So you're saying that since, 4 years ago, I went to LinuxMall and purchased 4 versions of Linux, including Caldera's, then they won't sue me. Well, that's nice.
Nonetheless, I still contend that they are attempting to steal the work and IP of thousands of developers. That is wrong. That is theft.
Maybe the proper answer would be open-source, distributed lawsuits. Like, 10000 individual lawsuits against SCO, all at once, in every venue imaginable. Each of which can be resolved by them signing away all rights to all GNU software, and aside from that can only be resolved through them either fighting or losing case after case after case. I mean, if getting their lawyer to each venue costs only $500+10 hrs, but the lawyer is charging $50/hr [unheard of cheapo], then each time the lawyer has to show up, that's $1000. $1000 x $10,000 = $10 Million, times the number of times the lawyer has to show up.
I've picked my numbers low. SCO's legal fees could easily run into the billions, just for fighting the lawsuits.
Therefore, distributed attacking penguins could concievably work. Just arrange things so that if you win, or if SCO gives up all rights to GNU, it stops there, and they don't hit any other bumps. Be a gracious victor: the point is not to go to war, the point is to get out of the war intact as quickly as possible, and stay out where possible.
You mean like library card accounts? Where you simply swipe your card through, and that's your account?
Or like, alternatively, two single accounts (pub_fil, pub_no_fil) with passwords that change every day, as is on the Kinko's computers?
You know, this would be a ton safer for other reasons, too. You can't mess up the browser for every other user by visiting a site with bonzi-buddy toolbar auto-installer.
No, I am not trolling. Everything I said here, I completely believe. If you want to call me to task on an issue, if you want to talk about anything I said, I will reply, and I will reply genuinely. I will only stop replying if I decide that your replies are not genuine.
What that means is that is that if you *can* shoot down one or more of my arguments, you'll actually be going quite a ways towards changing what I think.
On the other hand, in order to do that, you have to risk the same yourself.
Okay, now I can hear myself. This was not insightful. This was troll, although a very standard troll that is used in the media, especially on abortion issues.
First, you're overplaying an impossibe hypothetical. That's not a valid argument.
Second a person doesn't have to tell a librarian *why* they want the filters off, they just have to tell the librarian "oh, and filters off". Librarian says "fine."
Third, clearly this hypothetical person has made a real mistake before that. There is *one* safe kind of sex, and it is called "sex within marriage". Every other kind of sex is actually a form of violence, because it violates the family (either preexisting, or to come). [Ask any guy whether he won't feel jealous of some other guy with his wife, and he'll say yes. That extramarital sex does do violence to relationships. So the girl and her boyfriend have already done one thing wrong.]
Fourth, the boyfriend has done violence to the girl, with his cheating and the STD. If you want to lay blame, don't lay it on a internet filter. Lay it where it belongs: with the cheating boyfriend [as well as her own stupidity.]
Fifth, at least fifty percent of that STD equation is the guy. At least. Now, guys who are exposed to porn do get their interest in sex activated sooner than guys who are not exposed to porn. Most guys are visually oriented. So the internet filters go a long ways towards reducing the STD problem.
Sixth: there aren't girls who don't know that an STD needs to be treated by a doctor [family, or clinic, or hospital] who are intelligent enough to properly search the information out on the internet.
*sigh*. I'm going to be flamed to death on this one, but I'm still signing my name. I'm just going to pull on my asbestos underwear, the ones labeled "The flames aren't rational -- they're based on 'I want'."
Okay, flame away if you will. But that parent post is not insightful, just inciteful.
Use Win4Lin to set up a virtual Windows box within Linux. Let that be your server, which then runs thin computers.
Then have the setting be "filter on".
Then require each user to log on and log off when they're done. If a user wants filters off, he can ask. Kids get told "no".
When the person logs off, it goes back to standard mode.
This is an advantage, too, in that you can use any of your old computers just as easily as the new computers, because its only a thin blade. It's cheaper. It's linux.
P.S. I approve of the Supreme Court decision, and specifically disapprove of librarians in certain areas who refused parental requests to keep their own kids off the computers, or not allow porn, or to inform them. Those librarians were taking "in loco parentis" to new orders of magnitude, and helped create this problem in the first place.
You want freedom, live rightly. If you live as a predator on your neighbor's back, you're not going to remain free very long.
Oh yes: one other thing. When you keep a list of all those sites that are blocked but shouldn't be? Don't try to overturn the law. Simply unblock those sites. Duh. Techies sure can be stupid when they want to be.
... that they had to send out the C&Ds because the information just wasn't accurate.
Yeah, it's a dual 940 system... but you can link two together to get a QUAD with 1.85 times the average speed...... and since they run GCC, all their server software is together and debugged...... and THAT would work to their advantage
Excuse me. I'm drooling. I've got to go wipe my mouth.
I don't know if you are referring to scientific journals. Scientific journals typically do not pay, because the people who are publishing have grants from the government, typically, and there are no advertisements.
I am referring to "niche" journals, probably including such journals as COTS, also hobby magazines, technical showcase journals, and thelike, which are chock full of advertisements, but also have quality articles. They need quality articles in order to remain of interest to their customer base, and therefore they will pay.
We think that we are the only ones who've ever had running septic systemsYou mean like the Romans? who moved mountains You mean the pyramids? , and now, it appears, to use binary [maybe we're the first, maybe not. Base-60 was Babylonian, from which we get our hour. Chinese developed base-5 music, base ten is from our hands. Cultures develop number systems that are useful to them.]
The more we learn, the more we forget. Nice aphorism, but is it true? For example, who can tell me the best mix of Bronze?Start Here, once you know your application. Your "best mix" is always application-dependent. Not many now. No, just most ESMs and metallurgical engineers. There can't be more than 30 of those that graduate from each Tech University each year, so that would be about 120,000 in America. How about what's best to plant after sowing rye for two years? Ummm. That would be Lithuanian farmers. Their biggest crop is rye, possibly after potatoes, so they definitely would know. But it depends on a lot of things -- start here. But I expect most Aggie schools could tell you, depending on where you live.
As we move into a more technological society, there is quite a bit of knowledge we are losing. Not true at all. You just are not aware of it. The knowledge is being maintained and built on every single year. This is largely because of population growth. Get a population crash, and I grant that it is possible for information to be lost, though that information that is *preserved* in books can later be relearned. Books, not computers, since books last a good bit longer, provided that the paper is non-acidic.
Not only that, but information which *was* lost, due to population crashes, is being rediscovered through modern technology.
So we aren't losing information -- far from it. We are keeping the information, and gaining it. But you, yourself, like any other one person, cannot keep abreast of it all, so you *think* we are losing information. And that, really, is my point.
That answer is in Don Lancaster's "Incredible Secret Money Machine":
(1) start writing magazine articles, all along as you go. Get those magazine articles published in a journal [that's pay right there.]
(2) All along, as you produce magazine articles, make sure your magazine articles give away real secrets, but not the most valuable ones -- just hint at where the answers are for those. That's your advertising. When companies call with questions, CONSULT. [More money].
(3) Not all your eggs go in one basket. Teaching at a community college can be very helpful. [More Money!] Watch where the market takes you, and work first on the stuff that pays. [That's where the money is].
(4) Live cheap, not expensively. Don't get an expensive studio -- use a shed. Every dollar saved is like $2 or more, earned, when you count taxes, expenses, and whatnot. [Like more money]. Also, no SB loans! [Unless you want to work for the bank, and wind up homeless].
(5) When you have enough magazine articles, rework slightly to make uniform and publish in book format. More money.
That's all I remember offhand right now, but that's the gist of the book. My experience is that insofar as I follow that formula, it's a pretty good formula. I'm not able to follow it 100%, but you won't be able to either. This is just a general roadmap.
You get a nice job based on a tie -- and guess what, you have to sign one of those employment contracts that says "all your ideas/work/art are belong to us."
At which point, at least according to Caldera, means that Linux will belong dually to Caldera and this other company, and they will hit each other on the head for a while ---
-- way too messy.
Sorry, but when you're on the road to serfdom, often there aren't any good answers, and yes, the economy stalls.
You know, my brother's interpretation of an economy is "people doing things for each other", and he feels that a good economy is more valuable than gold. But when people take to stealing, then the economy STOPS.
[BTW, I'm happy to forgive any and all thieves, including SCO, Microsoft, Paypal, any Linux developers who stole code from SCO, and others. Someone want to let me know when the thieves are happy to stop stealing?]
In a very real way, I own my wife and child; they own me.
If another person comes in and trespasses, pulls a gun on me and shoots me dead, and steals my function, they can probably force my wife and child to "act" in some of the same ways as they do with me. But they can't own them. Owning is how you invest yourself, and ends up being identical with who you are.
Open and honest marriage involves owning each other in a way that a rapist never can own a person.
Now, Linux was developed under a specific set of conditions, open, and [hopefully, and at least for the most part] honest. SCO wants to steal that. They have a gun that like a Saturday Night Special sometimes blows up in your face, but often works just as intended.
But they don't want to own Linux. That would take honesty, and really posessing what is Linux.
SCO wants to steal Linux. There's a huge difference. In my book, they are software pirates.
This type of business strategy -- utterly bereft of moral values -- has not entirely faded from view.
Has not faded from view? This strategy fits neoliberal capitalism to a tee, and it isn't just a threat to Linux. It's a threat to real families in Zaire, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela [let's not forget America's little revolution, shall we?], India [Bhopal disaster still not cleaned up],... and soon, coming to a site near you.
You know, there is a group that rates the honesty of governments by asking businesses how many bribes they have to pay in each country. I think that's significant, because a moral businessman would not pay bribes, period. I'd love to see surveys of government judges, customs officials, and so on, asking "which companies offer to pay you bribes?" But they go hand in hand in neoliberal capitalism.
Using governments to help you steal is a hallmark of the method.
When SCO said "Give communism a try: free Linux", they were specificially saying "we represent [neoliberal] capitalism," and setting Linux against us therefore supports communism. [Note that I put [neoliberal] in brackets: they wouldn't have said neoliberal, they would have said just capitalism.]
In a way, they're right. Back in the cold war days, it seemed that there were to geopolitical forces: nominally capitalism and communism, they were really neoliberal capitalism and Marxism. Other movements just didn't seem to have the force that these two did.
But in a way, I believe they're wrong. In reality, I think that Malachai Martin [The Vatican] was right: there is and was a third geopolitical force, and it is pushed by an institution that is older than either force, and sometimes seems as corrupt: the Vatican. And when it comes down to it, I keep on finding myself on that third side: what they say, I agree with.
Okay, this thing sounds like Linux, so I have two questions:
(1) is there a way to packet-sniff/log your own outgoing packets, in order to find out the size of your own outgoing packets, and *see* if this is on your own system? Sorry, I'm still learning on my own about Linux, and haven't yet mastered security. My ISP does some firewalling, so that helps, but really I'm on borrowed time, so I hope to pick things up as I go.
(2) This might be really stupid, might be unrelated, but might be of concern: I have a directory/tmp/ssh-XXJwekKd , with a file in it that shows up in the directory listing, but can't be "more"'d, even as superuser.
Okay, if you want a 3D mesh, here's what I would do:
(1) Encase the thing in a black box [or work at night], and put a light on the y-axis of the scanner, and a red light on the axis of the rotisserie, near it, but not inside it [of course]
For your lights, use a good small fluorescent bulb.
(2) Run a normal scan. (3) Light the thing from the North with blue light, and from the west with red light. Keep each light as *close* to the rotisserie as possible, and on the scanner side [of course]. (4) Run another normal scan.
Now, let's just take the blue light as an example. The intensity of the light decreases with the square of the distance from the light as it impinges on the skull's surface. So the brighter the blue-shift of the colors, the closer the point is to the blue light. Same goes for the red light. [The distance from the point to the scanner is not constant, and will affect this, but can be calculated.]
So align your pictures, and then you subtract off the previous exposure, leaving your "red/blue intensity map."
Now you have to modify the result of this by the reflectivity of the model -- but that information is contained in the original scan. Base Intensity * Reflectivity = Color intensity, so the reverse applies: calculate the distance to and from the model [start with an estimate: the rotisserie height, but recursively refine] to get the Base Intenisty, read the Color Intensity from the original scan, and that will give you the local reflectivity. Divide your red-blue map by the reflectivity, of each particular point, and you get back the Base Intensity of your red-blue map.
Take this intensity map to a png file, and then using some known values [based on the geometry of your setup, and some basic measurements] calculate the xyz coordinates of each point.
Run this routine recursively 2-3 times to get better ("good enough") accuracy.
For even better accuracy, you could use white light, but vary the intensity of your x-axis and y-axis bulb, and read the differences. Use that information to calculate the distance from the bulb to the model to the scanner.
First, I'd note that taking $12,000 is bad -- but it won't ruin anyone's life. You start putting a person in debt, and then it's got potential for ruining a person's life.
What they've done in this case, though, is taken it to the next step. They've sent C&D letters.
Now, a C&D letter doesn't ruin a person's life -- but it actually tells a person "swap another RIAA music file, and you've ruined your own life, unless your life's goal is to become a poster child.
I don't support the RIAA pushing for more IP law. But I *do* support their choice in this case. And let me be clear -- I don't support IP law, because I think it encourages people to break the law, and that can destroy a country.
But if I don't support IP law, I really hate to see people breaking the law. What they're doing is one step closer, one step more immediate, and one step more obvious in the downfall of our nation, so it is several orders more culpable.
You know, I don't like IP law -- but it is the law, and I actually try to follow it and obey it. Further, since it is being upheld, one can be reasonably sure that there is a penalty.
The benefit of having a well-enforced law is that you get economic investment, because people can be reasonably sure that their investments will pay off. In other words, following the law leads to a well-performing economy. That being the case, RIAA has built their business model on the law as it is [not the law as it should be, and there are admittedly economic costs to that], and in reality that is the only business model that a business can follow that will be successful: the law as it is.
That said, I only have to compare this case of them sending a C&D letter, with SCO, who wants to try to sue for a grand lottery prize of everyone else's code, without showing the victims the code and giving them a chance to clean it themselves.
Which would you have? RIAA going after someone without warning, and confiscating their $12000 in order to avoid a $30000 trial? Or them sending a C&D letter, which actually gives the person a choice to avoid the $12000 loss?
Now, I fault the RIAA in a lot of places, and one of them is in pushing for more restrictive IP law.
But them sending a C&D letter is like them helping define for those 5 swappers what exactly the law will be in their case. At this juncture, those five users can decide where they want to invest themselves.
I don't often say it, but RIAA, GOOD CHOICE! I support that decision.
[Sorry about the caps, but I have to shout really loud from Lithuania for them to hear me.]
Subject: Intellectual property US Citizen [yes] Constituent [No]
Mr. Hatch, I respect your current attempts to update your license on your menu. Intent to comply is very indicative of desire. I, too, try to follow every IP law that you guys write for us. The burden is heavy.
However, I would like to point out a bit of philosophy about IP law that has direct effects on the US economy.
I think you should reconsider your position, based on the position of right and wrong.
When you read this, think about natural rights vs. granted rights, and natural law vs. granted law.
(1) Whenever a government violates natural law, it hurts the efficiency of the law, it hurts the economy, and it hurts the government, moving the country toward a state of anarchy. Natural law are those laws that follow from our nature. Sometimes, we do write granted law: a law that is not natural, a law that violates property, or freedom of thought [religion], or the right to defend oneself [2nd Amendment]. The reason we do this is that life without charity and only according to natural law is hard. Yet with all the damage that unnatural law does, it should only be written with great trepidation.
Congress, by the way, is not real good at this one. Look at the size of our law libraries if you doubt me.
Think about my statement: Every unnatural law hurts the economy more than it helps. This is because it hinders economic production. Real wealth depends on production, not on wealth transfer. It is also because granted law makes the economic climate unsure: you don't know if the proceeds of your investment will come back to you or be transferred to another, so you are more hesitant to invest.
(2) Intellectual property is not natural law. The right to work is natural law [that is, to labor to the best of your abilities to better your condition]. Natural law is not to say what a man can do and cannot do to better his condition. Or another way: If I have knowledge, it is natural for me to use it.
(3) Intellectual property is a monopoly. There are two kinds of monopoly: the monopoly of being the only one able to do a job, which is a natural monopoly, and a granted monopoly, which is an unnatural monopoly. The US Constition authorizes some kinds of intellectual property, in an effort to reduce the former monopoly -- but current law increases the latter monopoly much more.
I would argue that it is usually better to allow natural monopolies -- but the fact remains that our Constitution allows otherwise, and I accept that.
Yet the Constitution does not stipulate a set time -- it allows the government to set an undefined limited term of monopoly.
Mr. Hatch, I would like you to consider that monopolies of every kind: copyrights, patents, and any other kind appropriate, be shortened, not lengthened. Already we begin to see the damage done by our IP law, and it is driving real business away, and encouraging investment in "patent firms", which do no real development or manufacturing, but consist only of lawyers who patent, wait for another firm to develop something, and sue.
It is destroying the fastest-growing segments of our information infrastructure as well, such as the Open Source Software that NASA uses.
Already it is encouraging companies to require employees to sign horrible agreements to sign away all rights to all inventions, and thus stifling innovation.
But I don't ask you to consider just the economic effects. Please consider the *philosophy* behind my claims, and see if that is true. If it is, only then consider the economic effects.
Could you do this little by little?
on
Win4Lin 5.0 Reviewed
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm just wondering: Couldn't you push Linux for the things that Linux is good for? Get two or three machines for starters, just running the servers?
Then get one to two for work, and on those put Win4Lin. Argue that as a supplement, it's better. Then when someone wants to be using MS Word, they'll think "Fast or slow? I'll pick fast."
Next, start pushing hiring decisions in favor of those who know how to use and program Linux, where their spare time could be used to help script and such.
Doing it this way, you could argue that the company depends less on any one system, and is more resilient for surprise customer requests.
I can imagine that IBM might care about the GPL. After all, it gives them:
(1) a free, very dedicated, and huge developer base for code that runs on their systems
(2) A ton of good will from said coder-base, thus sales into the future are much more likely
(3) It helps keep down that upstart competitor from the NorthWest.
At this point, there are just too many computer-savvy people to make "Only IBM" a reality. The code will be developed, one way or another. So IBM's best bet is "IBM at the head of the stack of everyone." Since IBM has invested in Linux, IBM does have reason to push development under Linux.
These reasons lead me to believe that yes, IBM does care about the GPL. Not for the sake of the GPL, but for the sake of their own business. So I'd say that their motivation is dual, and if given a choice between "let SCO destroy Linux, and we squash SCO" and "squash SCO before SCO destroys Linux", they'll likely choose the latter, even defending Linux in court.
When it's the masse rabble against the castle, it's usually a ton better to be the guy directing the rabble, than to be the guy in the castle. Especially if the guy directing the rabble also has access to a ton of munitions. I think IBM has already chosen their spot, and that's where they'll be. This one doesn't look to me like what America pulled on Iraqi Sikhs ("yeah, rise up, and we'll support you, probably").
First, let me point out that IBM does not have the right to transfer the rights of individual developers the world over, to SCO. So even if they put SCO code into the kernel, SCO could at most require it to be removed. Whether that would require the removal of whole programs, or individual sections of code, is up to individual lawsuits of SCO against individual developers. Those lawsuits, in turn, would probably turn on such things as whether the developer knew that this was SCO code.
If I sue John in a court of law, I can't ask the court to award me Bill's house. That lawsuit has to be against Bill. And I *definitely* can't sue Mary for living in the house that she rented in good faith from Bill, especially before said lawsuit against Bill reaches a conclusion.
Nonetheless, the MD5 hash checking [of the 5-line segments, as described on slashdot]] still will be useful. First, it will tell us what code coincides. That allows us to look for BSD coincidences: BSD source automatically cleans that code. We don't have to worry about it. Next, it allows us to track down and start talking to individual developers, to find out where the code came from: published material in a textbook that predates SCO's work cleans code also. Finally, for those programs that remain unsure, it allows us to immediately start recoding those programs or finding alternatives, so that even before any decision [like my hypothetical lawsuit vs. Mary vs. Bill vs. John above] the code can be clean. In that way, no work is ever legally held to be derivative. Only former work is held to be derivative, which is a major difference, especially against Microsoft's / SCO's / Forbes' FUD.
Just out of wondering, I wonder how to get a Sourceforge "code cleaning project" going. Could that be done?
Might I note that if you look at all those other links to Linux@Office articles on Forbes' website, Forbes is definitely trying to slam Linux with some major FUD. From what I can tell, this is fairly recent
But these articles don't have substance: that is, as far as I can tell, they are designed to play to the court of public opinion, and little else. After all, the fact that other minor players caved does not mean that IBM is going to cave. And the article did not look at one iota of the substance of the lawsuit.
So Forbes is definitely in on this too, and not so much for SCO, as against Linux. But that being the case, one must remember that Forbes has a ton of readers who play the stocks.
I think I begin to see why SCO's stock is climbing so high.
Now, someone please just tell me that Forbes didn't just get a $10 million M$ advertising contract, or isn't selling their own SCO stock, Merrill-Lynch style.
Actually, here is my understanding, also possibly quite faulty:
The supernova does not explode smoothly -- rather, it explodes quickly in some regions, and slowly in others. Further, hypersonic (megasonic?) turbulence creates "pockets" that are all at the same pressure and temperature, and in these pockets you get one kind of element or another kind of an element forming. So you really can end up with "gold" asteroids [though not many], or iron, or nickel, or what have you, but in large quantity.
That said, I don't know if my understanding of the theory is correct, and if correct I don't know if the theory itself is correct.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that since, 4 years ago, I went to LinuxMall and purchased 4 versions of Linux, including Caldera's, then they won't sue me. Well, that's nice.
Nonetheless, I still contend that they are attempting to steal the work and IP of thousands of developers. That is wrong. That is theft.
Maybe the proper answer would be open-source, distributed lawsuits. Like, 10000 individual lawsuits against SCO, all at once, in every venue imaginable. Each of which can be resolved by them signing away all rights to all GNU software, and aside from that can only be resolved through them either fighting or losing case after case after case. I mean, if getting their lawyer to each venue costs only $500+10 hrs, but the lawyer is charging $50/hr [unheard of cheapo], then each time the lawyer has to show up, that's $1000. $1000 x $10,000 = $10 Million, times the number of times the lawyer has to show up.
I've picked my numbers low. SCO's legal fees could easily run into the billions, just for fighting the lawsuits.
Therefore, distributed attacking penguins could concievably work. Just arrange things so that if you win, or if SCO gives up all rights to GNU, it stops there, and they don't hit any other bumps. Be a gracious victor: the point is not to go to war, the point is to get out of the war intact as quickly as possible, and stay out where possible.
You mean like library card accounts? Where you simply swipe your card through, and that's your account? Or like, alternatively, two single accounts (pub_fil, pub_no_fil) with passwords that change every day, as is on the Kinko's computers? You know, this would be a ton safer for other reasons, too. You can't mess up the browser for every other user by visiting a site with bonzi-buddy toolbar auto-installer.
No, I am not trolling. Everything I said here, I completely believe. If you want to call me to task on an issue, if you want to talk about anything I said, I will reply, and I will reply genuinely. I will only stop replying if I decide that your replies are not genuine.
What that means is that is that if you *can* shoot down one or more of my arguments, you'll actually be going quite a ways towards changing what I think.
On the other hand, in order to do that, you have to risk the same yourself.
Trolling is *never* genuine. This is.
Okay, now I can hear myself. This was not insightful. This was troll, although a very standard troll that is used in the media, especially on abortion issues.
First, you're overplaying an impossibe hypothetical. That's not a valid argument.
Second a person doesn't have to tell a librarian *why* they want the filters off, they just have to tell the librarian "oh, and filters off". Librarian says "fine."
Third, clearly this hypothetical person has made a real mistake before that. There is *one* safe kind of sex, and it is called "sex within marriage". Every other kind of sex is actually a form of violence, because it violates the family (either preexisting, or to come). [Ask any guy whether he won't feel jealous of some other guy with his wife, and he'll say yes. That extramarital sex does do violence to relationships. So the girl and her boyfriend have already done one thing wrong.]
Fourth, the boyfriend has done violence to the girl, with his cheating and the STD. If you want to lay blame, don't lay it on a internet filter. Lay it where it belongs: with the cheating boyfriend [as well as her own stupidity.]
Fifth, at least fifty percent of that STD equation is the guy. At least. Now, guys who are exposed to porn do get their interest in sex activated sooner than guys who are not exposed to porn. Most guys are visually oriented. So the internet filters go a long ways towards reducing the STD problem.
Sixth: there aren't girls who don't know that an STD needs to be treated by a doctor [family, or clinic, or hospital] who are intelligent enough to properly search the information out on the internet.
*sigh*. I'm going to be flamed to death on this one, but I'm still signing my name. I'm just going to pull on my asbestos underwear, the ones labeled "The flames aren't rational -- they're based on 'I want'."
Okay, flame away if you will. But that parent post is not insightful, just inciteful.
Use Win4Lin to set up a virtual Windows box within Linux. Let that be your server, which then runs thin computers.
Then have the setting be "filter on".
Then require each user to log on and log off when they're done. If a user wants filters off, he can ask. Kids get told "no".
When the person logs off, it goes back to standard mode.
This is an advantage, too, in that you can use any of your old computers just as easily as the new computers, because its only a thin blade. It's cheaper. It's linux.
P.S. I approve of the Supreme Court decision, and specifically disapprove of librarians in certain areas who refused parental requests to keep their own kids off the computers, or not allow porn, or to inform them. Those librarians were taking "in loco parentis" to new orders of magnitude, and helped create this problem in the first place.
You want freedom, live rightly. If you live as a predator on your neighbor's back, you're not going to remain free very long.
Oh yes: one other thing. When you keep a list of all those sites that are blocked but shouldn't be? Don't try to overturn the law. Simply unblock those sites. Duh. Techies sure can be stupid when they want to be.
Word corrupts files
Word can't read proprietary formats correctly, such as previous versions of Word.
... that they had to send out the C&Ds because the information just wasn't accurate. Yeah, it's a dual 940 system... but you can link two together to get a QUAD with 1.85 times the average speed... ... and since they run GCC, all their server software is together and debugged... ... and THAT would work to their advantage
Excuse me. I'm drooling. I've got to go wipe my mouth.
I don't know if you are referring to scientific journals. Scientific journals typically do not pay, because the people who are publishing have grants from the government, typically, and there are no advertisements.
I am referring to "niche" journals, probably including such journals as COTS, also hobby magazines, technical showcase journals, and thelike, which are chock full of advertisements, but also have quality articles. They need quality articles in order to remain of interest to their customer base, and therefore they will pay.
Depends on the person.
We think that we are the only ones who've ever had running septic systemsYou mean like the Romans? who moved mountains You mean the pyramids? , and now, it appears, to use binary [maybe we're the first, maybe not. Base-60 was Babylonian, from which we get our hour. Chinese developed base-5 music, base ten is from our hands. Cultures develop number systems that are useful to them.]
The more we learn, the more we forget. Nice aphorism, but is it true? For example, who can tell me the best mix of Bronze? Start Here, once you know your application. Your "best mix" is always application-dependent. Not many now. No, just most ESMs and metallurgical engineers. There can't be more than 30 of those that graduate from each Tech University each year, so that would be about 120,000 in America. How about what's best to plant after sowing rye for two years? Ummm. That would be Lithuanian farmers. Their biggest crop is rye, possibly after potatoes, so they definitely would know. But it depends on a lot of things -- start here. But I expect most Aggie schools could tell you, depending on where you live.
As we move into a more technological society, there is quite a bit of knowledge we are losing. Not true at all. You just are not aware of it. The knowledge is being maintained and built on every single year. This is largely because of population growth. Get a population crash, and I grant that it is possible for information to be lost, though that information that is *preserved* in books can later be relearned. Books, not computers, since books last a good bit longer, provided that the paper is non-acidic.
Not only that, but information which *was* lost, due to population crashes, is being rediscovered through modern technology.
So we aren't losing information -- far from it. We are keeping the information, and gaining it. But you, yourself, like any other one person, cannot keep abreast of it all, so you *think* we are losing information. And that, really, is my point.
That answer is in Don Lancaster's "Incredible Secret Money Machine":
(1) start writing magazine articles, all along as you go. Get those magazine articles published in a journal [that's pay right there.]
(2) All along, as you produce magazine articles, make sure your magazine articles give away real secrets, but not the most valuable ones -- just hint at where the answers are for those. That's your advertising. When companies call with questions, CONSULT. [More money].
(3) Not all your eggs go in one basket. Teaching at a community college can be very helpful. [More Money!] Watch where the market takes you, and work first on the stuff that pays. [That's where the money is].
(4) Live cheap, not expensively. Don't get an expensive studio -- use a shed. Every dollar saved is like $2 or more, earned, when you count taxes, expenses, and whatnot. [Like more money]. Also, no SB loans! [Unless you want to work for the bank, and wind up homeless].
(5) When you have enough magazine articles, rework slightly to make uniform and publish in book format. More money.
That's all I remember offhand right now, but that's the gist of the book. My experience is that insofar as I follow that formula, it's a pretty good formula. I'm not able to follow it 100%, but you won't be able to either. This is just a general roadmap.
You get a nice job based on a tie -- and guess what, you have to sign one of those employment contracts that says "all your ideas/work/art are belong to us."
At which point, at least according to Caldera, means that Linux will belong dually to Caldera and this other company, and they will hit each other on the head for a while ---
-- way too messy.
Sorry, but when you're on the road to serfdom, often there aren't any good answers, and yes, the economy stalls.
You know, my brother's interpretation of an economy is "people doing things for each other", and he feels that a good economy is more valuable than gold. But when people take to stealing, then the economy STOPS.
[BTW, I'm happy to forgive any and all thieves, including SCO, Microsoft, Paypal, any Linux developers who stole code from SCO, and others. Someone want to let me know when the thieves are happy to stop stealing?]
In a very real way, I own my wife and child; they own me.
If another person comes in and trespasses, pulls a gun on me and shoots me dead, and steals my function, they can probably force my wife and child to "act" in some of the same ways as they do with me. But they can't own them. Owning is how you invest yourself, and ends up being identical with who you are.
Open and honest marriage involves owning each other in a way that a rapist never can own a person.
Now, Linux was developed under a specific set of conditions, open, and [hopefully, and at least for the most part] honest. SCO wants to steal that. They have a gun that like a Saturday Night Special sometimes blows up in your face, but often works just as intended.
But they don't want to own Linux. That would take honesty, and really posessing what is Linux.
SCO wants to steal Linux. There's a huge difference. In my book, they are software pirates.
Has not faded from view? This strategy fits neoliberal capitalism to a tee, and it isn't just a threat to Linux. It's a threat to real families in Zaire, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela [let's not forget America's little revolution, shall we?], India [Bhopal disaster still not cleaned up], ... and soon, coming to a site near you.
You know, there is a group that rates the honesty of governments by asking businesses how many bribes they have to pay in each country. I think that's significant, because a moral businessman would not pay bribes, period. I'd love to see surveys of government judges, customs officials, and so on, asking "which companies offer to pay you bribes?" But they go hand in hand in neoliberal capitalism.
Using governments to help you steal is a hallmark of the method. When SCO said "Give communism a try: free Linux", they were specificially saying "we represent [neoliberal] capitalism," and setting Linux against us therefore supports communism. [Note that I put [neoliberal] in brackets: they wouldn't have said neoliberal, they would have said just capitalism.]
In a way, they're right. Back in the cold war days, it seemed that there were to geopolitical forces: nominally capitalism and communism, they were really neoliberal capitalism and Marxism. Other movements just didn't seem to have the force that these two did.
But in a way, I believe they're wrong. In reality, I think that Malachai Martin [The Vatican] was right: there is and was a third geopolitical force, and it is pushed by an institution that is older than either force, and sometimes seems as corrupt: the Vatican. And when it comes down to it, I keep on finding myself on that third side: what they say, I agree with.
My guess is that if he brings it up, he will comply with his agreement, and *not* allow RIAA songs to be found [to the best of his ability].
I think that was item four in his agreement.
Okay, this thing sounds like Linux, so I have two questions:
/tmp/ssh-XXJwekKd , with a file in it that shows up in the directory listing, but can't be "more"'d, even as superuser.
(1) is there a way to packet-sniff/log your own outgoing packets, in order to find out the size of your own outgoing packets, and *see* if this is on your own system? Sorry, I'm still learning on my own about Linux, and haven't yet mastered security. My ISP does some firewalling, so that helps, but really I'm on borrowed time, so I hope to pick things up as I go.
(2) This might be really stupid, might be unrelated, but might be of concern: I have a directory
srwxr-xr-x 1 myusername myusername 0 Jun22 16:32 agent.787
Anything to be concerned about? Everything else there looks familiar.
Okay, if you want a 3D mesh, here's what I would do:
(1) Encase the thing in a black box [or work at night], and put a light on the y-axis of the scanner, and a red light on the axis of the rotisserie, near it, but not inside it [of course]
For your lights, use a good small fluorescent bulb.
(2) Run a normal scan.
(3) Light the thing from the North with blue light, and from the west with red light. Keep each light as *close* to the rotisserie as possible, and on the scanner side [of course].
(4) Run another normal scan.
Now, let's just take the blue light as an example. The intensity of the light decreases with the square of the distance from the light as it impinges on the skull's surface. So the brighter the blue-shift of the colors, the closer the point is to the blue light. Same goes for the red light. [The distance from the point to the scanner is not constant, and will affect this, but can be calculated.]
So align your pictures, and then you subtract off the previous exposure, leaving your "red/blue intensity map."
Now you have to modify the result of this by the reflectivity of the model -- but that information is contained in the original scan. Base Intensity * Reflectivity = Color intensity, so the reverse applies: calculate the distance to and from the model [start with an estimate: the rotisserie height, but recursively refine] to get the Base Intenisty, read the Color Intensity from the original scan, and that will give you the local reflectivity. Divide your red-blue map by the reflectivity, of each particular point, and you get back the Base Intensity of your red-blue map.
Take this intensity map to a png file, and then using some known values [based on the geometry of your setup, and some basic measurements] calculate the xyz coordinates of each point.
Run this routine recursively 2-3 times to get better ("good enough") accuracy.
For even better accuracy, you could use white light, but vary the intensity of your x-axis and y-axis bulb, and read the differences. Use that information to calculate the distance from the bulb to the model to the scanner.
First, I'd note that taking $12,000 is bad -- but it won't ruin anyone's life. You start putting a person in debt, and then it's got potential for ruining a person's life.
What they've done in this case, though, is taken it to the next step. They've sent C&D letters.
Now, a C&D letter doesn't ruin a person's life -- but it actually tells a person "swap another RIAA music file, and you've ruined your own life, unless your life's goal is to become a poster child.
I don't support the RIAA pushing for more IP law. But I *do* support their choice in this case. And let me be clear -- I don't support IP law, because I think it encourages people to break the law, and that can destroy a country.
But if I don't support IP law, I really hate to see people breaking the law. What they're doing is one step closer, one step more immediate, and one step more obvious in the downfall of our nation, so it is several orders more culpable.
The benefit of having a well-enforced law is that you get economic investment, because people can be reasonably sure that their investments will pay off. In other words, following the law leads to a well-performing economy. That being the case, RIAA has built their business model on the law as it is [not the law as it should be, and there are admittedly economic costs to that], and in reality that is the only business model that a business can follow that will be successful: the law as it is.
That said, I only have to compare this case of them sending a C&D letter, with SCO, who wants to try to sue for a grand lottery prize of everyone else's code, without showing the victims the code and giving them a chance to clean it themselves.
Which would you have? RIAA going after someone without warning, and confiscating their $12000 in order to avoid a $30000 trial? Or them sending a C&D letter, which actually gives the person a choice to avoid the $12000 loss?
Now, I fault the RIAA in a lot of places, and one of them is in pushing for more restrictive IP law.
But them sending a C&D letter is like them helping define for those 5 swappers what exactly the law will be in their case. At this juncture, those five users can decide where they want to invest themselves.
I don't often say it, but RIAA, GOOD CHOICE! I support that decision.
[Sorry about the caps, but I have to shout really loud from Lithuania for them to hear me.]
This is a copy of the email I sent to Hatch:
Subject: Intellectual property
US Citizen [yes] Constituent [No]
Mr. Hatch, I respect your current attempts to update your license on your menu. Intent to comply is very indicative of desire. I, too, try to follow every IP law that you guys write for us. The burden is heavy.
However, I would like to point out a bit of philosophy about IP law that has direct effects on the US economy.
I think you should reconsider your position, based on the position of right and wrong.
When you read this, think about natural rights vs. granted rights, and natural law vs. granted law.
(1) Whenever a government violates natural law, it hurts the efficiency of the law, it hurts the economy, and it hurts the government, moving the country toward a state of anarchy. Natural law are those laws that follow from our nature. Sometimes, we do write granted law: a law that is not natural, a law that violates property, or freedom of thought [religion], or the right to defend oneself [2nd Amendment]. The reason we do this is that life without charity and only according to natural law is hard. Yet with all the damage that unnatural law does, it should only be written with great trepidation.
Congress, by the way, is not real good at this one. Look at the size of our law libraries if you doubt me.
Think about my statement: Every unnatural law hurts the economy more than it helps. This is because it hinders economic production. Real wealth depends on production, not on wealth transfer. It is also because granted law makes the economic climate unsure: you don't know if the proceeds of your investment will come back to you or be transferred to another, so you are more hesitant to invest.
(2) Intellectual property is not natural law. The right to work is natural law [that is, to labor to the best of your abilities to better your condition]. Natural law is not to say what a man can do and cannot do to better his condition. Or another way: If I have knowledge, it is natural for me to use it.
(3) Intellectual property is a monopoly. There are two kinds of monopoly: the monopoly of being the only one able to do a job, which is a natural monopoly, and a granted monopoly, which is an unnatural monopoly. The US Constition authorizes some kinds of intellectual property, in an effort to reduce the former monopoly -- but current law increases the latter monopoly much more.
I would argue that it is usually better to allow natural monopolies -- but the fact remains that our Constitution allows otherwise, and I accept that.
Yet the Constitution does not stipulate a set time -- it allows the government to set an undefined limited term of monopoly.
Mr. Hatch, I would like you to consider that monopolies of every kind: copyrights, patents, and any other kind appropriate, be shortened, not lengthened. Already we begin to see the damage done by our IP law, and it is driving real business away, and encouraging investment in "patent firms", which do no real development or manufacturing, but consist only of lawyers who patent, wait for another firm to develop something, and sue.
It is destroying the fastest-growing segments of our information infrastructure as well, such as the Open Source Software that NASA uses.
Already it is encouraging companies to require employees to sign horrible agreements to sign away all rights to all inventions, and thus stifling innovation.
But I don't ask you to consider just the economic effects. Please consider the *philosophy* behind my claims, and see if that is true. If it is, only then consider the economic effects.
I'm just wondering: Couldn't you push Linux for the things that Linux is good for? Get two or three machines for starters, just running the servers?
Then get one to two for work, and on those put Win4Lin. Argue that as a supplement, it's better. Then when someone wants to be using MS Word, they'll think "Fast or slow? I'll pick fast."
Next, start pushing hiring decisions in favor of those who know how to use and program Linux, where their spare time could be used to help script and such.
Doing it this way, you could argue that the company depends less on any one system, and is more resilient for surprise customer requests.
I can imagine that IBM might care about the GPL. After all, it gives them:
(1) a free, very dedicated, and huge developer base for code that runs on their systems
(2) A ton of good will from said coder-base, thus sales into the future are much more likely
(3) It helps keep down that upstart competitor from the NorthWest.
At this point, there are just too many computer-savvy people to make "Only IBM" a reality. The code will be developed, one way or another. So IBM's best bet is "IBM at the head of the stack of everyone." Since IBM has invested in Linux, IBM does have reason to push development under Linux.
These reasons lead me to believe that yes, IBM does care about the GPL. Not for the sake of the GPL, but for the sake of their own business. So I'd say that their motivation is dual, and if given a choice between "let SCO destroy Linux, and we squash SCO" and "squash SCO before SCO destroys Linux", they'll likely choose the latter, even defending Linux in court.
When it's the masse rabble against the castle, it's usually a ton better to be the guy directing the rabble, than to be the guy in the castle. Especially if the guy directing the rabble also has access to a ton of munitions. I think IBM has already chosen their spot, and that's where they'll be. This one doesn't look to me like what America pulled on Iraqi Sikhs ("yeah, rise up, and we'll support you, probably").
First, let me point out that IBM does not have the right to transfer the rights of individual developers the world over, to SCO. So even if they put SCO code into the kernel, SCO could at most require it to be removed. Whether that would require the removal of whole programs, or individual sections of code, is up to individual lawsuits of SCO against individual developers. Those lawsuits, in turn, would probably turn on such things as whether the developer knew that this was SCO code.
If I sue John in a court of law, I can't ask the court to award me Bill's house. That lawsuit has to be against Bill. And I *definitely* can't sue Mary for living in the house that she rented in good faith from Bill, especially before said lawsuit against Bill reaches a conclusion.
Nonetheless, the MD5 hash checking [of the 5-line segments, as described on slashdot]] still will be useful. First, it will tell us what code coincides. That allows us to look for BSD coincidences: BSD source automatically cleans that code. We don't have to worry about it. Next, it allows us to track down and start talking to individual developers, to find out where the code came from: published material in a textbook that predates SCO's work cleans code also. Finally, for those programs that remain unsure, it allows us to immediately start recoding those programs or finding alternatives, so that even before any decision [like my hypothetical lawsuit vs. Mary vs. Bill vs. John above] the code can be clean. In that way, no work is ever legally held to be derivative. Only former work is held to be derivative, which is a major difference, especially against Microsoft's / SCO's / Forbes' FUD.
Just out of wondering, I wonder how to get a Sourceforge "code cleaning project" going. Could that be done?
But these articles don't have substance: that is, as far as I can tell, they are designed to play to the court of public opinion, and little else. After all, the fact that other minor players caved does not mean that IBM is going to cave. And the article did not look at one iota of the substance of the lawsuit.
So Forbes is definitely in on this too, and not so much for SCO, as against Linux. But that being the case, one must remember that Forbes has a ton of readers who play the stocks.
I think I begin to see why SCO's stock is climbing so high.
Now, someone please just tell me that Forbes didn't just get a $10 million M$ advertising contract, or isn't selling their own SCO stock, Merrill-Lynch style.
Forbes's Linux@office examples:
Linux=OS/2
A crashing company chooses Linux(Lisa Dicarlo)
Boies:Linux=risk(Victoria Murphy)
We're overhyping Linux(Lisa DiCarlo)
Neutral (but reminds us that a teacher told Torvaldas he'd get a low grade for his creation):
List of previous Linux articles(staff)
In favor of Linux:
Oracle supports Linux(Lisa Dicarlo)
So isn't this the place to start with the MD5 hash checking? I mean, that's something to work with.
Unfortunately, I am *not* a coder any more, and probably don't have the space, and definitely don't have the time to do this. But someone else could.
Actually, here is my understanding, also possibly quite faulty:
The supernova does not explode smoothly -- rather, it explodes quickly in some regions, and slowly in others. Further, hypersonic (megasonic?) turbulence creates "pockets" that are all at the same pressure and temperature, and in these pockets you get one kind of element or another kind of an element forming. So you really can end up with "gold" asteroids [though not many], or iron, or nickel, or what have you, but in large quantity.
That said, I don't know if my understanding of the theory is correct, and if correct I don't know if the theory itself is correct.