This is only "sort of" off-topic, since I've responded to a child post more directly. But as an example, I just bought a digital camera simply because it was in a good price range for me to have something to play with. It didn't enter in to my mind to check for Linux compatibility since I figured if I had to I would just boot my Windows partition to transfer the images and live with it.
However, after I bought it I still looked to see if it was supported under Linux and lo & behold it is. I am finding that this is more and more the case.
You are correct though that the definition depends on what you are looking at. Windows supports more hardware for i386 systems out of the box, but this is a small subset of all hardware, since Linux supports the Powerbook(and many other systems) hardware as well.
Except that your missing that Linux supports PPC, Sun hardware, different and sundry handheld devices and tonnes of other platforms other than i386 based.
So the proper statement is that "Windows supports more hardware out of the box for i386 machines, but Linux supports more hardware in general." The latter part is what people mean when they say "Linux supports the most hardware out of the box than any other OS."
Wow. Funny but I read the two blogs totally opposite.
The Sun guy says "Linux developers don't see the value of features X,Y, and Z..."
And the Linux guy says, "Sure we see the value, we just haven't had anybody provide a good enough implementation to make the pain worth the value. But for those that feel the possible pain is worth it, the features are supported by A,B and C".
The Sun guy than goes in to how Suns implementation is so much better etc. But of goes this wasn't the premise of his first blog, which was that Linux kernel developers didn't care not that Sun's implementation is better.
Using 'she' in this context is not particularly onerous to the comprehensibility(is that a word?) of the sentence. It's quite possible the post was written by a woman in which case the use of 'she' would be most appropriate from her point of view. In fact the only time I assume political correctness in such a situation is when I know the writer is male and they are going out of their way to use 'she'.
As far as I know the construct 'he/she' is not recognized as 'proper' useage anywhere in the english speaking world. The proper useage is either 'he' or 'she' and stick with it in the subject matter. Flipping between the two is also bad form.
If hardware or software has a "bug" that's a manufacturing issue and no support contract should be required for the manufacturer to recognize this and fix it IMMEDIATELY.
Support contracts are meant to protect you against common failures that you might expect to happen eventually. NOT against manufacturing defects, the fact that most people treat them this way though is what allows companies to treat the rest of the crowd so shoddily.
By the way, insurance is meant to protect you against "acts of God"(e.g. accidents).
The point of the original poster though, was that the SUN rep was going on and on about how Sun is commited to principles of reliablity and serviceablity and yet when push comes to shove they are really just commited to how much money they can make.
Wow, you are either a woman or in dire need of a reality check.
You agree that a woman should get everything? Wow, I don't know what else to say.
There is only one justification for a woman or any spouse getting "everything" and that is if they haven't entered in to a relationship where they generate income for the partnership. In the case of a "stay at home" spouse you at least have a chance. But in todays world that simply isn't reality in a good deal of cases.
As far as who gets the children, it should be whomever is best able to take care of them. Not automatically based on gender. Again the only justification for your position is a stay-at-home spouse where the children have been reliant on that spouse for the majority of their care. This of course should still be tempered by the reason a divorce occured(e.g. affairs, drug use, etc.), these actions definitely speak as to the fitness of a parent.
"That would be 100% wrong and there is no supporting statements, which I've made, which could give you that understanding."
Sorry I missed that you were not the original poster, so I transplanted the original "Marriage is..." comment to yours.
As such I believe we are arguing at cross purposes. I don't disagree that in at least 1 tradition "marriage is prostitution". Even today many women & men treat it that way. However this isn't true for ALL marriages. Since the original poster claimed "Marriage is...", my statement was intended to imply sarcasm towards the concept that ALL marriages are intended to be that.
As to my comment "Marriage as a religious institution..." Note the use of "as" not "is", no I'm not pulling a Clinton. In this case the difference is important. Because there's the other part which would be "Marriage as a government institution...". The point behind my statement was that marriage is defined differently within each religion whether in fact or by tacit assumption. So if some religious tradition wants to treat marriage as prostitution that's up to them. The government only has a say in the legal responsibilities of the union as they relate to the government.
In other words the government shouldn't regulate who can and cannot be married. The legal rights of that marriage as far as the government is concerned are well established(e.g. community property, spousal benefits etc.). The religious rights (e.g. divorce for a spouse cheating) are defined within a specific religion.
Why would a prostitute not be "exclusive" if you paid them enough? Prostitution can be simply defined by "the act of offering sexual intercourse for pay", it's usually understood to be for more than one person, but there's no requirement for that.
If indeed there are advantages to marriage that "civil unions" don't get than why is it wrong to lump those advantages under the word "marriage" and allow all couples to have the benefits of them?
It is not a question of forcing all religions to offer marriage to anyone, that would be "wrong". Rather it is allowing all couples to have the benefit and responsbilities inherent in the word "marriage".
In other words, what's the point of trying to define a "civil union" to match the same benefits of "marriage" if we already have a perfectly good working definition in the word "marriage"?
If the only point is to not offend the sensibilites of your christian majority that's simply not a good enough reason.
You seem to be running under the misconception that there is only one form of "marriage". It seems to me your describing a christian marriage idea. Which of course is only a subset of all of "marriage". Thus the real reason it is imperative the government should not regulate marriage.
Furthermore, what you describe WAS true, it no longer is the case even in christian marriages. I used to be catholic so I have some experience. The whole point of changing the wording of the marriage vows from "love, honor and obey" was to indicate a change in the concept that the woman was no longer "owned" by the man.
So in summary, 1) Your view on marriage is old and outdated. 2) Your view on marriage was related to one small subset of "Western" society. 3) Marriage as a religious institution is defined by the religion and not all religions define it's purpose the same.
Thus the government has no business regulating marriage.
I agree family is important, "marriage" is a religious institution. The grandparents point is well taken, the government can recognize the "union" of two(or more) people for legal purposes and should not define this union by any discrimantory qualities, but the government has no business saying who can and cannot be "married". A religion defines who they will join in marriage not the state.
Basically this means that marriage is a subset of all those who are in "union", but you can be in a "union" without being married. The fact that the latter happens now for non-gay couples is proof of this(e.g. common law "marriages").
I was going to write a long winded explaination of how this was possible. But than I reread this and realized that it was so ironic I nearly pissed myself. You've basically proven his point,
"...a downward trend...We'd be below the x axis", here's a hint for you, a downward trend doesn't need to cross through 0.
Hmm, so Cigar Lake is currently being mined is it? I guess it's possible someone is in there digging but they haven't built anything yet,
From Cameco's own website,
# production expected to begin in 2007
# construction licence expected in late 2004
# engineering and construction expected to take about 27 months
Oh, and by the way, due to safety concerns this mine will be a "non-entry" mine. I have no clue how they are pulling that off short of using robotics. So I guess they have come up with a way to mine it, not very conventional though.
Now, your point that the stuff "we're worried about" is "far,far,far" more concentrated is true to a point. But the Sr90,Ce137 and the rest of the "highly radioactive" substances are nearly gone in our lifetimes alone. Plutonium is mainly an alpha emitter like Uranium and like you said easily shielded against(a single sheet of normal bond paper stops most of the particles).
The original posters point that this stuff needs to be watched for only a few hundred years is far more realistic than the 10,000 years people keep using.
Note however, that I personally advocate reprocessing to remove most of the really nasty stuff. Dump that, suitably contained in corresive resistant material, in deep sea fissures, and keeping the rest of the stuff available for future fuel cycles.
Social inertia being what it is, we'll probably burn the atmosphere off first before we actually get real about the risks of nuclear energy.
I'm Canadian and I've advocated we take it for years now. Sure we'll have to charge you to store it, than we'll reprocess it and sell it back to you in a few 100 years. If this isn't the ultimate in recycling I don't know what it.
By the way, check out the entry here on the Cigar Lake mine, so highly radioactive it has yet to be figured out how to get at it,
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm#v2
Lastly, this whole idea that we have to hope that civilization remains around to watch the stuff is utterly misplaced. Think about it, any event catastrophic enough to devastate civilization to the point nobody is technologically advanced enough to know where the stuff is or how to manage it, is a far bigger worry than whether some radioactive material leaks in to the ground.
Re:Nuclear energy works!
on
China Goes Nuclear
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yeah sure.
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm#v2
Check out the natural uranium reactor, and of course the most naturally radioactive site currently known(right in my own back yard, I live in the province where this site is located).
The Cigar Lake site is so radioactive they haven't figured out a way to mine it yet(last I heard).
This from an Anonymous Coward, "oh that hurts, that really hurts".
Is this the point where I call you a name now?
How about this one, "you person without a counter point and can only argue by calling other's names". Long I know, doesn't flow off the tongue, but single word name calling is sooo passe and rife for misunderstanding.
The question isn't about removing the code, that you must do if you don't otherwise have permission. The question was about "offering to remove the code", "offering" to do something isn't the same as actually doing it. Furthermore, it is totally unnecessary for the copyright holders to respond to this "offer" in order to reject it. The rejection is implied(see my first sentence).
While this is "potentially" funny, it only really is if you actually believe something like the GPL isn't clear. Since I believe the GPL is very clear on what you can do with software licensed under it I personally don't find this particularly funny.
The only people who don't find the GPL clear are people who are trying to get around it. Such people than attempt to delve into every nook & cranny claiming they've found a loop hole, or such-and-such a situation isn't covered.
You don't have to be a paying customer to ask for and expect to get the source. He is distributing the binary to anyone who chooses to download it, ipso-facto by the GPL he must release the source even if it is to the crippled version.
Distribution of the binary == required distribution of source regardless of how your customers or "prospective" customers legally come by it.
From SCO's complaint in the Autozone case(see Groklaw's "Legal Docs" page),
"On information an belief, parts or all of the Copyrighted Material has been copied or otherwise improperly used as the basis for creation of derivative work software code, included one or more Linux implementations, including Linux versions 2.4 and 2.6, without the permission of SCO."
(note that SCO up until August was still distributing a 2.4 kernel, I don't know if they ever distributed a 2.6 kernel)
Furthermore, your argument in "support" of SCO is otherwise off base for the following reasons, 1) they are selling a binary only software license for GPL'd work, this is strictly against the terms of the GPL. The Autozone legal action shows they are "serious" about this. They sent over 1000 letters to major corporations(including IBM, silly buggers) claiming that linux was infringing their copyrights and that these corporations must buy one of these binary only licenses, yet SCO continued to distribute the supposedly infringing code. Again this is strictly against the GPL(you can't even offer to sell).
Repudiation of the GPL in court and public certainly goes to support IBM's cause of action that SCO is knowlingly committing copyright infringement.
Anyway, as all of your points are opposite to reality the point stands that SCO is currently violating the GPL. This isn't even a question as SCO will find out in the Partial Summary Judgement hearing for IBM's 8th Cross Complaint.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh?
The flaw is in a Microsoft DLL which is possibly distributed by 3rd parties. Whether it comes attached to an OSS project don't enter in to it.
This is only "sort of" off-topic, since I've responded to a child post more directly. But as an example, I just bought a digital camera simply because it was in a good price range for me to have something to play with. It didn't enter in to my mind to check for Linux compatibility since I figured if I had to I would just boot my Windows partition to transfer the images and live with it.
However, after I bought it I still looked to see if it was supported under Linux and lo & behold it is. I am finding that this is more and more the case.
You are correct though that the definition depends on what you are looking at. Windows supports more hardware for i386 systems out of the box, but this is a small subset of all hardware, since Linux supports the Powerbook(and many other systems) hardware as well.
Except that your missing that Linux supports PPC, Sun hardware, different and sundry handheld devices and tonnes of other platforms other than i386 based.
So the proper statement is that "Windows supports more hardware out of the box for i386 machines, but Linux supports more hardware in general." The latter part is what people mean when they say "Linux supports the most hardware out of the box than any other OS."
Wow. Funny but I read the two blogs totally opposite.
The Sun guy says "Linux developers don't see the value of features X,Y, and Z..."
And the Linux guy says, "Sure we see the value, we just haven't had anybody provide a good enough implementation to make the pain worth the value. But for those that feel the possible pain is worth it, the features are supported by A,B and C".
The Sun guy than goes in to how Suns implementation is so much better etc. But of goes this wasn't the premise of his first blog, which was that Linux kernel developers didn't care not that Sun's implementation is better.
You need to cut back on the caffeine.
Using 'she' in this context is not particularly onerous to the comprehensibility(is that a word?) of the sentence. It's quite possible the post was written by a woman in which case the use of 'she' would be most appropriate from her point of view. In fact the only time I assume political correctness in such a situation is when I know the writer is male and they are going out of their way to use 'she'.
As far as I know the construct 'he/she' is not recognized as 'proper' useage anywhere in the english speaking world. The proper useage is either 'he' or 'she' and stick with it in the subject matter. Flipping between the two is also bad form.
Huh?
If hardware or software has a "bug" that's a manufacturing issue and no support contract should be required for the manufacturer to recognize this and fix it IMMEDIATELY.
Support contracts are meant to protect you against common failures that you might expect to happen eventually. NOT against manufacturing defects, the fact that most people treat them this way though is what allows companies to treat the rest of the crowd so shoddily.
By the way, insurance is meant to protect you against "acts of God"(e.g. accidents).
The point of the original poster though, was that the SUN rep was going on and on about how Sun is commited to principles of reliablity and serviceablity and yet when push comes to shove they are really just commited to how much money they can make.
Wow, you are either a woman or in dire need of a reality check.
You agree that a woman should get everything? Wow, I don't know what else to say.
There is only one justification for a woman or any spouse getting "everything" and that is if they haven't entered in to a relationship where they generate income for the partnership. In the case of a "stay at home" spouse you at least have a chance. But in todays world that simply isn't reality in a good deal of cases.
As far as who gets the children, it should be whomever is best able to take care of them. Not automatically based on gender. Again the only justification for your position is a stay-at-home spouse where the children have been reliant on that spouse for the majority of their care. This of course should still be tempered by the reason a divorce occured(e.g. affairs, drug use, etc.), these actions definitely speak as to the fitness of a parent.
"That would be 100% wrong and there is no supporting statements, which I've made, which could give you that understanding."
Sorry I missed that you were not the original poster, so I transplanted the original "Marriage is..." comment to yours.
As such I believe we are arguing at cross purposes. I don't disagree that in at least 1 tradition "marriage is prostitution". Even today many women & men treat it that way. However this isn't true for ALL marriages. Since the original poster claimed "Marriage is...", my statement was intended to imply sarcasm towards the concept that ALL marriages are intended to be that.
As to my comment "Marriage as a religious institution..." Note the use of "as" not "is", no I'm not pulling a Clinton. In this case the difference is important. Because there's the other part which would be "Marriage as a government institution...". The point behind my statement was that marriage is defined differently within each religion whether in fact or by tacit assumption. So if some religious tradition wants to treat marriage as prostitution that's up to them. The government only has a say in the legal responsibilities of the union as they relate to the government.
In other words the government shouldn't regulate who can and cannot be married. The legal rights of that marriage as far as the government is concerned are well established(e.g. community property, spousal benefits etc.). The religious rights (e.g. divorce for a spouse cheating) are defined within a specific religion.
Why not?
Why would a prostitute not be "exclusive" if you paid them enough? Prostitution can be simply defined by "the act of offering sexual intercourse for pay", it's usually understood to be for more than one person, but there's no requirement for that.
If indeed there are advantages to marriage that "civil unions" don't get than why is it wrong to lump those advantages under the word "marriage" and allow all couples to have the benefits of them?
It is not a question of forcing all religions to offer marriage to anyone, that would be "wrong". Rather it is allowing all couples to have the benefit and responsbilities inherent in the word "marriage".
In other words, what's the point of trying to define a "civil union" to match the same benefits of "marriage" if we already have a perfectly good working definition in the word "marriage"?
If the only point is to not offend the sensibilites of your christian majority that's simply not a good enough reason.
You seem to be running under the misconception that there is only one form of "marriage". It seems to me your describing a christian marriage idea. Which of course is only a subset of all of "marriage". Thus the real reason it is imperative the government should not regulate marriage.
Furthermore, what you describe WAS true, it no longer is the case even in christian marriages. I used to be catholic so I have some experience. The whole point of changing the wording of the marriage vows from "love, honor and obey" was to indicate a change in the concept that the woman was no longer "owned" by the man.
So in summary,
1) Your view on marriage is old and outdated.
2) Your view on marriage was related to one small subset of "Western" society.
3) Marriage as a religious institution is defined by the religion and not all religions define it's purpose the same.
Thus the government has no business regulating marriage.
Um he was referring to the black market of pot sales.
"Marriage is a contract by which a woman enters into an exclusive sexual relationship with a man in exchange for material gain."
So what your saying is marriage is a legal form of prostitution. I love it.
I agree family is important, "marriage" is a religious institution. The grandparents point is well taken, the government can recognize the "union" of two(or more) people for legal purposes and should not define this union by any discrimantory qualities, but the government has no business saying who can and cannot be "married". A religion defines who they will join in marriage not the state.
Basically this means that marriage is a subset of all those who are in "union", but you can be in a "union" without being married. The fact that the latter happens now for non-gay couples is proof of this(e.g. common law "marriages").
I was going to write a long winded explaination of how this was possible. But than I reread this and realized that it was so ironic I nearly pissed myself. You've basically proven his point,
"...a downward trend...We'd be below the x axis", here's a hint for you, a downward trend doesn't need to cross through 0.
Completely Wrong?
Hmm, so Cigar Lake is currently being mined is it? I guess it's possible someone is in there digging but they haven't built anything yet,
From Cameco's own website,
# production expected to begin in 2007
# construction licence expected in late 2004
# engineering and construction expected to take about 27 months
Oh, and by the way, due to safety concerns this mine will be a "non-entry" mine. I have no clue how they are pulling that off short of using robotics. So I guess they have come up with a way to mine it, not very conventional though.
Now, your point that the stuff "we're worried about" is "far,far,far" more concentrated is true to a point. But the Sr90,Ce137 and the rest of the "highly radioactive" substances are nearly gone in our lifetimes alone. Plutonium is mainly an alpha emitter like Uranium and like you said easily shielded against(a single sheet of normal bond paper stops most of the particles).
The original posters point that this stuff needs to be watched for only a few hundred years is far more realistic than the 10,000 years people keep using.
Note however, that I personally advocate reprocessing to remove most of the really nasty stuff. Dump that, suitably contained in corresive resistant material, in deep sea fissures, and keeping the rest of the stuff available for future fuel cycles.
Social inertia being what it is, we'll probably burn the atmosphere off first before we actually get real about the risks of nuclear energy.
"Mother Nature" knows all about it, she's been storing the stuff for us for billions of years.
Get a life and a clue.
Posting an argument that appears to support a straw man argument doesn't make your argument any more valid.
Any civilization around in 10,000 years not sufficiently advanced enough to keep an eye on the stuff has bigger worries than our nuclear waste.
I'm Canadian and I've advocated we take it for years now. Sure we'll have to charge you to store it, than we'll reprocess it and sell it back to you in a few 100 years. If this isn't the ultimate in recycling I don't know what it.
By the way, check out the entry here on the Cigar Lake mine, so highly radioactive it has yet to be figured out how to get at it,
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm#v2
Lastly, this whole idea that we have to hope that civilization remains around to watch the stuff is utterly misplaced. Think about it, any event catastrophic enough to devastate civilization to the point nobody is technologically advanced enough to know where the stuff is or how to manage it, is a far bigger worry than whether some radioactive material leaks in to the ground.
Yeah sure.
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm#v2
Check out the natural uranium reactor, and of course the most naturally radioactive site currently known(right in my own back yard, I live in the province where this site is located).
The Cigar Lake site is so radioactive they haven't figured out a way to mine it yet(last I heard).
This from an Anonymous Coward, "oh that hurts, that really hurts".
Is this the point where I call you a name now?
How about this one, "you person without a counter point and can only argue by calling other's names". Long I know, doesn't flow off the tongue, but single word name calling is sooo passe and rife for misunderstanding.
The question isn't about removing the code, that you must do if you don't otherwise have permission. The question was about "offering to remove the code", "offering" to do something isn't the same as actually doing it. Furthermore, it is totally unnecessary for the copyright holders to respond to this "offer" in order to reject it. The rejection is implied(see my first sentence).
While this is "potentially" funny, it only really is if you actually believe something like the GPL isn't clear. Since I believe the GPL is very clear on what you can do with software licensed under it I personally don't find this particularly funny.
The only people who don't find the GPL clear are people who are trying to get around it. Such people than attempt to delve into every nook & cranny claiming they've found a loop hole, or such-and-such a situation isn't covered.
You don't have to be a paying customer to ask for and expect to get the source. He is distributing the binary to anyone who chooses to download it, ipso-facto by the GPL he must release the source even if it is to the crippled version.
Distribution of the binary == required distribution of source regardless of how your customers or "prospective" customers legally come by it.
Bzzt. Wrong but thanks for playing.
From SCO's complaint in the Autozone case(see Groklaw's "Legal Docs" page),
"On information an belief, parts or all of the Copyrighted Material has been copied or otherwise improperly used as the basis for creation of derivative work software code, included one or more Linux implementations, including Linux versions 2.4 and 2.6, without the permission of SCO."
(note that SCO up until August was still distributing a 2.4 kernel, I don't know if they ever distributed a 2.6 kernel)
Furthermore, your argument in "support" of SCO is otherwise off base for the following reasons, 1) they are selling a binary only software license for GPL'd work, this is strictly against the terms of the GPL. The Autozone legal action shows they are "serious" about this. They sent over 1000 letters to major corporations(including IBM, silly buggers) claiming that linux was infringing their copyrights and that these corporations must buy one of these binary only licenses, yet SCO continued to distribute the supposedly infringing code. Again this is strictly against the GPL(you can't even offer to sell).
Repudiation of the GPL in court and public certainly goes to support IBM's cause of action that SCO is knowlingly committing copyright infringement.
Anyway, as all of your points are opposite to reality the point stands that SCO is currently violating the GPL. This isn't even a question as SCO will find out in the Partial Summary Judgement hearing for IBM's 8th Cross Complaint.