You gotta love the way these filters actively point out and emphasize "bad words" in places where nobody would have thought to see them without the filter helping.
Sounds like somebody's outbound news server in one of the aquaria newsgroups. Some of the messages talk about freshwater and sal****er setups.
I could have said, "Find a friend who is on the net and who will make a copy for you." Or I could have done what I did with the original PDP-10 Emacs: tell them, "Mail me a tape and a SASE, and I will mail it back with Emacs on it." But I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make money from free software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free software distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems.
Free software business already exists. In fact, I started a free software business in 1985. I was selling copies of GNU Emacs. I was looking for a way to make money through free software. So I said, "Pay me $150, and I will mail you a tape with the GNU Emacs text editor." People started paying me, and I mailed them tapes. I made enough money to live on. I stopped this because I started the Free Software Foundation, and it seemed appropriate for the Free Software Foundation to start distributing GNU Emacs. I did not want to compete with the Free Software Foundation, so I had to find a different way. For several years, the Foundation made enough money this way to pay several employees, including programmers. So actually, if I had done it myself, I would probably have become comfortably well off by selling copies of free software.
After that, I started another free software business where I would make changes on commission.
No, copyright is not defined in the Constitution. Go read it sometime. It says that Congress, at its pleasure, may institute a copyright system. Although, perhaps if the copyright system were defined in the Constitution, it would avoid some of this mess, as it would take a Constitutional amendment to change the term.
As for the rest of your post, I don't feel the need to repeat what others have said.
That used to be true, but it isn't anymore. chmod(1) has this to say:
The `sticky bit' is not described by POSIX. The name derives from the
original meaning: keep program text on swap device. These days, when
set for a directory, it means that only the owner of the file and the
owner of that directory may remove the file from that directory. (This
is commonly used on directories like/tmp that have general write permission.)
Good God, I'm sorry about the formatting on that. LiveJournal rots the brain. Those auto-linebreaks are evil, and I should have previewed.
Sweet Jesus, have you ever read the GPL? More to the point, have you tried reading any document purporting to be a software use license? The GPL is a beacon of simplicity.
Yes, we do in fact need the very slight complexity introduced by documents like the GPL in order for the meaning to be clear. For example, where is "source code" defined in the first draft of your license? It could be successfully argued that a modified version of your program, compiled, then decompiled, then run through an obfuscator would constitute compliance with your license. The GPL includes a simple definition: Source code is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". A second sentence in that paragraph clarifies that we're talking about the whole thing, not just diffs -- and it means Makefiles, too. (Would you like to try compiling the Linux kernel without Makefiles?) The third sentence in that paragraph clarifies that you don't need to provide something which you may not be able to provide -- source code for "anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of the operating system on which the executable runs" (for example, Vim for MS Windows).
Going back to your license, it's not even clear to me that it's required to distribute source code to the program, not even for derived works.
Basically, the entire thirteen-clause document is like this. It states what is required, in a nutshell, and then clarifies what was said so that it is as precise as possible.
Think of legal matters the same as you think of programming. You can't just tell the computer, "Put a window on the screen." You have to tell it where, and what it's supposed to contain, and at lower levels (xlibs, MFC, or whatever) what a window is, how to draw it, and so on. The main problem is that language is horribly imprecise, especially for purposes like these. This is why licenses and contracts tend to start out with at least a paragraph or two defining what certain terms, as used in the document, will mean.
I'm not trying to be grouchy or come across as condescending, but legal matters do take a suprising amount of work to get right. Don't misunderstand me, though, IANAL or an apologist for one.
Sweet Jesus, have you ever read the GPL? More to the point, have you tried reading any document purporting to be a software use license? The GPL is a beacon of simplicity.
Yes, we do in fact need the very slight complexity introduced by documents like the GPL in order for the meaning to be clear. For example, where is "source code" defined in the first draft of your license? It could be successfully argued that a modified version of your program, compiled, then decompiled, then run through an obfuscator would constitute compliance with your license. The GPL includes a simple definition: Source code is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". A second sentence in that paragraph clarifies that we're talking about the whole thing, not just diffs -- and it means Makefiles, too. (Would you like to try compiling the Linux kernel without Makefiles?) The third sentence in that paragraph clarifies that you don't need to provide something which you may not be able to provide -- source code for "anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of the operating system on which the executable runs" (for example, Vim for MS Windows).
Going back to your license, it's not even clear to me that it's required to distribute source code to the program, not even for derived works.
Basically, the entire thirteen-clause document is like this. It states what is required, in a nutshell, and then clarifies what was said so that it is as precise as possible.
Think of legal matters the same as you think of programming. You can't just tell the computer, "Put a window on the screen." You have to tell it where, and what it's supposed to contain, and at lower levels (xlibs, MFC, or whatever) what a window is, how to draw it, and so on. The main problem is that language is horribly imprecise, especially for purposes like these. This is why licenses and contracts tend to start out with at least a paragraph or two defining what certain terms, as used in the document, will mean.
I'm not trying to be grouchy or come across as condescending, but legal matters do take a suprising amount of work to get right. Don't misunderstand me, though, IANAL or an apologist for one.
If you're honestly asking, a "sales tax" is a tax based on a percentage of the purchase price of an item. It's very similar to the VAT that many other countries have, with some key differences:
Unlike VAT, sales tax is collected only once on an item through the manufacturing and sales process, whereas with VAT (if my understanding is correct) it's collected at each point in the supply chain, minus what has already been paid. For example, with 15% VAT on an item made of metal, a mining company might mine one dollar's worth of metal and sell it for $1.15, with the $0.15 going to the state. Then the company that bought the raw metal might make parts out of which are worth $3, so they'd charge $3.30 and send $0.30 to the state. (That's $0.45 less the $0.15 which has already been paid.) And so on, and so forth, until the product, worth $10, is sold in the store with a sticker price of $11.50.
On the other hand, in the US, the raw metal would be sold for $1 with the state getting no money, and the part for $3, and so on and so forth, until the product winds up on the shelf listed for $10.
The price of the sales tax is not included in the purchase price of the item. With the above example, you take your item, which is labeled as $11.50, up to the register and that is what you pay. On the other hand, the item is marked $10 on the shelf and the sales tax is added on at the register. This stems mainly from the feeling that having the tax included in the purchase price would be a form of hidden taxation (as some people feel the gasoline taxes are). So depending on the locality, the cashier will ask for between $10.50 and $11.00 once your purchase is rung up.
Which brings up another point. The sales tax is not uniform across the US. Each state can choose to implement a sales tax or not. In states which implement the sales tax, it is not necessarily uniform across the entire state. For example, Indiana has a 5% sales tax, Pennsylvania has a 6% sales tax, and the city of Philadelphia has a 1% sales tax (on top of Pennsylvania's 6%, so you must pay an additional 7% of the purchase price in taxes). For someone living in Phoenix, Arizona, the situation is even more complicated. The state charges 5.6% (from what I could find), the county charges 0.7%, and the city charges 1.8%, for a total of 8.1%. Basically, the amount charged varies by ZIP code (the US term for a postal code), and oftentimes even within the same ZIP code you might have different tax rates. This makes it a nightmare for a small business, for example, to collect and remit the proper taxes to all the different localities.
Following the last point, mail-order (here I am including catalog, telephone, and Internet sales) businesses thus tend to collect sales taxes only for states in which they have some form of physical presence; otherwise, the state has no jurisdiction over the business. To my knowledge, though, all states which have a sales tax have a "use tax", which applies to items purchased elsewhere which have had no (or fewer) taxes paid on them. For example, a Pennsylvania resident (6% sales tax rate) who drives to Delaware (an adjoining state with no sales tax) and purchases a $100 video card is supposed to declare this on his tax returns and pay the $6. If he was on a trip to Indiana and paid $105, he is legally required to pay the extra $1 but is not responsible for the other $5. However, if he purchases the item in Phoenix, paying $108.10, he does not owe the Pennsylvania state government anything at all.
while there support centers may speak better english
Really? I'm working as a technician for a large computer retailer for the time being (let's just say I wouldn't be if the economy didn't suck so bad), and every time I've tried to call their dealer support line I talk to people in India.
Incidentally, I've also noticed that the last few times I've called, I get bounced from one depart in India to another, back to the US, back to India, to an Indian "supervisor", here and there a couple more times, and then wind up in the main queue and have to hold for an hour or two. But that's another rant...
The louder you speak, the more likely you are to be moderated down, unless you're sufficiently interesting to prompt the moderators to let you keep your bonus score. (From the
faq of which you speak.)
Also, I can't find it at the moment, but I do recall reading in the FAQ that complaints about moderation are basically always Off-topic.
Imagine: A robber tries to swipe someone's CD collection, the owner shoots, misses, and the robber shoots back. Does the robber get to claim self-defense?
In my opinion, absolutely. If indeed the robber was only going after the CD collection and hadn't threatened the owner, then the robber hadn't threatened the owner. Therefore, the owner would have no reason to believe that his live was in danger and would be totally unjustified in responding with deadly force. That's the way most concealed-carry laws work.
Wait, though; it really depends on where this happens. If you're taking your CD collection over to your friend's house and the thief swipes it from your car, you'd better not draw and shoot or else you'd be in a world of legal hurt. On the other hand, if this takes place in your home, then the mere fact that this individual has intruded your home would be enough to fire (and claim self-defense for yourself, and negate the claim of self-defense by the robber). Whether or not he's stealing anything would be irrelevant.
Thanks very much for the tip. I'd tried it but it didn't work. Turns out the problem was that I was using the radeon module that comes with the kernel, and not from the X source or dri.sf.net. Once I used the proper module, glxinfo reported that I did indeed have direct rendering enabled. glxgears, however, crashed the system until I used the ChipID trick.
I recently bought a Sapphire card, a Radeon 9200, from Newegg.com. According to the DRI status document, Radeons up the 9200 are supported. I wasn't able to get the card to work with XFree86 v4.2.0, but it works in 2D with 4.3.0. 3D, however, doesn't work with 4.3. I've tried to check out the latest DRI trunk via CVS, but checkouts (and updates) always hang in the same place, at xc/xc/util/patch. Does anyone have any suggestions? Should I try the binary driver at dri.sf.net? I've tried the ATI FireGL binary drivers, but they've just hung the system. I'm running 2.4.19 with the preemptible kernel patch. Should I get on the dri-users mailing list and ask there? Google searches haven't turned up much. Thanks for any help.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are very small pictures of the front and back, and some facts about the notes from the US Treasury, as well as some larger images.
Maintenance is done on the stable branches all the way back to 2.0, although the smaller the number, the less frequently an update is released.
And wrong:
I give my number as "declined". It's quite a coincidence, because that's also my address.
As for the rest of your post, I don't feel the need to repeat what others have said.
"Richie Cunningham" is also the false name that Austin Powers gave to Number Two in the casino in the first movie.
How is a remote spammer going to "brute-force" a scrap of paper from over the Internet?
So we ignored a UN resolution in order to punish Saddam for ignoring a UN resolution? That makes a lot of sense.
No, sorry, you are wrong.
Yeah, well, it kind of helps if you're running a kernel that actually has the feature in question, like, oh, 2.6.
Same with versions of Windows prior to 95 (and in 95 through Me, it's true of 16-bit apps).
Actually, MS says 64MB minimum for XP, with 128MB recommended. (Yes, those are the actual specs for both Home and Pro.)
Better not try to buy an RV, then.
Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you.
Good God, I'm sorry about the formatting on that. LiveJournal rots the brain. Those auto-linebreaks are evil, and I should have previewed.
Sweet Jesus, have you ever read the GPL? More to the point, have you tried reading any document purporting to be a software use license? The GPL is a beacon of simplicity.
Yes, we do in fact need the very slight complexity introduced by documents like the GPL in order for the meaning to be clear. For example, where is "source code" defined in the first draft of your license? It could be successfully argued that a modified version of your program, compiled, then decompiled, then run through an obfuscator would constitute compliance with your license. The GPL includes a simple definition: Source code is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". A second sentence in that paragraph clarifies that we're talking about the whole thing, not just diffs -- and it means Makefiles, too. (Would you like to try compiling the Linux kernel without Makefiles?) The third sentence in that paragraph clarifies that you don't need to provide something which you may not be able to provide -- source code for "anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of the operating system on which the executable runs" (for example, Vim for MS Windows).
Going back to your license, it's not even clear to me that it's required to distribute source code to the program, not even for derived works.
Basically, the entire thirteen-clause document is like this. It states what is required, in a nutshell, and then clarifies what was said so that it is as precise as possible.
Think of legal matters the same as you think of programming. You can't just tell the computer, "Put a window on the screen." You have to tell it where, and what it's supposed to contain, and at lower levels (xlibs, MFC, or whatever) what a window is, how to draw it, and so on. The main problem is that language is horribly imprecise, especially for purposes like these. This is why licenses and contracts tend to start out with at least a paragraph or two defining what certain terms, as used in the document, will mean.
I'm not trying to be grouchy or come across as condescending, but legal matters do take a suprising amount of work to get right. Don't misunderstand me, though, IANAL or an apologist for one.
Sweet Jesus, have you ever read the GPL? More to the point, have you tried reading any document purporting to be a software use license? The GPL is a beacon of simplicity. Yes, we do in fact need the very slight complexity introduced by documents like the GPL in order for the meaning to be clear. For example, where is "source code" defined in the first draft of your license? It could be successfully argued that a modified version of your program, compiled, then decompiled, then run through an obfuscator would constitute compliance with your license. The GPL includes a simple definition: Source code is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". A second sentence in that paragraph clarifies that we're talking about the whole thing, not just diffs -- and it means Makefiles, too. (Would you like to try compiling the Linux kernel without Makefiles?) The third sentence in that paragraph clarifies that you don't need to provide something which you may not be able to provide -- source code for "anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of the operating system on which the executable runs" (for example, Vim for MS Windows). Going back to your license, it's not even clear to me that it's required to distribute source code to the program, not even for derived works. Basically, the entire thirteen-clause document is like this. It states what is required, in a nutshell, and then clarifies what was said so that it is as precise as possible. Think of legal matters the same as you think of programming. You can't just tell the computer, "Put a window on the screen." You have to tell it where, and what it's supposed to contain, and at lower levels (xlibs, MFC, or whatever) what a window is, how to draw it, and so on. The main problem is that language is horribly imprecise, especially for purposes like these. This is why licenses and contracts tend to start out with at least a paragraph or two defining what certain terms, as used in the document, will mean. I'm not trying to be grouchy or come across as condescending, but legal matters do take a suprising amount of work to get right. Don't misunderstand me, though, IANAL or an apologist for one.
If you're honestly asking, a "sales tax" is a tax based on a percentage of the purchase price of an item. It's very similar to the VAT that many other countries have, with some key differences:
-
-
-
-
Hope that clears things up for you.Unlike VAT, sales tax is collected only once on an item through the manufacturing and sales process, whereas with VAT (if my understanding is correct) it's collected at each point in the supply chain, minus what has already been paid. For example, with 15% VAT on an item made of metal, a mining company might mine one dollar's worth of metal and sell it for $1.15, with the $0.15 going to the state. Then the company that bought the raw metal might make parts out of which are worth $3, so they'd charge $3.30 and send $0.30 to the state. (That's $0.45 less the $0.15 which has already been paid.) And so on, and so forth, until the product, worth $10, is sold in the store with a sticker price of $11.50.
On the other hand, in the US, the raw metal would be sold for $1 with the state getting no money, and the part for $3, and so on and so forth, until the product winds up on the shelf listed for $10.
The price of the sales tax is not included in the purchase price of the item. With the above example, you take your item, which is labeled as $11.50, up to the register and that is what you pay. On the other hand, the item is marked $10 on the shelf and the sales tax is added on at the register. This stems mainly from the feeling that having the tax included in the purchase price would be a form of hidden taxation (as some people feel the gasoline taxes are). So depending on the locality, the cashier will ask for between $10.50 and $11.00 once your purchase is rung up.
Which brings up another point. The sales tax is not uniform across the US. Each state can choose to implement a sales tax or not. In states which implement the sales tax, it is not necessarily uniform across the entire state. For example, Indiana has a 5% sales tax, Pennsylvania has a 6% sales tax, and the city of Philadelphia has a 1% sales tax (on top of Pennsylvania's 6%, so you must pay an additional 7% of the purchase price in taxes). For someone living in Phoenix, Arizona, the situation is even more complicated. The state charges 5.6% (from what I could find), the county charges 0.7%, and the city charges 1.8%, for a total of 8.1%. Basically, the amount charged varies by ZIP code (the US term for a postal code), and oftentimes even within the same ZIP code you might have different tax rates. This makes it a nightmare for a small business, for example, to collect and remit the proper taxes to all the different localities.
Following the last point, mail-order (here I am including catalog, telephone, and Internet sales) businesses thus tend to collect sales taxes only for states in which they have some form of physical presence; otherwise, the state has no jurisdiction over the business. To my knowledge, though, all states which have a sales tax have a "use tax", which applies to items purchased elsewhere which have had no (or fewer) taxes paid on them. For example, a Pennsylvania resident (6% sales tax rate) who drives to Delaware (an adjoining state with no sales tax) and purchases a $100 video card is supposed to declare this on his tax returns and pay the $6. If he was on a trip to Indiana and paid $105, he is legally required to pay the extra $1 but is not responsible for the other $5. However, if he purchases the item in Phoenix, paying $108.10, he does not owe the Pennsylvania state government anything at all.
Incidentally, I've also noticed that the last few times I've called, I get bounced from one depart in India to another, back to the US, back to India, to an Indian "supervisor", here and there a couple more times, and then wind up in the main queue and have to hold for an hour or two. But that's another rant...
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
#include <legal_disclaimer.h>
In my opinion, absolutely. If indeed the robber was only going after the CD collection and hadn't threatened the owner, then the robber hadn't threatened the owner. Therefore, the owner would have no reason to believe that his live was in danger and would be totally unjustified in responding with deadly force. That's the way most concealed-carry laws work.
Wait, though; it really depends on where this happens. If you're taking your CD collection over to your friend's house and the thief swipes it from your car, you'd better not draw and shoot or else you'd be in a world of legal hurt. On the other hand, if this takes place in your home, then the mere fact that this individual has intruded your home would be enough to fire (and claim self-defense for yourself, and negate the claim of self-defense by the robber). Whether or not he's stealing anything would be irrelevant.
Of course, all this varies by state. :-)
Better yet, just use "1.0/2", or "1/2.0", or "1.0/2.0" rather than explicitly casting to float.
Thanks a bunch!
I recently bought a Sapphire card, a Radeon 9200, from Newegg.com. According to the DRI status document, Radeons up the 9200 are supported. I wasn't able to get the card to work with XFree86 v4.2.0, but it works in 2D with 4.3.0. 3D, however, doesn't work with 4.3. I've tried to check out the latest DRI trunk via CVS, but checkouts (and updates) always hang in the same place, at xc/xc/util/patch. Does anyone have any suggestions? Should I try the binary driver at dri.sf.net? I've tried the ATI FireGL binary drivers, but they've just hung the system. I'm running 2.4.19 with the preemptible kernel patch. Should I get on the dri-users mailing list and ask there? Google searches haven't turned up much. Thanks for any help.