im english and i hate being called british - im english. How come its politically correct for somebody to be scottish but not so for english?
It's not. Actually, I don't mind the English saying "British" when they mean "British" and not "English".
I much prefer them to say "English" when they mean "English", and I'm glad that the cross of St.George has mostly replaced the Union Flag as a representation of "England" at sporting events.
And if you want to consider yourself English first, that's okay.
That having been said, you used the phrase "politically correct"; that's a pretty common label used by those on the right against anything they don't like. And in your other post, you say " i am not racist". Flag two.
In your other post, you say that "i am not racist, i dont support the BNP or the NF but i do think the BNP could scare other 'real' politicians into be proactive about some real issues."
So you think the BNP could be a useful tool to get the government to adopt some "more BNP-ish" policies? Personally, I think that Labour and the Tories (especially the Tories) attempted to do this already, in trying to swing floating voters at the election.
Fuck floating voters. Those undecided little gets have a disproportinately large effect on election results, and I'm sick of seeing parties pandering to their every little whine and prejudice.
The best thing to do with the BNP is not to allow them to have an effect on the mainstream parties; unless you agree with their policies. You seem to want a watered-down BNP. I don't know you personally, so I can't say if you're a racist; but I certainly wouldn't bet against it.
c) The best Scottish football teams WANT TO JOIN THE ENGLAND AND WALES PREMIER LEAGUE.
That's because they want more money.
The Old Firm (Celtic and Rangers), coffers bloated by the money of their sectarian bigot fans ("please buy another Rangers strip so we can afford to pay another hugely expensive foreign player") have bought their way to the top of the league. There is nowhere for them to go. Scottish football is totally dominated by them.
Personally, I'd love to see them getting their asses kicked on a regular basis by English teams, and not win every damn thing going.
It probably wouldn't do Scottish football any good; but it's not like it's any good anyway.
Look; I'm not really even into football, and yet I find the declining performance of the Scotland team an embarassment to the name of the country. Why are they so crap?
Simple. The two biggest teams, who in other countries would nurture the best native talent around, buy expensive foreign players in preference to Scots.
Not that Celtic or Rangers deserve to be called Scottish anyway.
Celtic are an 'Irish' team, and Rangers are a 'British' team. And that's just a tie to their religious bigotries.
Don't believe me? Look at the flags their fans carry. I don't hear much talk about 'Scotland'. These aren't Scottish teams. They may as well fuck off to the English or Irish leagues if those are where their loyalties lie.
My personal view is that the union is mutually beneficial, and that devolved power to Holyrood in a number of areas is all that we really need.
Didn't it strike you as ironic that half the General Election campaigning in Scotland was on issues that were the responsibility of Holyrood, not Westminster?
I think the trouble was the privatisation was most heinously botched.
Blame Maggie Thatcher. A lot of what was later tagged "Thatcherism" as some sort of philosophy was actually more the consequences of political expediency than any idealism.
In the case of BT, the Tories wanted the money. They could have privatised it properly (i.e. such that there was a genuine free market), or they could have done it quickly, giving us the worst of both worlds- a private monopoly that required lots of regulation and was still crap.
They chose to do it quickly, because they wanted the money. All that "free-market" crap was tacked on as justification. If they'd meant it, they would have taken the long but effective route.
Competition? Ha ha. Remember those Mercury phone booths that appeared in the early 90s(?) and disappeared not too long afterwards? That was your lot. It took 15 years for any sort of competition to reach your average consumer, and as we can see, it's still reliant on BT.
By open-sourcing it, you've opened the floodgates. On of the big companies is going to take your code, add a bunch of features,
Troll or not, I'm going to use it as an opportunity to say this:-
If you own the entire copyright to GPLed code, you can do what the heck you like with it, including releasing it under a non-GPL license.
Of course, you can't stop people distributing and expanding the original code under the GPL. And unless you can get the permission of all contributors, you can't "un-GPL" new versions derived from your original base. (This will never happen with Linux because there are too many contributors to make it practical).
But if you (or all the copyright holders on a piece of GPLed code) want to release your original code under a GPL license, you can.
More importantly (this is the point), in such cases, you can add new code, and release that with a *non-GPL* license only.
If you have the original copyright, you can do this. So, if the software is at an early developmental stage, it's not necessarily that big a deal that it's been GPLed. Provided, that is, you have a close-knit group of developers who *all* agree to non-GPL distribution/modification of their code.
Well, yeah. If you want to replace the mobo with a generic one, you'll also have to replace the PSU. And vice versa.
I've also heard of nonstandard screw sizes and fixtures in positions that are going to be very hard to get to fit a standard case.
Personally, I'm not saying I wouldn't buy a Dell if the price was (very) right; but I'd be extremely wary of things like that. Even if there wasn't the price differential, I don't like the idea of not being able to replace the PSU with a spare if it goes belly up the night before an important piece of work has to be completed.
Of course, if you have a laptop, it's a whole different kettle of fish...
They sold me a $300 desktop with a $120 warranty. Having never used it (the monitor gets here today) I can say that it's about the best deal you can get for a national-brand PC.
You'll probably be glad you got the warranty, since the non-standard components inside Dells will cost *way* more to replace than standard off-the-shelf ones.
I have found cheap onboard video to be a performance killer, even if all you do is browse the internet and type letters in Word. Especially if it has "shared" memory.
That's pretty interesting, actually. Do you have any links for stuff like that? (I'll Google it, but I'm interested anyway)
Reason I ask is that I have a 1.8GHz P4 machine that has used the onboard video (Intel 845G) since day 1, and I'd be *damn* interested if I can get a noticeable speed increase for US $40 or so.
I rarely, if ever, use the thing for computer games, but the 8MB (stolen) memory limit is definitely too small by todays standards.
Kinda like trying to buy a new car without a radio.
Yeah; ironically, the cars that omit radios seem to be the $150k+ sports cars that also omit wall panels, carpets, etc.
I'm willing to bet that in these cases, the radio wasn't omitted because the manufacturer was too stingey to spend an extra $25 on a cheap radio/CD combo.
The fella who noticed that wounds didn't get infected if you covered them with vaseline lived into his 90s, and credited his long life to a full-skin vaseline massage given to him by his nurse everyday.
This guy is getting a full-skin vaseline massage from a nurse every day and you think it's "sadly, kind of boring"?!
My God! I wouldn't mind helping that nurse live into her 90s using the same method (though I'd prefer she was in her 20s at the time I was doing it).
I'd like to point out that, while your exploitation of the situation was probably justified in that HP were only willing to help out under the threat of bad publicity, if they'd done the same thing in the first place, it would have placed it under a quite different light.
I've heard more than once people on/. comment that you should go to shop 'X', try out a product, then go to shop Y who sell it cheaper. Now, if X is a known overpriced box-shifter, fair enough. But as a general rule, this is ethically really lousy, and promotes the 'bad' retail practices that./ers claim to hate. Frankly, it's "chicken and egg"; people bitch about bad retail practices, but if they encourage them, it's debatable who's to blame.
Of couse,/. is made up of individuals with differing views, but I'd be willing to be that those exploiting retailer X would be quite happy to complain about "bad service" chain stores.
This reminds me that I *personally* don't compliment/publicise retailers enough when they provide good service...:-(
These include the fact that those who argue for the existence of a deity mix science and faith together (often unintentionally). And it partly comes down to the definition of "believe" (and of "God"; see later)
I believe (ha!) that this word has at least three distinct meanings; that of faith, that of believing something based on observable fact (*), and that of opinion.
Belief in the third sense often surreptitiously invokes the first sense to add weight to something that, when it comes down to it, is never more than a matter of opinion or personal morality.
However, the first and second senses, although they use the same words, are oil and water. If you want to take something on faith, fine. But (except for (*) below), you cannot use this as the basis for scientific argument. Ever.
Now; assuming we are arguing for an actual deity, as opposed to 'intelligent design' (a vague concept; even if it were true, the argument is often subtley used to imply that intelligence --> God), here is my problem:-
Who, or what, is God?
People ask "Do you believe in God?" or "a god?" or something similar, but neglect to define what this would be.
Do they mean aliens with a higher level of intelligence than us? Are we arguing about intelligent aliens (science) or 'God' (faith)? Because, for me, this non-concrete "definition" of God, rooted in faith, is used in a scientific context, and yet I fail to see how we can do reputable science when we don't even know what we're discussing.
The problem seems to be that, as soon as you pin God down, he is no longer God, he is an intelligent alien. Or something else altogether.
(No; this isn't a reference to the HHGG "puff of logic" passage referenced in the title. It's my genuine opinion that, in making people pin down the meaning God like that, He/She/It would cease to be the God that they were originally discussing)
(*) Of course, there are some things that we must ultimately accept without proof; such as our perception of reality- if reality even exists, and is not an illusion. You can reject this, of course; but in rejecting it, you must reject *everything* around you as unproven, including your own thoughts.
This is an opportunity for all those who lose thier job to go and start thier own company, I think that there is a need in the European market for more small I.T shops.
If any UK readers think this is a good idea, bear in mind how the danger of software patents would make life disproportinately harder for small businesses, and vote accordingly in today's general election.
Yeah, I know it's not a European election; the question is, do you want to support those that will make your life harder because their leaders are in thrall to corporate America?
Right... sort of.
The Russians were actually allied with Germany, and would have taken no significant part in the war if Hitler had not decided that he wantesd Russia as part of his empire, and decided to attack them.
Exactly; although I have no doubt that (overall) the allies were the side of good, and the Axis powers the side of evil, the involvement of the Soviet Union in the allied victory is a major problem.
Frankly, I don't consider Stalin to have been that much less evil than Hitler, and as you point out, he would have been quite happy to have supported the Germans if it had benefited him.
The ordinary Russians may not have been 'evil', but their leadership certainly were.
Anyway, if they hadn't been around to help defeat Germany, the likelihood increases that Germany may have prolonged the war, or even have taken over large swathes of Western Europe.
And then... well, we know now that they weren't close to developing a true atomic bomb. We didn't know that then, and I doubt anyone in power would have hesitated to use it against Germany if there was the chance of them having it and/or of Germany prolonging the war for much longer.
Still strikes me as ironic that Germany surrendered two months before the weapon designed for use against *them* was completed; and that it was used against Japan.
They may well have used it against the Soviet Union too; actually, some have argued that they did, tactically, since the dropping of the bombs on Japan is considered by some to have been a way of ending the war *before* Stalin's lot got there.
Re:Will probably find many blatant violators.
on
The Open-Source Detector
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
We certainly would have violated the GPL in a second, given that one couldn't really prove damage to the other party (aging idealist hippies with beards who were naive enough to give away software with a silly "license").
That's interesting. I wonder what the legal position would be if it was transparently obvious that, rather than being an honest mistake or result of one lazy/crooked employee, the inclusion of GPLed code was quite deliberate, as a consequence of (what would be obvious when one or more violations was investigated) unofficial company policy to infringe licenses.
Damages aside, if one piece of GPLed code is inadvertantly included, a court is likely to demand that it is removed, but not that the whole product becomes GPL.
If this is being done as a matter of course (and regardless of whether or not there was any written evidence, it sounds like a consistent pattern of violation at your company would have presented almost incontrovertible evidence that this behaviour was sanctioned as unwritten policy), the court ruling may well be different.
Yes, "Danger Man"- or at least the second series of it- was known as "Secret Agent" in the USA; that was in the link I gave, but I should have pointed it out.
These are far more realistic than Star Trek, and present a much clearer understanding of politics. Maybe someone should get the rights to produce a prequel of "The Prisoner" (set in The Village, but not with No. 6)
Of course, some people have argued that the character in "The Prisoner" is supposed to be the same character that was in Danger Man (Series 2 link; note that there were apparently plot differences between the two series).
OTOH, McGoohan denies this, but having recently seen the final episode of "The Prisoner" again, I don't think he knows more than anyone else.
I mean, have you *seen* the damn thing? The Prisoner had, at its best, some damn good stuff in it.
And at its worst, it's very datedly eccentric in a 'swinging' 1960s kind of way that veers on occasion towards 'Austin Powers' territory (although there is no 'Austin Powers' figure per se; certainly not McGoohan's character).
Supposedly, the series was cut short because it wasn't getting the viewing figures needed, and McGoohan had to write the final episode at short notice.
Which begs the question, did he have *any* idea what the final episode would have been had they been given their full run? At any rate, what you get is nonsense masquerading as something slightly deeper.
Actually, I figured you were just replying to the grandparent; I didn't realise the great-grandparent (or third cousin second removed) that was the origin of this was started by you.
So, I'm trying to figure out if this was meant to be funny, or just modded that way.
Anyway, a 250 pound iPod is hardly dirt cheap, but it wouldn't be horrifically expensive for an 18th (or possibly 16th) birthday present. Any other birthday; yeah.
But I'd consider 'VERY rich parents' to be those buying a 3-series BMW for their kid's 18th.
Suppose Coca-Cola offered to pay Joe Blogpack $2,500 to do a column talking about a dead rat found in a storage container at a Pepsi bottling facility, how quickly do you think he would jump? Do you think he would care if the story is true?
He would when he got his ass royally sued in court. And Coca-Cola would also when he blabbed all at his trial.
Result, everyone knows if they repeat garbage like that, they'll get taken to court for libel, lose the case, and have everything they own wiped out.
If Coca-Cola backed them up with funds/lawyers, it would be *blatant* what Coke were up to, all over the papers, and in addition to the bad publicity, they'd probably end up paying horrid amounts to Pepsi.
In short; if your idea happened, it would last 5 minutes and then stop. Except it won't, because even though I've never stuck my fingers in an electrical outlet I know it'll hurt like hell, so I don't need to do it once to be dissuaded from doing it again.
Slashdot Mirror
im english and i hate being called british - im english. How come its politically correct for somebody to be scottish but not so for english?
It's not. Actually, I don't mind the English saying "British" when they mean "British" and not "English".
I much prefer them to say "English" when they mean "English", and I'm glad that the cross of St.George has mostly replaced the Union Flag as a representation of "England" at sporting events.
And if you want to consider yourself English first, that's okay.
That having been said, you used the phrase "politically correct"; that's a pretty common label used by those on the right against anything they don't like. And in your other post, you say " i am not racist". Flag two.
In your other post, you say that "i am not racist, i dont support the BNP or the NF but i do think the BNP could scare other 'real' politicians into be proactive about some real issues."
So you think the BNP could be a useful tool to get the government to adopt some "more BNP-ish" policies? Personally, I think that Labour and the Tories (especially the Tories) attempted to do this already, in trying to swing floating voters at the election.
Fuck floating voters. Those undecided little gets have a disproportinately large effect on election results, and I'm sick of seeing parties pandering to their every little whine and prejudice.
The best thing to do with the BNP is not to allow them to have an effect on the mainstream parties; unless you agree with their policies. You seem to want a watered-down BNP. I don't know you personally, so I can't say if you're a racist; but I certainly wouldn't bet against it.
c) The best Scottish football teams WANT TO JOIN THE ENGLAND AND WALES PREMIER LEAGUE.
That's because they want more money.
The Old Firm (Celtic and Rangers), coffers bloated by the money of their sectarian bigot fans ("please buy another Rangers strip so we can afford to pay another hugely expensive foreign player") have bought their way to the top of the league. There is nowhere for them to go. Scottish football is totally dominated by them.
Personally, I'd love to see them getting their asses kicked on a regular basis by English teams, and not win every damn thing going.
It probably wouldn't do Scottish football any good; but it's not like it's any good anyway.
Look; I'm not really even into football, and yet I find the declining performance of the Scotland team an embarassment to the name of the country. Why are they so crap?
Simple. The two biggest teams, who in other countries would nurture the best native talent around, buy expensive foreign players in preference to Scots.
Not that Celtic or Rangers deserve to be called Scottish anyway.
Celtic are an 'Irish' team, and Rangers are a 'British' team. And that's just a tie to their religious bigotries.
Don't believe me? Look at the flags their fans carry. I don't hear much talk about 'Scotland'. These aren't Scottish teams. They may as well fuck off to the English or Irish leagues if those are where their loyalties lie.
Fi, hefyd!
:-)
(Moderation guidance: this is a very funny joke in Welsh
Araf!... pobol y cwm.
My personal view is that the union is mutually beneficial, and that devolved power to Holyrood in a number of areas is all that we really need.
Didn't it strike you as ironic that half the General Election campaigning in Scotland was on issues that were the responsibility of Holyrood, not Westminster?
I think the trouble was the privatisation was most heinously botched.
Blame Maggie Thatcher. A lot of what was later tagged "Thatcherism" as some sort of philosophy was actually more the consequences of political expediency than any idealism.
In the case of BT, the Tories wanted the money. They could have privatised it properly (i.e. such that there was a genuine free market), or they could have done it quickly, giving us the worst of both worlds- a private monopoly that required lots of regulation and was still crap.
They chose to do it quickly, because they wanted the money. All that "free-market" crap was tacked on as justification. If they'd meant it, they would have taken the long but effective route.
Competition? Ha ha. Remember those Mercury phone booths that appeared in the early 90s(?) and disappeared not too long afterwards? That was your lot. It took 15 years for any sort of competition to reach your average consumer, and as we can see, it's still reliant on BT.
Thanks Maggie.
Do what they did back in the good ol' days of the dot com bubble
Great idea. All we need now is a machine to take us back to the days when people actually gave out money like that.
By open-sourcing it, you've opened the floodgates. On of the big companies is going to take your code, add a bunch of features,
Troll or not, I'm going to use it as an opportunity to say this:-
If you own the entire copyright to GPLed code, you can do what the heck you like with it, including releasing it under a non-GPL license.
Of course, you can't stop people distributing and expanding the original code under the GPL. And unless you can get the permission of all contributors, you can't "un-GPL" new versions derived from your original base. (This will never happen with Linux because there are too many contributors to make it practical).
But if you (or all the copyright holders on a piece of GPLed code) want to release your original code under a GPL license, you can.
More importantly (this is the point), in such cases, you can add new code, and release that with a *non-GPL* license only.
If you have the original copyright, you can do this. So, if the software is at an early developmental stage, it's not necessarily that big a deal that it's been GPLed. Provided, that is, you have a close-knit group of developers who *all* agree to non-GPL distribution/modification of their code.
Well, yeah. If you want to replace the mobo with a generic one, you'll also have to replace the PSU. And vice versa.
I've also heard of nonstandard screw sizes and fixtures in positions that are going to be very hard to get to fit a standard case.
Personally, I'm not saying I wouldn't buy a Dell if the price was (very) right; but I'd be extremely wary of things like that. Even if there wasn't the price differential, I don't like the idea of not being able to replace the PSU with a spare if it goes belly up the night before an important piece of work has to be completed.
Of course, if you have a laptop, it's a whole different kettle of fish...
They sold me a $300 desktop with a $120 warranty. Having never used it (the monitor gets here today) I can say that it's about the best deal you can get for a national-brand PC.
You'll probably be glad you got the warranty, since the non-standard components inside Dells will cost *way* more to replace than standard off-the-shelf ones.
Fry's Turkish Delight has a fairly thin layer of chocolate on it, which IMHO improves it quite a lot without being overpowering.
Fry's are owned by Cadbury's; they also do one under the Cadbury name, but that's more like Turkish Delight-filled chocolate, and not so good IMHO.
I have found cheap onboard video to be a performance killer, even if all you do is browse the internet and type letters in Word. Especially if it has "shared" memory.
That's pretty interesting, actually. Do you have any links for stuff like that? (I'll Google it, but I'm interested anyway)
Reason I ask is that I have a 1.8GHz P4 machine that has used the onboard video (Intel 845G) since day 1, and I'd be *damn* interested if I can get a noticeable speed increase for US $40 or so.
I rarely, if ever, use the thing for computer games, but the 8MB (stolen) memory limit is definitely too small by todays standards.
Kinda like trying to buy a new car without a radio.
Yeah; ironically, the cars that omit radios seem to be the $150k+ sports cars that also omit wall panels, carpets, etc.
I'm willing to bet that in these cases, the radio wasn't omitted because the manufacturer was too stingey to spend an extra $25 on a cheap radio/CD combo.
The fella who noticed that wounds didn't get infected if you covered them with vaseline lived into his 90s, and credited his long life to a full-skin vaseline massage given to him by his nurse everyday.
This guy is getting a full-skin vaseline massage from a nurse every day and you think it's "sadly, kind of boring"?!
My God! I wouldn't mind helping that nurse live into her 90s using the same method (though I'd prefer she was in her 20s at the time I was doing it).
I'd like to point out that, while your exploitation of the situation was probably justified in that HP were only willing to help out under the threat of bad publicity, if they'd done the same thing in the first place, it would have placed it under a quite different light.
/. comment that you should go to shop 'X', try out a product, then go to shop Y who sell it cheaper. Now, if X is a known overpriced box-shifter, fair enough. But as a general rule, this is ethically really lousy, and promotes the 'bad' retail practices that ./ers claim to hate. Frankly, it's "chicken and egg"; people bitch about bad retail practices, but if they encourage them, it's debatable who's to blame.
/. is made up of individuals with differing views, but I'd be willing to be that those exploiting retailer X would be quite happy to complain about "bad service" chain stores.
:-(
I've heard more than once people on
Of couse,
This reminds me that I *personally* don't compliment/publicise retailers enough when they provide good service...
It is interesting to note the products of unintended consequences. Just a few: Post-Its, Microwave Ovens, and Vasoline.
I shudder to think what the sequence of 'unintended consequences' leading up to the invention of vaseline were.
This brings up a number of points.
These include the fact that those who argue for the existence of a deity mix science and faith together (often unintentionally). And it partly comes down to the definition of "believe" (and of "God"; see later)
I believe (ha!) that this word has at least three distinct meanings; that of faith, that of believing something based on observable fact (*), and that of opinion.
Belief in the third sense often surreptitiously invokes the first sense to add weight to something that, when it comes down to it, is never more than a matter of opinion or personal morality.
However, the first and second senses, although they use the same words, are oil and water. If you want to take something on faith, fine. But (except for (*) below), you cannot use this as the basis for scientific argument. Ever.
Now; assuming we are arguing for an actual deity, as opposed to 'intelligent design' (a vague concept; even if it were true, the argument is often subtley used to imply that intelligence --> God), here is my problem:-
Who, or what, is God?
People ask "Do you believe in God?" or "a god?" or something similar, but neglect to define what this would be.
Do they mean aliens with a higher level of intelligence than us? Are we arguing about intelligent aliens (science) or 'God' (faith)? Because, for me, this non-concrete "definition" of God, rooted in faith, is used in a scientific context, and yet I fail to see how we can do reputable science when we don't even know what we're discussing.
The problem seems to be that, as soon as you pin God down, he is no longer God, he is an intelligent alien. Or something else altogether.
(No; this isn't a reference to the HHGG "puff of logic" passage referenced in the title. It's my genuine opinion that, in making people pin down the meaning God like that, He/She/It would cease to be the God that they were originally discussing)
(*) Of course, there are some things that we must ultimately accept without proof; such as our perception of reality- if reality even exists, and is not an illusion. You can reject this, of course; but in rejecting it, you must reject *everything* around you as unproven, including your own thoughts.
This is an opportunity for all those who lose thier job to go and start thier own company, I think that there is a need in the European market for more small I.T shops.
If any UK readers think this is a good idea, bear in mind how the danger of software patents would make life disproportinately harder for small businesses, and vote accordingly in today's general election.
Yeah, I know it's not a European election; the question is, do you want to support those that will make your life harder because their leaders are in thrall to corporate America?
Right ... sort of.
The Russians were actually allied with Germany, and would have taken no significant part in the war if Hitler had not decided that he wantesd Russia as part of his empire, and decided to attack them.
Exactly; although I have no doubt that (overall) the allies were the side of good, and the Axis powers the side of evil, the involvement of the Soviet Union in the allied victory is a major problem.
Frankly, I don't consider Stalin to have been that much less evil than Hitler, and as you point out, he would have been quite happy to have supported the Germans if it had benefited him.
The ordinary Russians may not have been 'evil', but their leadership certainly were.
Anyway, if they hadn't been around to help defeat Germany, the likelihood increases that Germany may have prolonged the war, or even have taken over large swathes of Western Europe.
And then... well, we know now that they weren't close to developing a true atomic bomb. We didn't know that then, and I doubt anyone in power would have hesitated to use it against Germany if there was the chance of them having it and/or of Germany prolonging the war for much longer.
Still strikes me as ironic that Germany surrendered two months before the weapon designed for use against *them* was completed; and that it was used against Japan.
They may well have used it against the Soviet Union too; actually, some have argued that they did, tactically, since the dropping of the bombs on Japan is considered by some to have been a way of ending the war *before* Stalin's lot got there.
We certainly would have violated the GPL in a second, given that one couldn't really prove damage to the other party (aging idealist hippies with beards who were naive enough to give away software with a silly "license").
That's interesting. I wonder what the legal position would be if it was transparently obvious that, rather than being an honest mistake or result of one lazy/crooked employee, the inclusion of GPLed code was quite deliberate, as a consequence of (what would be obvious when one or more violations was investigated) unofficial company policy to infringe licenses.
Damages aside, if one piece of GPLed code is inadvertantly included, a court is likely to demand that it is removed, but not that the whole product becomes GPL.
If this is being done as a matter of course (and regardless of whether or not there was any written evidence, it sounds like a consistent pattern of violation at your company would have presented almost incontrovertible evidence that this behaviour was sanctioned as unwritten policy), the court ruling may well be different.
I hope I'm not alone in expecting a higher standard from the slashdot editors.
Not at all; many newcomers and extremely naive people read Slashdot every day.
Yes, "Danger Man"- or at least the second series of it- was known as "Secret Agent" in the USA; that was in the link I gave, but I should have pointed it out.
I use to have a crush on Wesley Crusher.
So, does this account replace your old one, or are you still posting as 'CleverNickname'?
These are far more realistic than Star Trek, and present a much clearer understanding of politics. Maybe someone should get the rights to produce a prequel of "The Prisoner" (set in The Village, but not with No. 6)
Of course, some people have argued that the character in "The Prisoner" is supposed to be the same character that was in Danger Man (Series 2 link; note that there were apparently plot differences between the two series).
OTOH, McGoohan denies this, but having recently seen the final episode of "The Prisoner" again, I don't think he knows more than anyone else.
I mean, have you *seen* the damn thing? The Prisoner had, at its best, some damn good stuff in it.
And at its worst, it's very datedly eccentric in a 'swinging' 1960s kind of way that veers on occasion towards 'Austin Powers' territory (although there is no 'Austin Powers' figure per se; certainly not McGoohan's character).
Supposedly, the series was cut short because it wasn't getting the viewing figures needed, and McGoohan had to write the final episode at short notice.
Which begs the question, did he have *any* idea what the final episode would have been had they been given their full run? At any rate, what you get is nonsense masquerading as something slightly deeper.
Actually, I figured you were just replying to the grandparent; I didn't realise the great-grandparent (or third cousin second removed) that was the origin of this was started by you.
So, I'm trying to figure out if this was meant to be funny, or just modded that way.
Anyway, a 250 pound iPod is hardly dirt cheap, but it wouldn't be horrifically expensive for an 18th (or possibly 16th) birthday present. Any other birthday; yeah.
But I'd consider 'VERY rich parents' to be those buying a 3-series BMW for their kid's 18th.
Suppose Coca-Cola offered to pay Joe Blogpack $2,500 to do a column talking about a dead rat found in a storage container at a Pepsi bottling facility, how quickly do you think he would jump? Do you think he would care if the story is true?
He would when he got his ass royally sued in court. And Coca-Cola would also when he blabbed all at his trial.
Result, everyone knows if they repeat garbage like that, they'll get taken to court for libel, lose the case, and have everything they own wiped out.
If Coca-Cola backed them up with funds/lawyers, it would be *blatant* what Coke were up to, all over the papers, and in addition to the bad publicity, they'd probably end up paying horrid amounts to Pepsi.
In short; if your idea happened, it would last 5 minutes and then stop. Except it won't, because even though I've never stuck my fingers in an electrical outlet I know it'll hurt like hell, so I don't need to do it once to be dissuaded from doing it again.