When the US government starts handing over people to the Korean government for information extraction and then acts shocked that they get tortured, these innocent victims of the US government will hope Bush hasn't totally destroyed all avenues of legal recourse.
He was a Canadian citizen travelling in accordance with normal laws and the US took him prisoner and gave him to Syria specifically so that he could have information extracted from him (without so much as consulting on it with Canada). This was done in New York.
I suppose in the twisted minds of Bush loyalists, it was reasonable to give him to Syria with no due process or consultation with Canada and they were shocked when they heard how he had been treated by such a civilized nation as Syria.
Now some other nations like Brazil are starting to retaliate for Bush's complete disregard for international decency and law toward travelers, and I wish it were only Bush loyalists who sufferred the effects.
How about an operating system that works, that they can use with complete freedom and take ownership in without worrying about BSA at the Gates.
A respectable "widow's mite" in this case, giving all that he has to the public, rather than taking all as Bill Gates has done from the beginning, before and after taking a bride who realized they had to buy some respectability.
Sorry, but I work for SCO and I don't feel bad about it. And I'm not embarrassed to admit it.
Yes, posting as AC wouldn't be a sign that you were embarassed, would it? I have seldom seen an attorney embarassed about anything he/she did in any case, they are used to slime (quite literally in the case of SCO attorney Hatch, who recently teamed up with the polluters and his Senator Father to make Utah safe for toxic waste dumping and defeat a popular referendum all in the name of the public good).
And I think all this bad press about this lawsuit is unfair: IBM did never own Unix but they stated goal was to kill Unix by pushing Linux.
Talk to Daryl if you want no more press. SCO is playing (well) to all the ignorants with completely false statements at every opportunity. Perhaps you have not seen the web sites archiving all the lies and contradictions he has made (hint, he does not link to them on your internal web site). It seldom is followed by the ridicule it merits in the popular press, so I agree that aspect is unfair. Tell him to shut up if you don't like it.
I don't have negative feelings against the Linux community but we can't let IBM get away with this. Indeed Darl is just doing his job and definding SCO against this unfair method to put us out of business.
Yes, I am sure it is nothing personal, violating the intellectual property of the community and slandering them. I am sorry, what does this have to do with suing Novell and other Linux users, who unlike SCO, stick up for the rights of the community? What does SCO have to offer anyone but lawsuits for everyone using their own intellectual property? SCO Unix was never worth anything, which the people selling it in a fire sale knew, which is why the suits are never about anything SCO ever owned or produced, but about what IBM and other community members produced for the community.
I have heard many attorneys make this sort of claim that destroying innocents is nothing personal. Either you are an attorney or have listened far too long to particularly twisted ones to make any judgements about fair and unfair.
I doubt there is a friend of Linux anywhere who doesn't see your evil intent despite such lawyerish disclaimers for the thing you are doing which is morally wrong, for which Daryl should be denied his Mormon Temple recommend -- open fraud does notqualify him. Every version of Linux Caldera distributed represents a lie by your company.
I am aware that his is true of high-performance CPUs stuck with CISC instruction sets. I guess the VAX CPUs that did that many (15, if memory serves me) years ago lead the 6th generation on that feature.
But I don't, in my limited understanding, believe that interpretation of CISC instructions with all the interdependencies, even if translated to RISC, is as efficient or power-efficient as RISC running RISC programs, which was why I said especially CISC. There are too many wasted interdependent side effects.
Perhaps I am wrong, but DEC and others have reached the point where they dumped such technology in favor of RISC running programs native to the instruction set.
But when I buy a laptop, I want portability, a small display, etc., and I fail to see the point of laptops with huge power requirements, displays, etc.
For a desktop I will buy a flat pannel if that is what I want for a non-portable solution -- rather than a 21" CRT, I would double-head with two 19" CRTs for even better resolution at lower cost.
A "desktop replacement" is a laptop that does not make good laptop in my book, but it is not uncommon to see them in the stores either bought by users who don't need good portability or don't know the difference.
Perhaps for some people, a laptop is just another way to buy a flat screen to use in the home near an outlet, but a 64-bit CPU sounds to me like it is for a server, so what am I missing?
This Athalon 64 (especially CISC) laptop sounds like it will be a power hog among other things, making the laptop not portable enough to be worthwhile. It doesn't sound like one I want on my lap. Not only should it be small and light, but the battery has to last a few hours to be worth the trouble.
Re:Significant chances for earth population demise
on
One-Way Ticket to Mars?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The fact that "the chances for civilization on Mars to be destroyed by an asteroid or a killer plague or any other natural or unnatural disaster are tremendously larger" is completely irrelevant. The chances for civilization to be killed both places is less. Even if there were only a 50% chance over some period of time of the Mars colony surviving, that significantly reduces the chance that all civilization will be destroyed.
And that wasn't the case in England when criminals were sent to America / Australia?
Which crime do I have to commit to be sent? How about I put a bullet in my pocket and walk through an airport, or any number of other new crimes thought up by the Bush administration -- or was that the English (again) imprisoning someone for having bullets in the pocket.
Everything but installation, that is. I have a new, unusable SUSE distribution sitting here on my desk. It refuses to install without repartitioning everything and losing all my data. I presently have a Mandrake distribution on all my home machines. I am not the only one to experience this. Perhaps it does not support the file systems such as Reiser and XFS that Mandrake has supported for a number of releases now -- that is my guess, but the problem does not seem to be exactly that. Mandrake and Redhat never had any problem on any machine and SUSE has problems on all machines I have tried.
I am also quite concerned that Novell became the new owner, as they have a very bad track record buying successful technologies (including Unix itself which they had no clue what to do with it).
I am probably the one you are referring to as "Angry Protester". I just couldn't understand why many were standing around passing the time of day, letting Darl spout more nonsense about open source writers being thieves and pirates, as they had during the whole protest, without asking fundamental questions, like what about the GPL, what about your infringements of copyright, etc. SCO has yet to acknowledge this basic issue. At least IBM thinks this is the relevant question -- it is almost scary that IBM seems to be making the right argument.
This was not a scheduled interview, and IMO, SCO has gone past the point where there is any excuse for casual politeness overlooking their unwillingness to speak to core issues.
And what about Javascript that may use an XML DOM to load external data without prompting the user -- no actual plugin involved, but it is clearly downloaded code?
This is a perfect example of what we do NOT want to see happening all over. Eolas is as wrong on this issue as SCO is on Linux, and just as evil. Claiming to own such an idea is silly, and it greatly undermines the idea of an open web.
Perhaps this would have been a perfect oportunity to more-vocally show Microsoft that we stand on principles of openness. At least in this article I see little hint of the outrage that would have been caused if it had happened (and it still could) to a product we care about. We should care deeply. As long as Microsoft ships a browser that relies on a number of open standards, it represents a victory of Netscape over Microsoft. That Microsoft still earns no money (in the usual Microsoft-extorted sense) on this browser is a further victory.
It would have done the cause of open software a lot more good to have Microsoft more-vocally supported on principles of openness and freedom by fighting against this instead of letting them release a quick fix and fall back to the position "we respect intellectual property of other companies [because next time we will be sure it is us screwing the community for profit]."
Perhaps Microsoft was not willing, but who has tried to make any sort of campaign of it?
As with SCO, we should be sure that the perpetrators of this evil act are tracked and having the name of Eolas software on your resume is considered a black mark by our community.
Perhaps one thing even more annoying is people who take themselves too seriously and cannot recognize shallow dry humor and insist on making a troll out of it.
Or alternatively it is even more amusing than the AC post.
Why would anyone mock the Europeans. In a very real sense, the US and Russian space programs are rooted in the very-successful German rocket program anyway, since the two superpowers divided up the German scientists after the war, forgiving any Nazi tendencies they may have had to form their respective programs.
Just because it may not be a constitutional issue, does not mean that it is not a free speech issue. The constitution is not the only context for free speech.
Most people sacrifice significant freedom of speech by joining a corporation.
You forget that working hard helps the company and helping the company ensures it still has money to pay you.
And let's not forget to pay the boss his millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars in bonus. The company could get much further in loyalty paying that money to help employees, if it hadn't written them off.
Without the authority to prevent telemarketers from calling numbers on the list, does the list become a telemarketer's call list (since they have apparently had access to it for some time)?
Re:Where're the Semantics?
on
Practical RDF
·
· Score: 1
The RDF design addresses the concerns you raise, by virtue of RDF's focus on data merging. You can't take two arbitrary XML documents and (without domain knowledge) reliably merge the information they encode. You can with RDF; just merge the sets of triples that constitute the two RDF graphs. This has knock-on effects in the real world: the granularity of "mixing and matching" between independent vocabularies is much finer. Instead of picking whole document formats, you can use just some parts of another's RDF vocabulary. This gets us away from a situation where you have to decide to use, or not use, an entire XML vocabulary.
Does this really work if they were not built using common data types?
Say one document is using arabic numbers and the other is using roman numerals. Number format has been fairly well standardized, but as we go further to date, and many more types, they are even more of a problem.
You could say the same thing about a compiler since you cannot fully reconstitute a program in many languages, but it is a derived work anyway.
It seems impossible to compare without leaking
on
ESR to Shred SCO Claims?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Think of the chance that any given line of source code in an arbitrary program is repeated somewhere else in a large open source program such as the Linux Kernel. This is even more true if some degree of fuzziness is added to handle changes such as adding or removing spaces in insignificant places, removing comments, (and there are many other things like brace style which affect multiple lines so you might want to physically reformat between lines to a standard format....
If the number of lines is even only 1% that are found somewhere in the open source code base, I think a source who wants to keep their code base secret will have a big problem with someone computing the checksums. In reality, I wouldn't be suprised to see a much-higher percentage of lines leaked this way. And this is not the only way leaking can occur (think of application of simple cryptography).
I would not want to be the one publishing the checksums of the closed source due to possible legal liability. The checksums are a derived work in any case.
ECMA only requires RAND, which means almost nothing in real terms.
In some cases, Microsoft and others have said "royalty-free", which is still clearly not GPLable and does not seem to extend much beyond a very basic core of C#, which I believe is far less than you get with a Java distribution, for example.
On the reference implementations I find mention of the mplementations being limited to "non-commercial" uses.
I complain about Java's lack of openness all the time, but the one thing Sun has never done (yet, to the best of my knowledge) is threaten third-party Java implementations with patents. Unfortunately,.net is not open, including specific technologies that Mono has said they would try to be compatible.
Talk about pathetic misinformation, the referenced URI does NOT show that there are no patents on C#. I have seen patents that apply to XML APIs they have written, specifically designed to prevent interoperability for basic things like DOM-like functionality.
The only thing that the referred-to FAQ points to is that they have stated that some parts of.NET will be available on a royalty-free basis. This is a far cry from being not patented, as it still typically prevents GPLed implementation, may prevent commercial implementation, and it is far from clear upon reading these referenced sections how much of the many entangled pieces (corresponding to functionality currently available in Java) will be available at all under royalty-free terms.
Were it not for the patents conspicuously taken out to prevent interoperable implementations, this would be true and CLR/C# would be a better alternative than Java.
Slashdot Mirror
When the US government starts handing over people to the Korean government for information extraction and then acts shocked that they get tortured, these innocent victims of the US government will hope Bush hasn't totally destroyed all avenues of legal recourse.
He was a Canadian citizen travelling in accordance with normal laws and the US took him prisoner and gave him to Syria specifically so that he could have information extracted from him (without so much as consulting on it with Canada). This was done in New York.
I suppose in the twisted minds of Bush loyalists, it was reasonable to give him to Syria with no due process or consultation with Canada and they were shocked when they heard how he had been treated by such a civilized nation as Syria.
Now some other nations like Brazil are starting to retaliate for Bush's complete disregard for international decency and law toward travelers, and I wish it were only Bush loyalists who sufferred the effects.
How about an operating system that works, that they can use with complete freedom and take ownership in without worrying about BSA at the Gates.
A respectable "widow's mite" in this case, giving all that he has to the public, rather than taking all as Bill Gates has done from the beginning, before and after taking a bride who realized they had to buy some respectability.
Yes, posting as AC wouldn't be a sign that you were embarassed, would it? I have seldom seen an attorney embarassed about anything he/she did in any case, they are used to slime (quite literally in the case of SCO attorney Hatch, who recently teamed up with the polluters and his Senator Father to make Utah safe for toxic waste dumping and defeat a popular referendum all in the name of the public good).
And I think all this bad press about this lawsuit is unfair: IBM did never own Unix but they stated goal was to kill Unix by pushing Linux.
Talk to Daryl if you want no more press. SCO is playing (well) to all the ignorants with completely false statements at every opportunity. Perhaps you have not seen the web sites archiving all the lies and contradictions he has made (hint, he does not link to them on your internal web site). It seldom is followed by the ridicule it merits in the popular press, so I agree that aspect is unfair. Tell him to shut up if you don't like it.
I don't have negative feelings against the Linux community but we can't let IBM get away with this. Indeed Darl is just doing his job and definding SCO against this unfair method to put us out of business.
Yes, I am sure it is nothing personal, violating the intellectual property of the community and slandering them. I am sorry, what does this have to do with suing Novell and other Linux users, who unlike SCO, stick up for the rights of the community? What does SCO have to offer anyone but lawsuits for everyone using their own intellectual property? SCO Unix was never worth anything, which the people selling it in a fire sale knew, which is why the suits are never about anything SCO ever owned or produced, but about what IBM and other community members produced for the community.
I have heard many attorneys make this sort of claim that destroying innocents is nothing personal. Either you are an attorney or have listened far too long to particularly twisted ones to make any judgements about fair and unfair.
I doubt there is a friend of Linux anywhere who doesn't see your evil intent despite such lawyerish disclaimers for the thing you are doing which is morally wrong, for which Daryl should be denied his Mormon Temple recommend -- open fraud does notqualify him. Every version of Linux Caldera distributed represents a lie by your company.
I am aware that his is true of high-performance CPUs stuck with CISC instruction sets. I guess the VAX CPUs that did that many (15, if memory serves me) years ago lead the 6th generation on that feature.
But I don't, in my limited understanding, believe that interpretation of CISC instructions with all the interdependencies, even if translated to RISC, is as efficient or power-efficient as RISC running RISC programs, which was why I said especially CISC. There are too many wasted interdependent side effects.
Perhaps I am wrong, but DEC and others have reached the point where they dumped such technology in favor of RISC running programs native to the instruction set.
My 12" powerbook has an amazing keyboard.
But when I buy a laptop, I want portability, a small display, etc., and I fail to see the point of laptops with huge power requirements, displays, etc.
For a desktop I will buy a flat pannel if that is what I want for a non-portable solution -- rather than a 21" CRT, I would double-head with two 19" CRTs for even better resolution at lower cost.
A "desktop replacement" is a laptop that does not make good laptop in my book, but it is not uncommon to see them in the stores either bought by users who don't need good portability or don't know the difference.
This Athalon 64 (especially CISC) laptop sounds like it will be a power hog among other things, making the laptop not portable enough to be worthwhile. It doesn't sound like one I want on my lap. Not only should it be small and light, but the battery has to last a few hours to be worth the trouble.
The fact that "the chances for civilization on Mars to be destroyed by an asteroid or a killer plague or any other natural or unnatural disaster are tremendously larger" is completely irrelevant. The chances for civilization to be killed both places is less. Even if there were only a 50% chance over some period of time of the Mars colony surviving, that significantly reduces the chance that all civilization will be destroyed.
Which crime do I have to commit to be sent? How about I put a bullet in my pocket and walk through an airport, or any number of other new crimes thought up by the Bush administration -- or was that the English (again) imprisoning someone for having bullets in the pocket.
I am also quite concerned that Novell became the new owner, as they have a very bad track record buying successful technologies (including Unix itself which they had no clue what to do with it).
I am probably the one you are referring to as "Angry Protester". I just couldn't understand why many were standing around passing the time of day, letting Darl spout more nonsense about open source writers being thieves and pirates, as they had during the whole protest, without asking fundamental questions, like what about the GPL, what about your infringements of copyright, etc. SCO has yet to acknowledge this basic issue. At least IBM thinks this is the relevant question -- it is almost scary that IBM seems to be making the right argument.
This was not a scheduled interview, and IMO, SCO has gone past the point where there is any excuse for casual politeness overlooking their unwillingness to speak to core issues.
And what about Javascript that may use an XML DOM to load external data without prompting the user -- no actual plugin involved, but it is clearly downloaded code?
This is a perfect example of what we do NOT want to see happening all over. Eolas is as wrong on this issue as SCO is on Linux, and just as evil. Claiming to own such an idea is silly, and it greatly undermines the idea of an open web.
Perhaps this would have been a perfect oportunity to more-vocally show Microsoft that we stand on principles of openness. At least in this article I see little hint of the outrage that would have been caused if it had happened (and it still could) to a product we care about. We should care deeply. As long as Microsoft ships a browser that relies on a number of open standards, it represents a victory of Netscape over Microsoft. That Microsoft still earns no money (in the usual Microsoft-extorted sense) on this browser is a further victory.
It would have done the cause of open software a lot more good to have Microsoft more-vocally supported on principles of openness and freedom by fighting against this instead of letting them release a quick fix and fall back to the position "we respect intellectual property of other companies [because next time we will be sure it is us screwing the community for profit]."
Perhaps Microsoft was not willing, but who has tried to make any sort of campaign of it?
As with SCO, we should be sure that the perpetrators of this evil act are tracked and having the name of Eolas software on your resume is considered a black mark by our community.
Perhaps one thing even more annoying is people who take themselves too seriously and cannot recognize shallow dry humor and insist on making a troll out of it.
Or alternatively it is even more amusing than the AC post.
Why would anyone mock the Europeans. In a very real sense, the US and Russian space programs are rooted in the very-successful German rocket program anyway, since the two superpowers divided up the German scientists after the war, forgiving any Nazi tendencies they may have had to form their respective programs.
Sorry, you are right. I misread the comment you responded to.
Insightful?
Who mentioned the constitution?
Just because it may not be a constitutional issue, does not mean that it is not a free speech issue. The constitution is not the only context for free speech.
Most people sacrifice significant freedom of speech by joining a corporation.
You forget that working hard helps the company and helping the company ensures it still has money to pay you.
And let's not forget to pay the boss his millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars in bonus. The company could get much further in loyalty paying that money to help employees, if it hadn't written them off.Without the authority to prevent telemarketers from calling numbers on the list, does the list become a telemarketer's call list (since they have apparently had access to it for some time)?
Does this really work if they were not built using common data types?
Say one document is using arabic numbers and the other is using roman numerals. Number format has been fairly well standardized, but as we go further to date, and many more types, they are even more of a problem.
In Arizona, if I take the set of lock picks out of my house, it is illegal.
You could say the same thing about a compiler since you cannot fully reconstitute a program in many languages, but it is a derived work anyway.
Think of the chance that any given line of source code in an arbitrary program is repeated somewhere else in a large open source program such as the Linux Kernel. This is even more true if some degree of fuzziness is added to handle changes such as adding or removing spaces in insignificant places, removing comments, (and there are many other things like brace style which affect multiple lines so you might want to physically reformat between lines to a standard format....
If the number of lines is even only 1% that are found somewhere in the open source code base, I think a source who wants to keep their code base secret will have a big problem with someone computing the checksums. In reality, I wouldn't be suprised to see a much-higher percentage of lines leaked this way. And this is not the only way leaking can occur (think of application of simple cryptography).
I would not want to be the one publishing the checksums of the closed source due to possible legal liability. The checksums are a derived work in any case.
Who marked this insightful, when it is wrong?
ECMA only requires RAND, which means almost nothing in real terms.
In some cases, Microsoft and others have said "royalty-free", which is still clearly not GPLable and does not seem to extend much beyond a very basic core of C#, which I believe is far less than you get with a Java distribution, for example.
On the reference implementations I find mention of the mplementations being limited to "non-commercial" uses.
I complain about Java's lack of openness all the time, but the one thing Sun has never done (yet, to the best of my knowledge) is threaten third-party Java implementations with patents. Unfortunately, .net is not open, including specific technologies that Mono has said they would try to be compatible.
Talk about pathetic misinformation, the referenced URI does NOT show that there are no patents on C#. I have seen patents that apply to XML APIs they have written, specifically designed to prevent interoperability for basic things like DOM-like functionality.
The only thing that the referred-to FAQ points to is that they have stated that some parts of .NET will be available on a royalty-free basis. This is a far cry from being not patented, as it still typically prevents GPLed implementation, may prevent commercial implementation, and it is far from clear upon reading these referenced sections how much of the many entangled pieces (corresponding to functionality currently available in Java) will be available at all under royalty-free terms.
Were it not for the patents conspicuously taken out to prevent interoperable implementations, this would be true and CLR/C# would be a better alternative than Java.