And the consumer pays those costs... AT&T sees it as a way to increase their profits, In other words, unless we boycott them, we sponsor their waste of money... Perhaps now, any see why we could do better as an "Internet" without the largest players, at least until they're properly leashed?
You do know that anyone publishing benchmarks of Oracle(and perhaps others) is breaking the EULA for Oracle, except Oracle itself... Which means that noone will publish a benchmark of oracle db in which it did poorly...
I wonder... And yes, I'm just wondering at this point... If Microsoft didn't think it managed to snag a single contact person through their contract with Novell(aka someone legally entitled to sell, or cross-license) code to them, more than any other right...
Someone particularly paranoid might also think that Novell, as the owner of the Unix trademark, might make an ideal scapegoat in a lawsuit...
"You were distributing..."
"We did so in good faith, and even Novell didn't know we were in the wrong..."
Especially given that for a GPL violation(say if Microsoft did copy GPL code) whoever they stole code from could sue, it would be either the fsf, or the coder, NOT Redhat or another company whose stock value might be affected by suing Microsoft...
And tracking firemen or military personnel in danger zones is a threat to their privacy? YES!... But it has legitimate reasons for it... Not all systems are about accounting for toilet paper rolls...
ID is a problem when it's discussed as science, since the scientific method wasn't used in the process. Teaching that some religions believes that Intelligent Design is how evolution came to be is actually on topic, and factual. It's wrong to present it in a science class, since it's not science... It's not wrong to present it as belief, in a class of beliefs...
But do we know the weapon was embedded in the 1800s, couldn't it have been manufactured, shot, get embedded in something(piece of wood, coral, etc...) then get embedded into the whale later, therefore explaining why the whale might not have been that old?
So if I'm a convenience store filming the arrest of a suspect in my premise, I'm only legal because it interests the police that my footage is there, i.e., it's not de facto protected as evidence?
I'm sorry, but as long as they are in uniform, ANYONE filming them(and proving, yes that's harder, an unedited footage) SHOULD be protected as evidence, not just the ones the police likes.
I don't think the police being allowed to decide which recordings of themselves are legal(while in uniform) is in any way shape or form, fair. I don't get to decide which footage of me is "not" evidence of a crime. And by declaring a footage "illegal" police CAN declare evidence inadmissible.
I'd argue that the problem with technology issues and regulation, is that it's almost unheard of for an industry expert in them, to also become a judge. What we need is for people who actually understand the issues to be the ones deciding, not politicians.
Any claim that it is an "open standard" is blatently false. There are commands in it like "work like Word 95", yet the standard does not include the source code to Word 95. Well, you say, just ignore that command, it's a minor detail, right? But that is exactly why those office documents come out mangled. It is in fact exactly the same as.doc format and it is pretty clear that inability to accurately transcribe.doc format is the main reason there is no competition to Word.
I'm sorry, but why can't we just define that the ooxml format either drop the "works like word 95" clause or abandon the claim to be an open format?
My understanding of an open format(and I might be naive from your point of view, but it's my opinion) is that 100%, not 99.9%, of what the format can include, has to be open, for it to deserve the term.
Maybe Microsoft is just afraid they can only compete with a completely backwards-incompatible(that is, a format that finally can be read 100% in other programs), instead of what they have now, a format that people have to keep old versions of programs, just to read old documents, since even Microsoft doesn't provide 100%, works all the time, in all cases, backward compatible import formats.
Except for those who already have disks, and want to keep using them. This just means that Intel doesn't want to steal the thunder from the drive manufacturers already selling flash-added drives. It's not aimed at us here at slashdot(we had ours about how the technology some time ago), it's aimed at shareholders...
I'm not asking you to apologize, but let's be realistic here. If other countries do come into your country, and free you from your elected government, I do think they'll do exactly that you did to Nazi Germany and the Meiji Emperor in Japan, that is, put in a friendly regime and taking away what makes you a superpower(it's been done to Iraq recently, although they're not a superpower)... It's not about lack of willpower to help, I'm just knowing you'd rather not have the help, the cost would be quite high...
If there was some kind of grassroots movement about "this is wrong"(not expecting Americans to understand or criticize HOW their country is run, but expecting them to say "this isn't what I want" when it is run contrary to their wishes) my point would be a lot less valid. My point is that the rest of the world has a LOT of trouble understanding that what many Americans(let alone the rest of the world) define as "The Most Powerful Man on the Planet", is essentially a figurehead. I certainly have a lot of problems understanding how a figurehead in his own country can veto a policy in his country that affects mine in ways my own non-figurehead national leader can only dream of. Can the Americans count on help from the rest of the world? Yes... but they have to ask first...
If the americans, who have been ridiculed for their leader by other countries ever since he took power, refuse to act, perhaps the other nations will just let them suffer. We may be bound to save ourselves, but after the Americans realized how bad he was, they didn't even protest, why are we bound to save them even the trouble of protesting?
I'd say it has nothing to do with "destroying" just "not changing". Let's face it, most developers don't want to develop seperate applications for each of multiple platforms. The fact that each platform has HIG/lack of HIG, different mindsets, different capabilities, on different hardware, means one single app will have an OS where it works better, and the rest will have variable amounts of "not favored os"-ness. But each of these platforms wants developers, they want new apps. Now some developers profit from the multiple platform things(think apps that simulate one OS or another), but the majority just pick a platform or three and develop. This VM-ness would actually mean they could develop just for one, and have some complete testing on the vm, and minimal testing on each of the underlying platform, instead of having a full test suite to run on each platform.
As for the Mac vs Linux vs Windows debate, most people on slashdot want their platform to be the platform of choice (emphasis: not the number two, not the one with the design tradeoffs, but the one worked on from design steps to completion) for "cool" software. Exactly what constitutes "cool" is subjective, but noone wants to be number two. The linux crowd has been number 4,6,7,9 and 10 for most software(each distro needing a slot), although that's slowly changing. The Mac crowd is seldom number one except in specific sub-markets, and they don't want to lose those markets, but they want to add software that's designed for them first. The windows crowd has been number one for a number of years, on a number of software submarkets, ever since the demise of os/2. Because each of these groups invested in their platform(buying the hwardware, customizing the software, getting for-pay software, getting free software, figuring out how to get favorite star/scene/theme on the desktop, figuring the way to do my common everyday tasks, etc...), and they want that investment to pay off... Each time I find a software I want, only to find out it's for a different platform, it's a rejection, from a "not designed for me, so it works clunkily" type of rejection to the "will only work if I buy hardware/software for it and learn to use that on top of what I have.
I say more power to LINA, if they can actually pull it off, but I'm not holding my breath. Anyone want to estimate when (microsoft office/imail/kontact) will be ported to LINA? Sure there are alternatives, but people don't want alternatives, they want what they already use, they've invested in them, they want that investment to pay off *end rant*
He's proving a correlation, which means that knowing what happened, he found clues that it would... How can he be so sure that if we gather the clues, we'll come to the right conclusion? We have lots of data about climate, so much we usually can't tell what will happen, how is this different? Is it really that tied to radiation? Couldn't we measure radiation straight in the atmosphere? Do we already do so? Can we take multiple measurements to isolate local conditions?
Putting stuff on the moon is a romantic notion that appeals to a lot of people, but we should keep it as a last resort.
It's funny how I remember cisco was responsible for most people learning tcl at one point. I wonder how much marketing posture and spin is trying to deny the inner workings, and tech, at Cisco and other places. Trying to pretend you own something open source to drive up shares, for instance.
The production costs for software were never hard to account for in the old system, it's distribution that's hard to account for, as reproduction, and with network, transmission, tends down towards zero.
Software production however, is always for the original, not for the copies.
Just how would you know? Since they haven't listed what was infriging and what was not... Seems to me ANY unspecific "my patent's been infringed" should be thrown out by the court, since you can't show you've been defending your patent, until you actually WHICH patent's been infringed(since you could just have been not defending the patent that you're actually claiming for, just the 10000 other ones... And by forcing the issue to court, you're actually just creating lawyer work with no effort to yourself, UNTIL you make the claim specifics to a patent.
I was just thinking that's the problem with the process... If you assume a patent application is patentable, then the prior art shouldn't be the patent applicant's responsability, since he's actually having to prove he "isn't wrong"
If you assumed non-patentability from a patent application, then it might work... Basically, he'd have to prove he's done his homework and show the unicity of his work. The USPTO might also need to stop viewing the "non-granting" of a patent as anything but a public service. Especially in prior art cases.
The "main" problem, as I see it, is twofold. 1)smtp doesn't have good attribution 2)some derivative apps depend on "loose" attribution to work
a new protocol would be ideal, but while there's been proposal after proposal, none have gotten any traction, because of lack of backwards compatibility to the "brokenness" we have now.
Slashdot Mirror
And the consumer pays those costs...
AT&T sees it as a way to increase their profits, In other words, unless we boycott them, we sponsor their waste of money...
Perhaps now, any see why we could do better as an "Internet" without the largest players, at least until they're properly leashed?
You do know that anyone publishing benchmarks of Oracle(and perhaps others) is breaking the EULA for Oracle, except Oracle itself...
Which means that noone will publish a benchmark of oracle db in which it did poorly...
I wonder... And yes, I'm just wondering at this point... If Microsoft didn't think it managed to snag a single contact person through their contract with Novell(aka someone legally entitled to sell, or cross-license) code to them, more than any other right...
Someone particularly paranoid might also think that Novell, as the owner of the Unix trademark, might make an ideal scapegoat in a lawsuit...
"You were distributing..."
"We did so in good faith, and even Novell didn't know we were in the wrong..."
Especially given that for a GPL violation(say if Microsoft did copy GPL code) whoever they stole code from could sue, it would be either the fsf, or the coder, NOT Redhat or another company whose stock value might be affected by suing Microsoft...
I read the parent as "you cannot help the U.S. embargo Cuba" if you are Canadian. It wouldn't be constitutional in Canada to force you to smoke...
And tracking firemen or military personnel in danger zones is a threat to their privacy?
YES!... But it has legitimate reasons for it... Not all systems are about accounting for toilet paper rolls...
ID is a problem when it's discussed as science, since the scientific method wasn't used in the process. Teaching that some religions believes that Intelligent Design is how evolution came to be is actually on topic, and factual. It's wrong to present it in a science class, since it's not science... It's not wrong to present it as belief, in a class of beliefs...
They would have a say, if they refused to renew their contracts over it, but that's the extent of their say...
No, it's an add on for fedora, through an external repository.
It's not enough that they have to live with it...
Why can't we charge them with attempted electoral fraud, just for trying to hide the code?
But do we know the weapon was embedded in the 1800s, couldn't it have been manufactured, shot, get embedded in something(piece of wood, coral, etc...) then get embedded into the whale later, therefore explaining why the whale might not have been that old?
So if I'm a convenience store filming the arrest of a suspect in my premise, I'm only legal because it interests the police that my footage is there, i.e., it's not de facto protected as evidence?
I'm sorry, but as long as they are in uniform, ANYONE filming them(and proving, yes that's harder, an unedited footage) SHOULD be protected as evidence, not just the ones the police likes.
I don't think the police being allowed to decide which recordings of themselves are legal(while in uniform) is in any way shape or form, fair. I don't get to decide which footage of me is "not" evidence of a crime. And by declaring a footage "illegal" police CAN declare evidence inadmissible.
I meant judges, few issues are "decided" by ministers, they usually are put forward by them however.
I'd argue that the problem with technology issues and regulation, is that it's almost unheard of for an industry expert in them, to also become a judge. What we need is for people who actually understand the issues to be the ones deciding, not politicians.
I'm sorry, but why can't we just define that the ooxml format either drop the "works like word 95" clause or abandon the claim to be an open format?
My understanding of an open format(and I might be naive from your point of view, but it's my opinion) is that 100%, not 99.9%, of what the format can include, has to be open, for it to deserve the term.
Maybe Microsoft is just afraid they can only compete with a completely backwards-incompatible(that is, a format that finally can be read 100% in other programs), instead of what they have now, a format that people have to keep old versions of programs, just to read old documents, since even Microsoft doesn't provide 100%, works all the time, in all cases, backward compatible import formats.
Except for those who already have disks, and want to keep using them. This just means that Intel doesn't want to steal the thunder from the drive manufacturers already selling flash-added drives. It's not aimed at us here at slashdot(we had ours about how the technology some time ago), it's aimed at shareholders...
I'm not asking you to apologize, but let's be realistic here.
If other countries do come into your country, and free you from your elected government, I do think they'll do exactly that you did to Nazi Germany and the Meiji Emperor in Japan, that is, put in a friendly regime and taking away what makes you a superpower(it's been done to Iraq recently, although they're not a superpower)... It's not about lack of willpower to help, I'm just knowing you'd rather not have the help, the cost would be quite high...
If there was some kind of grassroots movement about "this is wrong"(not expecting Americans to understand or criticize HOW their country is run, but expecting them to say "this isn't what I want" when it is run contrary to their wishes) my point would be a lot less valid. My point is that the rest of the world has a LOT of trouble understanding that what many Americans(let alone the rest of the world) define as "The Most Powerful Man on the Planet", is essentially a figurehead. I certainly have a lot of problems understanding how a figurehead in his own country can veto a policy in his country that affects mine in ways my own non-figurehead national leader can only dream of.
Can the Americans count on help from the rest of the world? Yes... but they have to ask first...
If the americans, who have been ridiculed for their leader by other countries ever since he took power, refuse to act, perhaps the other nations will just let them suffer. We may be bound to save ourselves, but after the Americans realized how bad he was, they didn't even protest, why are we bound to save them even the trouble of protesting?
I'd say it has nothing to do with "destroying" just "not changing". Let's face it, most developers don't want to develop seperate applications for each of multiple platforms. The fact that each platform has HIG/lack of HIG, different mindsets, different capabilities, on different hardware, means one single app will have an OS where it works better, and the rest will have variable amounts of "not favored os"-ness. But each of these platforms wants developers, they want new apps. Now some developers profit from the multiple platform things(think apps that simulate one OS or another), but the majority just pick a platform or three and develop. This VM-ness would actually mean they could develop just for one, and have some complete testing on the vm, and minimal testing on each of the underlying platform, instead of having a full test suite to run on each platform.
As for the Mac vs Linux vs Windows debate, most people on slashdot want their platform to be the platform of choice (emphasis: not the number two, not the one with the design tradeoffs, but the one worked on from design steps to completion) for "cool" software. Exactly what constitutes "cool" is subjective, but noone wants to be number two. The linux crowd has been number 4,6,7,9 and 10 for most software(each distro needing a slot), although that's slowly changing. The Mac crowd is seldom number one except in specific sub-markets, and they don't want to lose those markets, but they want to add software that's designed for them first. The windows crowd has been number one for a number of years, on a number of software submarkets, ever since the demise of os/2. Because each of these groups invested in their platform(buying the hwardware, customizing the software, getting for-pay software, getting free software, figuring out how to get favorite star/scene/theme on the desktop, figuring the way to do my common everyday tasks, etc...), and they want that investment to pay off... Each time I find a software I want, only to find out it's for a different platform, it's a rejection, from a "not designed for me, so it works clunkily" type of rejection to the "will only work if I buy hardware/software for it and learn to use that on top of what I have.
I say more power to LINA, if they can actually pull it off, but I'm not holding my breath. Anyone want to estimate when (microsoft office/imail/kontact) will be ported to LINA? Sure there are alternatives, but people don't want alternatives, they want what they already use, they've invested in them, they want that investment to pay off
*end rant*
He's proving a correlation, which means that knowing what happened, he found clues that it would...
How can he be so sure that if we gather the clues, we'll come to the right conclusion? We have lots of data about climate, so much we usually can't tell what will happen, how is this different? Is it really that tied to radiation? Couldn't we measure radiation straight in the atmosphere? Do we already do so? Can we take multiple measurements to isolate local conditions?
Putting stuff on the moon is a romantic notion that appeals to a lot of people, but we should keep it as a last resort.
It's funny how I remember cisco was responsible for most people learning tcl at one point. I wonder how much marketing posture and spin is trying to deny the inner workings, and tech, at Cisco and other places. Trying to pretend you own something open source to drive up shares, for instance.
The production costs for software were never hard to account for in the old system, it's distribution that's hard to account for, as reproduction, and with network, transmission, tends down towards zero.
Software production however, is always for the original, not for the copies.
Just how would you know? Since they haven't listed what was infriging and what was not...
Seems to me ANY unspecific "my patent's been infringed" should be thrown out by the court, since you can't show you've been defending your patent, until you actually WHICH patent's been infringed(since you could just have been not defending the patent that you're actually claiming for, just the 10000 other ones... And by forcing the issue to court, you're actually just creating lawyer work with no effort to yourself, UNTIL you make the claim specifics to a patent.
I was just thinking that's the problem with the process...
If you assume a patent application is patentable, then the prior art shouldn't be the patent applicant's responsability, since he's actually having to prove he "isn't wrong"
If you assumed non-patentability from a patent application, then it might work... Basically, he'd have to prove he's done his homework and show the unicity of his work. The USPTO might also need to stop viewing the "non-granting" of a patent as anything but a public service. Especially in prior art cases.
The "main" problem, as I see it, is twofold.
1)smtp doesn't have good attribution
2)some derivative apps depend on "loose" attribution to work
a new protocol would be ideal, but while there's been proposal after proposal, none have gotten any traction, because of lack of backwards compatibility to the "brokenness" we have now.