According to Evolution the minute variations that happen every generation *are* random. True the ones that don't foster life drop off from DNA but according to Evolution the variations have no intelligent design or guide to them they're just a bunch random draws of the deck to see what works.
Evolution as a theory to explain how species evolved might make sense but it doesn't explain the genesis of life itself.
What it and those abiogenesis probability arguments don't get to at all is how did a bunch of inert stuff suddenly form into even the simplest of single cell living animals?
What gave it the instinct to live? Consciousness?
The jump to inert material to living organism is a quantum jump that can't be crossed by random incremental changes even for infinity.
The completely athiestic scientific viewpoint is to just write this enormous discrepancy as just "coincidence", "random", "it just is".
All those terms could just as well be described by "magic" or "divinity".
hehe... that's an amusing way of looking at it.
I'd mod this up if I could.
I'm totally against ignorant fundamentalists trying to discount scientific and rational thought, and trying to stick themselves where they don't belong, but that doesn't mean that I think there is actually something to the idea of what you could call "non-arbitrary genesis of life".
Maybe that's too high-level a subject to teach in HS. Leave it for the university philosophy and physics courses.
Evolution is a theory does not try to explain the origin of life. It's presupposed.
Intelligent Design may not necessarily be the workings of personalistic, Christian diety.
The origin of life, consciousness and the universe may be part of some intelligent design that is implemented in a manner that we observe as Evolution.
The true nature of reason and inquiry would be to allow skeptical discourse of any type to be allowed in education.
I think teaching something like, "And God created earth in seven days... end of lesson" would be ridiculous. Just as I think teaching "Intelligent Design" where it becomes a politically correct euphemism for "Our Christian God" is wrong.
On the other hand here's the type of belief that I don't believe:
"Everything started by a random bunch of molecules that just happened to form into life and consciousness"
A trillion to the trillion monkeys typing on typewriters for a trillion years will *not* write a play by Shakespeare.
Even if life somehow got started by some random bunch of molecules... how could it be sustained? How could the consciousness come from that?
The instinct of all animals to strive?
A completely athiestic scientific viewpoint is a dogma just like fundamentalist christianity.
Both think they have a complete understanding of everything. Both want to reduce all complexity and mystery into a simple rigid belief system.
The best thing to teach would be there is this theory called Evolution which explains how species change over time, but does not explain the origin of life.
The questions that we don't know the answer to should be taught as "we don't know".
Some people have the opinion that there is an Intelligent Design behind things. That's okay at face value....
but the problem is when all of a sudden they stick their own personal religion as the answer where there's no connection!
So great maybe there is an intelligent design to the universe.... what does that have to do with Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the burning bush and all the other ancient fairy tales that go with christianity?
And also just because the idea of "Intelligent Design" may be part of a biased christian agenda doesn't mean that the gist of it -- creation of life isn't random -- doesn't have merit.
This article seemed to belabour the obvious such as: If you drink too much it can increase nervousness, and cause rapid heartbeat and trembling hands.
Wow... did not know that.
I happened to watch something more informative but less optimistic about coffee last night on PBS. This was Dr. Perricone who has a diet book and all that.
There are plenty of reasons not to drink coffee. Coffee (and not necessarily just caffeine) elevates the hormone cortisol. Cortisol is a "stress" hormone that is needed but can do nasty stuff like:
Raise insulin levels, throwing your blood sugar level out of wack (Insulin and blood sugar is another subject altogether about how it causes obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.)
Cause your body to put on weight around the torso where the fat cells in that region have extra cortisol receptors
Acts as a catabolic agent which breaks down muscle tissue and is damaging to brain cells. In general it acts as a toxic substance at extended high levels
Now what is recommended is green tea which is loaded with anti-oxidants, much more than coffee. It also has the caffeine without the cortisol raising effect.
I've been trying to get into green tea but it's just not the same as coffee. In fact, I'm about to get a cup of joe right now...:P
An open letter from Linus or Stallman, or the heads of IBM or whatever make sense since they're directly involved.
So what is the deal with Bob Young? Why is he involved with this? Is this how everyone get's attention now - write an open letter to Darl?
I didn't see much in the letter that was particularly informative, insightful or articulate.
I want to see someone really let loose with a civil suit suing SCO's pants off, a class action lawsuit, or even better a SEC criminal investigation. These open letters to Darl just kind of make me yawn...
Well, those hilarious "joke" signs were deluded and misleading (ignorant too). How could you take being equated to communists or nazis or a thief anything but insulting?
What SCO is doing is not lighthearted fun. It could be very destructive to Linux.
When Darl McBride goes out to offer drinks to the protestors and shake their hand it doesn't make me think he's a swell guy. It reconfirms my opinion that he's a total weasel without a clue.
Yeah, but why not just use debian though in that case and save yourself some money. Actually there very little that comes exclusively from Lindows. Just about they do is ripped off. I believe the debian-based distro is actually closer to Xandros (formerly Corel, nowadays who knows what it is).
Just use debian or lycoris. Why support a fraudulent bunch of weasels?
Agreed. Lindows is not good for anything that I can see.
Their claim at having a "LindowsOS" is downright fraudulent. They are just another Linux distribution as anyone with a clue can figure out: Caldera/Debian style distro, KDE, and Wine.
Lindows is a sickening concoction of marketing weasel hype with Linux and other open source projects mixed in.
They shamelessly take advantage of the works of open source projects like Wine and KDE while contributing very little that's real or significant back. To add insult to injury they petulantly refuse to cooperate with the terms of the GPL licenses which they are compeled to follow. To allow that to continue only weakens all free-software/open-source projects everywhere.
Lindows is a throwback to the hyped out days of the dot-com bubble economy of just a few years ago. That's when merely registering the domain name "mp3.com" was considered a valid foundation of an entire business. Not that MP3.com hasn't done some since, but anything that has been done wasn't by Michael Robertson's efforts. His MO is to first exploit the work of open source software or standards, then create a huge legal hype controvesy posing as David for whatever goliath is handy. Then stand back in cash in on the hype that is created. No need to do anything real. It's all hot air and sleight of hand. All of the hype makes for easy PR the same way that open source projects make for "free" software for him to then charge ignorant customers for.
Lindows is not good for Linux if their fraudulent "OS" dissapoints people and gives Linux as a whole a bad name. Lindows is not good for the open source community if it's only "take" for them, instead of "give and take".
The marketing idea behind Lindows is to mid-size businesses and consumers to go them as an alternative to Windows. Compared to the money, and yearly licensing, that XP will cost paying a $100 for Lindows doesn't sound too bad.
Someone needs to make a truly "free" or "open" Linux/Window transition distro (it's probably already around: Lycoris, Windux?) to take the wind out of the sails of companies like Lindows.
I just happened to read a good book that explains the problem that I've just read here where capable people that do have a clue end up sabotaging their business by taking the wrong perspective on it. This is the book: The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and What to Do About It
In a nutshell one of the important points it makes is that what it takes to be a good "technician" is a lot different than what it takes to be a "entreprenuer". To start and run a successful business takes all three skills of: "technician", "manager" and "entreprenuer".
People that are very capable as a "technician" tend not to want to get out of that mode of operating and end up being overly involved and bogged in down details of the business. Something to think for anyone where this is already a problem or for anyone that is considering what it takes to get in their own business.
The monitoring and modification of HTTP traffic is definitely going on...
I should know since I just worked for a company that was doing it! And I just quit today of all things!
Another part of what it did was allow for "server" side pop-up ads created by the ISP not the content provider.
I think all of the ISP customers were not in the US though. All they had were ones in Italy, Mexico and Japan.
What the ISPs wanted was: a way to monitor and analyze end-user traffic, a way to create announcements and redirect to their own portals.
All of this was done by the monitoring of HTTP and RADIUS traffic.
There are at least a couple of proxies on the market that have APIs which allow for the modification and monitoring of HTTP traffic also. So I don't think it's any big secret that it's going on.
CodeWeavers has a lot of talented people working for it, and deserves to make money. A change of business model is the proper course. But adopting the (L)GPL as its "savior" is suicide for the company itself and damaging to everyone who would like to use WINE.
Seems like you're mixing up two different agendas: that of a particular company (your employer?) and that of WINE and open source in general.
I don't know the entire scoop, but I know that CodeWeavers did not start and do not own WINE, and it isn't their decision to go with the LGPL.
Of course, like all businesses, their motive is to make money and their agenda does not benefit everyones except their own and possibly yours I guess.
For the agenda to make money and eliminate competition it would be in their best interest to own and control all of WINE and make everyone pay for, just look at MS for a real-world example on that.
Some companies have some integrity and contribute back to the open source that they are using or benefiting from. That's what I would recommend.
Open source and proprietary each have their own place. Look to the other idealogue ESR for a more rationaly and slightly less obnoxious argument for open source.
Things like protocols, standards and commodities benefit from being open, things that are customized and specialized are just fine left proprietary.
Having a kick-ass windows emulator would be a great commodity for all linux distributions and would benefit everyone, except MS. If companies are going to cash in on the work of open source contributors then they should give back. The LGPL is the legal doc that gaurantees that arrangement.
Oh? In that case, why has Red Hat lost millions of dollars, making only an insignificant profit in a very few quarters due to Enron-like accounting tricks?
Well "insignificant" or not profit is profit. It's certainly an improvement over a loss.
Any substance to the Enron accusation?
Even if RedHat as a company was *not* making profit programmers like you and myself are still
getting paid regardless if the company makes a profit.
Remember: the purpose of the GPL, as stated by author Richard Stallman himself, is to destroy businesses that attempt to make money by producing software.
C'mon that's another ridiculous statement.
The goal of Stahlman has never been to prevent people from making money creating software. As obnoxious as he can be his goal has always been again closed source not making money. After all he, and Linus, and Larry Wall, and all the other open source gurus are all able to get top dollar for their work.
And out of all the open source related jobs out there: Linux sys admin, device drivers, embedded, web programmers, etc. there are plenty people who realize that it doesn't have to be an either/or thing with open source and making money.
In this particular instance what's at stake here is that a company can come in misrepresent that they have "created" an "OS", blow a lot of hype and then make money on other people's work without giving credit and without contributing back.
If any company benefits from "free" software then they shouldn't be able to own or fragment it. After all they got it for free themselves.
Companies can still make money in this way and regardless programmers and technology savvy people are always going to be making money even if the companies fail.
It's a matter of principal that WINE should be benefited from their relation with a company like Lindows instead of exploited, and that if you would like to see a superior technology succeed (as opposed to marketing monopoly) then you have to give credit how the GPL license contributed to the success of all of this.
If you don't want to then just stick to MS and VisualBasic -- there's plenty of money to be made there.
Actually it would close your ability to exploit other people's work for your own ends without contributing anything back.
That's the flip of side of your FUDy argument.
To think that your career is at risk if you look at GPL code and that the GPL makes things more closed is just kind of ridiculous. There are too many "for profit" companies that use and contribute to open source to make the GPL is for communists stance.
The foundation of linux/GNU is all GPL licensed of the strictest sort and that hasn't hurt anyones ability to make money off of it or use it. In fact that's the reason why it has succeeded. Love or hate the GPL for being a "viral" license, but it was that kind of license that enabled the "virus" of linux and open source to grow exponentially like it has.
The LGPL is a good compromise that allows proprietary use of WINE as a library while at the same time ensuring that changes to the core functionality used and needed by all gets contributed to. I think that's the way to go.
I'm normally antipathetic to the FSF dogma myself, but just like a good quote from a previous thread, paraphrased: it prevents weasels with long overcoats from standing on the shoulders of giants.
Why is this mod'ed to 2 and my previous post is still 0???
I would say the "recent events" were most definitely related to Lindows and its use of wine.
Lindows *does* use wine, KDE, linux kernel and all the rest, but the funny thing is that all of this really underplayed by the company.
They try and give the impression that they have their own OS or something. They don't at all. It's all linux kernel, KDE, and WINE with some of their own proprietary code thrown in somewhere, most likely part of the install/config process and additions to WINE to get it to work with their list of Windows apps they're trying to run.
I think it's perfectly fine if they use WINE, and whatknot *but* only if they give credit where it's due and contribute back to the work they are getting for free.
At least RedHat has made significant contributions to open source and (as far as I know) still keep everything open. Lindows gives the impression of being much more exploitative, especially if they're not planning on opening up their proprietary changes to WINE.
This isn't to totally slam Lindows and assume the worst of them, but there is a potential for abuse here. The way to prevent this is to have WINE use a GPL style license. This is one time where I actually appreciate whole FSF creed and see where it's necessary.
This could go either way... a company tries to exploit open source for it's own ends without giving anything back, flames out and then just basically rips everyone involved off...
OR
Lindows does a lot of good work on UI, desktop, and windows emulation and gives it back to the open source community to benefit all, not just Lindows.
I'm hoping for the second...
Why is it that the true life story of this guy sounds really fascininating and bizzare, yet I have no desire at all to see the movie since I can already predict the way it will be processed into a predictable set of cliches.
I would have liked to see a director like David
Lynch or Altman direct this. It would have been a lot more interesting.
Quake3 Arena, esp. with UrbanTerror mod
This is the only game I indulge in and it totally rocks. Loki does kick-ass work. The install is very smooth.
This was the final straw for the win side of my dual-boot box.
Nethack?!? Surely you jest...
That brings back bad memories of being stuck in the computer lab killing time...
FINALLY, slashdot wakes up and posts this
on
WinXP Security Flaw
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I first heard about this from the drudgereport and was just about to submit about this.
As far as the security hole goes I've heard even worse things are possible since XP now allows "raw" socket access to non-administrators.
There's a good article by Grieder that explains all about this at www.grc.com .
Considering the glowing review Katz's gave "Behind Enemy Lines" -- a mediocre Hollywood turd if there ever was one -- I'll take this review with many grains of NaCl.
I bet this is one of those types of movies with about 10 or 15 gags throughout the whole movie that are actually funny, and those are the same ones that they show a million times in the trailer.
Yeah, I second this opinion... this movie was mostly implausible and very formulaic. It's from the same guy that did "Top Gun" and it follows in that same vein. A much better modern war movie that comes to mind is "Three Kings" which was actually original and realistic at the same time. A movie like "Spy Games" also had lots implausiblities, but it had more of an actual complex plot and characters to follow.
Not that "Behind Enemy Lines" was all that terrible. In a lot of ways it seemed realistic capturing the feeling of regular military life on the ship, and also for what it must be like in a Bosnian territory. The ridiculous implausibilitis always came back though and ruined the realistic credibility. It's already been listed so I won't bother. The instance that grated me the most was where the protagonist is dodging bullets left and right from this highly trained and then with no explanation he's in a entirely different setting just walking around like it's no big deal.
I would say this movie is one of those "dumb pleasure" type movie that you know is totally predictable but satisfies your patriotic urge to see the military kick butt and also at times gave scenes that were realistic enough to let you imagine what it would be like in modern warfare.
So overall I'd give it a 2.5 out of 5. If it weren't for the latest events going on I'd probably give it a 1.
Don't you know that it would be totally typical that Richard Stallman, chief fanatical "free" software propagandist would see this as an opportunity to mouth off about his obnoxious and annoying opinions.
How dare he make some kind of comparison that the thousands of people killed, the worst attack on our nation *ever* would be lesser than the minimal loss in privacy for
For the most part I agree with the idea that privacy and the right to encryption is important, but I'm at a total loss why some people are totally hung up on it. Just like I can't at all understand Stallman's rabid obsession over the semantics of "free" vs "open source" or his obnoxious insistance that we call linux "GNU-Linux".
Stallman, you have written some good software and you also began a movement of sorts that spawned open source and Linux phenomenon, but other than you are truly an obnoxious a--hole and I have no respect for your personal beliefs or opinions on software or anything else.
Do the world a favor and write some good software, or else if you can't do that anymore keep your obnoxious opinions to yourself. Why don't you work on getting that big turd HURD off the ground. Or can you ever do that? Doubt it.
Just F off you kook.
On a side note:
The "Boston Church of Christ" is also known as the "International Church of Christ" and it not a regular church but actually a cult.
My brother got sucked in and I was just barely able to get him out. Like any other cult, they look for new members who are emotionally and mentally vulnerable, and ex-drug users are a prime target.
My brother and his friend who were involved were druggies.
Like any other cult, it's based on the personality and ego of a central figure, and they use fear and peer pressure mixed with group acceptance to totally dominate and control your life.
It is one nasty mind F*** that they can do to you.
You might want to do some research on cults and groups that practice mind control to help your friend out.
I agree totally.
> self-indulgent, spoiled playboy riding on the
> coattails of his father?
But you forgot to mention arrogant, hypocritical and incompetent...
Gore isn't very appealing, but Bush is absolutely terrible.
here's an equation
"George W. Bush Jr."
MINUS family name
MINUS insider connections
MINUS money (not earned)
what do you have left...
shmirking puppet head for right-wing and corporate america
It's like some kind of egotistical revenge trip of the Bush family to get their little junior in after Clinton whooped dad's ass or something.
This person has done nothing on his own!! It's pathetic.
The amount of empty posturing and flat-out lies that goes out unchallenged by the media is disgusting.
There is so much attention to polls and focus groups, and personality and scandal.
What about REALITY and ACOMPLISHMENTS.
Why doesn't the media tell us what these candidates have done, and what they probably will do?
Where's the substance?
Slashdot Mirror
According to Evolution the minute variations that happen every generation *are* random. True the ones that don't foster life drop off from DNA but according to Evolution the variations have no intelligent design or guide to them they're just a bunch random draws of the deck to see what works.
Evolution as a theory to explain how species evolved might make sense but it doesn't explain the genesis of life itself.
What it and those abiogenesis probability arguments don't get to at all is how did a bunch of inert stuff suddenly form into even the simplest of single cell living animals?
What gave it the instinct to live? Consciousness?
The jump to inert material to living organism is a quantum jump that can't be crossed by random incremental changes even for infinity.
The completely athiestic scientific viewpoint is to just write this enormous discrepancy as just "coincidence", "random", "it just is".
All those terms could just as well be described by "magic" or "divinity".
hehe... that's an amusing way of looking at it.
I'd mod this up if I could.
I'm totally against ignorant fundamentalists trying to discount scientific and rational thought, and trying to stick themselves where they don't belong, but that doesn't mean that I think there is actually something to the idea of what you could call "non-arbitrary genesis of life".
Maybe that's too high-level a subject to teach in HS. Leave it for the university philosophy and physics courses.
I think teaching something like, "And God created earth in seven days... end of lesson" would be ridiculous. Just as I think teaching "Intelligent Design" where it becomes a politically correct euphemism for "Our Christian God" is wrong.
On the other hand here's the type of belief that I don't believe:
"Everything started by a random bunch of molecules that just happened to form into life and consciousness"
A trillion to the trillion monkeys typing on typewriters for a trillion years will *not* write a play by Shakespeare.
Even if life somehow got started by some random bunch of molecules... how could it be sustained? How could the consciousness come from that? The instinct of all animals to strive?
A completely athiestic scientific viewpoint is a dogma just like fundamentalist christianity. Both think they have a complete understanding of everything. Both want to reduce all complexity and mystery into a simple rigid belief system.
The best thing to teach would be there is this theory called Evolution which explains how species change over time, but does not explain the origin of life.
The questions that we don't know the answer to should be taught as "we don't know".
Some people have the opinion that there is an Intelligent Design behind things. That's okay at face value.... but the problem is when all of a sudden they stick their own personal religion as the answer where there's no connection!
So great maybe there is an intelligent design to the universe.... what does that have to do with Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the burning bush and all the other ancient fairy tales that go with christianity?
Right. Good point.
And also just because the idea of "Intelligent Design" may be part of a biased christian agenda doesn't mean that the gist of it -- creation of life isn't random -- doesn't have merit.
If you drink too much it can increase nervousness, and cause rapid heartbeat and trembling hands.
Wow... did not know that.
I happened to watch something more informative but less optimistic about coffee last night on PBS.
This was Dr. Perricone who has a diet book and all that.
There are plenty of reasons not to drink coffee. Coffee (and not necessarily just caffeine) elevates the hormone cortisol. Cortisol is a "stress" hormone that is needed but can do nasty stuff like:
Now what is recommended is green tea which is loaded with anti-oxidants, much more than coffee. It also has the caffeine without the cortisol raising effect.
I've been trying to get into green tea but it's just not the same as coffee.
In fact, I'm about to get a cup of joe right now...
If it's that addictive it can't be good for you.
An open letter from Linus or Stallman, or the heads of IBM or whatever make sense since they're directly involved.
So what is the deal with Bob Young? Why is he involved with this? Is this how everyone get's attention now - write an open letter to Darl?
I didn't see much in the letter that was particularly informative, insightful or articulate.
I want to see someone really let loose with a civil suit suing SCO's pants off, a class action lawsuit, or even better a SEC criminal investigation.
These open letters to Darl just kind of make me yawn...
haha... that was good
Puts it all into perspective.
Well, those hilarious "joke" signs were deluded and misleading (ignorant too).
How could you take being equated to communists or nazis or a thief anything but insulting?
What SCO is doing is not lighthearted fun. It could be very destructive to Linux.
When Darl McBride goes out to offer drinks to the protestors and shake their hand it doesn't make me think he's a swell guy.
It reconfirms my opinion that he's a total weasel without a clue.
SCO Group/Canopy Group/Darl McBride == corporate thieving weasel scum ^ 2
I'd like to see these guys get theirs.
Yeah, but why not just use debian though in that case and save yourself some money.
Actually there very little that comes exclusively from Lindows. Just about they do is ripped off.
I believe the debian-based distro is actually closer to Xandros (formerly Corel, nowadays who knows what it is).
Just use debian or lycoris.
Why support a fraudulent bunch of weasels?
Why isn't this on slashdot yet??
Isn't it significant? Doesn't anyone know?
I don't get how so much trivial irrevelant things get submitted here but the big ones go right over everyone's head.
Agreed. Lindows is not good for anything that I can see.
Their claim at having a "LindowsOS" is downright fraudulent. They are just another Linux distribution as anyone with a clue can figure out: Caldera/Debian style distro, KDE, and Wine.
Lindows is a sickening concoction of marketing weasel hype with Linux and other open source projects mixed in.
They shamelessly take advantage of the works of open source projects like Wine and KDE while contributing very little that's real or significant back. To add insult to injury they petulantly refuse to cooperate with the terms of the GPL licenses which they are compeled to follow. To allow that to continue only weakens all free-software/open-source projects everywhere.
Lindows is a throwback to the hyped out days of the dot-com bubble economy of just a few years ago. That's when merely registering the domain name "mp3.com" was considered a valid foundation of an entire business. Not that MP3.com hasn't done some since, but anything that has been done wasn't by Michael Robertson's efforts. His MO is to first exploit the work of open source software or standards, then create a huge legal hype controvesy posing as David for whatever goliath is handy. Then stand back in cash in on the hype that is created. No need to do anything real. It's all hot air and sleight of hand. All of the hype makes for easy PR the same way that open source projects make for "free" software for him to then charge ignorant customers for.
Lindows is not good for Linux if their fraudulent "OS" dissapoints people and gives Linux as a whole a bad name. Lindows is not good for the open source community if it's only "take" for them, instead of "give and take".
The marketing idea behind Lindows is to mid-size businesses and consumers to go them as an alternative to Windows. Compared to the money, and yearly licensing, that XP will cost paying a $100 for Lindows doesn't sound too bad.
Someone needs to make a truly "free" or "open" Linux/Window transition distro (it's probably already around: Lycoris, Windux?) to take the wind out of the sails of companies like Lindows.
I just happened to read a good book that explains the problem that I've just read here where capable people that do have a clue end up sabotaging their business by taking the wrong perspective on it.
This is the book:
The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and What to Do About It
In a nutshell one of the important points it makes is that what it takes to be a good "technician" is a lot different than what it takes to be a "entreprenuer". To start and run a successful business takes all three skills of: "technician", "manager" and "entreprenuer".
People that are very capable as a "technician" tend not to want to get out of that mode of operating and end up being overly involved and bogged in down details of the business.
Something to think for anyone where this is already a problem or for anyone that is considering what it takes to get in their own business.
The monitoring and modification of HTTP traffic is definitely going on...
I should know since I just worked for a company that was doing it! And I just quit today of all things!
Another part of what it did was allow for "server" side pop-up ads created by the ISP not the content provider.
I think all of the ISP customers were not in the US though. All they had were ones in Italy, Mexico and Japan.
What the ISPs wanted was: a way to monitor and analyze end-user traffic, a way to create announcements and redirect to their own portals.
All of this was done by the monitoring of HTTP and RADIUS traffic.
There are at least a couple of proxies on the market that have APIs which allow for the modification and monitoring of HTTP traffic also. So I don't think it's any big secret that it's going on.
CodeWeavers has a lot of talented people working for it, and deserves to make money. A change of business model is the proper course. But adopting the (L)GPL as its "savior" is suicide for the company itself and damaging to everyone who would like to use WINE.
Seems like you're mixing up two different agendas: that of a particular company (your employer?) and that of WINE and open source in general.
I don't know the entire scoop, but I know that CodeWeavers did not start and do not own WINE, and it isn't their decision to go with the LGPL.
Of course, like all businesses, their motive is to make money and their agenda does not benefit everyones except their own and possibly yours I guess.
For the agenda to make money and eliminate competition it would be in their best interest to own and control all of WINE and make everyone pay for, just look at MS for a real-world example on that.
Some companies have some integrity and contribute back to the open source that they are using or benefiting from. That's what I would recommend.
Open source and proprietary each have their own place. Look to the other idealogue ESR for a more rationaly and slightly less obnoxious argument for open source.
Things like protocols, standards and commodities benefit from being open, things that are customized and specialized are just fine left proprietary.
Having a kick-ass windows emulator would be a great commodity for all linux distributions and would benefit everyone, except MS. If companies are going to cash in on the work of open source contributors then they should give back. The LGPL is the legal doc that gaurantees that arrangement.
Oh? In that case, why has Red Hat lost millions of dollars, making only an insignificant profit in a very few quarters due to Enron-like accounting tricks?
Well "insignificant" or not profit is profit. It's certainly an improvement over a loss.
Any substance to the Enron accusation?
Even if RedHat as a company was *not* making profit programmers like you and myself are still
getting paid regardless if the company makes a profit.
Remember: the purpose of the GPL, as stated by author Richard Stallman himself, is to destroy businesses that attempt to make money by producing software.
C'mon that's another ridiculous statement.
The goal of Stahlman has never been to prevent people from making money creating software. As obnoxious as he can be his goal has always been again closed source not making money. After all he, and Linus, and Larry Wall, and all the other open source gurus are all able to get top dollar for their work.
And out of all the open source related jobs out there: Linux sys admin, device drivers, embedded, web programmers, etc. there are plenty people who realize that it doesn't have to be an either/or thing with open source and making money.
In this particular instance what's at stake here is that a company can come in misrepresent that they have "created" an "OS", blow a lot of hype and then make money on other people's work without giving credit and without contributing back.
If any company benefits from "free" software then they shouldn't be able to own or fragment it. After all they got it for free themselves.
Companies can still make money in this way and regardless programmers and technology savvy people are always going to be making money even if the companies fail.
It's a matter of principal that WINE should be benefited from their relation with a company like Lindows instead of exploited, and that if you would like to see a superior technology succeed (as opposed to marketing monopoly) then you have to give credit how the GPL license contributed to the success of all of this.
If you don't want to then just stick to MS and VisualBasic -- there's plenty of money to be made there.
Yeah, right...
Actually it would close your ability to exploit other people's work for your own ends without contributing anything back.
That's the flip of side of your FUDy argument.
To think that your career is at risk if you look at GPL code and that the GPL makes things more closed is just kind of ridiculous. There are too many "for profit" companies that use and contribute to open source to make the GPL is for communists stance.
The foundation of linux/GNU is all GPL licensed of the strictest sort and that hasn't hurt anyones ability to make money off of it or use it. In fact that's the reason why it has succeeded. Love or hate the GPL for being a "viral" license, but it was that kind of license that enabled the "virus" of linux and open source to grow exponentially like it has.
The LGPL is a good compromise that allows proprietary use of WINE as a library while at the same time ensuring that changes to the core functionality used and needed by all gets contributed to. I think that's the way to go.
I'm normally antipathetic to the FSF dogma myself, but just like a good quote from a previous thread, paraphrased: it prevents weasels with long overcoats from standing on the shoulders of giants.
Why is this mod'ed to 2 and my previous post is still 0???
I would say the "recent events" were most definitely related to Lindows and its use of wine.
Lindows *does* use wine, KDE, linux kernel and all the rest, but the funny thing is that all of this really underplayed by the company. They try and give the impression that they have their own OS or something. They don't at all. It's all linux kernel, KDE, and WINE with some of their own proprietary code thrown in somewhere, most likely part of the install/config process and additions to WINE to get it to work with their list of Windows apps they're trying to run.
I think it's perfectly fine if they use WINE, and whatknot *but* only if they give credit where it's due and contribute back to the work they are getting for free.
At least RedHat has made significant contributions to open source and (as far as I know) still keep everything open. Lindows gives the impression of being much more exploitative, especially if they're not planning on opening up their proprietary changes to WINE.
This isn't to totally slam Lindows and assume the worst of them, but there is a potential for abuse here. The way to prevent this is to have WINE use a GPL style license. This is one time where I actually appreciate whole FSF creed and see where it's necessary.
This could go either way... a company tries to exploit open source for it's own ends without giving anything back, flames out and then just basically rips everyone involved off...
OR
Lindows does a lot of good work on UI, desktop, and windows emulation and gives it back to the open source community to benefit all, not just Lindows.
I'm hoping for the second...
Why is it that the true life story of this guy sounds really fascininating and bizzare, yet I have no desire at all to see the movie since I can already predict the way it will be processed into a predictable set of cliches.
I would have liked to see a director like David
Lynch or Altman direct this. It would have been a lot more interesting.
Quake3 Arena, esp. with UrbanTerror mod
This is the only game I indulge in and it totally rocks. Loki does kick-ass work. The install is very smooth.
This was the final straw for the win side of my dual-boot box.
Nethack?!? Surely you jest...
That brings back bad memories of being stuck in the computer lab killing time...
I first heard about this from the drudgereport and was just about to submit about this.
As far as the security hole goes I've heard even worse things are possible since XP now allows "raw" socket access to non-administrators.
There's a good article by Grieder that explains all about this at www.grc.com .
Considering the glowing review Katz's gave "Behind Enemy Lines" -- a mediocre Hollywood turd if there ever was one -- I'll take this review with many grains of NaCl.
I bet this is one of those types of movies with about 10 or 15 gags throughout the whole movie that are actually funny, and those are the same ones that they show a million times in the trailer.
Yeah, I second this opinion... this movie was mostly implausible and very formulaic. It's from the same guy that did "Top Gun" and it follows in that same vein. A much better modern war movie that comes to mind is "Three Kings" which was actually original and realistic at the same time. A movie like "Spy Games" also had lots implausiblities, but it had more of an actual complex plot and characters to follow.
Not that "Behind Enemy Lines" was all that terrible. In a lot of ways it seemed realistic capturing the feeling of regular military life on the ship, and also for what it must be like in a Bosnian territory. The ridiculous implausibilitis always came back though and ruined the realistic credibility. It's already been listed so I won't bother. The instance that grated me the most was where the protagonist is dodging bullets left and right from this highly trained and then with no explanation he's in a entirely different setting just walking around like it's no big deal.
I would say this movie is one of those "dumb pleasure" type movie that you know is totally predictable but satisfies your patriotic urge to see the military kick butt and also at times gave scenes that were realistic enough to let you imagine what it would be like in modern warfare.
So overall I'd give it a 2.5 out of 5. If it weren't for the latest events going on I'd probably give it a 1.
Don't you know that it would be totally typical that Richard Stallman, chief fanatical "free" software propagandist would see this as an opportunity to mouth off about his obnoxious and annoying opinions.
How dare he make some kind of comparison that the thousands of people killed, the worst attack on our nation *ever* would be lesser than the minimal loss in privacy for
For the most part I agree with the idea that privacy and the right to encryption is important, but I'm at a total loss why some people are totally hung up on it. Just like I can't at all understand Stallman's rabid obsession over the semantics of "free" vs "open source" or his obnoxious insistance that we call linux "GNU-Linux".
Stallman, you have written some good software and you also began a movement of sorts that spawned open source and Linux phenomenon, but other than you are truly an obnoxious a--hole and I have no respect for your personal beliefs or opinions on software or anything else.
Do the world a favor and write some good software, or else if you can't do that anymore keep your obnoxious opinions to yourself. Why don't you work on getting that big turd HURD off the ground. Or can you ever do that? Doubt it.
Just F off you kook.
On a side note:
The "Boston Church of Christ" is also known as the "International Church of Christ" and it not a regular church but actually a cult.
My brother got sucked in and I was just barely able to get him out. Like any other cult, they look for new members who are emotionally and mentally vulnerable, and ex-drug users are a prime target.
My brother and his friend who were involved were druggies.
Like any other cult, it's based on the personality and ego of a central figure, and they use fear and peer pressure mixed with group acceptance to totally dominate and control your life.
It is one nasty mind F*** that they can do to you.
You might want to do some research on cults and groups that practice mind control to help your friend out.
I agree totally.
> self-indulgent, spoiled playboy riding on the
> coattails of his father?
But you forgot to mention arrogant, hypocritical and incompetent...
Gore isn't very appealing, but Bush is absolutely terrible.
here's an equation
"George W. Bush Jr."
MINUS family name
MINUS insider connections
MINUS money (not earned)
what do you have left...
shmirking puppet head for right-wing and corporate america
It's like some kind of egotistical revenge trip of the Bush family to get their little junior in after Clinton whooped dad's ass or something.
This person has done nothing on his own!! It's pathetic.
The amount of empty posturing and flat-out lies that goes out unchallenged by the media is disgusting.
There is so much attention to polls and focus groups, and personality and scandal.
What about REALITY and ACOMPLISHMENTS.
Why doesn't the media tell us what these candidates have done, and what they probably will do?
Where's the substance?
...okay I'm fine now. Just had to rant a little.