Main Entry: stolid Pronunciation: 'stä-l&d Function: adjective Etymology: Latin stolidus dull, stupid Date: circa 1600 : having or expressing little or no sensibility : UNEMOTIONAL synonym see IMPASSIVE - stolidity/stä-'li-d&-tE, st&-/ noun
It looks like you have misinterpreted the eymology as the definition. The definition you quote clearly states "having or expressing little or no sensibility" and equates that with "unemotional". There is a sense of "sensibility" meaning "emotion". It also points to a synonym of "impassive" which does mean showing little or no emotion.
The etymology clearly states the the latin word "stolid" is derived from means "stupid" but as just about any etymologist will tell you, the meanings of words change over time, sometimes quite radically.
I can't help but wonder what future humans will think of our efforts to preserve information. Will they even have the records that show that we tried to preserve anything? Will they believe the records we leave behind are factual? How much of the fiction that is floating around will be mistaken for fact? How much of the information we currently have will survive only in fragments yanked out of context?
This leads me to wonder how much context information do we need to bequeath to our decendants in order for them to be able to understand the information we leave behind? Consider how much information we have from ancient times which we do not truly understand because we do not have enough contextual information to really understand what was meant by this information. Look at how many conflicting translations there are of many of the documents that do still exist.
Even if we manage to prevent the degradation of the media on which the information is stored and the devices and software necessary to read the information are preserved, what of language shifts and culture gaps across time? We will still have the problem of information being lost as meanings of words change with time or as information is translated from one language to another. This is, in fact, exactly the same problem we face with the various software revisions for products like MS Word.
This is not to say, however, that we shouldn't make a significant effort to preserve information. I would also think that having a significant amount of contextual information (which should come along for the ride while preserving information) should help our decendants comprehend the information we leave behind. However, if our current track record for preserving contextual information is maintained, the outlook is not good for our decendants understanding our information in two or three centuries (assuming the information survives).
I still read newspapers on a very occasional basis. Usually they are completely unreliable for reporting facts or are reporting news that is irrelevant to me. When I do buy a newspaper, it is usually for the movie listings or some such and has nothing to do with the content of the paper although I will often read the content once I have the paper.
There is far too much privacy invasion reporting and fact twisting in the print media so I do not generally read it. I don't generally watch TV news for the same reason. On a very occasional basis I will buy a paper because it has a story on something of local interest that hasn't been reported elsewhere or to get a different perspective on said local item. However, I do not read the paper to get facts; I read the paper to try and discover what the real facts are by comparing several ostensibly independent sources.
In the current age of news channels being on top of the latest news and internet sites posting news five minutes after it happens, there is no need to put international news on the front page of news papers. Put local interest stuff on the front page.
Also, include more "good" news instead of the human suffering pieces that seem so common. I, for one, am sick of reading how the system failed Johnny or how some freak hurt Sue. Give me something about how a good samaritan was there to stop some freak from hurting Joanne. Give me news about scientific (or other) breakthroughs. Forget about hyping the crime that is going on.
Most of all, do NOT sacrifice facts for a sensational story. Do NOT invade privacy of anybody for a sensational story. Do NOT intentionally emphasize one fact over another to mislead the reader while not exactly telling a lie. (The same goes for non-print media.)
Well, it looks like a good thing on the surface. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I suppose we'll have to wait and see how this deal turns out.
One thing I can see is that the both of them gain a list of customer contacts and get to share the intellectual resources of the staff working on the various programming projects. This could be a very good thing as it could allow projects to be finished sooner (potentially) and have a larger customer base to market products to.
I suppose, however, that the thing could also go sour fast if things aren't handled right.
How committed is Corel to porting their office package over to Linux? Will we see the same functionality in the Linux versions as in the Windows versions when the ports are completed or will there be functional differences? For that matter, will the applications be able to talk to other X applications using the standard X protocols?
I don't know if it is urgent to have dual head under X but I, for one, could certainly use more simultaneously visible real estate. It would be a definite motivation for me to buy a G400 for example.
Since "man of the millennium" has been brought up, I nominate Gutenberg; without his invention having been invented, we wouldn't be wondering about all of this on/. After all, the WWW is a logical outgrowth of the invention of the computer network coupled with mass printing.
I'll start out by saying that I am not sold on the idea that this guy has a Grand Unified Theory. I also don't believe he has any of the technology that he claims to have.
That said, however, I would be quite happy to have reason to change my beliefs. If he does have what he says, it would be quite a paradigm shift.
As for some of the comments along the lines of "He isn't a scientist therefore he cannot possible have solved the Grand Unified Theory and the Ultimate Question to Life, the Universe, and Everything." Well, why not? If a non-scientist could not make scientific discoveries, there would be no science in the first place. If they guy wants to spend his (and potentially gullible investors') money on research that may not pan out, that's his business (and that of his investors).
Then there are the comments along the lines of "it has to be true because I want it to be or because he says it is", well, perhaps it is true, but have you seen any evidence of it? I know I do not have any evidence one way or the other.
Personally, I think we should wait and see what comes of his research. Perhaps he does have a Grand Unified Theory that works. Perhaps he is only crying wolf and knows he is wrong already. Perhaps it is only a ploy to sell his book. Perhaps he is another persecuted Gallileo type. Perhaps his research is totally wrong, and maybe he has a novel result even though his physics is wrong. Consider this: suppose everyone dismisses the theory without even trying to disprove it and he turns out to be right? (The same applies in the other direction - suppose he is wrong and everyone embraced it.)
If I had the disposable cash, I might speculate on his company just because it might prove interesting, but he is not ready for serious investment yet IMNSHO.
I'll leave everyone with a thought: how many discoveries that led to items we take for granted today were scoffed at by the academic (and otherwise) authorities of the time?
Actually, the alignment you mention has happened in the past history of the solar system and the planets seem to have all survived the event. That is not to say that there were no unusual geological events and such, though.
My take on the increased number of earthquakes and such hitting population centres is that major earthquakes occur a number of years apart along a given fault and either when the last ones occurred, nobody was there to measure them or feel them, or there was not a significant population there in the first place. We don't have accurate enough records for long enough to know what is "usual" for earthquakes and such over time. The other question is how many of these earthquakes were triggered by the daily activities of the populations living on the fault lines?
Then there is the fact that the year numbering scheme we are using is essentially arbitrary. The choice of beginning of the year counting was made based on a significant event (and miscalculated, but that is another can of worms) so the fact that we have some extraordinary events happening all around Y2K is more of a fluke than anything. I suspect however that if we looked carefully, we would find a number of events that were unusual occurring fairly frequently; after all, there are a large number of things that do not occur all the time but do occur occasionally.
Basically, my take is that there is no real significance to there events other than the fact they are rare.
I wonder how this particular scheme can be misused? It seems that this could help pave the way for some pretty nasty attempts at genetic engineering and some wonderful new abuses for females of various species.
I suppose there is the flipside that it contributed to our understanding of life to some degree, but is it worth it?
I wonder how they have dealt with the issue of some devices attached to the power lines can act as antennas and broadcast the signal to anyone with a radio receiver on the correct frequency. As if we don't have enough electromagnetic noise as it is.
Then again, even if they have solved the broadcast problem, how do they deal with the random interference that shows up on power lines? After all, take a look at ADSL. AM radio signals can interfere with ADSL.
If they pull it off (and I'm not holding my breath on that score) and if it is not too expensive for deployment on a large scale (not holding my breath there either), it could prove interesting, though.
On keyboards and flames
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 1
OS wars aside, keyboard layouts seem to be the largest magnet for flamewars in existence. At the risk of contributing to the war, I'll add my comments.
I never did see the logic of having the Control key where the CapsLock key is. It is a shift-like key, so there should be TWO, one on either side of the keyboard. The same for ALT. Control and ALT, if we are going to have them, should be near the size of the shift keys since they are commonly used. Note that the article says at one point that there should be two Control and two ALT keys on the keyboard, then proceeds to praise having only one Control key. Does this make any sense or did I miss the point?
I don't see the CapsLock key as being overly useful for the most part and it should be relegated to somewhere further away from the main keyboard. How many times have you hit CapsLock while you were aiming for the A key or the shift key? This begs the question of what to put there. Maybe the Escape key? It is used quite a bit and has a fairly obvious function: "get me out of here!".
As for the arrow keys, why should they be considered evil? Is it so wrong to provide arrow key functionality? If I am not mistaken, arrow keys weren't used for applications initially because not all terminals had them. I am not, however, saying that the arrow keys are good for all cases; sometimes it is imperative to have fast access to all directions without moving one's fingers. Why not a split with up/down on one side and left/right on the other? (I've actually used such a keyboard and it is really nice for cases where that is required.)
Those are just my opinions, however. I think that what one finds the most comfortable is directly influenced by what one learned on. If one learned with hjkl for motion, then one will generally find that more intuitive than the arrow keys. If one is used to the Sun keyboard layout, one will probably prefer that over the PC keyboard layout. The same applies to Dvorak vs Qwerty.
That about sums up my contribution to the keyboard flamewar.
Granted, it sounds ridiculous. However, since when did the law follow the rules of logic? If one is age 13 (I think) or older in Canada, one can be charged with a crime. This means, in your example, that if a 15 year old "certifies" the he/she is an adult, he/she is guilty of fraud. As a result, a person can earn a criminal record before they can legally enter into a contract.
Basically, it boils down that if you claim to be something you are not, you are guilty of fraud, whether you can legally sign a contract or not. In fact, signing said contract itself without one's guardian's signature also is the same as the declaration that you are not a minor.
I'm sure there are lots of loop holes in the laws governing this that make any simple understanding of the situation impossibly. As a result, Corel is probably just covering themselves in the event that someone does attempt to prosecute them for distributing something that contains foul language to minors or some such. Then again, it may indeed be that they have a lack of communication between departments, too.
Disclaimer: IANAL so I could be wrong about anything I say here.
First, I'll be redundant and point out that Corel is a Canadian company and is therefore bound by Canadian laws. Being Canadian myself, I am well aware how anal some laws in Canada are. In fact, in Canada a minor cannot enter into ANY contract (with a small number of exceptions which do not apply here). It is not a stretch for Canadian courts to decide that an EULA is a contract. I suspect that Corel's legal department is trying to guard against possible legal repercussions that might prevent them from distributing Corel Linux at all. (Note that the age of majority in Canada is defined by the individual provinces.) This doesn't take into account possible repercussions of distribution in international markets (including the US).
It is my understanding also that an EULA cannot override any laws in the jurisdiction of the user. Therefore if any clause in the EULA is illegal, depending on the license or local laws the rest may or may not be binding. This same caveat applies to the GPL.
As I understand it, if a country has a law that forbids restrictions on software distribution or use and requires everything to be public domain if source code is release (hypothetical; I'm not aware of any such country), then the GPL could not be applied, but neither could the software be denied to that country once it was present in that country. Again, IANAL so this could be completely wrong.
I will close with a note that, in Canada at least, there is no law that I am aware of that prevents a minor from using software that was legally obtained by the parent unless said software violates some specific law.
While I was reading the article, the printing press immediately jumped to mind, so I will add my vote for the printing press as the alltime greatest hack. After all, consider its longevity!
Granted, X is stable and relatively bugfree, but it is old. It is often handy to be able to run an application on one machine and display it on another machine and this is the major strength of X in my opinion. There is no question that it could do so more efficiently, however.
The problem I have with X is sound. There is no standard way (that I know about) to have the sound from an application play on the display that the output shows up on. Granted, most run the applications on the same machine as the X server itself, but is that because of the lack of sound propogation or just because? (Probably a little of both actually.)
I agree that the excess bagage that X has carried along with it through the years should be conveniently misplaced and leave a much more easily debugged and more efficient system. (That's not to mention the security needs to be rethought.)
Is it surprising that because a few made a killing on net related stuff others think that? After all, how often do you hear about gambles that failed? (Well, unless they blow up in some spectacular and ratingsworthy way.)
Similarly, how many people went broke solely because they underestimated the intelligence of the people? (Is it even possible to underestimate the intelligence of the general public?) Besides, isn't the whole of North American society based on self-deception?
In the case of "coke.com" there is an existing trademark and a prior legal claim on the name, but a name that has no particular connection to anything is essentially up for grabs to whomever wishes to register it. Of course, we're looking at two different flavours of cybersquatting really.
Whether there is an obvious owner of the domain or not shouldn't change the situation, IMNSHO, but the world rarely works the way I want it to.
Is there any particular reason running Linux on the desktop makes one a dork? If it does everything you want it to do and does it well, there is no particular reason one shouldn't run Linux. The same argument would apply to PetrOS for that matter.
Not everyone wants/needs a fancy GUI on their desktop.
While this ruling is definitely a good thing, we still have a long wait before this gets resolved.
Having read Caldera's statement of facts (I've misplaced the URL), I would say they have a good chance of winning, but even if they do, what will the ultimate outcome be? Or, for that matter, how effective will it be. After all, a lot can happen in a year (and I suspect it will be at least that long before anything comes of this.)
It is interesting to see someone actually present some useful information regarding "Benchmarks". Note that the article does not refute the benchmark; it just puts it into a different perspective. It also puts into perspective the difference between a benchmark and reality. If you really think about it, how many sites can possibly get the volume of hits required to run into these numbers? I mean, how many sites are being served over a dedicated T3? Most are coming over load balanced T1s or what have you that are shared amoung numerous other physical boxes. (That is not to say that there are not some sites having such a load.) Even if you had such a site, you probably wouldn't want to rely on a single server to handle the whole thing anyway. (Single point of failure? That's asking for trouble.)
I have to admit that I am impressed by the insightful nature of the article. Once you get past the rambling nature and potential misinformation, the basic premise (that "robots shall inherit the Earth") may not be so far off the mark.
It does raise an interesting point: should we actually create viable AI, what are our moral obligations to said AI?
Slashdot Mirror
Main Entry: stolid /stä-'li-d&-tE, st&-/ noun
Pronunciation: 'stä-l&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin stolidus dull, stupid
Date: circa 1600
: having or expressing little or no sensibility : UNEMOTIONAL
synonym see IMPASSIVE
- stolidity
It looks like you have misinterpreted the eymology as the definition. The definition you quote clearly states "having or expressing little or no sensibility" and equates that with "unemotional". There is a sense of "sensibility" meaning "emotion". It also points to a synonym of "impassive" which does mean showing little or no emotion.
The etymology clearly states the the latin word "stolid" is derived from means "stupid" but as just about any etymologist will tell you, the meanings of words change over time, sometimes quite radically.
Well, that's my 14.3 cents on the issue.
I can't help but wonder what future humans will think of our efforts to preserve information. Will they even have the records that show that we tried to preserve anything? Will they believe the records we leave behind are factual? How much of the fiction that is floating around will be mistaken for fact? How much of the information we currently have will survive only in fragments yanked out of context?
This leads me to wonder how much context information do we need to bequeath to our decendants in order for them to be able to understand the information we leave behind? Consider how much information we have from ancient times which we do not truly understand because we do not have enough contextual information to really understand what was meant by this information. Look at how many conflicting translations there are of many of the documents that do still exist.
Even if we manage to prevent the degradation of the media on which the information is stored and the devices and software necessary to read the information are preserved, what of language shifts and culture gaps across time? We will still have the problem of information being lost as meanings of words change with time or as information is translated from one language to another. This is, in fact, exactly the same problem we face with the various software revisions for products like MS Word.
This is not to say, however, that we shouldn't make a significant effort to preserve information. I would also think that having a significant amount of contextual information (which should come along for the ride while preserving information) should help our decendants comprehend the information we leave behind. However, if our current track record for preserving contextual information is maintained, the outlook is not good for our decendants understanding our information in two or three centuries (assuming the information survives).
Well, that's my 93.2 cents worth on the subject.
I still read newspapers on a very occasional basis. Usually they are completely unreliable for reporting facts or are reporting news that is irrelevant to me. When I do buy a newspaper, it is usually for the movie listings or some such and has nothing to do with the content of the paper although I will often read the content once I have the paper.
There is far too much privacy invasion reporting and fact twisting in the print media so I do not generally read it. I don't generally watch TV news for the same reason. On a very occasional basis I will buy a paper because it has a story on something of local interest that hasn't been reported elsewhere or to get a different perspective on said local item. However, I do not read the paper to get facts; I read the paper to try and discover what the real facts are by comparing several ostensibly independent sources.
In the current age of news channels being on top of the latest news and internet sites posting news five minutes after it happens, there is no need to put international news on the front page of news papers. Put local interest stuff on the front page.
Also, include more "good" news instead of the human suffering pieces that seem so common. I, for one, am sick of reading how the system failed Johnny or how some freak hurt Sue. Give me something about how a good samaritan was there to stop some freak from hurting Joanne. Give me news about scientific (or other) breakthroughs. Forget about hyping the crime that is going on.
Most of all, do NOT sacrifice facts for a sensational story. Do NOT invade privacy of anybody for a sensational story. Do NOT intentionally emphasize one fact over another to mislead the reader while not exactly telling a lie. (The same goes for non-print media.)
Well, that's my 47.2 cents worth.
Well, it looks like a good thing on the surface. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I suppose we'll have to wait and see how this deal turns out.
One thing I can see is that the both of them gain a list of customer contacts and get to share the intellectual resources of the staff working on the various programming projects. This could be a very good thing as it could allow projects to be finished sooner (potentially) and have a larger customer base to market products to.
I suppose, however, that the thing could also go sour fast if things aren't handled right.
I didn't ask when it would be out. You might want to reread my questions. I was asking about features/compatibility.
For the record I already knew when it would be released.
How committed is Corel to porting their office package over to Linux? Will we see the same functionality in the Linux versions as in the Windows versions when the ports are completed or will there be functional differences? For that matter, will the applications be able to talk to other X applications using the standard X protocols?
I don't know if it is urgent to have dual head under X but I, for one, could certainly use more simultaneously visible real estate. It would be a definite motivation for me to buy a G400 for example.
Since "man of the millennium" has been brought up, I nominate Gutenberg; without his invention having been invented, we wouldn't be wondering about all of this on /. After all, the WWW is a logical outgrowth of the invention of the computer network coupled with mass printing.
I'll start out by saying that I am not sold on the idea that this guy has a Grand Unified Theory. I also don't believe he has any of the technology that he claims to have.
That said, however, I would be quite happy to have reason to change my beliefs. If he does have what he says, it would be quite a paradigm shift.
As for some of the comments along the lines of "He isn't a scientist therefore he cannot possible have solved the Grand Unified Theory and the Ultimate Question to Life, the Universe, and Everything." Well, why not? If a non-scientist could not make scientific discoveries, there would be no science in the first place. If they guy wants to spend his (and potentially gullible investors') money on research that may not pan out, that's his business (and that of his investors).
Then there are the comments along the lines of "it has to be true because I want it to be or because he says it is", well, perhaps it is true, but have you seen any evidence of it? I know I do not have any evidence one way or the other.
Personally, I think we should wait and see what comes of his research. Perhaps he does have a Grand Unified Theory that works. Perhaps he is only crying wolf and knows he is wrong already. Perhaps it is only a ploy to sell his book. Perhaps he is another persecuted Gallileo type. Perhaps his research is totally wrong, and maybe he has a novel result even though his physics is wrong. Consider this: suppose everyone dismisses the theory without even trying to disprove it and he turns out to be right? (The same applies in the other direction - suppose he is wrong and everyone embraced it.)
If I had the disposable cash, I might speculate on his company just because it might prove interesting, but he is not ready for serious investment yet IMNSHO.
I'll leave everyone with a thought: how many discoveries that led to items we take for granted today were scoffed at by the academic (and otherwise) authorities of the time?
Last post?
:)
Yup, it's lame.
Actually, the alignment you mention has happened in the past history of the solar system and the planets seem to have all survived the event. That is not to say that there were no unusual geological events and such, though.
My take on the increased number of earthquakes and such hitting population centres is that major earthquakes occur a number of years apart along a given fault and either when the last ones occurred, nobody was there to measure them or feel them, or there was not a significant population there in the first place. We don't have accurate enough records for long enough to know what is "usual" for earthquakes and such over time. The other question is how many of these earthquakes were triggered by the daily activities of the populations living on the fault lines?
Then there is the fact that the year numbering scheme we are using is essentially arbitrary. The choice of beginning of the year counting was made based on a significant event (and miscalculated, but that is another can of worms) so the fact that we have some extraordinary events happening all around Y2K is more of a fluke than anything. I suspect however that if we looked carefully, we would find a number of events that were unusual occurring fairly frequently; after all, there are a large number of things that do not occur all the time but do occur occasionally.
Basically, my take is that there is no real significance to there events other than the fact they are rare.
I wonder how this particular scheme can be misused? It seems that this could help pave the way for some pretty nasty attempts at genetic engineering and some wonderful new abuses for females of various species.
I suppose there is the flipside that it contributed to our understanding of life to some degree, but is it worth it?
I wonder how they have dealt with the issue of some devices attached to the power lines can act as antennas and broadcast the signal to anyone with a radio receiver on the correct frequency. As if we don't have enough electromagnetic noise as it is.
Then again, even if they have solved the broadcast problem, how do they deal with the random interference that shows up on power lines? After all, take a look at ADSL. AM radio signals can interfere with ADSL.
If they pull it off (and I'm not holding my breath on that score) and if it is not too expensive for deployment on a large scale (not holding my breath there either), it could prove interesting, though.
OS wars aside, keyboard layouts seem to be the largest magnet for flamewars in existence. At the risk of contributing to the war, I'll add my comments.
I never did see the logic of having the Control key where the CapsLock key is. It is a shift-like key, so there should be TWO, one on either side of the keyboard. The same for ALT. Control and ALT, if we are going to have them, should be near the size of the shift keys since they are commonly used. Note that the article says at one point that there should be two Control and two ALT keys on the keyboard, then proceeds to praise having only one Control key. Does this make any sense or did I miss the point?
I don't see the CapsLock key as being overly useful for the most part and it should be relegated to somewhere further away from the main keyboard. How many times have you hit CapsLock while you were aiming for the A key or the shift key? This begs the question of what to put there. Maybe the Escape key? It is used quite a bit and has a fairly obvious function: "get me out of here!".
As for the arrow keys, why should they be considered evil? Is it so wrong to provide arrow key functionality? If I am not mistaken, arrow keys weren't used for applications initially because not all terminals had them. I am not, however, saying that the arrow keys are good for all cases; sometimes it is imperative to have fast access to all directions without moving one's fingers. Why not a split with up/down on one side and left/right on the other? (I've actually used such a keyboard and it is really nice for cases where that is required.)
Those are just my opinions, however. I think that what one finds the most comfortable is directly influenced by what one learned on. If one learned with hjkl for motion, then one will generally find that more intuitive than the arrow keys. If one is used to the Sun keyboard layout, one will probably prefer that over the PC keyboard layout. The same applies to Dvorak vs Qwerty.
That about sums up my contribution to the keyboard flamewar.
Granted, it sounds ridiculous. However, since when did the law follow the rules of logic? If one is age 13 (I think) or older in Canada, one can be charged with a crime. This means, in your example, that if a 15 year old "certifies" the he/she is an adult, he/she is guilty of fraud. As a result, a person can earn a criminal record before they can legally enter into a contract.
Basically, it boils down that if you claim to be something you are not, you are guilty of fraud, whether you can legally sign a contract or not. In fact, signing said contract itself without one's guardian's signature also is the same as the declaration that you are not a minor.
I'm sure there are lots of loop holes in the laws governing this that make any simple understanding of the situation impossibly. As a result, Corel is probably just covering themselves in the event that someone does attempt to prosecute them for distributing something that contains foul language to minors or some such. Then again, it may indeed be that they have a lack of communication between departments, too.
Disclaimer: IANAL so I could be wrong about anything I say here.
First, I'll be redundant and point out that Corel is a Canadian company and is therefore bound by Canadian laws. Being Canadian myself, I am well aware how anal some laws in Canada are. In fact, in Canada a minor cannot enter into ANY contract (with a small number of exceptions which do not apply here). It is not a stretch for Canadian courts to decide that an EULA is a contract. I suspect that Corel's legal department is trying to guard against possible legal repercussions that might prevent them from distributing Corel Linux at all. (Note that the age of majority in Canada is defined by the individual provinces.) This doesn't take into account possible repercussions of distribution in international markets (including the US).
It is my understanding also that an EULA cannot override any laws in the jurisdiction of the user. Therefore if any clause in the EULA is illegal, depending on the license or local laws the rest may or may not be binding. This same caveat applies to the GPL.
As I understand it, if a country has a law that forbids restrictions on software distribution or use and requires everything to be public domain if source code is release (hypothetical; I'm not aware of any such country), then the GPL could not be applied, but neither could the software be denied to that country once it was present in that country. Again, IANAL so this could be completely wrong.
I will close with a note that, in Canada at least, there is no law that I am aware of that prevents a minor from using software that was legally obtained by the parent unless said software violates some specific law.
Again, IANAL (in case you didn't notice before).
While I was reading the article, the printing press immediately jumped to mind, so I will add my vote for the printing press as the alltime greatest hack. After all, consider its longevity!
I, for one, think this is a great move. It cut down the number of people who are spooked by BSD code and licenses.
Granted, X is stable and relatively bugfree, but it is old. It is often handy to be able to run an application on one machine and display it on another machine and this is the major strength of X in my opinion. There is no question that it could do so more efficiently, however.
The problem I have with X is sound. There is no standard way (that I know about) to have the sound from an application play on the display that the output shows up on. Granted, most run the applications on the same machine as the X server itself, but is that because of the lack of sound propogation or just because? (Probably a little of both actually.)
I agree that the excess bagage that X has carried along with it through the years should be conveniently misplaced and leave a much more easily debugged and more efficient system. (That's not to mention the security needs to be rethought.)
Well, that is by $17.42 worth for today.
Is it surprising that because a few made a killing on net related stuff others think that? After all, how often do you hear about gambles that failed? (Well, unless they blow up in some spectacular and ratingsworthy way.)
Similarly, how many people went broke solely because they underestimated the intelligence of the people? (Is it even possible to underestimate the intelligence of the general public?) Besides, isn't the whole of North American society based on self-deception?
In the case of "coke.com" there is an existing trademark and a prior legal claim on the name, but a name that has no particular connection to anything is essentially up for grabs to whomever wishes to register it. Of course, we're looking at two different flavours of cybersquatting really.
Whether there is an obvious owner of the domain or not shouldn't change the situation, IMNSHO, but the world rarely works the way I want it to.
Is there any particular reason running Linux on the desktop makes one a dork? If it does everything you want it to do and does it well, there is no particular reason one shouldn't run Linux. The same argument would apply to PetrOS for that matter.
Not everyone wants/needs a fancy GUI on their desktop.
While this ruling is definitely a good thing, we still have a long wait before this gets resolved.
Having read Caldera's statement of facts (I've misplaced the URL), I would say they have a good chance of winning, but even if they do, what will the ultimate outcome be? Or, for that matter, how effective will it be. After all, a lot can happen in a year (and I suspect it will be at least that long before anything comes of this.)
I suppose we'll have to wait and see.
It is interesting to see someone actually present some useful information regarding "Benchmarks". Note that the article does not refute the benchmark; it just puts it into a different perspective. It also puts into perspective the difference between a benchmark and reality. If you really think about it, how many sites can possibly get the volume of hits required to run into these numbers? I mean, how many sites are being served over a dedicated T3? Most are coming over load balanced T1s or what have you that are shared amoung numerous other physical boxes. (That is not to say that there are not some sites having such a load.) Even if you had such a site, you probably wouldn't want to rely on a single server to handle the whole thing anyway. (Single point of failure? That's asking for trouble.)
Well, that's my 14 cents worth.
I have to admit that I am impressed by the insightful nature of the article. Once you get past the rambling nature and potential misinformation, the basic premise (that "robots shall inherit the Earth") may not be so far off the mark.
It does raise an interesting point: should we actually create viable AI, what are our moral obligations to said AI?