Maybe this will be the GNU userspace on the Unixware kernel, which would be OK. The major niceness of Linux has always been its userspace moreso than the kernel itself. Lots of people install a load of GNU software on their Solaris boxen for this reason. It's the final patch to make Solaris a usable system, so to speak...
Or maybe they'll do something stupid and just emulate Linux with Unixware...
!This program cannot be run in DOS mode.
Rich[:
.text
`.data
.rsrc
WSOCK32.dll
[...]
GetConsoleMode
CreateFileA
KERNEL32.dll
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved. exe\ftp.dbg
.exe
They can steal stuff from BSD-licensed software without any problems, thus enhancing their "Intellectual Property". GPL makes them give it back, along with any enhancements, thus devaluing their "intellectual property". I believe Exchange includes BSD-licensed software -- parts of sendmail, maybe? THe copyright includes "the regents of the university of california."
I wonder if they will mount a legal challenge to the GPL now? And how will they do it? Release a closed-source version of some GPL program, perhaps, and then litigate it? They wouldn't lose much -- the 'penalty' would be for them to release the source for their modified program, which I doubt they would care about anyway. I also wonder if another company would defend the GPL -- IBM perhaps? Sun, now they they're including Gnome with Slowlaris (yeah, we'll see)?
- - - - -
Re:Another case of too little, too late?
on
ESR On XML-RPC
·
· Score: 2
A company that a relative of mine works at operates several factories in China. They pay a multiple of the prevailing local wage -- in fact, the Chinese government actually prevents them from paying more. I wonder how often that happens?
A company thata relative of mine works at operates several factories in China. They pay a multiple of the prevailing local wage -- in fact, the Chinese government actually prevents them from paying more. I wonder how often that happens?
I own some. It seems to work ok, but runs hot and is very expensive compared to SDRAM. Not to mention it's incompatible with non-RDRAM machines, and therefore confined to being usable on only the one machine (of many) that has it. We use HP equipment at my company, and all the other machines appear to be SDRAM. THis is nice, because we can move memory from machine to machine without compatibility problems. The RDRAM machine will just have to be hooked to a chain and thrown into the river after stripping it of useful parts once it goes dead. Not to mention that my SDRAM machines are more upgradable -- more than 2 slots and higher-capacity DIMMS than RIMMs. Pricewatch rocks.
As for the libertarian/right-wing/objectivist combination, they're very much related movements.
Eh, sort of. Libratrianism grew out of Republicanism, but was fueled by Objectivism (or "saddled with," if you are on that side of things:).
"Right wing" is a relative term that, in the U.S., conventionally means socially conservative/traditional/authoritarian plus economically liberal, if not anarchist. "Left wing" used to mean the opposite, i.e., socially liberal or even anarchist, but economically authoritarian. It appears that the left is becoming socially authoritarian in recent times as well ("political correctness," etc).
Neither one has good answers. "Right-wingers" seem to think that whatever makes money but doesn't offend God is a good thing. Left-wingers seem to think that individuals are keen, but they had better keep working for "the common good" and not piss off anybody. Both seem to take disagreement as some type of personal affront.
"Moderates" are compromisers and pragmatists with no firm beliefs other than the roads should be paved, the kids should be healthy, and there should be good stuff on TV. I.e., keep the ball rolling.
"Liberal" used to mean approximately what "libertarian" does today -- socially and economically lasseiz-faire -- but today means "left wing". "Conservative" seems to be a purely relative term; today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives. They are the ones saying "Hey! Not so fast! Turn that down!"
Objectivists come in two varieties. Type one is the True Believer type who believes and defends everything Rand said or wrote -- except the parts about questioning all authority and thinking for yourself. For them, time stands still. Type two accepts the objectivist philosophy but takes the additional step of recognizing, as Rand said, that when a philosophy does not agree with reality, it's not reality that's wrong.
In Rand's assessment, Objectivists are "radicals for capitalism", which requires some explaining. To her, capitalism was a different thing than what is labelled "capitalism" today. Capitalism in the objectivist formulation is social and economic freedom and justice. For instace, while the press may report that China is developing a "capitalist economy," to the objectivist thinker they are certainly not. They are simply loosening the shackles a little in order to make the proles work harder. And what the Republicans or Democrats trot out as "free trade" is not capitalism; it is governments lowering tarriffs and subsidies, yes; but it makes no provision for justice and freedom. For instance, "free trade" with China, which is a repressive dictatorship. And "free enterprise" is not capitalism. It seems to mean that individuals get to start licensed businesses doing approved things, and then lobby the government for special protections and subsidies. Capitalism rests on the premise that each person will work for themselves; neither enslaving or exploting others or being enslaved or exploited.
From Atlas Shrugged: "The only proper propose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.,...,The only proper functions of government are: the police, to proteect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective [i.e., written, accessible and non-"colorable"] law."
Libertarians can be thought of as ex-republicans who like neither Pat Roberts nor Ayn Rand. Sort of objectivist moderates, without the philosophy. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; it means they can get aloong with other people and not try to be religious zealots about their pet issues. Many objectivists explain to people that they are Libertarians, because it's basically true, at least where political philosophy is concerned.
Just because the Libertarian Party isn't a branch of the Objectivist Thingie ("movement?") doesn't mean that they advocate different policies. To both of them, the means are much more important than the ends. The ends are no good if the means by which they were achieved are no good.
Whew. In summary, if you read Rand and like what she says, but aren't some kind of religious nutjob about it, you're probably a Libertarian, not on the "right wing."
Libertarians, as was noted, reject the single-axis "right-left wing" political coordinate system, because they see the left and right wing as equally authoritarian given the chance; just in different areas. I.e., the single axis from "left" to "right" makes no provision for people who believe in either freedom or totalitarianism. The Libertarians have a two-axis political coordinate system that takes them into account. Left and right are still left and right, but Libertarians are up and totalitarians/authoritarians are down.
As Nathanial Branden said, "freedom is still the most radical idea of all."
And as George W. Bush said, "there ought to be limits to freedom" -- a sentiment echoed far and wide in the American political establishment.
The US Air Force uses solid-state disks in at least some of its aircraft. They load the software right before takeoff. The idea is that, if the plan goes down or is captured, the pilot just has to power it down and all the software is lost, and then the plane is useless.
AI shell> get all files ending in tmp in my home place
OK, I've found 10 files for your request
AI shell> go to the place where my temporary files are stored
OK
AI shell> drop the files there
10 files dropped.
You have been eaten by a Grue.
Slashdot Mirror
You probably shouldn't use the term "copy protection" -- use "copy prevention" instead, or perhaps "copyright protection".
"Copy protection" is a vague and dangerous term.
- - - - -
... something along the lines of "it's exhilarating to stand up to an evil empire."
Oh, well.
- - - - -
You funny man!
- - - - -
Maybe this will be the GNU userspace on the Unixware kernel, which would be OK. The major niceness of Linux has always been its userspace moreso than the kernel itself. Lots of people install a load of GNU software on their Solaris boxen for this reason. It's the final patch to make Solaris a usable system, so to speak...
Or maybe they'll do something stupid and just emulate Linux with Unixware...
- - - - -
- - - - -
e:\winnt\system32>strings ftp.exe
!This program cannot be run in DOS mode.
Rich[:
.text
`.data
.rsrc
WSOCK32.dll
[...]
GetConsoleMode
CreateFileA
KERNEL32.dll
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
exe\ftp.dbg
.exe
- - - - -
They can steal stuff from BSD-licensed software without any problems, thus enhancing their "Intellectual Property". GPL makes them give it back, along with any enhancements, thus devaluing their "intellectual property". I believe Exchange includes BSD-licensed software -- parts of sendmail, maybe? THe copyright includes "the regents of the university of california."
I wonder if they will mount a legal challenge to the GPL now? And how will they do it? Release a closed-source version of some GPL program, perhaps, and then litigate it? They wouldn't lose much -- the 'penalty' would be for them to release the source for their modified program, which I doubt they would care about anyway. I also wonder if another company would defend the GPL -- IBM perhaps? Sun, now they they're including Gnome with Slowlaris (yeah, we'll see)?
- - - - -
Uhhh... XML parsing in the kernel? Really?
- - - - -
A company that a relative of mine works at operates several factories in China. They pay a multiple of the prevailing local wage -- in fact, the Chinese government actually prevents them from paying more. I wonder how often that happens?
- - - - -
A company thata relative of mine works at operates several factories in China. They pay a multiple of the prevailing local wage -- in fact, the Chinese government actually prevents them from paying more. I wonder how often that happens?
- - - - -
The military draft, for example, has been accepted as necessary to defend the freedom.
That strikes me as, at best, self-contradictory. As Heinlein said, any country that requires a draft to defend itself doesn't deserve to exist.
- - - - -
Socialism is an economic system.
"Socialist capitalist" is, strictly speaking, an oxymoron. Perhaps you mean "mixed economy" or "welfare state."
- - - - -
I would agree that software is different than tangible goods in important ways -- low to zero reproduction costs at the front.
This goes back to the original operating guidelines of the USPTO -- i.e., you can't patent ideas, just implementations.
- - - - -
So... how do I get it to not segfault on start?
/home/rothwell/dvd/vlc/./gvlc
Tried the unstalbe release and today's CVS.
Starting program:
VideoLAN Client - version 0.2.60 Urumov - (c)1996-2000 VideoLAN
Cannot access memory at address 0x231
(gdb) bt
#0 _dl_debug_state () at dl-debug.c:56
#1 0x4000ac3b in _dl_catch_error (errstring=0xbffff770,
operate=0x40130990 , args=0xbffff774) at dl-error.c:141
#2 0x40130d3d in _dl_open (
file=0x80b2e58 "/usr/local/lib/videolan/vlc/idctclassic.so", mode=2,
caller=0xbffff770) at dl-open.c:232
#3 0x400323d3 in dlopen_doit (a=0xbffff884) at dlopen.c:41
#4 0x4000ac3b in _dl_catch_error (errstring=0x80a67d8,
operate=0x400323a8 , args=0xbffff884) at dl-error.c:141
#5 0x400328b9 in _dlerror_run (operate=0x400323a8 ,
args=0xbffff884) at dlerror.c:125
#6 0x40032393 in __dlopen_check (
file=0x80b2e58 "/usr/local/lib/videolan/vlc/idctclassic.so", mode=2)
at dlopen.c:53
#7 0x8094ec7 in AllocateDynModule ()
#8 0x0 in ?? ()
(gdb)
- - - - -
Lucky! All we get here in the state of Fuckistan is Microsoft commercials and "Judge Judy."
- - - - -
Think about it -- all resources (code etc) are owned by no one person but by the community at large (aka the "state");
Or, just read any history and/or economics book.
resources are free to access and use to anyone
Uh, yeah. Right. How are they apportioned?
- - - - -
Oh, posh. Freedom and rebellion are the American Way. Open Source fits in fine! :)
- - - - -
I own some. It seems to work ok, but runs hot and is very expensive compared to SDRAM. Not to mention it's incompatible with non-RDRAM machines, and therefore confined to being usable on only the one machine (of many) that has it. We use HP equipment at my company, and all the other machines appear to be SDRAM. THis is nice, because we can move memory from machine to machine without compatibility problems. The RDRAM machine will just have to be hooked to a chain and thrown into the river after stripping it of useful parts once it goes dead. Not to mention that my SDRAM machines are more upgradable -- more than 2 slots and higher-capacity DIMMS than RIMMs. Pricewatch rocks.
- - - - -
As for the libertarian/right-wing/objectivist combination, they're very much related movements.
:).
Eh, sort of. Libratrianism grew out of Republicanism, but was fueled by Objectivism (or "saddled with," if you are on that side of things
"Right wing" is a relative term that, in the U.S., conventionally means socially conservative/traditional/authoritarian plus economically liberal, if not anarchist. "Left wing" used to mean the opposite, i.e., socially liberal or even anarchist, but economically authoritarian. It appears that the left is becoming socially authoritarian in recent times as well ("political correctness," etc).
Neither one has good answers. "Right-wingers" seem to think that whatever makes money but doesn't offend God is a good thing. Left-wingers seem to think that individuals are keen, but they had better keep working for "the common good" and not piss off anybody. Both seem to take disagreement as some type of personal affront.
"Moderates" are compromisers and pragmatists with no firm beliefs other than the roads should be paved, the kids should be healthy, and there should be good stuff on TV. I.e., keep the ball rolling.
"Liberal" used to mean approximately what "libertarian" does today -- socially and economically lasseiz-faire -- but today means "left wing". "Conservative" seems to be a purely relative term; today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives. They are the ones saying "Hey! Not so fast! Turn that down!"
Objectivists come in two varieties. Type one is the True Believer type who believes and defends everything Rand said or wrote -- except the parts about questioning all authority and thinking for yourself. For them, time stands still. Type two accepts the objectivist philosophy but takes the additional step of recognizing, as Rand said, that when a philosophy does not agree with reality, it's not reality that's wrong.
In Rand's assessment, Objectivists are "radicals for capitalism", which requires some explaining. To her, capitalism was a different thing than what is labelled "capitalism" today. Capitalism in the objectivist formulation is social and economic freedom and justice. For instace, while the press may report that China is developing a "capitalist economy," to the objectivist thinker they are certainly not. They are simply loosening the shackles a little in order to make the proles work harder. And what the Republicans or Democrats trot out as "free trade" is not capitalism; it is governments lowering tarriffs and subsidies, yes; but it makes no provision for justice and freedom. For instance, "free trade" with China, which is a repressive dictatorship. And "free enterprise" is not capitalism. It seems to mean that individuals get to start licensed businesses doing approved things, and then lobby the government for special protections and subsidies. Capitalism rests on the premise that each person will work for themselves; neither enslaving or exploting others or being enslaved or exploited.
From Atlas Shrugged:
"The only proper propose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.,...,The only proper functions of government are: the police, to proteect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective [i.e., written, accessible and non-"colorable"] law."
Libertarians can be thought of as ex-republicans who like neither Pat Roberts nor Ayn Rand. Sort of objectivist moderates, without the philosophy. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; it means they can get aloong with other people and not try to be religious zealots about their pet issues. Many objectivists explain to people that they are Libertarians, because it's basically true, at least where political philosophy is concerned.
Just because the Libertarian Party isn't a branch of the Objectivist Thingie ("movement?") doesn't mean that they advocate different policies. To both of them, the means are much more important than the ends. The ends are no good if the means by which they were achieved are no good.
Whew. In summary, if you read Rand and like what she says, but aren't some kind of religious nutjob about it, you're probably a Libertarian, not on the "right wing."
Libertarians, as was noted, reject the single-axis "right-left wing" political coordinate system, because they see the left and right wing as equally authoritarian given the chance; just in different areas. I.e., the single axis from "left" to "right" makes no provision for people who believe in either freedom or totalitarianism. The Libertarians have a two-axis political coordinate system that takes them into account. Left and right are still left and right, but Libertarians are up and totalitarians/authoritarians are down.
As Nathanial Branden said, "freedom is still the most radical idea of all."
And as George W. Bush said, "there ought to be limits to freedom" -- a sentiment echoed far and wide in the American political establishment.
- - - - -
The US Air Force uses solid-state disks in at least some of its aircraft. They load the software right before takeoff. The idea is that, if the plan goes down or is captured, the pilot just has to power it down and all the software is lost, and then the plane is useless.
- - - - -
AI shell> get all files ending in tmp in my home place
OK, I've found 10 files for your request
AI shell> go to the place where my temporary files are stored
OK
AI shell> drop the files there
10 files dropped.
You have been eaten by a Grue.
- - - - -
Like I said, why are we a part of it again? :)
- - - - -
Star Trek: The Mantom Phenace?
- - - - -
Mmmm... unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucracies are exactly what I want running my life. Not. Why are we part of the UN again?
- - - - -
Einstein said that you should never memorize what you can look up.
- - - - -