do) something, and forcing you to do it. No one is putting a gun down your throat. There are, however, those out there trying to put together a UNIX-like operating system under the terms of the GPL. There are also others trying to convince developers not to use both proprietary licenses, and licenses that benefit those who write proprietary software. There is nothing wrong with that.
Why people think that telling others they are wrong is an infringement upon liberty is beyond me.
The only goal the GPL works toward beyond those of other OSD-compliant licenses is the perpetuation of the FSF utopia, which calls for nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it.
No no no no no. No.
No.
Many people and companies write software on a contract basis, for which no license is necessary. The part of the software industry that would be affected is proprietary software.
The end to this sector of software development would mean a rise in other areas of IT--namely, support and deployment.
Besides, OSD-compliant software is similarly "destroying" the software industry. Sure, proprietary shops can take code from BSD-esqe licensed software, but if their product is in demand, then there tends to be a healthy supply of hobbyists developing a decent alternative.
Ardour is a good example of a Free Software project reaching the quality of proprietary counterparts. It isn't quite there yet, but it's progressing very nicely. And guess what? A lot of people have donated money to the main developer over the years.
It claims to work toward freedom, while it actually works to deny freedom to those who do not share its goals.
Well, if your goal is specifically to deny, or perpetuate the denial of, those freedoms that the FSF is fighting for, it is only logical that they would seek to deny you that "freedom," since said freedom is precisely what the FSF is fighting against.
First of all, IMO a much better solution has been used by Trolltech--make the thing GPL, and license it out to people who want to make commercial products. To me, if they're going to resell your code, then they should buy it first.
Secondly, your logic is wrong. The GPL is concerned primarily with the freedoms of the user, not the developer. Therefore, the ongoing assurance of software freedom trumps the third party developer's freedom to sell the code without releasing the source. If you don't like those terms, don't use the software. Choose a license that puts commercial freedoms before end user freedoms. There is nothing viral about this.
The GPL would be like a virus if software developers had no choice as to whether or not they could include GPL code. See, a virus invades a host without consent. That's what makes viruses bad. If you could avoid getting a cold by not allowing the germs in your body, then the cold wouldn't really be that bad.
Ok, so my analogy breaks down if you consider that you can prevent catching a cold by washing your hands, etc. But the relevant part of it is that no one actually chooses to put the virus in their body. Likewise, no one lumps in GPL code with their proprietary project by accident.
If you do, and you find out, or you are "found" out, then you must either replace the code in question, license it from it's authors, or GPL the rest of the work.
However, your project's license doesn't suddenly all become GPL. If the terms of the GPL are not met, then you have a case of copyright infringement.
Users have the freedom to choose commercial implementations
The FSF would remove people's freedom to choose commercial implementations
Your use of the subjunctive suggests that a condition would have to be met for this to happen. What is this condition? Although RMS has suggested that such a law may end up necessary, neither he, nor the FSF, is actively supporting such a move.
and claim that they're fighting for freedom
Freedom from proprietary software. It only follows that they would be against a license that helps perpetuate proprietary software. I don't see why this is over-zealous, nor do I see why it is utopian.
Well, that seems rather straightforward and restrictive. That [rom] file is for archival purposes only. Unless the definition is more flexible than it appears, that means the owner of an original may make a a copy and that copy cannot be used unless the original is destroyed or damaged. (Perhaps even that is reading too much into it?) So as long as you have an original, that copy should be sitting somewhere safe until needed to replace the original, should that event ever arise.
The law in question:
...that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only
Basically, if you interpret "archival purposes" as "keeping it unused until your original breaks down and dies," then all emulation is legal.
However, that's a bunch of crap. I have a giant archive of files on my computer--it's called a filesystem. Anyone ever go to a library and check out their periodical archives? You don't have to wait untel every copy of a given newspaper is destroyed to use it.
I have a feeling that the author wasn't actually mistaken on this one. What I mean is, it's entirely possible that he knew that 11K did not equal 11 degrees C, but since he was already talking about a 11K degree change (which you so studiously pointed out), he omitted any mention of "change" in the equation itself. You know, sort of like saying, "Hey all you non-science types! Do you know the 11K change they're talking about? Yah, ya do? Would you like to know about how much that change would be in celcius? Yah, 11K = 11 degrees C."
Dude--it's called a bunker. Fight with your drones/probes if you have to. One zealot and two probes can handle a 4-pool rush (and leave you in a much better position). One marine, one bunker, and one probe (maybe two if they're smart--usually not) can handle it even better.
Although people whine about rushing in Starcraft, it's actually such an easy strategy to defend, and so hard to recover from if it fails, that most experts won't even attempt it if they know they're playing someone equi-decent.
I've been showed enough evidence to suggest that our government is wholly corrupt (meaning not limited to either party), uses force to exhert control over drug and oil sources and traffic routes, takes bribes from corporations who launder money from terrorist groups and drug cartels, uses terrorism to scare it's populace into giving up civil liberties and going along with nothing short of global imperialism, and to top it all of we have a media that won't tell us about any of it (by the way, it's not just Fox News that's to blame).
Although there is a lot of evidence to suggest that such a bloodline dating back to Babylon existed in the middle ages as the top-tier of untoachables in the Freemasonic cult, I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that they rule the world.
At any rate, if they did, that would certainly increase the likelihood of a quite Biblical apocalpse happening.
Note to mods: the above post was not an attempt at a first post (nor would it have been successful).
The post is supposed to make a joke about how seemingly unnewsworthy the "first security update of the New Year" is. I guess there's not enough there to make the distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is I who ought to be offended, because I wish I were less of a geek. OS X just isn't geeky enough for me.
What's a "Linux-based company?"
A company that makes money by selling support for Linux.
That's not really an accurate statement, is it? There have been no new releases of Linux since 2001
Ok, I'm going to have to get nitpicky--what are you talking about when you mean "Linux?" Do you mean the kernel? 2.6.0 came out in December of '03.
There has been no significant work on the user experience since 2001, when Eazel closed its doors.
Not true at all. I'm using Gnome 2.8, and it is a lot different from Gnome around that time. I have a spatial browser, most usb devices get automatically detected and set up via dbus/hal, the ui for changing file associations has been significantly improved. Actually, if you want to get a real feel for ui improvements, you'll have to go over the changelogs for each major version bump. And that's just for Gnome. There have also been improvements in XFCE, KDE, GNUStep, and every other environment. Even X has seen some radical improvements.
Linux has been essentially stagnant, and there's no sign that that's going to change any time soon.
In all respect, I starting to think you don't know what you're talking about.
There have been no real functional enhancements since before 2001. What's worse, there is no roadmap for the delivery of new core features like metadata and search.
This is just absurd. Have you heard of Beagle? Functional enhancements? We're pretty close to making Linux a full featured digital audio workstation (DAW)--does that count as a feature enhancement? I don't know what you mean--I think you're limiting Linux to being a Windows clone/replacement. I prefer using Gnome to using Windows--I find the ui very backward, actually.
The reputation of Linux has been permanently soiled by its legal entanglements. Nobody in his right mind would choose to invest either time or money in it now.
This is a bunch of crap. Linux is at best equally likely to let legally questionable code to seep into it than proprietary code. The only difference is that individual developers cannot afford to defend themselves in bogus trials. However, in the business world (which you apparently know so much about), you hire another company to deploy Linux for you, like RedHat or IBM. Companies which also fight for you in court if you get sued over using Linux.
The notion of suing customers is relatively new and it's merely a tactic to scare people away from Linux. You claim that it's working, but I just don't see that. Companies aren't afraid of using something IBM sold them.
No, it's not. Go read his screed. And it's not an analogy, it's a metaphor. And it's not a metaphor as much as it is a bald-faced insult to everybody who's ever invented anything.
Why do you so obstinately refuse to back up your overdramatic statements? It is restricted to software patents, first of all, and even if you disagree with the wording, it still makes sense and is a coherent argument, which is more than you have provided me.
Of course he is. What are you talking about now?
Stallman is an advocate for software freedom, first and foremost. His primary motive is to ensure that there is a free operating system for everyone in the world with a computer to use. He is not interested in getting more companies to adopt Linux, nor is he interested in getting more end users to adopt Linux (this is the difference between the Free Software and the Open Source movements). He is, however, interested in getting more people to care about software freedom. You find that freedom to be worthless. You call him a zealot. I find that freedom important. I do not. No surprises here.
Yeah, yeah, we all know about Stallman's insane political agenda. The less said about that, the better. The man's a freak. Must you sully his reputation further by giving detailed examples of exactly how he's a freak?
I'm willing to discuss your
It was the "next big thing" five years ago, and it's the "next big thing" today, and it'll be the "next big thing" five years hence, and everybody is starting to realize it.
You see the Linux world through the press releases of Linux-based companies. I suppose I should say "for-profit" companies. At any rate, I'm of the mind that Linux will succeed because of the process behind it. For the last five years, Linux has been progressing really quickly. Every year, more and more companies decide that Linux is now ready for a certain part of their IT infrastructure. It's getting put on desktops. It's been in the back office. Linux-related sales have gone from the couple millions to the couple billions. Companies that switch to Linux save lots of money. The real issues keeping most companies from switching to Linux on their desktops are that they have already invested a lot of capital in their existing Windows setup, and they can't read Office documents reliably without Microsoft Office.
Everyone used to be talking about it. Now everyone is talking about why Apple and even Microsoft -- albeit at a much slower pace -- have delivered on their promises, while Linux has never delivered on any of its promises.
Linux never made a promise. "For profit" companies might have, but they are not in charge of Linux. This comment reeks of trying to understand Linux from the perspective of Linux being "yet another software company," which it is not. Not even "failed promises" could keep Linux from progressing, because it doesn't require capital for growth, just interest and mindshare. Which it has.
Linux cannot be defeated by any competing business model. If Linux never had corporate backing, it would still exist. Only litigation poses any kind of threat, and only because the cost to defend oneself against companies like SCO is too much for an independent developer to handle. You don't actually think SCO has a legitimate case, do you?
Yes, but not in a good way. To the non-IT mind, Linux means "that thing that sank TiVo," or "that thing that everybody is getting sued over."
This depends on who you talk to. The invalidity of your argument, however, does not.
Linux is made by that guy who said that anybody who owns a patent is a blood-sucker who's a parasite on society. These are not good brand associations.
RMS's analogy is restricted to software patents and companies like SCO who rely on litigation of such patents as a means of income. You are more than welcome to read why he said what he said and determine if you agree with him or not, and state why you feel that way. You have neglected to do so. Your entire argument seems to be that advocates of "Linux" (which Stallman is not, by the way) should do more to appeal to certain corporate "sentiments." Again, "Linux" doesn't have to. People that sell Linux to companies do, however, and I think you'll find they tow a completely different party line than RMS.
I guess you don't understand how the Internet works.
It is understood that someone's personal opinions shared with others in a casual conversation needn't use the same language as someone would use in a business setting. I guess you don't understand how the...actually, I don't want to stoop to that level.
Besides, the far bigger problem is that Stallman guy, who actually had the blinding lack of good sense to write a published op-ed in which he accused people who own patents of being parasites. Guess what, ya dumbass: People who own patents are your customers. You just went out there and called a million of your own customers blood-sucking parasites. On what planet is this considered anything other than commercial suicide?
Again, Stallman doesn't need to curry favor with other companies and businessmen because he isn't in the business of selling Linux. Not even in the "broad" term of trying to get more people to use it. His primary goal
It's a new cable station that broadcasts political proceedings--much like C-SPAN and C-SPAN2, but geared towards children.
I believe the nehemiahs use less than 5 watts.
If his work happens destroy the software industry, it's not his fault, because he just wanted to develop an alternative.
They have no right to make that decision for me. None whatsoever.
If they don't have the right to make that decision, what are they doing that is illegal or immoral? The development of GNU can hardly be considered making any decision for you, because you don't have to choose to use it.
My point here is that you're being overdramatic and unreasonable. RMS may be a communist, facist, *ist, but his personal views don't matter. All that matters is the aims and terms of the GPL, and the development of GNU and the defending of it's stated philosophies (a subset of RMS's philosophies). None of these suggest an aim to destroy anything, merely make sure no one is forced to use non-free software, and that those who choose to develop Free software can have several essential freedoms defended. Depending on your stance, either one of those freedoms defended is the freedom to ensure no one will take your code, modify it, and deny new users your code, or specifically not defend your right to allow others to take your code and deny new users the modifications.
Either way, the difference is only semantic, and hardly constituting a hostile takeover of a massive industry. You're really making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
Software is devalued, but then again it was worth more than it should have been to begin with. See, it's worth whatever the market is willing to charge for it. If the market is willing to give it away, then it's not worth much.
The condition is the achievement of the FSF's goal: have all software everywhere be covered by the GPL. This is the explicit goal of their organization, and the goal to which the GPL was expressly designed.
No, the goal is to create an entire computer system called "GNU" who's license complies with the philosophies RMS has on how software ought to be licensed. Nowhere is the aim to destroy other software, merely to provide an alternative to those who value freedom and refuse to use non-free software.
More correctly, the freedom to choose proprietary software. What the hell gives them the right to make that choice for me, or demand that I give up such freedom?
Umm, as far as I can tell, and unless you've had unique dealings with them, they're not imposing their will on you. They are, however, asking you to not make choices that restrict the freedoms of others.
Just read the discussion of when they recommend the GPL vs. the LGPL for one example.
Again, you need to learn the distinction between someone telling you that you ought to do (or not do) something, and forcing you to do it. No one is putting a gun down your throat. There are, however, those out there trying to put together a UNIX-like operating system under the terms of the GPL. There are also others trying to convince developers not to use both proprietary licenses, and licenses that benefit those who write proprietary software. There is nothing wrong with that.
Why people think that telling others they are wrong is an infringement upon liberty is beyond me.
The only goal the GPL works toward beyond those of other OSD-compliant licenses is the perpetuation of the FSF utopia, which calls for nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it.
No no no no no. No.
No.
Many people and companies write software on a contract basis, for which no license is necessary. The part of the software industry that would be affected is proprietary software.
The end to this sector of software development would mean a rise in other areas of IT--namely, support and deployment.
Besides, OSD-compliant software is similarly "destroying" the software industry. Sure, proprietary shops can take code from BSD-esqe licensed software, but if their product is in demand, then there tends to be a healthy supply of hobbyists developing a decent alternative.
Ardour is a good example of a Free Software project reaching the quality of proprietary counterparts. It isn't quite there yet, but it's progressing very nicely. And guess what? A lot of people have donated money to the main developer over the years.
It claims to work toward freedom, while it actually works to deny freedom to those who do not share its goals.
Well, if your goal is specifically to deny, or perpetuate the denial of, those freedoms that the FSF is fighting for, it is only logical that they would seek to deny you that "freedom," since said freedom is precisely what the FSF is fighting against.
First of all, IMO a much better solution has been used by Trolltech--make the thing GPL, and license it out to people who want to make commercial products. To me, if they're going to resell your code, then they should buy it first.
Secondly, your logic is wrong. The GPL is concerned primarily with the freedoms of the user, not the developer. Therefore, the ongoing assurance of software freedom trumps the third party developer's freedom to sell the code without releasing the source. If you don't like those terms, don't use the software. Choose a license that puts commercial freedoms before end user freedoms. There is nothing viral about this.
The GPL would be like a virus if software developers had no choice as to whether or not they could include GPL code. See, a virus invades a host without consent. That's what makes viruses bad. If you could avoid getting a cold by not allowing the germs in your body, then the cold wouldn't really be that bad.
Ok, so my analogy breaks down if you consider that you can prevent catching a cold by washing your hands, etc. But the relevant part of it is that no one actually chooses to put the virus in their body. Likewise, no one lumps in GPL code with their proprietary project by accident.
If you do, and you find out, or you are "found" out, then you must either replace the code in question, license it from it's authors, or GPL the rest of the work.
However, your project's license doesn't suddenly all become GPL. If the terms of the GPL are not met, then you have a case of copyright infringement.
Users have the freedom to choose commercial implementations
The FSF would remove people's freedom to choose commercial implementations
Your use of the subjunctive suggests that a condition would have to be met for this to happen. What is this condition? Although RMS has suggested that such a law may end up necessary, neither he, nor the FSF, is actively supporting such a move.
and claim that they're fighting for freedom
Freedom from proprietary software. It only follows that they would be against a license that helps perpetuate proprietary software. I don't see why this is over-zealous, nor do I see why it is utopian.
I've been running dual p3's for a while in Linux, and it's nice being able to compile, check slashdot, stream music, etc. without a problem.
My bad--I read the first page and didn't realize there was a second.
At the rate that power consumption and heat dissipation are increasing on these chips, I consider Pentium-Ms to be the only processor worth using.
I hear he's got some up his sleeve.
I'm talking about the definition of "archive."
Well, that seems rather straightforward and restrictive. That [rom] file is for archival purposes only. Unless the definition is more flexible than it appears, that means the owner of an original may make a a copy and that copy cannot be used unless the original is destroyed or damaged. (Perhaps even that is reading too much into it?) So as long as you have an original, that copy should be sitting somewhere safe until needed to replace the original, should that event ever arise.
The law in question:
Basically, if you interpret "archival purposes" as "keeping it unused until your original breaks down and dies," then all emulation is legal.
However, that's a bunch of crap. I have a giant archive of files on my computer--it's called a filesystem. Anyone ever go to a library and check out their periodical archives? You don't have to wait untel every copy of a given newspaper is destroyed to use it.
I mean, if someone designing this thing were getting his data from slashdot postings...well, we'd be in really big trouble anyways.
I know that isn't the point, but this world just has too many little mistakes to bother.
I have a feeling that the author wasn't actually mistaken on this one. What I mean is, it's entirely possible that he knew that 11K did not equal 11 degrees C, but since he was already talking about a 11K degree change (which you so studiously pointed out), he omitted any mention of "change" in the equation itself. You know, sort of like saying, "Hey all you non-science types! Do you know the 11K change they're talking about? Yah, ya do? Would you like to know about how much that change would be in celcius? Yah, 11K = 11 degrees C."
But hey, thanks for the tip, Captain Correction!
Although people whine about rushing in Starcraft, it's actually such an easy strategy to defend, and so hard to recover from if it fails, that most experts won't even attempt it if they know they're playing someone equi-decent.
I've been showed enough evidence to suggest that our government is wholly corrupt (meaning not limited to either party), uses force to exhert control over drug and oil sources and traffic routes, takes bribes from corporations who launder money from terrorist groups and drug cartels, uses terrorism to scare it's populace into giving up civil liberties and going along with nothing short of global imperialism, and to top it all of we have a media that won't tell us about any of it (by the way, it's not just Fox News that's to blame).
Although there is a lot of evidence to suggest that such a bloodline dating back to Babylon existed in the middle ages as the top-tier of untoachables in the Freemasonic cult, I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that they rule the world.
At any rate, if they did, that would certainly increase the likelihood of a quite Biblical apocalpse happening.
The post is supposed to make a joke about how seemingly unnewsworthy the "first security update of the New Year" is. I guess there's not enough there to make the distinction.
Tunnel X through ssh.
My first post about Apple's first Mac OS X Security Update being out is out.
My point is that if your fingers hurt after typing, switching to dvorak might help you too.
Nowhere did I suggest that dvorak was universally superior to qwerty. I guess sometimes on Slashdot we all have a tendency to be overly combatitive.
I like to keep the keys on qwerty--lets me make absolutely sure I'm touch typing.