The thing is back then to these people Hitler was a hero , he brought them wealth and rebuilt the nation , it was not until far too late that some people saw his true nature , he marched into checkoslovakia not fighting an oposing army , but to a parade. He was a very evil monster , but a very evil monster who was a hero to the people
You forgot to mention that Hitler, monster that he was, could be considered one of the most brilliant orators in recorded history. GW on the other hand...
This is clearly a hormonal thing, and it's like making a case against human evolution.
This is insightful? WTF?
Evidence from large study published by the Royal Economic Society suggests that education in the fundamentals suffers when children have computers introduced into their learning environment.
I don't know why they refer to it as a terrorist attack in the first place. A terrorist attack has as it's motivation the creation of chaos and fear. Attacking a shopping center or an amusement park or a bus would be terrorism. The attacks that occurred against the US on Sept 11th 2001 weren't terrorist attacks at all. They were attacks on the control centers for the military and the economy and on the commander in chief. Those aren't "chaos and fear, nothing is safe" targets, they are logical military targets, somewhere you shouldn't realistically expect NOT to be a target.
Stop perpetuating the "terrorist" propaganda, will you? It's in your best interest to do so... you're just facilitating the wild-west style power grab going on in your country.
This is why so many projects fail. They try too hard to create a mythical overdesigned piece of software that "works in theory" rather than create something that works and then improve it from there.
The GPL doesn't deny anyone "choice".... The GPL places conditions on distribution so that nobody can exert power to restrict what receipients can do with the software down the line.
You do realize that these are contradictory statements, don't you?
First year hacks who don't know what they're doing sniff browsers and put up stupid things like that.
Developers who know what they're doing use functionality sniffing rather than browser sniffing, notify the user that the browser they're using doesn't support the standard functionality which is used to improve their experience, and offer a link to an uglier less powerful version that will let them get the job done.
I think Microsoft is really under the wire on this one. Not because of their shit CSS2 support, or anything like that, and not because Joe Public is rushing out to get Firefox, but because developers are using it as their primary browser.
It used to be that I used IE for my browser, developed my websites step by step testing against it because it was the one I used for myself, then went and checked it against older versions competing browsers and tweaked it enough to get the job done (amidst much cursing and swearing about NN4). So my websites just naturally tended to work best and look best in the latest version of IE.
But Microsoft dropped the ball, and Firefox makes my life so much easier, so I use it to develop against and tweak my site afterwards to make it "good enough" in IE.
I can't remember the last time I spoke to another web developer who uses anything but Firefox as their primary browser. Which means the same effect is being extended across more and more of the websites out there. So the web is naturally going to evolve in a fashion where things look best in Firefox and worse in IE. People will put the effort into IE more than they would for Opera or NN4 because of the market share effect, so it won't happen overnight or necessarally be very dramatic, but it'll happen nevertheless.
The lack of CSS2 support is a pain in the ass, and something people bitch about. But they could get away with that if the developers were using their product as their browser of choice. That's not the case anymore though. Microsoft had better improving IE dramatically enough to make me and others like me want to start using it again on a day to day basis. If they don't, they're going to wake up one morning and find that most of the sites out there don't work as well in their product than the competition, and marketshare isn't going to prevent it from happening.
That's like saying "How can anybody crow about Linux? Just setting setting up Dual Monitors is a nightmare!".
I'd probably be running it on my desktop right now if I actually could have gotten my dual monitors set up. I switched back because I just couldn't afford to spend any more time trying to get it to work.
None of which helps Daimanou with his question: What should I do?
Contact IBM. Tell them your former employer is selling IBMs GPL'd code as their own, and that they are attempting to patent it as well. They are the ones whose rights are being violated. Perhaps they will come to an arrangement grant your former employer a different license, perhaps they will rape them in court. That's their decision.
Has it ever occurred to you "it's illegal isn't a valid reason" knee-jerk reactionists that "it's illegal" is actually a perfectly _good_ reason if, in fact, the particular law in question happens to be good?
To use the expression in another example, in the same tone and context I used the expression before, speeding by itself doesn't really hurt anyone either, but it's still illegal.
Does the fact that you or I may be able to come up with half a dozen other valid reasons _why_ speeding may be wrong diminish the fact that "it's illegal" isn't by itself a fairly good reason? Especially if one considers that it's illegality is probably heavily _tied_ to those other reasons?
Copyright infringement, however mild and however innocuous in scope, does exactly what says... it infringes on rights, specifically, those of the author who has been granted the _exclusive_ right to copy his work (others may only legally copy the work by first obtaining permission). Now there can be arguments made that copyrights are too long and whatnot, but there are largely irrellevant to the issue of Copyright infringement itself. I believe Copyright itself is an entirely appropriate thing to grant an author of any work, and it is why I support Copyright Law most steadfastly.
I could get into a huge debate with you. I could do point and counterpoint all day long about the goodness and badness of the laws. But I don't have to. It's not a human right, or a god-granted right. It's a right granted by all of us to each other because we believe that the advantages outweigh the cost. And it that only lasts when most of us agree that we're better off for it.
So tell me... the way people act, do you believe that the majority of them desire to continue granting copyright?
I personally believe most people don't. And if I'm right, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever what artists or rights holders or politicians think. You can't arrest everyone, and people continue to infringe in ever growing numbers. In the end, it doesn't matter what you say. If most of the people put their thumbs to their noses and say na-na-na-na-na, they win.
It gets high speeds inside the home, enough for HDTV, but why would I want to broadcast an HDTV signal through my home's powerlines when I can get it just as well through normal cable or satellite?
So you can just plug your tv into any power outlet and not have to worry bout anything else.
This would be kickass in an apartment building, condo or hotel. I can see it making real impact there.
Perhaps they judge it based on the quality of it and on the committment of the manufacturer. It doesn't need to have a growing userbase to remain a healthy project, you know.
with their infamous statement that the only way a feature will get coded is if a dev wants to do it (ie has a need for it personally).
If you offered me enough money, I'd want to do it. Even if I didn't need it personally. But then, once you'd paid me for it, it would be yours (and everyone elses) forever, not just until I've forced the version you paid me for into obsolescence.
I refuse to use that software, because I respect myself and my choices. I prefer to shed down the right money for the right commercial software (open or closed), than to use half-baked, half-implemented OSS software made by deaf developers.
Rather than throwing a temper tantrum like a 4 year old and buying commercial software just to spite those arrogant bastards that keep giving away what they want to give away instead of what she wants them to give away, perhaps she could show some inititive and set up a system where people could contribute to a "bounty" for features. I'd chuck $5 from my paypal account into a fund for features I want as long as I could pull my money back if they took too long. This woman has a website, she accepts paypal subscriptions, something like this should not be beyond her abilities.
But instead of doing something that will solve the problem, she just wants to bitch. Wow, they weren't interested in surrendering control of what they do in their free time to her and her little voting site. The temerity of the bastards not to jump on her generous offer.
Maybe I'm just sensitized by frequent conservative bashing on/., but I saw the word Republican and I had to say something. I don't know what you're talking about though, can you explain it to me?
Sure! The Republicans accessed a file server that contained unsecured Democrat files for a period of several months, then when they got caught, they flipped off the Democrats and said "Hey, secure your data next time, dumbasses!"
You're right about the weapon rising up on fully automatic. Canadian military doctrine says you shouldn't use fully automatic fire with a C7 (an M16 with full auto) at a range greater than 50 meters.
However, when you're clearing houses or russian style trenches, you should be throwing a grenade and following up with a full auto spray when you whip around the corner. And if you're unfortunate enough to lose your section, you won't be laying down 3 round taps, you'll be grabbing your dead buddies ammo, laying down full auto suppresive fire, and whenever you see someone stick their head up, you take them out with a double tap.
You also use full auto when you're engaging aircraft and light skin vehicles. Following a tracer to a helicopter with 3 round bursts is not as effective.
The M16 is designed the way it is for one reason. Because US military doctrine says that its soldiers can't be trusted not to panic, waste all their ammo and get blown apart. Don't get pissed at me, it's right in the manuals.
You're off your nut. Canadian troops have had a huge active deployment rate. We had well over half our forces operating at all times throughout the conflicts in Yugoslavia, and in the last decade we've had troops in El Salvador, Cambodia, the Israeli-Arab border, Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda-Uganda, the Sahara, Somalia and Afganistan.
And as for the europeans, yeah, quite a lot of them are better trained as well. The British, the French, any of the nordic countries except the Swiss, they all train their troops better, and train them to be resourceful and take inititive. The US training procedures for non-special forces units are specifically designed to turn soldiers into predictable super-specialized drones. And the training periods are very short. I'm sure you're a very proud to be an American, and your soldiers are very brave and have very nice expensive equipment, but that's just a fact. None of which is intended to take away from the training your special forces recieve, they are a very different breed.
Yeah, there are regiments here in Canada that don't see a whole lot of duty, but there are others that are constantly recruiting and training because most of their soldiers are overseas.
And as for citing an example, the PLF out of Halifax regularly go down to Vermont and mop the floor with your troops during excercise. Probably all that practice they got in Yugoslavia and Afganistan.
The problem with the Canadian military is that there aren't enough of them and their toys aren't as nice. But the forces we have are trained a hell of a lot more than average training stateside.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is back then to these people Hitler was a hero , he brought them wealth and rebuilt the nation , it was not until far too late that some people saw his true nature , he marched into checkoslovakia not fighting an oposing army , but to a parade. He was a very evil monster , but a very evil monster who was a hero to the people
You forgot to mention that Hitler, monster that he was, could be considered one of the most brilliant orators in recorded history. GW on the other hand...
Set em up in an OpenMosix cluster and hide em in an out of the way place. Instant free upgrade on your main box.
This is clearly a hormonal thing, and it's like making a case against human evolution.
This is insightful? WTF?
Evidence from large study published by the Royal Economic Society suggests that education in the fundamentals suffers when children have computers introduced into their learning environment.
Butthead: Heheheh... you're hormonal!
Beavis: +1 Insightful!
I don't know why they refer to it as a terrorist attack in the first place. A terrorist attack has as it's motivation the creation of chaos and fear. Attacking a shopping center or an amusement park or a bus would be terrorism. The attacks that occurred against the US on Sept 11th 2001 weren't terrorist attacks at all. They were attacks on the control centers for the military and the economy and on the commander in chief. Those aren't "chaos and fear, nothing is safe" targets, they are logical military targets, somewhere you shouldn't realistically expect NOT to be a target.
Stop perpetuating the "terrorist" propaganda, will you? It's in your best interest to do so... you're just facilitating the wild-west style power grab going on in your country.
This is why so many projects fail. They try too hard to create a mythical overdesigned piece of software that "works in theory" rather than create something that works and then improve it from there.
Like Netscape?
The GPL doesn't deny anyone "choice". ... The GPL places conditions on distribution so that nobody can exert power to restrict what receipients can do with the software down the line.
You do realize that these are contradictory statements, don't you?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. I know a guy that works in a pet store, and he doesn't eat the dog food he sells either.
News.com.com is reporting that Yahoo! has pledged full support of Firefox across its entire site.
:D
So does this mean we should all start getting our news from Yahoo instead of Slashdot?
First year hacks who don't know what they're doing sniff browsers and put up stupid things like that.
Developers who know what they're doing use functionality sniffing rather than browser sniffing, notify the user that the browser they're using doesn't support the standard functionality which is used to improve their experience, and offer a link to an uglier less powerful version that will let them get the job done.
I think Microsoft is really under the wire on this one. Not because of their shit CSS2 support, or anything like that, and not because Joe Public is rushing out to get Firefox, but because developers are using it as their primary browser.
It used to be that I used IE for my browser, developed my websites step by step testing against it because it was the one I used for myself, then went and checked it against older versions competing browsers and tweaked it enough to get the job done (amidst much cursing and swearing about NN4). So my websites just naturally tended to work best and look best in the latest version of IE.
But Microsoft dropped the ball, and Firefox makes my life so much easier, so I use it to develop against and tweak my site afterwards to make it "good enough" in IE.
I can't remember the last time I spoke to another web developer who uses anything but Firefox as their primary browser. Which means the same effect is being extended across more and more of the websites out there. So the web is naturally going to evolve in a fashion where things look best in Firefox and worse in IE. People will put the effort into IE more than they would for Opera or NN4 because of the market share effect, so it won't happen overnight or necessarally be very dramatic, but it'll happen nevertheless.
The lack of CSS2 support is a pain in the ass, and something people bitch about. But they could get away with that if the developers were using their product as their browser of choice. That's not the case anymore though. Microsoft had better improving IE dramatically enough to make me and others like me want to start using it again on a day to day basis. If they don't, they're going to wake up one morning and find that most of the sites out there don't work as well in their product than the competition, and marketshare isn't going to prevent it from happening.
That's like saying "How can anybody crow about Linux? Just setting setting up Dual Monitors is a nightmare!".
I'd probably be running it on my desktop right now if I actually could have gotten my dual monitors set up. I switched back because I just couldn't afford to spend any more time trying to get it to work.
None of which helps Daimanou with his question: What should I do?
Contact IBM. Tell them your former employer is selling IBMs GPL'd code as their own, and that they are attempting to patent it as well. They are the ones whose rights are being violated. Perhaps they will come to an arrangement grant your former employer a different license, perhaps they will rape them in court. That's their decision.
possible integration between IE 7.0 and Microsoft's Windows anti-spyware service, which currently is in beta.
Am I the only one that read that as "integration between IE 7.0 and Microsoft's Windows Spyware Approval service"?
Has it ever occurred to you "it's illegal isn't a valid reason" knee-jerk reactionists that "it's illegal" is actually a perfectly _good_ reason if, in fact, the particular law in question happens to be good?
To use the expression in another example, in the same tone and context I used the expression before, speeding by itself doesn't really hurt anyone either, but it's still illegal.
Does the fact that you or I may be able to come up with half a dozen other valid reasons _why_ speeding may be wrong diminish the fact that "it's illegal" isn't by itself a fairly good reason? Especially if one considers that it's illegality is probably heavily _tied_ to those other reasons?
Copyright infringement, however mild and however innocuous in scope, does exactly what says... it infringes on rights, specifically, those of the author who has been granted the _exclusive_ right to copy his work (others may only legally copy the work by first obtaining permission). Now there can be arguments made that copyrights are too long and whatnot, but there are largely irrellevant to the issue of Copyright infringement itself. I believe Copyright itself is an entirely appropriate thing to grant an author of any work, and it is why I support Copyright Law most steadfastly.
I could get into a huge debate with you. I could do point and counterpoint all day long about the goodness and badness of the laws. But I don't have to. It's not a human right, or a god-granted right. It's a right granted by all of us to each other because we believe that the advantages outweigh the cost. And it that only lasts when most of us agree that we're better off for it.
So tell me... the way people act, do you believe that the majority of them desire to continue granting copyright?
I personally believe most people don't. And if I'm right, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever what artists or rights holders or politicians think. You can't arrest everyone, and people continue to infringe in ever growing numbers. In the end, it doesn't matter what you say. If most of the people put their thumbs to their noses and say na-na-na-na-na, they win.
Oh, and btw...
Na-na-na-na-na!
The law is corrupt. Therefore we don't care about the law.
Has this clicked for any of you "it's illegal" parrots? We don't care!
Fix the laws and we will be law abiding citizens.
It gets high speeds inside the home, enough for HDTV, but why would I want to broadcast an HDTV signal through my home's powerlines when I can get it just as well through normal cable or satellite?
So you can just plug your tv into any power outlet and not have to worry bout anything else.
This would be kickass in an apartment building, condo or hotel. I can see it making real impact there.
It does support keeping buddy lists separate in the latest full version.
Perhaps they judge it based on the quality of it and on the committment of the manufacturer. It doesn't need to have a growing userbase to remain a healthy project, you know.
This isn't Wall Street.
My experience has been that for the first few months, it's more like you have two babies, and your wife is one of them.
with their infamous statement that the only way a feature will get coded is if a dev wants to do it (ie has a need for it personally).
If you offered me enough money, I'd want to do it. Even if I didn't need it personally. But then, once you'd paid me for it, it would be yours (and everyone elses) forever, not just until I've forced the version you paid me for into obsolescence.
I refuse to use that software, because I respect myself and my choices. I prefer to shed down the right money for the right commercial software (open or closed), than to use half-baked, half-implemented OSS software made by deaf developers.
Rather than throwing a temper tantrum like a 4 year old and buying commercial software just to spite those arrogant bastards that keep giving away what they want to give away instead of what she wants them to give away, perhaps she could show some inititive and set up a system where people could contribute to a "bounty" for features. I'd chuck $5 from my paypal account into a fund for features I want as long as I could pull my money back if they took too long. This woman has a website, she accepts paypal subscriptions, something like this should not be beyond her abilities.
But instead of doing something that will solve the problem, she just wants to bitch. Wow, they weren't interested in surrendering control of what they do in their free time to her and her little voting site. The temerity of the bastards not to jump on her generous offer.
You mean paternity leave, right?
Maybe I'm just sensitized by frequent conservative bashing on /., but I saw the word Republican and I had to say something. I don't know what you're talking about though, can you explain it to me?
Sure! The Republicans accessed a file server that contained unsecured Democrat files for a period of several months, then when they got caught, they flipped off the Democrats and said "Hey, secure your data next time, dumbasses!"
Ewh.. HP?
Yuck!
This product is what popped into my head when I first read about WASTE.
You're right about the weapon rising up on fully automatic. Canadian military doctrine says you shouldn't use fully automatic fire with a C7 (an M16 with full auto) at a range greater than 50 meters.
However, when you're clearing houses or russian style trenches, you should be throwing a grenade and following up with a full auto spray when you whip around the corner. And if you're unfortunate enough to lose your section, you won't be laying down 3 round taps, you'll be grabbing your dead buddies ammo, laying down full auto suppresive fire, and whenever you see someone stick their head up, you take them out with a double tap.
You also use full auto when you're engaging aircraft and light skin vehicles. Following a tracer to a helicopter with 3 round bursts is not as effective.
The M16 is designed the way it is for one reason. Because US military doctrine says that its soldiers can't be trusted not to panic, waste all their ammo and get blown apart. Don't get pissed at me, it's right in the manuals.
You're off your nut. Canadian troops have had a huge active deployment rate. We had well over half our forces operating at all times throughout the conflicts in Yugoslavia, and in the last decade we've had troops in El Salvador, Cambodia, the Israeli-Arab border, Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda-Uganda, the Sahara, Somalia and Afganistan.
And as for the europeans, yeah, quite a lot of them are better trained as well. The British, the French, any of the nordic countries except the Swiss, they all train their troops better, and train them to be resourceful and take inititive. The US training procedures for non-special forces units are specifically designed to turn soldiers into predictable super-specialized drones. And the training periods are very short. I'm sure you're a very proud to be an American, and your soldiers are very brave and have very nice expensive equipment, but that's just a fact. None of which is intended to take away from the training your special forces recieve, they are a very different breed.
Yeah, there are regiments here in Canada that don't see a whole lot of duty, but there are others that are constantly recruiting and training because most of their soldiers are overseas.
And as for citing an example, the PLF out of Halifax regularly go down to Vermont and mop the floor with your troops during excercise. Probably all that practice they got in Yugoslavia and Afganistan.
The problem with the Canadian military is that there aren't enough of them and their toys aren't as nice. But the forces we have are trained a hell of a lot more than average training stateside.