Oh please. TFA is just another knucklehead pontificating and rehashing the same old tired argument that has gone on for oh I don't know twenty years or better. I can no longer count how many times this same old argument has been made every time a new technology comes out. It's the same bull crap nonsense that started way back when 8K of core (you remember that right?) memory was deemed to be plenty. And I'm sure it goes even further back in time.
Having been an instructor I agree with the professor. It's her classroom and her decision. She also have a valid point. For anyone that has not been in a teaching position being able to make eye contact with your students is one of many important feedback aspects to get the sense they are comprehending the material.
Ok Dell makes and understandable point. Which distro version to choose without alienating everyone else. That's a very valid concern. At least now Dell is letting us know what their problem is.
The answer is simple. Let the customer choose. It shouldn't be all that intensive or involved to maintain a method via website ordering or even a call in to install, or at least provide a copy of whatever Linux distro the customer wants. Dell could limit the choices to Redhat, Mandriva, Ubunto and say 5 more.
I don't think anyone would totally object if Dell gave say 5 to 10 choices of which Linux distro to make available. There would of course have to be some coordination between Dell and the chosen distros to iron out any install difficulties. But once that was achieved, it would be no more painful for Dell.
IANAL so advise you to either talk with the Samba team and their reverse engineering attempts and more appropriately to contact a lawyer.
Having said the above though. Your efforts at reverse engineering sounds similar in the methods used by Samba, which is a look at what goes across the wire kind of thing. If you did not disassemble any of their code and similar things I don't see how anyone can come after you.
Google has definitely over-stepped the mark and in turn is forcing IT departments to take a very draconian approach to machine security and web access.'"
No you confused knucklehead. That's something your IT should have been doing all along. Why was your IT department allowing end users to install whatever software they wanted? There's nothing draconian about that.
Goolge has over stepped nothing. You just have some lousy sysadmins.
Hmmm, let's see if I understand this right. A cell phone can bring down an aircraft......... and yet....... aircraft routinely get struck by lightning and that doesn't interfere with ANY aircraft electronics?
There sure does seem to be a lot of anti-google, bang on google and tear them down articles about google here of late. I wonder why that is. Maybe something to do with Microsoft's efforts to enter that area? Naw. Bill wouldn't get all his "journalists" to orchestrate some kind of media blitz. That would be unethical wouldn't it? Let's see, what's the motto of google? Ah, "do no evil"? Hm.
Not to pick on Billy Boy. I trust no corporation, not even google and their reassuring motto. Ultimately a corporation answers to the shareholders and eventually, regardless of a companies motto, promises, etal...... the shareholder wins out. It's that simple really. Of course their motto is broad and non-specific enough that it gives them lots of leeway. No evil indeed. From who's point of view, or in what country or.... insert your own.
And so we have some "dirt" about of all things dating. Now that's really hitting the bottom of the barrel here. Of course with such a gossip rag as "Us" its only natural the article be 80% old biddy tongue wagging and 20% anything of substance.
As for Googles decision regarding China. Well lets see here. Your in a foreign country doing business and some are getting wrapped around the axle cause that business follows that countries rules, policies etal? What the hell is the matter with you snot nosed little whiners? What would happen if a foreign company started violating our rules here in the US? I think you knuckleheads need to get a grip on reality. We may not agree with China's policies and I'm sure they take objection to some of ours. But no sovereign nation has the right to tell another how to run their business.
Well Microsoft would have to wouldn't they. I mean how many times now have they been sued over the past 10 years? The "suers" must be running out of claims directly against Billy and now will soon turn their attention to the 2nd/3rd party code writers. Cause after all those folks have been using the same code Microsoft has gotten sued for.
Frankly I think indemnification is a bunch of bullocks but when you deal with a company that has been sued left and right.... I guess it's a needed thing.
I have often wondered that very same thing. In the end though. I think it goes something like this from the licensors point of view;
Sorry you are not due any monies, refund, etal. When you (licensee) entered into the agreement it was done by both parties under good faith concerning the validity of the patent license you agreed to.
Now I don't know how well they can make that stick in a court of law. But then otoh, it could go something along the lines of selling the Brooklyn Bridge even if that were not their intention.
Though IANAL, I tend to agree.... especially in the context of the article. Nor do I see it as a "fair use" issue. Fair use as I understand it allows for backup copies and are not intended to be used simultaneously with it's parent. Which it seems that's exactly what the MPAA was doing. Not only did they make a "fair use copy". They were using at the sametime.
It's my guess and a wild one at that. The copyright owner knows full well the MPAA does not/did not need more than one copy to evaluate for rating purposes and that is why he specifically told them no copies are allowed.
Well lets see if I understand this right. The copyright owner, specifically asked the MPAA not to make copies and the MPAA violated that request by making copies anyway. So the MPAA feels they are justified how?
Sounds a whole lot like pot, kettle and black. The copyright owner should sue their pants off.
So basically once you get beyond all the mombo jumbo, what these guys are are looking to do is;
find a way to develop anti-bacterial agents capable of killing microbes and their their cousins.
Noble in effort but overlooks one fundamental problem. What happens when these agents start attacking the very same or similar microbs and bacteria that are essential to the growth of plants? Theres no way they can guarantee those agents will not. A disaster waiting to happen.
Hmmm, that smell. That smelly smell that smells..... like..... we demand that we are not demanding you do as we demand cause we got clout on our side. Hrmphf.
'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion........
That's just insane and shows how corrupt and willing our government really wants to suckle the business world teat. Actually I place the blame at the foot of the FCC.... a totally corrupt and bought and paid for government organization by business that is not the least bit interested in serving the public. Well they are so long as what the public wants is in line with what business wants. Otherwise the public and tax payers lose.... again.
Yes, it is IMO fair to say there is a good deal lopsidedness between those two numbers.
And I might add, good Samaritans do things that that are not self serving. If you exclude the donations to aids and the like. The vast majority of those ARE self serving to Microsoft.
So as usual IMV Times is doing nothing but sucking up to uncle bill. I cannot believe there were no one else on this planet that has done works that were more selfless and not in some way self serving.
Hmmm, under floor gravity generators. Not encountered any of those.
However, I have been close up to bar gravity generators. Oddly though, there was always one area on it's surface that never worked and just always happened to be where a double Bacardi and Coke was sitting.
Curiously that area always seemed to be where I happened to place my glass. I don't know if there is some anti-gravity aspect to glass. But needless to say, after N+1 of those and the gravity field would always flux so that it caused me to fall off the barstool.
Slashdot Mirror
Rothlmao....... gak!
At which later in the week. Ballmers kids were overheard saying to daddy; But why did you have to build the wall so high?
Having been an instructor I agree with the professor. It's her classroom and her decision. She also have a valid point. For anyone that has not been in a teaching position being able to make eye contact with your students is one of many important feedback aspects to get the sense they are comprehending the material.
Oh geez. Now they have to throw in some religious bullshit. That pretty much shows you how little of a journalist he is.
The answer is simple. Let the customer choose. It shouldn't be all that intensive or involved to maintain a method via website ordering or even a call in to install, or at least provide a copy of whatever Linux distro the customer wants. Dell could limit the choices to Redhat, Mandriva, Ubunto and say 5 more.
I don't think anyone would totally object if Dell gave say 5 to 10 choices of which Linux distro to make available. There would of course have to be some coordination between Dell and the chosen distros to iron out any install difficulties. But once that was achieved, it would be no more painful for Dell.
IANAL so advise you to either talk with the Samba team and their reverse engineering attempts and more appropriately to contact a lawyer. Having said the above though. Your efforts at reverse engineering sounds similar in the methods used by Samba, which is a look at what goes across the wire kind of thing. If you did not disassemble any of their code and similar things I don't see how anyone can come after you.
No you confused knucklehead. That's something your IT should have been doing all along. Why was your IT department allowing end users to install whatever software they wanted? There's nothing draconian about that.
Goolge has over stepped nothing. You just have some lousy sysadmins.
Hmmm, let's see if I understand this right. A cell phone can bring down an aircraft......... and yet....... aircraft routinely get struck by lightning and that doesn't interfere with ANY aircraft electronics?
Lol transparency indeed. But only when it serves Microsoft's own purposes otherwise it's take a hike.
I hope he wasn't really expecting Microsoft to use his full potential for of all things, Linux.
Not to pick on Billy Boy. I trust no corporation, not even google and their reassuring motto. Ultimately a corporation answers to the shareholders and eventually, regardless of a companies motto, promises, etal ...... the shareholder wins out. It's that simple really. Of course their motto is broad and non-specific enough that it gives them lots of leeway. No evil indeed. From who's point of view, or in what country or.... insert your own.
And so we have some "dirt" about of all things dating. Now that's really hitting the bottom of the barrel here. Of course with such a gossip rag as "Us" its only natural the article be 80% old biddy tongue wagging and 20% anything of substance.
As for Googles decision regarding China. Well lets see here. Your in a foreign country doing business and some are getting wrapped around the axle cause that business follows that countries rules, policies etal? What the hell is the matter with you snot nosed little whiners? What would happen if a foreign company started violating our rules here in the US? I think you knuckleheads need to get a grip on reality. We may not agree with China's policies and I'm sure they take objection to some of ours. But no sovereign nation has the right to tell another how to run their business.
Well Microsoft would have to wouldn't they. I mean how many times now have they been sued over the past 10 years? The "suers" must be running out of claims directly against Billy and now will soon turn their attention to the 2nd/3rd party code writers. Cause after all those folks have been using the same code Microsoft has gotten sued for. Frankly I think indemnification is a bunch of bullocks but when you deal with a company that has been sued left and right.... I guess it's a needed thing.
Yeah that'd be a good idea. In this case I don't think RTFM would have made any difference.
I have often wondered that very same thing. In the end though. I think it goes something like this from the licensors point of view; Sorry you are not due any monies, refund, etal. When you (licensee) entered into the agreement it was done by both parties under good faith concerning the validity of the patent license you agreed to. Now I don't know how well they can make that stick in a court of law. But then otoh, it could go something along the lines of selling the Brooklyn Bridge even if that were not their intention.
NEITHER
Though IANAL, I tend to agree.... especially in the context of the article. Nor do I see it as a "fair use" issue. Fair use as I understand it allows for backup copies and are not intended to be used simultaneously with it's parent. Which it seems that's exactly what the MPAA was doing. Not only did they make a "fair use copy". They were using at the sametime. It's my guess and a wild one at that. The copyright owner knows full well the MPAA does not/did not need more than one copy to evaluate for rating purposes and that is why he specifically told them no copies are allowed.
What the copyright owner has to say is irrelevant. I think a whole lot a copyright owners would say your full of crap.
Sounds a whole lot like pot, kettle and black. The copyright owner should sue their pants off.
So basically once you get beyond all the mombo jumbo, what these guys are are looking to do is; find a way to develop anti-bacterial agents capable of killing microbes and their their cousins. Noble in effort but overlooks one fundamental problem. What happens when these agents start attacking the very same or similar microbs and bacteria that are essential to the growth of plants? Theres no way they can guarantee those agents will not. A disaster waiting to happen.
Hmmm, that smell. That smelly smell that smells..... like..... we demand that we are not demanding you do as we demand cause we got clout on our side. Hrmphf.
That's just insane and shows how corrupt and willing our government really wants to suckle the business world teat. Actually I place the blame at the foot of the FCC.... a totally corrupt and bought and paid for government organization by business that is not the least bit interested in serving the public. Well they are so long as what the public wants is in line with what business wants. Otherwise the public and tax payers lose.... again.
Oh fer cryin' out loud. Your logic holds about as much water as a cotton diaper.... and stinks about as much.
Yes, it is IMO fair to say there is a good deal lopsidedness between those two numbers. And I might add, good Samaritans do things that that are not self serving. If you exclude the donations to aids and the like. The vast majority of those ARE self serving to Microsoft. So as usual IMV Times is doing nothing but sucking up to uncle bill. I cannot believe there were no one else on this planet that has done works that were more selfless and not in some way self serving.
However, I have been close up to bar gravity generators. Oddly though, there was always one area on it's surface that never worked and just always happened to be where a double Bacardi and Coke was sitting.
Curiously that area always seemed to be where I happened to place my glass. I don't know if there is some anti-gravity aspect to glass. But needless to say, after N+1 of those and the gravity field would always flux so that it caused me to fall off the barstool.