All of this is totally convenient and reasonable. It would be MUCH better if the receiving server asked the from somedomain if the message was allowed to be sent "From somedomain", instead of having an address whitelist.
That would work, but it'll never be implementable as it would require a protocol change, or at least you would have to convince whoever does your hosting to provide that service, ie, to vouch for your "forged" header. If they were that friendly, you probably could have convinced them to let you use the SMTP relay in the first place.
I think an easier, client-based approach would be to build in a feature that it automatically whitelists your address if it ever receives a non-spam message from you. That way, you can continue to email anyone you've EVER emailed successfully from wherever you are, if they use such a client. It would be a good feature to build in to either clients or even spamassassin-type programs.
The only way you get in trouble is if someone joe-jobs you.
This is a BAD idea. What happens when I have 3 different email accounts that I use for different things, and I want to send mail from each of them from my home ISP? Sure, each email provider can provide a secure SMTP for me to log into, but this sounds like a lot of work.
You know, this is *exactly* why the concept of a "reply-to" address in a mail header exists.
So what happens if I want to use my ISPs mailserver (or my own, for that matter) when I'm on a trip to Europe? Will I no be able to access by server?
A few options: 1) use an ISP that will allow you to relay mail, and find your way to a telnet somehow. Not likely, but it's possible. 2) use an ISP that allows shell access (good luck finding one). Problem solved. 3) If you really need to mail someone on a trip to Europe, tell them about the problem and have them whitelist you.
But certainly don't expect people to accept non-matching mail sight-unseen.
Did you ever even read what SGI admitted to? They admitted to adding code which didn't infringe on anything! It was already public domained, they just removed it because SCO would shut up about stuff being from SystemV. SGI hasn't officially even stolen any code.
I read their response, and I don't understand it. I think it really sends a mixed message to the general community and makes them look weak. Basically, they say "we didn't do anything wrong, but we'll remove the offending material." Then they go on to say that it was just redundant material anyway that was already included in the kernel.
If this was the case, it seems too coincidental that the time when they decide to delete all this "redundant" code is when SCO comes knocking. It makes them look guilty. not only that, it didn't get them anything. It's not like SCO was ever going to say "Thanks for removing that code." Nothing SGI did could have been enough, so why bother doing anything when it could just make you look guilty?
I don't think that lowest TCO is the only driver of software decisions. In government, openness should be an overriding standard.
I don't agree simply on the RMS mantra of information wanting to be free, unless there's a practical reason (which there may be in some cases). You have to realize, very few people actually care about such things. Quite frankly, 99% of all government agencies (especially at the state level) don't even want to modify software. So openness doesn't directly give them anything.
If the cheapest "solution" to a problem doesn't guarantee the ability to migrate data away from that platform, or locks the citizens of the state to purchasing software X in order to interact with the government, then TCO has to take the back seat to openness.
Oh, now, all that is a part of TCO as I define it. Kind of like managing those little damned CofA certificates is part of MS's TCO, either that or paying the BSA tax. You're right - if you need custom software, make sure it's open source or you're owned. As for people needing to interact with the government, how? Web pages? I've never interacted with the "government" outside of something like that, which is certainly an open standard. Additionally, like it or not, most people DO own MS for any number of crappy reasons, so therefore if interconnectivity is a real concern, that's a reason to go with MS. Personally I don't buy either argument.
I'm wholeheartedly in favor of holding government to open standards. Requiring OSS, on the other hand, seems a bit too drastic a step to me.
I'd go with that, but it's a more moderate position than that taken by Mass - at least as represented by Slashdot, which could mean nothing.
I'm not fully convinced that the CAGW's "analysis" is even close to an accurate depiction of the proposal.
Yeah, it's usually not.;)
I'm not fully convinced that the CAGW's "analysis" is even close to an accurate depiction of the proposal.
Yeah, I was wondering where the real actual proposal was. Sounds like people on both sides are probably going nuts for nothing.
If GPL'ed software gets a monopoly, then it's a monopoly of a sort wholly new to the world: a monopoly where no single group has total control over it, and nobody can take exclusive possession of it.
Theoretically, no, but in practice, yes. If they make a mandatory switch to linux, that effectively means Linus has executive control over every operating system used in Massachussets. I realize anyone can contribute, yadda yadda, but that's the reality of it.
A world where Linux dominates is a world where no-one dominates. Everyone is free to take software and use it, study it, and modify it in any way they like.
That means nothing to Massachussets as consumers. If no one IS doing that, then they're tied to the same old linux that may or may not be right for them. Your argument is one germane to the operating system "revolution" that we and like five people not on/. care about. Massachussets simply needs computers with the lowest possible TCO. To say that *can't* be closed source is ridiculous. Massachussets doesn't care about our agenda, and they shouldn't.
The only restriction is on redistribution, and if you don't like the terms, hey, use something else.
What, like Windows? Not if there's a law against it...
Ultimately, I think the time when linux wins is when individual departments CHOOSE it, not when they're FORCED to do so. This is where the CAGW's comment about the Soviets links in - if they thought their revolution was so great, why didn't they open up elections to prove it?
Before the flames fly, I'm writing this post in Mozilla running on KDE on top of Slackware.
Because Word is a closed, secret, proprietary, and especially undocumented format.
Yes, yes, yes, that's the stock answer and I know it's not easy to do - however, fixing subscripts seems like it should be one of the easier things to reverse engineer, and easier than many of the things they've already accomplished.
Have you tried OOo 1.1 or only 1.0.x for opening Word documents?
I will say OO is much improved now, but I *just* installed 1.1, and saved a document as a word doc under OO. I opened it in word, and subscripts and quotes were still a bit fucked up.
I'd say it's better, and for most people good enough, and even for me, close enough that I can tweak a few things. But I cannot save something as Word under OO, send it to my boss, and have confidence that it won't make me look like an ass.
I'm not sure why such simple problems still exist, honestly.
One might not blame Bush. But one might blame the ideology of his party. Or the 1996 Republican Contract On America, which gutted the SEC, and signalled to all the fraudster's out there. . . LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!
Just wondering, but doesn't the executive branch have more control over the SEC than Congress? Seems to me this is something Bill could have done something about. I could be wrong there, if so scratch that.
Additionally, the biggest responsibility for the economic decline goes to Hugo Chavez, who got Opec to cut supplies in 1999, causing an energy price spike.
No way. First, the economy was far too high then, and some brakes on the economy would have been welcome in 1999, if anything this would have prolonged things. Second, the timing's off - things didn't go south then, but over a year later.
Then when you look at the Republican tendency to reduce rules, and the Bush record on lax enforcement of white collar crime, and his political appointments (Poindexter?!), and the conflicts of interest evident in each one, and add that to the Bush S&L scandal in 1990, Iran-Contra of the 1980's, a pattern emerges.
Wow, that's an irrelevant and mixed bag. Hell, throw in Whitewater while you're at it, I'm sure that had something to do with the economy going south.
Actually, manufacturing jobs have been hit harder than programmers. Imagine if Clinton had tried to mute the boom. The howls from the pundits would have been deafening.
You're right. Notice I'm not blaming Clinton for what he did or didn't do - hindsight's easy - but I am saying that what happened then directly caused what's happening now, and I don't think Bush should be blamed for it if Clinton's not.
It's a no-brainer what Bush should have done. It's a demand-side problem, a demand-side problem deserves a demand-side solution. Bush should have cuts taxes significantly towards middle and lower income earners.
So you agree that taxes being cut do stimulate the economy, but disagree with who got the pie? I probably agree with that.
Companies didn't need more money to invest in growth,
Two problems: 1) you're right on the glut angle - overproduction in the 90's led to no demand for industrial stuff now. But - 2) without stimulating industrial demand, recovery won't happen.
I think Bush is attempting to stimulate industrial demand as much as possible, which will be tough, and while much of it is political paybacks, the economy won't come around without it.
Our economy was driven into the ground by two things: 1. 9/11 2. The war on Iraq. If you notice, the economy started to recover after 9/11 but then the decision to go to "war" in Iraq and driven the economy down even further.
First, the economy was in a mild recession before 9/11. The recession began around March 2001, and you'd have to be an idiot or a member of the DNC to actually believe Bush managed to start a recession in 2 months. Your Nasdaq was in steep decline before the inauguration. So Bush must have been such a terrible president that the economy tanked in anticipation of his arrival, huh?
Second, blaming 9/11 on Bush would be idiotic. Also, the economy kept falling from October 2001 to March 2002, when the war was announced, so your timeline doesn't even make sense - the market only recovered from the immediate spike of 9/11, not the consequences. The war also had nothing to do with the economy from your own evidence, as the markets flattened out and started raising soon afterwards continuing up to now. I don't believe it, but if the war had any effect, from your own evidence a rational observer would estimate it to be a positive influence. I claim no correlation.
Your correlation is nonexistent. From your own evidence, things didn't happen when you claim. The bust started before inauguration, and the economy's actually picked up since the war. Naturally, since you're partisan, you'll not blame the bust on annual, fraudulent, and unsustainable 40% annual growth under Clinton (again, from your Nasdaq chart), because that wouldn't support your partisan message.
If you're going to quote those financials, give me months where events correlate to trends, because from what you say, you don't have it. Again, I don't like Bush either, but there's no reason to blame him for things that aren't his fault.
Uh, presidents don't control the economy but can influence the bone-crushing depths of a recession through sound fiscal, policy and social initiatives. Bush is a one trick pony i.e tax cuts. Clinton didn't create the boom nor did they create the bomb, they did do what they thought would create a favorable climate for an emerging Internet-enabled economy.
I agree presidents don't create booms or busts, but as you contend Bush should have softened the blow, then Clinton should have muted the boom.
Also, the bust was absolutely inevitable. When you have a million programmers hired by companies who are guaranteed to go under, there is nothing else that CAN happen.
As for preventing the bone-crushing depths of this recession, this has actually been a relatively mild one for everyone except programmers, which as per my previous analysis, there was no way to prevent that shakeout.
Bottom line, if you think Bush was to blame for the recession, what would you have done differently?
And it closes with a really stupid anti-Bush link. Sigh. Bring a salt shaker if you're going to read it all.
I agree, and I'll even say I don't understand how anyone of even lukewarm intelligence can blame the dot-bomb collapse on Bush. Don't get me wrong - I don't *like* Bush, and there's *plenty* that he directly answers for - but this isn't it.
The economy was already heading south by the end of 2000, and the crash was, by that time, completely inevitable. Christ himself (I mean Greenspan) couldn't prevent it.
So if you actually feel like blaming a President for the collapse, Clinton's your man.
If such a client was written to DOS or Windows it would simple reboot. So it was a sanity check, at the time.
Interesting. Is it *absolutely* impossible for any program other than the operating system to grab the CTL-ALT-DEL combo? Clearly Windows grabs it, as pressing CTL-ALT-DEL only brings up task manager.
Furthermore, if in the case of political or religious canvassers, they can ignore your "no soliciting" sign period, as political and religious speech
For what it's worth, since these groups are specifically also protected by the DNC list, it doesn't apply and might be a reason the DNC list was specifically crafted this way.
For example, cities and counties can ban d2d solicitors, but not political or religious canvassers.
As above, this shows that it must be legal to block non-"speechy" contact like sales, as opposed to telephone proselytizing (does that happen?) or political messages, etc. This suggests to me that the DNC list is perfectly constitutional.
Whatever the wording, I believe there is a way I can write "Don't F***ing knock on my door" and people legally have to respect that, is there not? "No trespassing" works for me. However that is changed to work for the telephone, there seems to be a constitutional way of doing it, and from what I can see, the crafters of the DNC list program have mostly anticipated what's in your response by excluding the groups they have.
The DNC does restrict speech. It restricts the ability of a telemarketer to call you up and talk to you. "Free speech" in its most literal form cannot be taken to mean anything different.
The difference here is that this is an opt-in list (ie, I have to take action to prevent telemarketers from reaching me), as opposed to an opt-out list, where the free speech of telemarketers would be abridged.
I believe this makes a huge difference. Putting things in a standard free-speech context, solicitors have a right to come up to my door and knock, UNLESS I have told them to go away OR posted "No solicitation." In other words, when I have expressed my opinion as not wanting to hear their speech, they're obligated to cease disturbing me.
The DNC list is similar. If it were a blanket "no telemarketing" law that placed people on the list unless they personally removed themselves, that would likely be a huge free speech violation. But at the point where I have told them NOT to contact me, they're obliged to cease. The DNC list simply serves as an efficient means of processing my request not to be disturbed. However, it is fundamentally no different on the phone vs. at my door - I have personally requested not to be disturbed, and they are required to honor that request.
Or look at it this way: Re-read the post you replied to. You are just restating exactly what they said.
This bit: "you'd also have to have the masks to make the chips anyways. So they stand to lose nothing by not publishing the source."
It's a rhetorical question for Chrissakes, which I believe is incorrect. I believe it would be of great use, and the fact that they refuse to release it underscores that fact.
What's the big deal anyway? The thing uses proprietary hardware, so in order to reproduce it, you'd also have to have the masks to make the chips anyways. So they stand to lose nothing by not publishing the source.
I expect someone clever enough could rip out the interesting bits, or port the whole damned thing to another card if interested enough. The philosophy, I believe, is that the community should be able to decide whether it's worth it.
Or, look at it this way - if no one could conceivably do anything with their source, then they have nothing to RISK by releasing it, huh?
The starch that initially comes off the pasta perhaps stabilizes it, anyway about 6 minutes at 500 watts on a rotating base and you have lots of small bubbles perking vigorously though I have not had the courage to attempt a rolling boil with a lot of water.
Somewhat, but the question is what you did to it afterwards. Did you let it recool? Or did you take it out?
Now I am not saying you should microwave water by itself in an unmoving tray or even a moving one for that matter,
No, you shouldn't, as you can certainly overheat the water as it has nothing to nucleate at and form vapor.
If you want to really get yourself hurt, try dropping some coffee creamer in previously-boiled (and then recooled) water that you heat in the nuker for some substantial time.
At first it was a little scary and you have to wonder what the temperature is going to be when you stop it..
Yes, you should. If it's anything over boiling, then the water's superheated and sensitive to shock or pretty much anything else. The microwave company probably won't give you decent info on this, btw.
The new complaint allegedly asks for declaratory judgment, which I presume would cover the whole she-bang, in which case the GPL would not get to go to court, no?.
Maybe. I don't see defending the GPL as IBM's main goal here - they seem to be using it as *a* weapon in their arsenal. But you're right, if they win the judgement, no court on that angle.
Also, I believe those sorts of judgements are rare. It's frequently filed in cases like this, just as SCO will then move to dismiss. So there's a good chance that IBM would continue going after them after losing declaratory.
Slashdot Mirror
That would work, but it'll never be implementable as it would require a protocol change, or at least you would have to convince whoever does your hosting to provide that service, ie, to vouch for your "forged" header. If they were that friendly, you probably could have convinced them to let you use the SMTP relay in the first place.
I think an easier, client-based approach would be to build in a feature that it automatically whitelists your address if it ever receives a non-spam message from you. That way, you can continue to email anyone you've EVER emailed successfully from wherever you are, if they use such a client. It would be a good feature to build in to either clients or even spamassassin-type programs.
The only way you get in trouble is if someone joe-jobs you.
You know, this is *exactly* why the concept of a "reply-to" address in a mail header exists.
A few options: 1) use an ISP that will allow you to relay mail, and find your way to a telnet somehow. Not likely, but it's possible. 2) use an ISP that allows shell access (good luck finding one). Problem solved. 3) If you really need to mail someone on a trip to Europe, tell them about the problem and have them whitelist you.
But certainly don't expect people to accept non-matching mail sight-unseen.
I read their response, and I don't understand it. I think it really sends a mixed message to the general community and makes them look weak. Basically, they say "we didn't do anything wrong, but we'll remove the offending material." Then they go on to say that it was just redundant material anyway that was already included in the kernel.
If this was the case, it seems too coincidental that the time when they decide to delete all this "redundant" code is when SCO comes knocking. It makes them look guilty. not only that, it didn't get them anything. It's not like SCO was ever going to say "Thanks for removing that code." Nothing SGI did could have been enough, so why bother doing anything when it could just make you look guilty?
...BSD will be dead and THEN what will we do?
I don't agree simply on the RMS mantra of information wanting to be free, unless there's a practical reason (which there may be in some cases). You have to realize, very few people actually care about such things. Quite frankly, 99% of all government agencies (especially at the state level) don't even want to modify software. So openness doesn't directly give them anything.
If the cheapest "solution" to a problem doesn't guarantee the ability to migrate data away from that platform, or locks the citizens of the state to purchasing software X in order to interact with the government, then TCO has to take the back seat to openness.
Oh, now, all that is a part of TCO as I define it. Kind of like managing those little damned CofA certificates is part of MS's TCO, either that or paying the BSA tax. You're right - if you need custom software, make sure it's open source or you're owned. As for people needing to interact with the government, how? Web pages? I've never interacted with the "government" outside of something like that, which is certainly an open standard. Additionally, like it or not, most people DO own MS for any number of crappy reasons, so therefore if interconnectivity is a real concern, that's a reason to go with MS. Personally I don't buy either argument.
I'm wholeheartedly in favor of holding government to open standards. Requiring OSS, on the other hand, seems a bit too drastic a step to me.
I'd go with that, but it's a more moderate position than that taken by Mass - at least as represented by Slashdot, which could mean nothing.
I'm not fully convinced that the CAGW's "analysis" is even close to an accurate depiction of the proposal.
Yeah, it's usually not. ;)
I'm not fully convinced that the CAGW's "analysis" is even close to an accurate depiction of the proposal.
Yeah, I was wondering where the real actual proposal was. Sounds like people on both sides are probably going nuts for nothing.
I tried that and now my friends can't get my emails. You don't know SHIT about locking down a box.
Yes, I'm joking.
Theoretically, no, but in practice, yes. If they make a mandatory switch to linux, that effectively means Linus has executive control over every operating system used in Massachussets. I realize anyone can contribute, yadda yadda, but that's the reality of it.
A world where Linux dominates is a world where no-one dominates. Everyone is free to take software and use it, study it, and modify it in any way they like.
That means nothing to Massachussets as consumers. If no one IS doing that, then they're tied to the same old linux that may or may not be right for them. Your argument is one germane to the operating system "revolution" that we and like five people not on /. care about. Massachussets simply needs computers with the lowest possible TCO. To say that *can't* be closed source is ridiculous. Massachussets doesn't care about our agenda, and they shouldn't.
The only restriction is on redistribution, and if you don't like the terms, hey, use something else.
What, like Windows? Not if there's a law against it...
Ultimately, I think the time when linux wins is when individual departments CHOOSE it, not when they're FORCED to do so. This is where the CAGW's comment about the Soviets links in - if they thought their revolution was so great, why didn't they open up elections to prove it?
Before the flames fly, I'm writing this post in Mozilla running on KDE on top of Slackware.
Yes, yes, yes, that's the stock answer and I know it's not easy to do - however, fixing subscripts seems like it should be one of the easier things to reverse engineer, and easier than many of the things they've already accomplished.
I will say OO is much improved now, but I *just* installed 1.1, and saved a document as a word doc under OO. I opened it in word, and subscripts and quotes were still a bit fucked up.
I'd say it's better, and for most people good enough, and even for me, close enough that I can tweak a few things. But I cannot save something as Word under OO, send it to my boss, and have confidence that it won't make me look like an ass.
I'm not sure why such simple problems still exist, honestly.
What, you actually think that not giving all the money to rich people is a bad thing? ;)
I'll be the first to grant that the reduction on cap gains tax is bullshit.
Just wondering, but doesn't the executive branch have more control over the SEC than Congress? Seems to me this is something Bill could have done something about. I could be wrong there, if so scratch that.
Additionally, the biggest responsibility for the economic decline goes to Hugo Chavez, who got Opec to cut supplies in 1999, causing an energy price spike.
No way. First, the economy was far too high then, and some brakes on the economy would have been welcome in 1999, if anything this would have prolonged things. Second, the timing's off - things didn't go south then, but over a year later.
Then when you look at the Republican tendency to reduce rules, and the Bush record on lax enforcement of white collar crime, and his political appointments (Poindexter?!), and the conflicts of interest evident in each one, and add that to the Bush S&L scandal in 1990, Iran-Contra of the 1980's, a pattern emerges.
Wow, that's an irrelevant and mixed bag. Hell, throw in Whitewater while you're at it, I'm sure that had something to do with the economy going south.
You're right. Notice I'm not blaming Clinton for what he did or didn't do - hindsight's easy - but I am saying that what happened then directly caused what's happening now, and I don't think Bush should be blamed for it if Clinton's not.
It's a no-brainer what Bush should have done. It's a demand-side problem, a demand-side problem deserves a demand-side solution. Bush should have cuts taxes significantly towards middle and lower income earners.
So you agree that taxes being cut do stimulate the economy, but disagree with who got the pie? I probably agree with that.
Companies didn't need more money to invest in growth,
Two problems: 1) you're right on the glut angle - overproduction in the 90's led to no demand for industrial stuff now. But - 2) without stimulating industrial demand, recovery won't happen.
I think Bush is attempting to stimulate industrial demand as much as possible, which will be tough, and while much of it is political paybacks, the economy won't come around without it.
First, the economy was in a mild recession before 9/11. The recession began around March 2001, and you'd have to be an idiot or a member of the DNC to actually believe Bush managed to start a recession in 2 months. Your Nasdaq was in steep decline before the inauguration. So Bush must have been such a terrible president that the economy tanked in anticipation of his arrival, huh?
Second, blaming 9/11 on Bush would be idiotic. Also, the economy kept falling from October 2001 to March 2002, when the war was announced, so your timeline doesn't even make sense - the market only recovered from the immediate spike of 9/11, not the consequences. The war also had nothing to do with the economy from your own evidence, as the markets flattened out and started raising soon afterwards continuing up to now. I don't believe it, but if the war had any effect, from your own evidence a rational observer would estimate it to be a positive influence. I claim no correlation.
Your correlation is nonexistent. From your own evidence, things didn't happen when you claim. The bust started before inauguration, and the economy's actually picked up since the war. Naturally, since you're partisan, you'll not blame the bust on annual, fraudulent, and unsustainable 40% annual growth under Clinton (again, from your Nasdaq chart), because that wouldn't support your partisan message.
If you're going to quote those financials, give me months where events correlate to trends, because from what you say, you don't have it. Again, I don't like Bush either, but there's no reason to blame him for things that aren't his fault.
I agree presidents don't create booms or busts, but as you contend Bush should have softened the blow, then Clinton should have muted the boom.
Also, the bust was absolutely inevitable. When you have a million programmers hired by companies who are guaranteed to go under, there is nothing else that CAN happen.
As for preventing the bone-crushing depths of this recession, this has actually been a relatively mild one for everyone except programmers, which as per my previous analysis, there was no way to prevent that shakeout.
Bottom line, if you think Bush was to blame for the recession, what would you have done differently?
I agree, and I'll even say I don't understand how anyone of even lukewarm intelligence can blame the dot-bomb collapse on Bush. Don't get me wrong - I don't *like* Bush, and there's *plenty* that he directly answers for - but this isn't it.
The economy was already heading south by the end of 2000, and the crash was, by that time, completely inevitable. Christ himself (I mean Greenspan) couldn't prevent it.
So if you actually feel like blaming a President for the collapse, Clinton's your man.
Interesting. Is it *absolutely* impossible for any program other than the operating system to grab the CTL-ALT-DEL combo? Clearly Windows grabs it, as pressing CTL-ALT-DEL only brings up task manager.
For what it's worth, since these groups are specifically also protected by the DNC list, it doesn't apply and might be a reason the DNC list was specifically crafted this way.
For example, cities and counties can ban d2d solicitors, but not political or religious canvassers.
As above, this shows that it must be legal to block non-"speechy" contact like sales, as opposed to telephone proselytizing (does that happen?) or political messages, etc. This suggests to me that the DNC list is perfectly constitutional.
Whatever the wording, I believe there is a way I can write "Don't F***ing knock on my door" and people legally have to respect that, is there not? "No trespassing" works for me. However that is changed to work for the telephone, there seems to be a constitutional way of doing it, and from what I can see, the crafters of the DNC list program have mostly anticipated what's in your response by excluding the groups they have.
The difference here is that this is an opt-in list (ie, I have to take action to prevent telemarketers from reaching me), as opposed to an opt-out list, where the free speech of telemarketers would be abridged.
I believe this makes a huge difference. Putting things in a standard free-speech context, solicitors have a right to come up to my door and knock, UNLESS I have told them to go away OR posted "No solicitation." In other words, when I have expressed my opinion as not wanting to hear their speech, they're obligated to cease disturbing me.
The DNC list is similar. If it were a blanket "no telemarketing" law that placed people on the list unless they personally removed themselves, that would likely be a huge free speech violation. But at the point where I have told them NOT to contact me, they're obliged to cease. The DNC list simply serves as an efficient means of processing my request not to be disturbed. However, it is fundamentally no different on the phone vs. at my door - I have personally requested not to be disturbed, and they are required to honor that request.
Or look at it this way: Re-read the post you replied to. You are just restating exactly what they said.
This bit: "you'd also have to have the masks to make the chips anyways. So they stand to lose nothing by not publishing the source."
It's a rhetorical question for Chrissakes, which I believe is incorrect. I believe it would be of great use, and the fact that they refuse to release it underscores that fact.
I expect someone clever enough could rip out the interesting bits, or port the whole damned thing to another card if interested enough. The philosophy, I believe, is that the community should be able to decide whether it's worth it.
Or, look at it this way - if no one could conceivably do anything with their source, then they have nothing to RISK by releasing it, huh?
At what temperature? And is that pure water? A mix of isotopes that normally occurs in nature, or the most common 18H2O?
Ambiguities like this is why the metric system was changed from such standards many years ago.
...you saved me the trouble. ;)
Somewhat, but the question is what you did to it afterwards. Did you let it recool? Or did you take it out?
Now I am not saying you should microwave water by itself in an unmoving tray or even a moving one for that matter,
No, you shouldn't, as you can certainly overheat the water as it has nothing to nucleate at and form vapor.
If you want to really get yourself hurt, try dropping some coffee creamer in previously-boiled (and then recooled) water that you heat in the nuker for some substantial time.
At first it was a little scary and you have to wonder what the temperature is going to be when you stop it..
Yes, you should. If it's anything over boiling, then the water's superheated and sensitive to shock or pretty much anything else. The microwave company probably won't give you decent info on this, btw.
Maybe. I don't see defending the GPL as IBM's main goal here - they seem to be using it as *a* weapon in their arsenal. But you're right, if they win the judgement, no court on that angle.
Also, I believe those sorts of judgements are rare. It's frequently filed in cases like this, just as SCO will then move to dismiss. So there's a good chance that IBM would continue going after them after losing declaratory.