And forcing the government to use open source is a decidedly communist idea.
Well, first of all you're red baiting. How does communism even come into this? The Federal government is not a free enterprise operation, it is a *government*.
Secondly, there are definite benefits to the tax payers if the government restricts it's self to open source software. Should governments spend tax dollars to buy closed, proprietary applications that lock the people's data into tightly protected formats? They might as well just hand the keys for their offices over to Microsoft.
Lastly, where is this competition you were talking about? Microsoft owns the software industry. If they want a market they take it. There isn't any competition, just business Microsoft hasn't undermined and destroyed yet.
Would James Byrd be any less dead if he were not black?
Um, yes, actually. Did you miss the part about how they killed him because he was black?
Funny. My point is, does the act itself become more of a crime because the perpetrators and the victim don't share the same skin color? I think not. Murder is murder is murder, no matter who commits it or who is the victim, and it should be dealt with accordingly.
1) I don't think he was joking. If the man hadn't been black he wouldn't be dead.
2) There is a long history in the US of killing minority group members - especially blacks. In many parts of the country it was not even considered to be a crime (at least it wasn't prosecuted). The "hate-crime" laws send a message that it is illegal and that we, as a society, are going to make a special effort of prosecuting the perpetrators. In short, it is a break with some rather vile traditional values.
But why do we need a Broadcasting organization, in the day of diverse and broad Cable Television programming, that is government subsidized in the form of being a non-profit?
Because commercial television sucks really bad?
Because you can't get get that so-called "diverse and broad cable" with out diverse and broad (and ever increasing) payments to HUGE monopolies?
Way to look past the source, idiots. What if YOUR dollar went to buy a ticket for a terrorist.
I'm sure some portion of the money I paid to fill my tank today went to support terrorists. Given that many of the 911 murders were Saudi, I'd bet they got the majority of their money from our gas sales.
So, given the ethics of the situation, when are you going to stop driving your car?
If you drop a hammer and a feather in an atmosphere, the hammer will win. Also note in the movie, when Spider-Man (don't forget the dash (tm)!) dove after Mary Jane, he did so in a nice Olympic-approved diving form - Mary Jane was falling in a nice frat-party-got-her-drunk type crouch. He probably had a much lower coefficient of drag. Plus, didn't he shoot her with webbing and pull her to him, then shoot webbing above to divert their fall? I can't remember if he did both web shots or just the latter one.
I'm willing to buy all of that, the ultimate problem however is with what happens when he catches her. There's this little thing called traumatic de-acceleration. She's traveling at highspeed toward the ground, he dives in and grabs her, but momentum is still driving her tissues downward... Spidey might be strong enough to survive the stress, but MJ wouldn't be all that pretty afterward.:(
And as the article suggested they offloaded it straight away. They messed up on the
research bit, and technically are at fault, but it is hardly a malicious intent to pirate
software and make illegal gains off unowned code.
And the schools Microsoft has been threatening, are they guilty of malicious intent? Would a proven lack of malace by the schools even slow Microsoft's lawyers down?
Generally, Outlook is targetted because it's so widely used.
We've heard this song before ("Windows is such a prime target because it is so widely used"). The actual problem is that Microsoft doesn't have a clue when it comes to computer security. Outlook is attacked because it is an easy target.
Re:Acquisition isn't "toast" dummy!
on
Is MOXI Toast?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Being acquired by and funded by a billionaire is hardly a bad event for the company in question. Who approves such stupidly misleading headlines?
You're confusing the company with its owners. We've all seen plenty of entrepreneurs walk away with big bucks from a deal like this while the product and the employees are left to swirl around the drain.
Its Miguel's company, and in the free market he's free to make whatever strategic decisions he likes. If RMS doesn't like it, he can either make an equity investment in Ximian, or he can shut his cake hole.
Things are no where near that simple. Gnome is a GNU project - which gives Mr. Stallman a stake in the matter. Further more, the idea that you have to own stock in a company before you can criticize it's actions is absurd.
This man is becoming increasingly irritating, a modern day Rasputin (in looks as well as deeds).
He's sleeping with the Czar's wife??? Balderdash!
I have it on good authority that his relationship with Melinda Gates is purely Platonic.
Exactly what would this "forward looking remedy" be? I seriously doubt a stripped down version of
Windows would fly. Customers just wouldn't buy it. Not without a serious price cut, in the >30%
range, and can we seriously make the claim that 30% of the value of Windows is in IE?
Customers aren't buying it now. In fact customers have *never* bought Windows in any volume. Its the vendors, the nice people with Microsoft's gun to their heads, that buy Windows. So, I guess nothing would change.
Mark my words: within five years, Microsoft will already have ignored and broken the terms of today's settlement. They'll already be hard at work tying products together and locking customers into Microsoft-only solutions, leveraging Windows and IE and the MSN messager off each other to make sure no customers leave the fold.
You got it! This reminds me of the Gulf war - we won on the battle field but failed to have any negligble effect on the practices of the dictator.
You mean like NPR? Many people don't understand why I don't like NPR. Not only are they state sponsered, which is bad
enough, but their bias is not the same as mine.
1) NPR had a great segment about this on all things considered. More objective and better detail than all of the major broadcasters put together.
2) NPR is only partially state sponsored. The rest of the money comes from corporate entities and you the listener:).
People DO have freedom of choice, and they choose Microsoft products.
Try buying a laptop without paying Microsoft money. The only freedom of choice you have there is whether or not to buy the unit. If you choose to buy the unit you are *forced* to buy Microsoft products.
While the term 'cancer' is overblown, why should the government be funding projects that eliminate the opportunity for companies to sell their products? That's not fair. The companies pay taxes, too.
First of all, if we're speaking of the US government, I belive that any software it produces is automatically public domain. It would be interesting to see if they have the legal right to publish under GPL at all.
Second, even if a US government agency did Copyleft their software, nothing prevents the company from using or selling it. The companies in question might choose not to use it because they don't want to open up their modifications. Nobody's eliminated their opportunity to sell their products.
Both of these statements appear to be red herrings.
If you are a company that wants to use linux and you are all in the clear who the hell cares if MS knows.
How about if you are a company that runs both
Redmond crap and Linux? If MS knows you've bought naked PCs they could sic the software police on you and cost you money.
Re:Like all new tech, until robots do porn
on
Robo Sapiens
·
· Score: 1
Yes. In the US it is strictly regulated. Most doctors offices however, require you to sign a release to share information with your insurance company. Where does it go from there? What if your employer carries your medical insurance? Remember that your Doctor has information that is more sensitive than your credit rating...
Telco: Not if it could constitute part of a credit rating. And telephone communication is protected as private communication. So there isn't much they could release there.
USWorst Communication (among others) just won a "free speech" lawsuit that allows them to pass your personal information around. For the moment it appears to allow them to share YOUR information with their subsidaries. The future, however, looks wide open.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, first of all you're red baiting. How does communism even come into this? The Federal government is not a free enterprise operation, it is a *government*.
Secondly, there are definite benefits to the tax payers if the government restricts it's self to open source software. Should governments spend tax dollars to buy closed, proprietary applications that lock the people's data into tightly protected formats? They might as well just hand the keys for their offices over to Microsoft.
Lastly, where is this competition you were talking about? Microsoft owns the software industry. If they want a market they take it. There isn't any competition, just business Microsoft hasn't undermined and destroyed yet.
Um, yes, actually. Did you miss the part about how they killed him because he was black?
Funny. My point is, does the act itself become more of a crime because the perpetrators and the victim don't share the same skin color? I think not. Murder is murder is murder, no matter who commits it or who is the victim, and it should be dealt with accordingly.
1) I don't think he was joking. If the man hadn't been black he wouldn't be dead.
2) There is a long history in the US of killing minority group members - especially blacks. In many parts of the country it was not even considered to be a crime (at least it wasn't prosecuted). The "hate-crime" laws send a message that it is illegal and that we, as a society, are going to make a special effort of prosecuting the perpetrators. In short, it is a break with some rather vile traditional values.
Because commercial television sucks really bad?
Because you can't get get that so-called "diverse and broad cable" with out diverse and broad (and ever increasing) payments to HUGE monopolies?
I'm sure some portion of the money I paid to fill my tank today went to support terrorists. Given that many of the 911 murders were Saudi, I'd bet they got the majority of their money from our gas sales.
So, given the ethics of the situation, when are you going to stop driving your car?
I'm willing to buy all of that, the ultimate problem however is with what happens when he catches her. There's this little thing called traumatic de-acceleration. She's traveling at highspeed toward the ground, he dives in and grabs her, but momentum is still driving her tissues downward... Spidey might be strong enough to survive the stress, but MJ wouldn't be all that pretty afterward. :(
Remember, SCSI may actually be slower on a single-user system. SCSI is faster in systems with simultaneous requests from many users.
And as the article suggested they offloaded it straight away. They messed up on the research bit, and technically are at fault, but it is hardly a malicious intent to pirate software and make illegal gains off unowned code.
And the schools Microsoft has been threatening, are they guilty of malicious intent? Would a proven lack of malace by the schools even slow Microsoft's lawyers down?
We've heard this song before ("Windows is such a prime target because it is so widely used"). The actual problem is that Microsoft doesn't have a clue when it comes to computer security. Outlook is attacked because it is an easy target .
Mutually assured de-installation? :)
You're confusing the company with its owners. We've all seen plenty of entrepreneurs walk away with big bucks from a deal like this while the product and the employees are left to swirl around the drain.
This is only true if you are talking desktop. Nobody in their right mind depends on windows for back office or network infrastructure.
Things are no where near that simple. Gnome is a GNU project - which gives Mr. Stallman a stake in the matter. Further more, the idea that you have to own stock in a company before you can criticize it's actions is absurd.
This man is becoming increasingly irritating, a modern day Rasputin (in looks as well as deeds).
He's sleeping with the Czar's wife??? Balderdash! I have it on good authority that his relationship with Melinda Gates is purely Platonic.
Customers aren't buying it now. In fact customers have *never* bought Windows in any volume. Its the vendors, the nice people with Microsoft's gun to their heads, that buy Windows. So, I guess nothing would change.
XML and SOAP were not developed by Microsoft.
.WAV file format. The Sox authors say it appears to be a variant of the Amiga IFF format.
And neither was the
Kinda like Bill Clinton, huh?
Actually it is more like George W. Bush's drunk driving record. If you have enough money and enough influence, nothing you do matters.
You got it! This reminds me of the Gulf war - we won on the battle field but failed to have any negligble effect on the practices of the dictator.
1) NPR had a great segment about this on all things considered. More objective and better detail than all of the major broadcasters put together.
2) NPR is only partially state sponsored. The rest of the money comes from corporate entities and you the listener :).
The answer to this problem is simple. Schools need to dump the nasty old Microsoft software and head on over to: http://www.riverdale.k12.or.us/linux/
unless you use 3rd party software
But that's exactly the point. In the Windows world, requiring you to go to a 3rd party solution is the kiss of death.
Join me in the Microserf chant: "If it wasn't sold by Microsoft you can't trust it to work with Windows".
Try buying a laptop without paying Microsoft money. The only freedom of choice you have there is whether or not to buy the unit. If you choose to buy the unit you are *forced* to buy Microsoft products.
First of all, if we're speaking of the US government, I belive that any software it produces is automatically public domain. It would be interesting to see if they have the legal right to publish under GPL at all.
Second, even if a US government agency did Copyleft their software, nothing prevents the company from using or selling it. The companies in question might choose not to use it because they don't want to open up their modifications. Nobody's eliminated their opportunity to sell their products.
Both of these statements appear to be red herrings.
How about if you are a company that runs both Redmond crap and Linux? If MS knows you've bought naked PCs they could sic the software police on you and cost you money.
The Reuter's link produces the following: "The news story you have requested is unavailable." Has it been pulled?
Yes. In the US it is strictly regulated. Most doctors offices however, require you to sign a release to share information with your insurance company. Where does it go from there? What if your employer carries your medical insurance? Remember that your Doctor has information that is more sensitive than your credit rating...
Telco: Not if it could constitute part of a credit rating. And telephone communication is protected as private communication. So there isn't much they could release there.
USWorst Communication (among others) just won a "free speech" lawsuit that allows them to pass your personal information around. For the moment it appears to allow them to share YOUR information with their subsidaries. The future, however, looks wide open.