Why worry about this, unless you need to use Microsoft tech in your Delphi app (COM, ADO, etc.), because RSN Inprise is supposed to come out with Linux-based Delphi...drooldrool
Don't most non-macro viruses still depend on hooking into DOS interrupt vectors, such as the ones that control writing data to disk? If so, since these probably don't exist in WINE... and what about WINE running on non-X86... since the virus is going to be in X86 ASM...
First, the suers should be liable to be sued back if their claims are shown to be unsubstantiated, to avoid this 'buy-a-lottery-ticket-suits'.
Generally, if you bring forth a suit and lose, you have to pay the other's legal costs, and perhaps some damages as well, for "inconveniencing" them, especially if the judge decides that your case has no merit in a pre-trial motion...
Probably seen more between companies, if you sue someone in a possibly slanderous or libelous way, you can also counter-sue... but you can't just counter-sue as a matter of principal...
Second, what about the modern warranties, those that say 'This product is sold in hopes that it will be useful, but we don't claim anything about it, particularly fitness for any particular purpose'?
Software "licenses" are the only things that really do this. Real things have various consumer laws on them that don't let them do this, etc. While it is pretty obvious what a Dewalt cordless drill does, it is also pretty easy with that drill to argue what its "intended" purpose is, and argue usability, etc., within those "common sense" confines.
Maybe if you put a marketroid and a lawyer in the same room, they will cancel each other in an explosion of hype/downplay reaction. Wouldn't that be nice? Less marketroids, less lawyers, more energy! (not necessarily fit for any particular purpose)
Lawyers are bad, until you need one, but I don't think they cancel out marketeers or sales droids.
Computer manufacturers offer warranties on their products just like any other company that makes a product.
Yes, but when a company will outright refuse to acknowledge that their part could even be remotely part of the problem, and thus refuses to honor its warranty terms, even under the guise of good customer service, then we, the CUSTOMERS (NOT the companies), are the ones who ultimately get fucked. Think of Microsoft: "It's not a Bug, it's a Feature". Now, what IF Toshiba actually was OEMing FDC chips that were randomly dropping bits, and they say, "well, sorry, we can't reproduce the problem" or, "it's a security feature. makes your files harder to be read", blah blah blah. Now, where do the people on the end of the line who bought this with an implicit trust that it WORKED and who find out that their data is HOSED go to? Nowhere? No, there's gotta be something better than that...
When the part is defective, they issue a recall. Some, like Dell with the Western Digital issue are proactive and call their customers to let them know when the technician will be coming out to replace the drive.
This is good. But it could have been, and probably was, floated around the board room to ignore the issue entirely, and just issue a big "C'est la vie" press release along with a bunch of legal BS that absolved Dell of any wrongdoing.
Others try to bury it under the rug.
Do you work for Microsoft or Intel?
Neither really deserves sued. That's why we have places like the Better Business Bureau.
Au contraire. The companies that refuse to acknowledge even the remotest possibility that there is a problem even in the face of damning evidence deserve, no, are ASKING, to be sued. Since companies (not the people who work for them) are for the most part immune to the criminal court system, the civil system is the only place for you and I, real people, to take to task non-real entities, corporations, for damages done to us as individuals. While I agree that rampant sueage tends to make everything more expensive, right now it is the only check on the system. Without it, companies can operate without fear of retribution, basically. Sure, I might get a big protest about a company started and people stop buying their stuff, and the company might change, but the shareholders could also just blow off the issue, transfer company assets to other companies, and let the company die, as well, because most of its blood and energy have been transferred elsewhere, so no big deal, to them.
You report a company for slow response, write letters to the CEO, call and complain because the product ise not working as designed, and I can't believe you wouldn't recieve service.
The BBB does not, and probably cannot, do a very good job of advertising its information and ratings, and there are plenty of corporations who don't give a shit about you or me, because they know that their shareholders don't give a shit about you or me, and that while the negative press might be bad for a short term, people...consumers... are like so many drug addicts, and the game is to continue to keep stringing them...US...along, because the odds are that most of us will simply ignore the bad press after some short period.
Sure, we should probably all check with the BBB before dealing with all sorts of stuff. But if that was the case, then I would continue to rely on Microsoft press releases to tell me how bad all the other software in the world was as well.
And, how realistic is it to call the BBB to find out whether the Toshiba FDC on your Intel Motherboard in your Dell PC is faulty or not?
I'd prefer to work with and buy products from a proactive company, but I sure can't see myself involved in a class action lawsuit against a pretty reputable company unless I wanted to damage them.
...Me, too, but what if that company has damaged you?
I'd take care of the issue myself and maybe even take them to small claims court where the issue belongs. At least that way I would get full compensation.
Sure, but let's say you run a consulting company that does a couple of million dollars of work a year, and this faulty hardware caused you to bonk on a big (>$5000) contract because you toasted your client's work because of the bad hardware... Small Claims court is only for damages less than like $5000 or so, and you can't really do the big ol' multi-party suit there, either, and this kind of stuff is just not the realm for small claims court anyways.
Besides, Small claims court is not exactly legally binding, either. If you succeed, you can't easily then get the money from the losing party...
they probably have a big rule list of special people they want to keep track of, and the system picks up on that. While Bin-Laden is an obvious choice, any IRA member or suspected member, known cell phone numbers, etc., are probably on Britain's list of things to look out for. E-mail content isn't initially as important as to who is sending or recieving the message, so they use stuff like that to perk their ears to pay more attention to specific channels. So let's say a mythical IRA suspect, Sean O'Grady, has a cell phone. If he's smart, he uses a pirated number & id, and changes them frequently. But let's say it's known, through other intelligence, some of the people he likes to talk to via cell phones. Maybe one of those regular contacts is his lawyer. So they watch who calls that lawyer, and backtrack from there, to have a list of phones that Sean O'Grady could be using, so he's not really one step ahead. Then they also watch to see who Sean's lawyer calls, and put some of those pieces together. If something looks interesting, they might fine-tooth things and start getting text-to-speech dialogs of the phone messages. Also in England, it's pretty easy for the govment to eavesdrop on people's mail, and is done all the time. So the lawyer's mail is watched. Etc. The problem for the govment is that there are thousands of Seans to watch for, so their attention span is short unless it is caused to be focused.
While Tom Clancy is probably not the paragon of truth, I would believe the mystique of him, his books and his "access" in some of the things mentioned in them that most people don't believe.
Plus, in this week's Navy Times is a big story on how the people who investigate and grant security clearances are seriously swamped... So...
"Dazzle them with brilliance, or blind them with bullshit".
NSA monitors EMF transmissions. The ESM satellites that pick up US stuff up from geostationary orbit are outside the "airspace" of the US, so they download to someone else. Or, if they are over the US, they're ostensibly listening for traffic in Mexico or Central/South America with the same satellites. Still, the US traffic gets shunted to someone else (who then gives it back to us).
Besides, any fool can make a scanner for listening to cell phones. Any fool can make a packet sniffer for their cable modem segment (heck, just get the software for Linux...). What the NSA can do is use some derivative of the SETI hardware to easily packet sniff an OC3 or DS1 in real time, etc., plus the integration, despite silly laws to the contrary.
Why should Congress pass silly laws to "protect" cell phone users, when they would never think to protect other cordless phones (you don't use one, right), instead of saying, "Well, Newt, you were a silly, narcissistic fool for thinking that your cell phone conversations wouldn't be listened to by your political enemies. You should have gotten a PCS or GSM phone"?
And, while the FBI or other police agencies might not be able to directly monitor without a warrant, it does nothing from stopping you or me from wearing a wire all the time and recording interesting stuff on our own, and then later giving that info to someone else (Linda Tripp ring a bell? But there have been others wearing white hats, such as the two guys profiled recently on one of the network shows who got involved with the Mob and started taping stuff ON THEIR OWN and later gave it to the Feds, but were ratted on/found out, and died while in the Witness Protection Program...)
Sure, there are stalking laws, but if you're being harassed by a neighbor, and the cops don't believe you, so you set up a web cam or two to do your own surveillance system, and take the tapes of the guy poking around your yard at odd hours, peering in your windows, etc., to them to make them believe you...
Wackenhut has been contracted (if not now, then in the past) to do the security at most, if not all, nuclear reactors, Hanford, etc. (there was a SPY magazine article a few years ago on Wackenhut Corp.)...
Wackenhut has an "interesting" history, according to that article...
As much as Tom Clancy's literary style (OK, what literary style?) has gotten worse as he continues to write, he sort of hints well at some of the special relationships companies can have with the darker elements of the govment pretty well...(I just finished reading "Rainbow Six". It was OK.)
BFD if Wackenhut Corp. allows its guards to "rape and beat the prisoners", when the "real" guards have done this all along. Separate the "rape and beat the prisoners" (which is just be plain wrong) from private company vs. govment. But, also, prison isn't supposed to be fun, either.
...I thought the big problem with the Dolly Technique is that they used adult DNA.
Normal DNA sort of has a time-based self-destruct sequence in it that gets incremented every time it divides ("Threads of the Fates"...). Since Dolly's DNA was from an adult, it had already been "aged", so she appears to have aged more quickly than normal because so many of her cells are timing out while she's still a relatively young sheep.
I guess this is where the DNA people are working hard. Either DNA has this timebomb turned off, and the cells are called cancers because they never stop dividing, or they have it, and they're "normal", but stop dividing after awhile, and eventually die. Turning this on and off selectively will be the Next Big Thing.
I guess I see some big implications in "cloned" organs as well. Unless you're cloning your own organs, if you get a liver transplant regenerated from some 78-year old's DNA, and you're only 30, will your new liver start melting down in 20 years? Even if it was cloned from your own cells, there are more than a few divisions to go from a scrape in your mouth to a liver, too...
While one could argue the "God" aspect of it, there are still lots of practical matters to work out...
Well, have Korean cars (no offense intended...) killed off the luxury car market? No. There will always be echelons of price/quality. Why should software be any different from this product cycle?
Even in high-end stuff, this cycle exists. Although ERP systems like SAP R3, Lawson Software (no relationship...), etc., are expensive, the price probably looks comparative to CIO/CEO types than building a custom ERP system from the ground up. So while the few consultants/programming houses who can/could pull off the custom ERP system for a large company are pissed about being squeezed into becoming "just" SAP R3 consultants because their God-given specialized market was killed by the broader undercutter bastards SAP, then this pattern is a bad thing? It's inevitable. Companies ride the easy street as long as they can, knowing that commoditization is going to squeeze the bottom line eventually (thus the drive to keep coming out with new stuff with higher margins).
It's gonna happen, but it will creep in slowly. First, we genetics will be used to prevent some birth defects, Downs syndrome, dwarfism, Rett's syndrome, etc. What self-respecting parents would NOT take steps to see that their child was not born with Downs syndrome? What parents would be opposed to keeping their children free of birth defects. But we could do this with selective breeding, as well.
Somehow, eugenics is going to slip into the system, but it will be other technologies, such as in vitro fertilization being expanded to people with "normal" reproductive systems that will let it slip in.
Simple procedure to increase the odds of having a boy or girl, eliminate 99% of defective sperm? That's probably the first step.
Exactly... Would this mean that the archives are illegal ? Or that Rob couldn't go out and make a book titled "Slashdot's greatest threads" without written consent of every poster in each thread ?
How can it be illegal for the Slashdot "archives" (now define "archive". Is it just today's messages? Last week's? Last month's?), when by posting you are implicitly accepting Slashdot's terms?
I think the fact that we retain the copyright on our messages means that WE can then take what we post individually and still do with it what we want in other media without Slashdot's permission (but I would have to ask YOU to do the same with your messages), not the other way around, as our posting our content to Slashdot is an implicit permission for Slashdot to do with our copyrighted works as it sees fit.
Now, if I have already made something and I'm peddaling it for publication somewhere, if it's a choice between a company that lets me retain the copyright to my work, but it can publish it further without paying me for it after the initial payment for the initial purpose, vs. one where I essentially grant ownership to my work to the company, I'd try and stick with the first one. Again, I've already made the work (so it's mine) but I'm looking to get it published. Which is different than if I'm contracted to write something for a company. Big difference.
Who owns the copyrights for Quake? Id Software, or Activision?
The same reason the freelancers don't get paid for everytime you see their work in the NYT via Microfiche(tm), via their website, etc., is because they've already been reimbursed for it, and their contract with the NYT does not provide for this kind of "royalty" payment. But hey, it works that way for music as well. Do you pay your favorite artists every time you listen to their album in your car? No.
And that's OK. I would say that since NYT's website is advertising-driven, that it is no different than the newspaper. If freelancers want to try and negotiate "eyeball" deals for their works that might get published on the NYT website, then that's for them to try and do. But for them to try and claim a "right" to the eyeball effect for the web and NOT for the newspaper (because only the media are different, really), when it's not in their contract currently, they need to renegotiate for the future rather than sue for the past...
...and the ex-Delphi people at MS making inroads that Delphi is the target that VB aims at, not the other way around, so they want to stay in the Delphi loop, maybe.
MS is making a move probably to eventually buy Inprise, though. But it'll mean doing something to VisiBroker that would be ugly (since so many MS competitors have contracted to use it as their CORBA broker, etc.).
...sure, these apps will work, after recompile on Linux, but only if they don't depend on MFC-specific controls or other MS technology... for example, the RTF edit controls are based on the MFC RTF common control...
(actually, babies generally have to be taught how to breastfeed, as do the mothers... While the urge to do it may be natural, actually doing it isn't for most mothers and babies)
Another biggie is drivers. It seems that most device support is done at the kernel level, which I think is a bad idea. Not the fact that they are at the kernel level, but there's not a really easy way for the hardware manufacturers to write the drivers. (Maybe there is and I just haven't heard about it, I don't know.) But if it were, maybe some companies would be more willing, because then they could throw a "Works with Linux" sticker on there, and show their support.
Dude, this is HOW you want it to work. Windows device drivers (VxD) are essentially the same thing. You want to provide a very low level interface for a generic interface to take care of the specific details for the developers. The only reason more device drivers for Linux aren't there for Linux is economics, and fear on the device makers' parts, that restrict either the company making Linux device drivers or providing tools to those who're more than willing to do so for them at no cost to the device maker, just so they can use it the way they want to, not how the device maker has decided they can use it.
Would you buy a hammer if it came with a EULA that said, "use for any other purpose other than hammering or removing nails prohibited"? No? Then why should we put up with this with our computers?
I don't CARE what the difference is between 10W30 and 10W40 motor oil is. I don't care what my "CV joint" is. I don't have to know the difference between shocks and struts to drive my car. I never want to have to do more than put gas and windshield wiper fluid in my car in order to drive it. When I use my car, I want to get in, turn the key and go somewhere. Yes, I *do* have to know about the steering wheel, turn signal, gas and break pedals, but I don't have to know anything technical about the vehicle to use it properly.
You care about these things when you take your car in to get repaired or get the oil change. Many car "repair" places look for fools like you to come in. They can sell all sorts of services and products that you don't need. You are a classic sucker, as you are dependent on others to tell you what you really need right now, at least regarding your car.
Here's a difference: I know a little about cars, but have MUCH better things to do with my time than buy a car that I need to have a good toolbox in the trunk to keep it running or a cell phone so I can call AAA to get a tow because something died in the car. So I buy pretty damn reliable cars (Honda, Toyota, Saturn) that essentially ONLY need oil changes and periodic tuneups to keep in good running order for a long time. Big difference. Windows does not approach Honda or Toyota for mechanical reliability. Linux is more akin to a fancy old Land Rover right now [NOT one of the yuppie priss-luxury Rovers that are sold today]. Macs are probably the closest to Hondas or Toyotas.
Slashdot Mirror
Why worry about this, unless you need to use Microsoft tech in your Delphi app (COM, ADO, etc.), because RSN Inprise is supposed to come out with Linux-based Delphi...drooldrool
Don't most non-macro viruses still depend on hooking into DOS interrupt vectors, such as the ones that control writing data to disk? If so, since these probably don't exist in WINE...
and what about WINE running on non-X86... since the virus is going to be in X86 ASM...
Umm... the mechanism for suing already works this way in most places: Loser pays and attornies working on contingency or for free...
Generally, if you bring forth a suit and lose, you have to pay the other's legal costs, and perhaps some damages as well, for "inconveniencing" them, especially if the judge decides that your case has no merit in a pre-trial motion...
Probably seen more between companies, if you sue someone in a possibly slanderous or libelous way, you can also counter-sue... but you can't just counter-sue as a matter of principal...
Second, what about the modern warranties, those that say 'This product is sold in hopes that it will be useful, but we don't claim anything about it, particularly fitness for any particular purpose'?
Software "licenses" are the only things that really do this. Real things have various consumer laws on them that don't let them do this, etc. While it is pretty obvious what a Dewalt cordless drill does, it is also pretty easy with that drill to argue what its "intended" purpose is, and argue usability, etc., within those "common sense" confines.
Maybe if you put a marketroid and a lawyer in the same room, they will cancel each other in an explosion of hype/downplay reaction.
Wouldn't that be nice? Less marketroids, less lawyers, more energy! (not necessarily fit for any particular purpose)
Lawyers are bad, until you need one, but I don't think they cancel out marketeers or sales droids.
Yes, but when a company will outright refuse to acknowledge that their part could even be remotely part of the problem, and thus refuses to honor its warranty terms, even under the guise of good customer service, then we, the CUSTOMERS (NOT the companies), are the ones who ultimately get fucked. Think of Microsoft: "It's not a Bug, it's a Feature". Now, what IF Toshiba actually was OEMing FDC chips that were randomly dropping bits, and they say, "well, sorry, we can't reproduce the problem" or, "it's a security feature. makes your files harder to be read", blah blah blah. Now, where do the people on the end of the line who bought this with an implicit trust that it WORKED and who find out that their data is HOSED go to? Nowhere? No, there's gotta be something better than that...
When the part is defective, they issue a recall. Some, like Dell with the Western Digital issue are proactive and call their customers to let them know when the technician will be coming out to replace the drive.
This is good. But it could have been, and probably was, floated around the board room to ignore the issue entirely, and just issue a big "C'est la vie" press release along with a bunch of legal BS that absolved Dell of any wrongdoing.
Others try to bury it under the rug.
Do you work for Microsoft or Intel?
Neither really deserves sued. That's why we have places like the Better Business Bureau.
Au contraire. The companies that refuse to acknowledge even the remotest possibility that there is a problem even in the face of damning evidence deserve, no, are ASKING, to be sued. Since companies (not the people who work for them) are for the most part immune to the criminal court system, the civil system is the only place for you and I, real people, to take to task non-real entities, corporations, for damages done to us as individuals. While I agree that rampant sueage tends to make everything more expensive, right now it is the only check on the system. Without it, companies can operate without fear of retribution, basically. Sure, I might get a big protest about a company started and people stop buying their stuff, and the company might change, but the shareholders could also just blow off the issue, transfer company assets to other companies, and let the company die, as well, because most of its blood and energy have been transferred elsewhere, so no big deal, to them.
You report a company for slow response, write letters to the CEO, call and complain because the product ise not working as designed, and I can't believe you wouldn't recieve service.
The BBB does not, and probably cannot, do a very good job of advertising its information and ratings, and there are plenty of corporations who don't give a shit about you or me, because they know that their shareholders don't give a shit about you or me, and that while the negative press might be bad for a short term, people...consumers... are like so many drug addicts, and the game is to continue to keep stringing them...US...along, because the odds are that most of us will simply ignore the bad press after some short period.
Sure, we should probably all check with the BBB before dealing with all sorts of stuff. But if that was the case, then I would continue to rely on Microsoft press releases to tell me how bad all the other software in the world was as well.
And, how realistic is it to call the BBB to find out whether the Toshiba FDC on your Intel Motherboard in your Dell PC is faulty or not?
I'd prefer to work with and buy products from a proactive company, but I sure can't see myself involved in a class action lawsuit against a pretty reputable company unless I wanted to damage them.
...Me, too, but what if that company has damaged you?
I'd take care of the issue myself and maybe even take them to small claims court where the issue belongs. At least that way I would get full compensation.
Sure, but let's say you run a consulting company that does a couple of million dollars of work a year, and this faulty hardware caused you to bonk on a big (>$5000) contract because you toasted your client's work because of the bad hardware... Small Claims court is only for damages less than like $5000 or so, and you can't really do the big ol' multi-party suit there, either, and this kind of stuff is just not the realm for small claims court anyways.
Besides, Small claims court is not exactly legally binding, either. If you succeed, you can't easily then get the money from the losing party...
Probably a better system than CygWin is U/Win, available from AT&T: http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/uwin/
they probably have a big rule list of special people they want to keep track of, and the system picks up on that. While Bin-Laden is an obvious choice, any IRA member or suspected member, known cell phone numbers, etc., are probably on Britain's list of things to look out for. E-mail content isn't initially as important as to who is sending or recieving the message, so they use stuff like that to perk their ears to pay more attention to specific channels. So let's say a mythical IRA suspect, Sean O'Grady, has a cell phone. If he's smart, he uses a pirated number & id, and changes them frequently. But let's say it's known, through other intelligence, some of the people he likes to talk to via cell phones. Maybe one of those regular contacts is his lawyer. So they watch who calls that lawyer, and backtrack from there, to have a list of phones that Sean O'Grady could be using, so he's not really one step ahead. Then they also watch to see who Sean's lawyer calls, and put some of those pieces together. If something looks interesting, they might fine-tooth things and start getting text-to-speech dialogs of the phone messages. Also in England, it's pretty easy for the govment to eavesdrop on people's mail, and is done all the time. So the lawyer's mail is watched. Etc. The problem for the govment is that there are thousands of Seans to watch for, so their attention span is short unless it is caused to be focused.
While Tom Clancy is probably not the paragon of truth, I would believe the mystique of him, his books and his "access" in some of the things mentioned in them that most people don't believe.
Plus, in this week's Navy Times is a big story on how the people who investigate and grant security clearances are seriously swamped... So...
"Dazzle them with brilliance, or blind them with bullshit".
NSA monitors EMF transmissions. The ESM satellites that pick up US stuff up from geostationary orbit are outside the "airspace" of the US, so they download to someone else. Or, if they are over the US, they're ostensibly listening for traffic in Mexico or Central/South America with the same satellites. Still, the US traffic gets shunted to someone else (who then gives it back to us).
Besides, any fool can make a scanner for listening to cell phones. Any fool can make a packet sniffer for their cable modem segment (heck, just get the software for Linux...). What the NSA can do is use some derivative of the SETI hardware to easily packet sniff an OC3 or DS1 in real time, etc., plus the integration, despite silly laws to the contrary.
Why should Congress pass silly laws to "protect" cell phone users, when they would never think to protect other cordless phones (you don't use one, right), instead of saying, "Well, Newt, you were a silly, narcissistic fool for thinking that your cell phone conversations wouldn't be listened to by your political enemies. You should have gotten a PCS or GSM phone"?
And, while the FBI or other police agencies might not be able to directly monitor without a warrant, it does nothing from stopping you or me from wearing a wire all the time and recording interesting stuff on our own, and then later giving that info to someone else (Linda Tripp ring a bell? But there have been others wearing white hats, such as the two guys profiled recently on one of the network shows who got involved with the Mob and started taping stuff ON THEIR OWN and later gave it to the Feds, but were ratted on/found out, and died while in the Witness Protection Program...)
Sure, there are stalking laws, but if you're being harassed by a neighbor, and the cops don't believe you, so you set up a web cam or two to do your own surveillance system, and take the tapes of the guy poking around your yard at odd hours, peering in your windows, etc., to them to make them believe you...
Wackenhut has been contracted (if not now, then in the past) to do the security at most, if not all, nuclear reactors, Hanford, etc. (there was a SPY magazine article a few years ago on Wackenhut Corp.)...
Wackenhut has an "interesting" history, according to that article...
As much as Tom Clancy's literary style (OK, what literary style?) has gotten worse as he continues to write, he sort of hints well at some of the special relationships companies can have with the darker elements of the govment pretty well...(I just finished reading "Rainbow Six". It was OK.)
BFD if Wackenhut Corp. allows its guards to "rape and beat the prisoners", when the "real" guards have done this all along. Separate the "rape and beat the prisoners" (which is just be plain wrong) from private company vs. govment. But, also, prison isn't supposed to be fun, either.
How about destroy drives with the BFG9K? Or maybe just drop NFS connections...
...I thought the big problem with the Dolly Technique is that they used adult DNA.
Normal DNA sort of has a time-based self-destruct sequence in it that gets incremented every time it divides ("Threads of the Fates"...). Since Dolly's DNA was from an adult, it had already been "aged", so she appears to have aged more quickly than normal because so many of her cells are timing out while she's still a relatively young sheep.
I guess this is where the DNA people are working hard. Either DNA has this timebomb turned off, and the cells are called cancers because they never stop dividing, or they have it, and they're "normal", but stop dividing after awhile, and eventually die. Turning this on and off selectively will be the Next Big Thing.
I guess I see some big implications in "cloned" organs as well. Unless you're cloning your own organs, if you get a liver transplant regenerated from some 78-year old's DNA, and you're only 30, will your new liver start melting down in 20 years? Even if it was cloned from your own cells, there are more than a few divisions to go from a scrape in your mouth to a liver, too...
While one could argue the "God" aspect of it, there are still lots of practical matters to work out...
Umm... I think this would be more along the lines of having a Cape Buffalo give birth to a Holstein calf.
Elephant & Wooly Mammoth are probably not that much more different.
Call me a fool, but why is Fry's (in San Diego) selling MetroWorks CodeWarrior for Linux on the Linux shelfs?
At least there's a decent S (statistics package) clone called 'R'...
OS/390 desktop environment. x3270/tn3270 good (bad) enough?
mathematica? Try Maple (http://www.maplesoft.com).
Hmm... Nice try.
Call me a fool, but why is Fry's (in San Diego) selling MetroWorks CodeWarrior for Linux on the Linux shelfs?
At least there's a decent S (statistics package) clone called 'R'...
OS/390 desktop environment. x3270/tn3270 good (bad) enough?
mathematica? Try Maple (http://www.maplesoft.com).
Hmm... To say that there are NO alternatives for the above is, for the most part, futile, is it not? So why do you continue to do it?
Well, have Korean cars (no offense intended...) killed off the luxury car market? No. There will always be echelons of price/quality. Why should software be any different from this product cycle?
Even in high-end stuff, this cycle exists. Although ERP systems like SAP R3, Lawson Software (no relationship...), etc., are expensive, the price probably looks comparative to CIO/CEO types than building a custom ERP system from the ground up. So while the few consultants/programming houses who can/could pull off the custom ERP system for a large company are pissed about being squeezed into becoming "just" SAP R3 consultants because their God-given specialized market was killed by the broader undercutter bastards SAP, then this pattern is a bad thing? It's inevitable. Companies ride the easy street as long as they can, knowing that commoditization is going to squeeze the bottom line eventually (thus the drive to keep coming out with new stuff with higher margins).
Somehow, eugenics is going to slip into the system, but it will be other technologies, such as in vitro fertilization being expanded to people with "normal" reproductive systems that will let it slip in.
Simple procedure to increase the odds of having a boy or girl, eliminate 99% of defective sperm? That's probably the first step.
The genie is out of the bottle.
Wow. Gattica. Tomorrow's world, today!
How can it be illegal for the Slashdot "archives" (now define "archive". Is it just today's messages? Last week's? Last month's?), when by posting you are implicitly accepting Slashdot's terms?
I think the fact that we retain the copyright on our messages means that WE can then take what we post individually and still do with it what we want in other media without Slashdot's permission (but I would have to ask YOU to do the same with your messages), not the other way around, as our posting our content to Slashdot is an implicit permission for Slashdot to do with our copyrighted works as it sees fit.
Now, if I have already made something and I'm peddaling it for publication somewhere, if it's a choice between a company that lets me retain the copyright to my work, but it can publish it further without paying me for it after the initial payment for the initial purpose, vs. one where I essentially grant ownership to my work to the company, I'd try and stick with the first one. Again, I've already made the work (so it's mine) but I'm looking to get it published. Which is different than if I'm contracted to write something for a company. Big difference.
Who owns the copyrights for Quake? Id Software, or Activision?
The same reason the freelancers don't get paid for everytime you see their work in the NYT via Microfiche(tm), via their website, etc., is because they've already been reimbursed for it, and their contract with the NYT does not provide for this kind of "royalty" payment. But hey, it works that way for music as well. Do you pay your favorite artists every time you listen to their album in your car? No.
And that's OK. I would say that since NYT's website is advertising-driven, that it is no different than the newspaper. If freelancers want to try and negotiate "eyeball" deals for their works that might get published on the NYT website, then that's for them to try and do. But for them to try and claim a "right" to the eyeball effect for the web and NOT for the newspaper (because only the media are different, really), when it's not in their contract currently, they need to renegotiate for the future rather than sue for the past...
...and the ex-Delphi people at MS making inroads that Delphi is the target that VB aims at, not the other way around, so they want to stay in the Delphi loop, maybe.
MS is making a move probably to eventually buy Inprise, though. But it'll mean doing something to VisiBroker that would be ugly (since so many MS competitors have contracted to use it as their CORBA broker, etc.).
Duh, probably because they signed a big contract with him, and they want product for their money?
...sure, these apps will work, after recompile on Linux, but only if they don't depend on MFC-specific controls or other MS technology... for example, the RTF edit controls are based on the MFC RTF common control...
so how much MS-centric technology is or isn't going to make it over to Linux in Delphi & C++Builder? None, I hope?
Is the recent licensing announcement with Microsoft going to affect Delphi & CB on Linux wrt MFC?
(actually, babies generally have to be taught how to breastfeed, as do the mothers... While the urge to do it may be natural, actually doing it isn't for most mothers and babies)
Dude, this is HOW you want it to work. Windows device drivers (VxD) are essentially the same thing. You want to provide a very low level interface for a generic interface to take care of the specific details for the developers. The only reason more device drivers for Linux aren't there for Linux is economics, and fear on the device makers' parts, that restrict either the company making Linux device drivers or providing tools to those who're more than willing to do so for them at no cost to the device maker, just so they can use it the way they want to, not how the device maker has decided they can use it.
Would you buy a hammer if it came with a EULA that said, "use for any other purpose other than hammering or removing nails prohibited"? No?
Then why should we put up with this with our computers?
You care about these things when you take your car in to get repaired or get the oil change. Many car "repair" places look for fools like you to come in. They can sell all sorts of services and products that you don't need. You are a classic sucker, as you are dependent on others to tell you what you really need right now, at least regarding your car.
Here's a difference: I know a little about cars, but have MUCH better things to do with my time than buy a car that I need to have a good toolbox in the trunk to keep it running or a cell phone so I can call AAA to get a tow because something died in the car. So I buy pretty damn reliable cars (Honda, Toyota, Saturn) that essentially ONLY need oil changes and periodic tuneups to keep in good running order for a long time. Big difference. Windows does not approach Honda or Toyota for mechanical reliability. Linux is more akin to a fancy old Land Rover right now [NOT one of the yuppie priss-luxury Rovers that are sold today]. Macs are probably the closest to Hondas or Toyotas.