Haha, an anti-Free Software shill. That's a good one.
The debate over the GPL-v3 has brought a lot of shills out of the wood work who have been using lies and deception to try to prevent the creation of the GPL-v3. I call these people anti-Free Software shills.
AlXtreme further opined:
Linus' opinion on the hoops Tivo has set up for it's users is irrelevant, IMHO [...] even if Linus was a FS-proponent, he wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it.
I very much disagree with you here. I think Torvalds' opinion on the Tivo is extremely important. His
main objection to the GPL-v3 is the anti-tivoization clauses it contains. Second, if Torvalds were a FS-proponent, then there is something very simple he could do regarding the Tivo: he could stop fighting the GPL-v3 and work on getting the clearance necessary to start releasing the Linux kernel under the GPL-v3.
AlXtreme asked:
If you simply look at the law, the rights in both definitions, then they are equal (if they are not, feel free to put me on track).
I've already tried to put you on track. I've already told you that the Tivo gives us a pertinent, real world example of open source software that is not free. Much of the debate over the GPL-v3 is centered on the real world differences between FS and OSS.
The loophole that Tivo exploited in the GPL-v2 has reduced that license from being a FOSS license to merely being an OSS license. The Free Software foundation is fixing that loophole in their GPL-v3. One of the most important users of the GPL-v2 objects to the proposed changes in the GPL-v3 because he would prefer for the Linux kernel to be OSS and not FS.
This is a real and relevant debate that will affect the entire FOSS community for decades to come.
I fully agree with almost everything you said. I even agree with your claim that this is not a "Free as in beer" problem. But I never claimed it was so that seems to be a bit of a red herring. The Free vs. Open Source debate has never been about "free as in beer".
ISTM that SugarCRM could be a poster child for the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. You seem to agree with me. SugarCRM is Open Source software that is not free.
You may be correct that I wasn't using the OSI definition of "Open Source". I was using the definition used by the person who is perhaps the most important proponent of Open Source, Linus Torvalds. I believe the definition he uses is aptly described by the Linux
Information Project as:
Open source software is software whose source code is freely available (i.e., without any requirement for payment or any other obstacles) for anyone to inspect and study
That page goes on to describe the real world differences that now exist between Free Software (FS) and Open Source Software (OSS). Since you think any such difference is a misconception, I feel obligated to bring you up to speed on the current status of these two very different concepts.
The best way to see the difference between OSS and FS is to look at the ongoing controversy over the anti-tivoisation clauses in the new GPL-v3. The Tivo uses GPL-v2 code (especially the Linux kernel) in a way that complies with the letter of the GPL-v2 but violates the spirit with which that license was written. The problem is that even though owners/users of the device are able to see the source code and are able to send bug fixes and modifications upstream, they are not allowed to run modified versions of the code on their own device unless the modifications are blessed by the Tivo corporation.
Torvalds, the chief architect of the Linux kernel sees no problem with the Tivo. He claims that he is only interested in the Open Source aspects of the GPL and since the source is still visible to users/owners and since they can contribute modifications upstream then from a pragmatic, engineering viewpoint, Tivo is using his code in the spirit of Open Source and that is perfectly okay with him. I don't agree with Torvalds, but that is his position.
But there has always been a difference between OSS and FS even before the advent of the Tivo. The (IMO misguided) inventors and advocates of OSS "movement" claim there is no difference but the FS advocates who predated them have always insisted that
Open Source misses the point of Free Software.
In light of all of this evidence that directly contradicts your claim that OSS == FS, I can only conclude that if you are not an anti-Free Software shill you are the one who is badly misinformed. I hope I've made some small step in helping you correct this problem.
Do you understand the difference between "open source software" and "free software"?
By your description SugarCRM is not free software but it certainly sounds like it is open source.
Likewise, it sounds like SugarCRM is keeping to the spirit of open source but is not keeping to the spirit of free software.
PJ took a needed rest after some time was spent trying to serve her. The process of trying to serve her started before she took leave.
I realize this is what Daniel Lyons reported. But he has spread SCO lies and FUD in the past so I don't consider him a reliable source. I certainly don't consider anyone from SCO as a reliable source either.
Do you have any independent evidence to back up Lyons' claim?
Technician said:
If she was tipped off that someone was stalking her (trying to serve her), I could easly understand her wanting to take some time off for her health.
PJ had a series of health issues before taking time off. You seem to be implying that her claim to need time off to get her health back was phony.
Perhaps you know nothing at all about PJ, but I know her through Groklaw and email exchanges. She has displayed more integrity than anyone else I know on the Internet. I find it odd that you choose to disbelieve her and yet you take the word of known liars as if it were gospel.
I agree with you to the extent that I think it is possible that PJ's leave of absence was related to SCO's moves against her.
But PJ took her leave of absence well before Lyons' story about her broke. I admit is it possible that Lyons and SCO are breaking with their long tradition of telling mostly lies and this time are telling the truth. But given their track record and the fact that their current, unverified, story makes PJ look bad, I'm going to have to see some proof before I believe them.
In an ideal world, when you lie over and over and over again, people stop believing you.
Fair???
A reputable and well-known journalist said:
Yes, Pamela Jones is a real person. I've met her several times, and I've often "talked" with her on email and IM. I consider her a friend.
To which seebs responded:
This isn't exactly convincing evidence that she exists, let alone that she's not a paid shill.
IMO, a reputable eye-witness who says they have met someone and consider them to be a friend is convincing evidence that that someone exists. Furthermore, since Vaughan-Nichols and PJ have linked to each other stories, this is also convincing evidence that the PJ Vaughan-Nichols met, and is friends with, is the same PJ who has done the near superhuman effort to make Groklaw what it is today.
In terms of evidence of someone's existence, this is probably as good as it gets.
Perhaps you plucked your definition of fair from Darl McBride's "Creative Uses of the English Language".
Yes, they need a pretext to subpoena someone. Otherwise politicians (and other people of interest) would be routinely subpoenaed for no good reason in cases they have nothing to do with.
I suspect SCO has a twofold interest in subpoena-ing PJ now. First, she is on a break to recover her health. SCO is just the sort of pond scum that cannot resist kicking someone when she is down. I believe they really want to worsen PJ's health.
The second reason is to delay partial summary judgment in the Novell case that would require SCO to put into escrow an amount equal to the funds they got from Microsoft and Sun for "Sys V" licenses. SCO no longer has that much cash on hand so if the PSJ is granted, SCO will go into casters up mode.
SCO's sees this as a win-win. Either they further compromise PJ's health or she continues to rest up and they get yet another delay in the Novell case.
All I am saying is that no-one has a right to anyone else's property except under their terms.
This is simply not true in either a moral or a legal context. For example, in the good old days when copyright would actually expire, as soon as the copyright did expire on a work, everyone had a right to what used to be some else's property.
It sounds like you are describing some sort of libertarian utopia instead of the real world.
grolschie said:
Truly, MS does not have a monopoly in the software business...
Again, this is simply not true.
The
Wikipedia tells us that a court of law, did indeed determine that Microsoft had/has a monopoly in the software business:
Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to the monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others. Then on April 3, 2000, he issued a two-part ruling: his conclusions of law were that Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and his remedy was that Microsoft must be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.
grolschie said:
I am all for the over-inflated Microsoft software prices...
This thread got started when you said:
...or maybe total cost of development, manufacture, marketing, research, etc, divided by the total number of users > US$0.79 each user? Maybe alot > US$0.79ea?
where you defended Microsoft by claiming Microsoft's prices are not over-inflated. Now you are claiming the opposite: that Microsoft's prices are over-inflated and you are in support of the
over-inflation.
Perhaps I was wrong in thinking you were supporting Microsoft's greed. But astroturfing stills seems to be the most logical explanation for you illogical statements.
I hope you are being well paid for this astroturfing.:-)
First you defended greedy corporations by making an unsubstantiated claim that they have narrow profit margins. When I pointed out the absurdity of this position, you then changed to the opposite tack and now claim they have the right to have absurdly high profit margins.
Your second position is equally absurd as your first.
Your reply totally contradicts my assertion that greed is bad, but you have offered no evidence for your claims. Perhaps you didn't even bother to read my second paragraph.
After ignoring the morality of the situation, you now claim Microsoft has a right to charge whatever it wants for its products: "their product, their choice". This might fly in a high school economics class with a dull witted teacher but it wouldn't fly in college and it certainly does not fly in the real world. Microsoft lost the legal right to charge what the market would bear when it became
a convicted monopolist.
My previous post explained why they don't have a moral right to charge whatever they want. Without a moral right or a legal right the only other right I can think of that you might be referring to is
Catch-22 which is explained as:
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
Thank you for your reply. You aptly demonstrated why greed should once again be considered a vice, not a virtue. You have also demonstrated the absurdity that results when we treat greed as a virtue.
If that is the case then please explain where Bill Gates got those billions and billions of dollars from.
Historically, greed has always been consider one of the
seven deadly sins. But we live in a culture where
greed is actually considered a virtue. We are not the
first culture to have made this mistake. The only history we have of the island of Atlantis comes from Plato. He was passing on information he had gotten from Egyptian priests. Here is how Plato describes the cause of the downfall of Atlantis:
... when the divine portion began to fade away, and
became diluted too often and too much with the
mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper
hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune,
behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see,
grew visibly debased, for they were losing the
fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who
had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared
glorious and blessed, at the very time when they
were full of avarice and unrighteous power.
Fact: The unit cost of a single CD, silkscreened, in a jewel case, with six-page four-color liner notes, quantity 5,000: USD$0.91. Quantity 10,000: USD$0.79.
Ok then, using that logic, why does Adobe Photoshop, Windows Vista, MS Office, Adobe Premier, DigiDesign Protools, etc, and any PS/3 or Xbox360 game all cost alot more than USD$0.79?
Because those companies are ripping off the public just like the record companies.
I live in the desert. In the summer, my neighbors and I all cool our houses with swamp coolers that are each pumping out many gallons of water per day into the atmosphere.
If this new contraption worked as advertised, and we all had one, I doubt they would capture back all the water we are pumping into the air with our coolers.
So the new devices would serve to mitigate the effect our coolers are already having on the environment.
On the other hand, the physicist in me worries that the cooling we get from evaporation would be negated by the heating due to condensation in the new device. I suspect this new device with undisclosed details is mere snake oil. If it did work, it would be near miraculous and would be a great boon to mankind.
I correctly guessed that a friend of mine played clarinet in high school. I've also correctly guessed the name of someone I had never met before.
Correct guesses happen.
Your correct guess from high school is one hell of a long way from credible evidence of the "many US lives lost" that I had asked for. The rough bearing information in your story does not provide sufficient information to localize the reporter's position to within one mile. The fact that there was a nearly instantaneous attack (if there was one) indicates that attack was prepared and in place will before the CNN report was aired.
You said "Don't run around in a warzone giving precise bearing and range information..." but in your story I see no precise range information and no precise bearing information. At worst, the reporter provided nine bits of bearing information. It seems much more likely that the unit the reporter was with had to move out because they were actively involved in an ongoing battle.
I'm not saying it is totally impossible that the guess you made while you were in high school was correct, but it seems extremely unlikely. You're an adult now. It is time to join the grownups and stop using childhood guesses as a substitute for credible facts and evidence.
This is very similar to news reporters reporting in Iraq back in 1991. They were perched up on top of hotel's miles away from the battle front, and reporting the precise position, direction, and numbers of the US forces. This information, freely available on CNN gave the enemy real time reports on the US troop movement and lost many US lives because of US reporters not thinking about their actions.
Can you provide any credible references for this claim? I had never heard this before and Google has not given me any leads.
The Wikipedia does not mention media caused American deaths but it does tell us that of the 147 American deaths, 41 (28%) were killed by either friendly-fire or allied munitions.
The Wikipedia does
report:
U.S. policy regarding media freedom was much more restrictive than in the Vietnam War. The policy had been spelled out in a Pentagon document entitled Annex Foxtrot. Most of the press information came from briefings organized by the military. Only selected journalists were allowed to visit the front lines or conduct interviews with soldiers. Those visits were always conducted in the presence of officers, and were subject to both prior approval by the military and censorship afterward. This was ostensibly to protect sensitive information from being revealed to Iraq, but often in practice it was used to protect politically embarrassing information from being revealed.
It seems to me that the lack of troop movement information caused more American deaths than any CNN news reports. It also appears that you've been taken in by anti-free-press FUD that was used as an excuse to even further curtail objective reporting in the current Gulf War. But if you have credible evidence to the contrary, please share it with us.
On the other hand, I agree with you that it is probably a good idea for Google Earth to be blurry around nuke plants.
Even if this move doesn't drive away the kids, if nogoodniks are able to pretend to be parents and monitor the activities of other peoples' kids, this is going to be a nightmare.
Perhaps I am dull witted tonight, but I can't imagine how they can make this spyware foolproof.
When I worked as an electronics engineer many years ago in NYC, one of my fellow engineers had done some work for the Navy where they needed a raft floating in the ocean covered with copper. They also have similar corrosion problems with large steel ships that float in the ocean.
The solution to stop the copper from corroding was to attach an electrode to the copper sheet that was made of a different metal with a different electrovalence (or whatever) so this electrode was the piece that corroded instead of the copper.
You do have to be religious about replacing the electrode before it corrodes away. Some sort of safety interlock would be a good idea. They forgot to replace the electrode once. They found out about the missing electrode when the copper
sheet disappeared.
You raise a valid problem but it is not insoluble.:)
I don't think I can just submit potential stories there, like I can here.
I've found that submitting stories to Groklaw is as easy as submitting to Slashdot.
I actually prefer the Groklaw process. It is more personal and hence more rational. I don't think I've seen any complaints there about a story being rejected and then accepted two days later when it was submitted by a different person.
Critical to the case, even more so than showing infringement, is the issue of IF SCO even OWNS the copyrights on said System V UNIX code found in Linux,...
There ain't no System V code in Linux. All of the gaping holes in SCO's case that you have outlined do exist. But the fact that there is no System V code in Linux is yet another big hole. SCO is not claiming that IBM contributed System V code to Linux. They are complaining that IBM contributed homegrown AIX/Dynix code to Linux. Honest to God, SCO claims that since a tiny smidgen of System V code is in AIX/Dynix (which is perfectly legal), SCO magically gains control over the other 99.99% of AIX/Dynix that has nothing to do with System V.
IBM has pointed out that if SCO's theory were correct then SCO would have control over almost the entire software industry. IBM has depositions from all of the people from both sides involved in the System V contracts. None of those people agree with SCO's crazy theory that all of the software industry are belong to SCO.
The article you linked to is a text version of IBM's reply to a previous SCO motion for partial summary judgment.
SCO's memorandum in support, which this belated Slashdot article is about, was filed on Dec 14th so we shouldn't expect IBM's reply to it until sometime next week.
Microsoft is all about restricting information flow in order to make money, like damming a river in order to generate electricity. This approach screws everyone Microsoft deals with, except possibly for their bankers.
Many people who understand computers hate Microsoft because Microsoft's approach poisons the well. Humans have been able to beat the crap out of all other species because of our enhanced abilities to communicate and cooperate (take a look at Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution for a detailed analysis of this concept). Computer geeks are intimately familiar with the utmost importance of clear communication and cooperation in computer work which is why they are much more likely to hate Microsoft than J. Random User.
I also suspect that Microsoft's overarching strategy of restricting information flow infects the psychology of many of the folks who work there, which would explain why, despite hoards of talent and money, Microsoft manages to make product after product that suck. I suspect that on some subconscious psychological level, Microsoft makes sucky products on purpose.
In the story I linked to, the guy's name was Jerry Taylor, he was the city manager of Tuttle Oklahoma. I thought the name Tuttle was much funnier and more memorable than the name Taylor so I decided to name the award after the city rather than the city manager.
I now see that that decision may cause some confusion.
I nominated the current idiot for the "first annual" award to indicate that the award was a new idea and not yet ongoing.
Slashdot Mirror
AlXtreme further opined: I very much disagree with you here. I think Torvalds' opinion on the Tivo is extremely important. His main objection to the GPL-v3 is the anti-tivoization clauses it contains. Second, if Torvalds were a FS-proponent, then there is something very simple he could do regarding the Tivo: he could stop fighting the GPL-v3 and work on getting the clearance necessary to start releasing the Linux kernel under the GPL-v3.
AlXtreme asked: I've already tried to put you on track. I've already told you that the Tivo gives us a pertinent, real world example of open source software that is not free. Much of the debate over the GPL-v3 is centered on the real world differences between FS and OSS.
The loophole that Tivo exploited in the GPL-v2 has reduced that license from being a FOSS license to merely being an OSS license. The Free Software foundation is fixing that loophole in their GPL-v3. One of the most important users of the GPL-v2 objects to the proposed changes in the GPL-v3 because he would prefer for the Linux kernel to be OSS and not FS.
This is a real and relevant debate that will affect the entire FOSS community for decades to come.
I fully agree with almost everything you said. I even agree with your claim that this is not a "Free as in beer" problem. But I never claimed it was so that seems to be a bit of a red herring. The Free vs. Open Source debate has never been about "free as in beer".
ISTM that SugarCRM could be a poster child for the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. You seem to agree with me. SugarCRM is Open Source software that is not free.
You may be correct that I wasn't using the OSI definition of "Open Source". I was using the definition used by the person who is perhaps the most important proponent of Open Source, Linus Torvalds. I believe the definition he uses is aptly described by the Linux Information Project as: That page goes on to describe the real world differences that now exist between Free Software (FS) and Open Source Software (OSS). Since you think any such difference is a misconception, I feel obligated to bring you up to speed on the current status of these two very different concepts.
The best way to see the difference between OSS and FS is to look at the ongoing controversy over the anti-tivoisation clauses in the new GPL-v3. The Tivo uses GPL-v2 code (especially the Linux kernel) in a way that complies with the letter of the GPL-v2 but violates the spirit with which that license was written. The problem is that even though owners/users of the device are able to see the source code and are able to send bug fixes and modifications upstream, they are not allowed to run modified versions of the code on their own device unless the modifications are blessed by the Tivo corporation.
Torvalds, the chief architect of the Linux kernel sees no problem with the Tivo. He claims that he is only interested in the Open Source aspects of the GPL and since the source is still visible to users/owners and since they can contribute modifications upstream then from a pragmatic, engineering viewpoint, Tivo is using his code in the spirit of Open Source and that is perfectly okay with him. I don't agree with Torvalds, but that is his position.
But there has always been a difference between OSS and FS even before the advent of the Tivo. The (IMO misguided) inventors and advocates of OSS "movement" claim there is no difference but the FS advocates who predated them have always insisted that Open Source misses the point of Free Software.
In light of all of this evidence that directly contradicts your claim that OSS == FS, I can only conclude that if you are not an anti-Free Software shill you are the one who is badly misinformed. I hope I've made some small step in helping you correct this problem.
Do you understand the difference between "open source software" and "free software"?
By your description SugarCRM is not free software but it certainly sounds like it is open source. Likewise, it sounds like SugarCRM is keeping to the spirit of open source but is not keeping to the spirit of free software.
Do you have any independent evidence to back up Lyons' claim?
Technician said: PJ had a series of health issues before taking time off. You seem to be implying that her claim to need time off to get her health back was phony.
Perhaps you know nothing at all about PJ, but I know her through Groklaw and email exchanges. She has displayed more integrity than anyone else I know on the Internet. I find it odd that you choose to disbelieve her and yet you take the word of known liars as if it were gospel.
I agree with you to the extent that I think it is possible that PJ's leave of absence was related to SCO's moves against her. But PJ took her leave of absence well before Lyons' story about her broke. I admit is it possible that Lyons and SCO are breaking with their long tradition of telling mostly lies and this time are telling the truth. But given their track record and the fact that their current, unverified, story makes PJ look bad, I'm going to have to see some proof before I believe them.
In an ideal world, when you lie over and over and over again, people stop believing you.
Perhaps you plucked your definition of fair from Darl McBride's "Creative Uses of the English Language".
Yes, they need a pretext to subpoena someone. Otherwise politicians (and other people of interest) would be routinely subpoenaed for no good reason in cases they have nothing to do with.
I suspect SCO has a twofold interest in subpoena-ing PJ now. First, she is on a break to recover her health. SCO is just the sort of pond scum that cannot resist kicking someone when she is down. I believe they really want to worsen PJ's health.
The second reason is to delay partial summary judgment in the Novell case that would require SCO to put into escrow an amount equal to the funds they got from Microsoft and Sun for "Sys V" licenses. SCO no longer has that much cash on hand so if the PSJ is granted, SCO will go into casters up mode.
SCO's sees this as a win-win. Either they further compromise PJ's health or she continues to rest up and they get yet another delay in the Novell case.
grolschie said: Again, this is simply not true. The Wikipedia tells us that a court of law, did indeed determine that Microsoft had/has a monopoly in the software business: grolschie said: This thread got started when you said: where you defended Microsoft by claiming Microsoft's prices are not over-inflated. Now you are claiming the opposite: that Microsoft's prices are over-inflated and you are in support of the over-inflation.
Perhaps I was wrong in thinking you were supporting Microsoft's greed. But astroturfing stills seems to be the most logical explanation for you illogical statements.
First you defended greedy corporations by making an unsubstantiated claim that they have narrow profit margins. When I pointed out the absurdity of this position, you then changed to the opposite tack and now claim they have the right to have absurdly high profit margins.
Your second position is equally absurd as your first. Your reply totally contradicts my assertion that greed is bad, but you have offered no evidence for your claims. Perhaps you didn't even bother to read my second paragraph.
After ignoring the morality of the situation, you now claim Microsoft has a right to charge whatever it wants for its products: "their product, their choice". This might fly in a high school economics class with a dull witted teacher but it wouldn't fly in college and it certainly does not fly in the real world. Microsoft lost the legal right to charge what the market would bear when it became a convicted monopolist.
My previous post explained why they don't have a moral right to charge whatever they want. Without a moral right or a legal right the only other right I can think of that you might be referring to is Catch-22 which is explained as: Thank you for your reply. You aptly demonstrated why greed should once again be considered a vice, not a virtue. You have also demonstrated the absurdity that results when we treat greed as a virtue.
... it's called the State Lottery.
Historically, greed has always been consider one of the seven deadly sins. But we live in a culture where greed is actually considered a virtue. We are not the first culture to have made this mistake. The only history we have of the island of Atlantis comes from Plato. He was passing on information he had gotten from Egyptian priests. Here is how Plato describes the cause of the downfall of Atlantis: Avarice is a synonym for greed.
I live in the desert. In the summer, my neighbors and I all cool our houses with swamp coolers that are each pumping out many gallons of water per day into the atmosphere.
If this new contraption worked as advertised, and we all had one, I doubt they would capture back all the water we are pumping into the air with our coolers. So the new devices would serve to mitigate the effect our coolers are already having on the environment.
On the other hand, the physicist in me worries that the cooling we get from evaporation would be negated by the heating due to condensation in the new device. I suspect this new device with undisclosed details is mere snake oil. If it did work, it would be near miraculous and would be a great boon to mankind.
That would certainly explain the high incidence of friendly fire fatalities.
I correctly guessed that a friend of mine played clarinet in high school. I've also correctly guessed the name of someone I had never met before. Correct guesses happen.
..." but in your story I see no precise range information and no precise bearing information. At worst, the reporter provided nine bits of bearing information. It seems much more likely that the unit the reporter was with had to move out because they were actively involved in an ongoing battle.
Your correct guess from high school is one hell of a long way from credible evidence of the "many US lives lost" that I had asked for. The rough bearing information in your story does not provide sufficient information to localize the reporter's position to within one mile. The fact that there was a nearly instantaneous attack (if there was one) indicates that attack was prepared and in place will before the CNN report was aired.
You said "Don't run around in a warzone giving precise bearing and range information
I'm not saying it is totally impossible that the guess you made while you were in high school was correct, but it seems extremely unlikely. You're an adult now. It is time to join the grownups and stop using childhood guesses as a substitute for credible facts and evidence.
The Wikipedia does not mention media caused American deaths but it does tell us that of the 147 American deaths, 41 (28%) were killed by either friendly-fire or allied munitions. The Wikipedia does report: It seems to me that the lack of troop movement information caused more American deaths than any CNN news reports. It also appears that you've been taken in by anti-free-press FUD that was used as an excuse to even further curtail objective reporting in the current Gulf War. But if you have credible evidence to the contrary, please share it with us.
On the other hand, I agree with you that it is probably a good idea for Google Earth to be blurry around nuke plants.
Even if this move doesn't drive away the kids, if nogoodniks are able to pretend to be parents and monitor the activities of other peoples' kids, this is going to be a nightmare.
Perhaps I am dull witted tonight, but I can't imagine how they can make this spyware foolproof.
Good point, but there is a very easy solution.
:)
When I worked as an electronics engineer many years ago in NYC, one of my fellow engineers had done some work for the Navy where they needed a raft floating in the ocean covered with copper. They also have similar corrosion problems with large steel ships that float in the ocean.
The solution to stop the copper from corroding was to attach an electrode to the copper sheet that was made of a different metal with a different electrovalence (or whatever) so this electrode was the piece that corroded instead of the copper.
You do have to be religious about replacing the electrode before it corrodes away. Some sort of safety interlock would be a good idea. They forgot to replace the electrode once. They found out about the missing electrode when the copper sheet disappeared.
You raise a valid problem but it is not insoluble.
The big thing Falcon brings is MVCC which allows safe simultaneous reading and and writing without locks.
Here is a good explanation of PostgreSQL's MVCC.
I actually prefer the Groklaw process. It is more personal and hence more rational. I don't think I've seen any complaints there about a story being rejected and then accepted two days later when it was submitted by a different person.
IBM has pointed out that if SCO's theory were correct then SCO would have control over almost the entire software industry. IBM has depositions from all of the people from both sides involved in the System V contracts. None of those people agree with SCO's crazy theory that all of the software industry are belong to SCO.
The article you linked to is a text version of IBM's reply to a previous SCO motion for partial summary judgment.
SCO's memorandum in support, which this belated Slashdot article is about, was filed on Dec 14th so we shouldn't expect IBM's reply to it until sometime next week.
Many people who understand computers hate Microsoft because Microsoft's approach poisons the well. Humans have been able to beat the crap out of all other species because of our enhanced abilities to communicate and cooperate (take a look at Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution for a detailed analysis of this concept). Computer geeks are intimately familiar with the utmost importance of clear communication and cooperation in computer work which is why they are much more likely to hate Microsoft than J. Random User.
I also suspect that Microsoft's overarching strategy of restricting information flow infects the psychology of many of the folks who work there, which would explain why, despite hoards of talent and money, Microsoft manages to make product after product that suck. I suspect that on some subconscious psychological level, Microsoft makes sucky products on purpose.
Geeks notice.
I nominated the current idiot for the "first annual" award to indicate that the award was a new idea and not yet ongoing.
I guess this all just goes to show:
- Funny
- Subtle
- On Slashdot
Choose any two.See Misconfigured Webserver, Threats to Call FBI.