that money would've been much better spent in making their products as good as/better than the competitions to give consumers more incentive to not defect.
Sun weren't trying to act all warm and fuzzy about open source one second and then siding with SCO the next and then shutting their mouths when it looks like SCO is going to get a smackdown and acting all warm and fuzzy about open source again, people wouldn't be all suspicious about their intentions.
I don't know that if they'd stuck with the Caldera name and business model that they would have succeeded. After all, how much space is there really for commercial support in the Linux space. Maybe they'd have succeeded, maybe not - but their legal antics and operatic press releases made them look like maniacs. And that is entirely their own fault.
I know when they bought SCO there was a bit of a buzz about how this could result in SVR7 being open sourced and then Darl MacBride took over and everything changed. I hope that man is brought to justice sometime soon. At the very least he must be guilty of insider trading.
So I should sit tight every time there's an ad break on the telly, cause otherwise I stealing network resources from broadcasters? Fuck off and get a life, seriously, if you can't get me to purchase your product without boring the shit of me (e.g., by actually having a product that is worth buying) what the fuck are you doing in business? Do you expect society to subsidise your incompetence, with their precious time, just so you can try and brain wash them to your brand name?
Actually as I've aged (I'm 30 now and not to happy about it) I've gradually shifted to the left. There's no intellectual integrity about it, although intellectual integrity is one thing I admire in myself and others, what there happens to be is an increased perception of the way the things are. I guess you could say I choose the red pill. I choose to take in information in a critical manner. That's not to say that I'm inherently leftist, just that as a consequence of my critical perspective that I'm constantly drawn to disagree with conservative/revisionist conclusions and drawn to agree with progressive/socialist perspectives.
Note that I'm not advocating that these be public hearings - I'm willing to let the government keep a few of its secrets - but all testimony should be under oath.
Well I would think that in the interest of having 'checks and balances', in practice rather than theory, that is what ought to happen. If Major corporations have wronged their customers and the DOJ has acted in an illegal manner it needs to be corrected, not brushed under the carpet because it's "in the interests of national security".
In the Justice Department's view, litigating the case would still require exposing how the program actually does work--which, it says, would in turn endanger national security.
I would of thought that if that were the case that not all the hearings would be open to those without necessary clearance. Sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. Along the lines of "We've done stuff we shouldn't of done, but because it's in the interests of national security, we can't tell you what we did and how we will keep on doing it".
We all know that Einstein space time is not euclidean. So if there is outward expansion from what we believe to be the big bang, which only moments before was a singularity, why is space time curved. Perhaps higher energies are closer to being mass, because they have more energy. Why can't we reverse E=MC2 and produce mass from energy, perhaps this could be source of dark matter. According to Einstein, more energy is required than is in the universe to accelerate a particle that is going less than the speed of light and accelerate it up to that speed. What about if this also correlates into energy moving slower when it is involved and binding itself into some amount of mass. Gravity has an effect on light because it has some mass. Surely the mass amongst a great number of particles moving in a wave could be bound together when some of the particles which are of extreme amongst group are of such high energies that they become a particle theorised as needed by some theorists to hold eneregy in place. The creation of this mass brings about the possibility for gravity on a much far larger scale then plain energy floating around every could. At points where space-time is being curved to a greater extent than others then any particle has much further to travel.
/ ------------ \/____________________ \ The bottom line although effected by gravity is a shorter distance to travel than the top on which now has it's own mass acting on itself. Does time stop when the temperature reaches absolute zero (How can you have mass without energy, it's very definition says it has energy, subatomic particles don't just sit there doing nothing.?
students are finding each other and banding together
They weren't doing so before? I don't know about the US, I presume it's fairly similar to AUS. We call them student unions, is it really any surprise, that students would organise in such a manner to look out for their interests?
Generally I don't really notice the effects of optimisations much (Still do it anyway, usually just '-O2 -march=pentium4 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse'). I do notice that GCC compiles faster when it has been compiled with optimisations.
if BT inc starts doing protocol changes, they could potentially shatter the BT "community"
That's only if there client had enough of a market-share to make the modified protocol the de-facto standard. If most people continue to use clients other than those owned by BitTorrent Inc. and trackers continue to work using the same protocol, it shouldn't matter what BitTorrent Inc. do to the protocol. That is as long as no one else follows lead.
And we do see more and more excesses being taken and more liberties infringed in a rapidly increasing manner since 9/11. And perhaps you may feel confortable with the infringement upon all our liberties to go after pedophiles, but I think the system would be better off to find more creative solutions that follow both the letter and spirit of the Constitution that all laws are meant to uphold.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin
Now, we know that increasing the Co2 levels increase plant growth. There are conflicting opinions to how much is ideal. So what if we remove all the Co2 and the plants go back to preindustrial production and we have a shortage of food?
Stopping the use of fossil fuels will not remove CO2 from the atmosphere and it would no doubt take quite a while for the extra we've put in the atmosphere to be removed through natural mechanisms. I do understand what you're saying and I've thought it sometimes myself. I just don't think it's all that expectable that reducing our usage of fossil fuels would end up worse for us as against keeping on going the way we are.
"On the other hand if you can show proof that these people are doing it out of some dogmatic reasoning or some personal faith or personal greed over the well being of the planet, then do it... and we can call them 'deniers'. Simply disagreeing with you and exercising their inherent right to prove their point doesn't cut it."
Not exactly prof, however I've seen a couple of docos on this fellow Timothy Ball in which they convincingly demonstrated that he was being funded, by oil interests, to fly to various conferences (one of the conferences he was given 60k to attend IIRC) to speak to people (not engage in research) who believed what he did (not exactly engaging on credible scientific debate).
Your desire to persecute the wealthy not-withstanding
I have no such interest, a fact is a fact. Oil companies/car manufacturers/etc. are a very wealthy lobby group.
10-15 years ago scientists were just getting past the previous scare that the Earth was experiencing global cooling. Earth warming and cooling occurs in 40 year cycles, which exist within larger 400 year cycles, which exist in yet larger 20,000 year cycles, etc.
So instead of burning businessmen at the stake today, just wait another 5,000 years or so and the Earth will probably be back to a frozen wasteland!
I'd rather not have more and more conflict on this planet in the meantime as nations compete more and more for resources/land. But that's just me.
Slashdot Mirror
this would be policed. How is an ISP supposed to know weather what is being shared by P2P constitutes a copyright infringement or not?
Downloading a peice of software via FTP is a very long away from programming your own browser.
how does Opera expect its consumers to download and install Opera without a web browser?
Ever heard of FTP?
that money would've been much better spent in making their products as good as/better than the competitions to give consumers more incentive to not defect.
Sun weren't trying to act all warm and fuzzy about open source one second and then siding with SCO the next and then shutting their mouths when it looks like SCO is going to get a smackdown and acting all warm and fuzzy about open source again, people wouldn't be all suspicious about their intentions.
Shit that should of read SVR4, typo.
I don't know that if they'd stuck with the Caldera name and business model that they would have succeeded. After all, how much space is there really for commercial support in the Linux space. Maybe they'd have succeeded, maybe not - but their legal antics and operatic press releases made them look like maniacs. And that is entirely their own fault.
I know when they bought SCO there was a bit of a buzz about how this could result in SVR7 being open sourced and then Darl MacBride took over and everything changed. I hope that man is brought to justice sometime soon. At the very least he must be guilty of insider trading.
So I should sit tight every time there's an ad break on the telly, cause otherwise I stealing network resources from broadcasters? Fuck off and get a life, seriously, if you can't get me to purchase your product without boring the shit of me (e.g., by actually having a product that is worth buying) what the fuck are you doing in business? Do you expect society to subsidise your incompetence, with their precious time, just so you can try and brain wash them to your brand name?
Actually as I've aged (I'm 30 now and not to happy about it) I've gradually shifted to the left. There's no intellectual integrity about it, although intellectual integrity is one thing I admire in myself and others, what there happens to be is an increased perception of the way the things are. I guess you could say I choose the red pill. I choose to take in information in a critical manner. That's not to say that I'm inherently leftist, just that as a consequence of my critical perspective that I'm constantly drawn to disagree with conservative/revisionist conclusions and drawn to agree with progressive/socialist perspectives.
Note that I'm not advocating that these be public hearings - I'm willing to let the government keep a few of its secrets - but all testimony should be under oath.
Well I would think that in the interest of having 'checks and balances', in practice rather than theory, that is what ought to happen. If Major corporations have wronged their customers and the DOJ has acted in an illegal manner it needs to be corrected, not brushed under the carpet because it's "in the interests of national security".
In the Justice Department's view, litigating the case would still require exposing how the program actually does work--which, it says, would in turn endanger national security.
I would of thought that if that were the case that not all the hearings would be open to those without necessary clearance. Sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. Along the lines of "We've done stuff we shouldn't of done, but because it's in the interests of national security, we can't tell you what we did and how we will keep on doing it".
We all know that Einstein space time is not euclidean. So if there is outward expansion from what we believe to be the big bang, which only moments before was a singularity, why is space time curved. Perhaps higher energies are closer to being mass, because they have more energy. Why can't we reverse E=MC2 and produce mass from energy, perhaps this could be source of dark matter. According to Einstein, more energy is required than is in the universe to accelerate a particle that is going less than the speed of light and accelerate it up to that speed. What about if this also correlates into energy moving slower when it is involved and binding itself into some amount of mass. Gravity has an effect on light because it has some mass. Surely the mass amongst a great number of particles moving in a wave could be bound together when some of the particles which are of extreme amongst group are of such high energies that they become a particle theorised as needed by some theorists to hold eneregy in place. The creation of this mass brings about the possibility for gravity on a much far larger scale then plain energy floating around every could. At points where space-time is being curved to a greater extent than others then any particle has much further to travel.
/____________________ \
/ ------------ \
The bottom line although effected by gravity is a shorter distance to travel than the top on which now has it's own mass acting on itself. Does time stop when the temperature reaches absolute zero (How can you have mass without energy, it's very definition says it has energy, subatomic particles don't just sit there doing nothing.?
I, for one, welcome our new ever surveillant overlords.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/11/novell_get s_unix_from_sco/S CO_Owns_UNIX_Copyrights/1186786426
http://www.betanews.com/article/Judge_Novell_Not_
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/11/australia_ gov_internet_protection/, 22218715-15306,00.html1 244.htm
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/10/200
"granted, austudy + rent assistance isn't decadence living"
People receiving Austudy are not eligible for rent assistance.
Multiple runs of the tests, perhaps.
students are finding each other and banding together
They weren't doing so before? I don't know about the US, I presume it's fairly similar to AUS. We call them student unions, is it really any surprise, that students would organise in such a manner to look out for their interests?
Generally I don't really notice the effects of optimisations much (Still do it anyway, usually just '-O2 -march=pentium4 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse'). I do notice that GCC compiles faster when it has been compiled with optimisations.
if BT inc starts doing protocol changes, they could potentially shatter the BT "community"
That's only if there client had enough of a market-share to make the modified protocol the de-facto standard. If most people continue to use clients other than those owned by BitTorrent Inc. and trackers continue to work using the same protocol, it shouldn't matter what BitTorrent Inc. do to the protocol. That is as long as no one else follows lead.
No mention of which GNU/Linux distro it's based off though.
And we do see more and more excesses being taken and more liberties infringed in a rapidly increasing manner since 9/11.
And perhaps you may feel confortable with the infringement upon all our liberties to go after pedophiles, but I think the system would be better off to find more creative solutions that follow both the letter and spirit of the Constitution that all laws are meant to uphold.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin
Now, we know that increasing the Co2 levels increase plant growth. There are conflicting opinions to how much is ideal. So what if we remove all the Co2 and the plants go back to preindustrial production and we have a shortage of food?
Stopping the use of fossil fuels will not remove CO2 from the atmosphere and it would no doubt take quite a while for the extra we've put in the atmosphere to be removed through natural mechanisms.
I do understand what you're saying and I've thought it sometimes myself. I just don't think it's all that expectable that reducing our usage of fossil fuels would end up worse for us as against keeping on going the way we are.
"On the other hand if you can show proof that these people are doing it out of some dogmatic reasoning or some personal faith or personal greed over the well being of the planet, then do it... and we can call them 'deniers'. Simply disagreeing with you and exercising their inherent right to prove their point doesn't cut it."
Not exactly prof, however I've seen a couple of docos on this fellow Timothy Ball in which they convincingly demonstrated that he was being funded, by oil interests, to fly to various conferences (one of the conferences he was given 60k to attend IIRC) to speak to people (not engage in research) who believed what he did (not exactly engaging on credible scientific debate).
Your desire to persecute the wealthy not-withstanding
I have no such interest, a fact is a fact. Oil companies/car manufacturers/etc. are a very wealthy lobby group.
10-15 years ago scientists were just getting past the previous scare that the Earth was experiencing global cooling. Earth warming and cooling occurs in 40 year cycles, which exist within larger 400 year cycles, which exist in yet larger 20,000 year cycles, etc.
So instead of burning businessmen at the stake today, just wait another 5,000 years or so and the Earth will probably be back to a frozen wasteland!
I'd rather not have more and more conflict on this planet in the meantime as nations compete more and more for resources/land. But that's just me.