If Microsoft is shutting down distribution of XP they're going to have a difficult time showing financial losses on a product they don't sell any more. B-)
... releasing it on June 30th would have been more amusing.
Amusing, yes.
But this gives users an opportunity to try it out BEFORE the closing date. That lets them avoid executing on a migration to some other Microsoft version if Wine 1.0 will do the job for them.
It's a little late already. A lot of people and companies are already committed. But today is vastly better for market penetration (or Microsoft market eviction) than June 30. B-)
Wine doesn't have a "logo" nor a certification program.
If I understand it correctly, "designed for" doesn't mean a certification organization poked at the product. It means the manufacturer advertises it to run on that platform.
So all a manufacturer needs to do is run the same test suites against the product running under wine 1.0 that he runs against it for windows platforms. If it passes, include wine 1.0 in the "designed for" list and accept support calls from customers.
Thanks, but I'm quite aware of the theory of the so-called social contract.
However: libertarian, anarchist, nihilist, Objectivist, and a number of other political and philosophical persuasions consider "implied contract" to be an oxymoron and the theory of social contract to be a totally bogus construction used by apologists for state power to justify their impositions, for generation after generation, on people who never agreed to be oppressed.
i think it needs to be understood that those in power are GIVEN power through social contract, and that their position DEPENDS on the needs of the people they govern.
I never signed a social contract. When did you sign yours?
Last time I looked, a contract required adult informed consent of both parties to be valid. Calling the status quo a "contract", social or otherwise, doesn't make it one. Even if some historic figures actually signed an agreement long before the current "parties to the contract" were born.
Will this then apply to books who have had their cover torn off and returned to the publisher? Most of those books carry a "if the cover is missing this book cannot be resold" blurb[?]
Probably not. Promo records are spam. The arrangement between the publishers and the booksellers is contractual. Since the arrangement requires disposition of the remainder of the book in a way that keeps its content out of the market it can be argued that marketing the defaced book is conversion (think "stealing it for your own benefit"), making buying and owning it (knowing, from the missing cover, that it's not what the publisher intended) some variation on "possession of stolen property".
And if the CD is sent unsolicited, then they will have to pay for the return fee or expose themselves to extortion lawsuits or something.
As I understand it: If it's unsolicited (and not the result of a shipping error or a fraudulent order by some third party) there is no obligation to return it, no matter what is printed on it.
A declaration of war has nothing to do with the crime of treason, the threshold for which is set forth in Article III, Section 3 of the Constituion:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Refraining from discussing the OS wars is not an overt act, regardless of whether you believe it gives aid and comfort (which it does, IMHO.)
I was actually alluding to the "Enemies" part: The foreigners we're not getting along with don't rise to the status of "Enemies" in the treason definition unless there's a declaration of war. (This is why Jane Fonda got to marry first Tom Hayden and later Ted Turner, hang out in mansions, and do her dancing on an aerobics video, rather than marry a fellow inmate, hang out in federal prison, and/or dance at the end of a rope.)
But, yes, refraining from discussion is not an overt act. So I guess the only guys who are skirting the treason definition are the ones who actively argue against arguing, such as the poster I responded to. B-)
I'm not saying to knuckle under and be good sheep.
I'm saying that to end being a domestic animal you first need to be aware that you are one - that the farmer isn't going to just let you go and/or do things your way because you want to. You must make your plans accordingly.
It also helps to be smarter than the farmer - though that isn't required.
Part of being aware of the situation is being aware that just goring the farmer and running for the woods won't usually work. Farmers are ready for that: Animals that attack them are quickly and systematically eliminated from the gene pool, making things quiet in the short term and the next generation that much easier to manage. Far better to convince the farmers to give up on farming your species, let you go peaceably, and find some better way to earn a living. But you don't want them to switch to hunter-gathering, with you as the hunted and your goods as the fruit to be gathered, either. B-)
Utopian dreams require a practical implementation plan.
How'd that whole "owning the Internet" thing work out for Ron Paul?
Got him a whole BUNCH of campaign money for starters.
The corporate media had to go to blatantly refusing to mention his existence to make up for that. He got started about four to six months too late to win the nomination on word-of-mouth alone in the face of media silence. (Doubling time for that is about 2 months.)
But hang in there. While the presidential seat is a trophy, the real battles are for congressional seats, the parties' political directions, and the meme structrure of political debate. That's longer term than one presidential race. That's what he got into politics for and (after beating his head against the wall for decades) he's doing just fine on those fronts right now.
... the John McCain you knew died when his own party turned on him and sold him out in 2000.
What ARE you talking about?
As I recall it, back in the 2000 primaries most of the R candidates were anti-gun, with McCain the sole (apparent) exception. So the gunnies (myself included) were supporting him heavily.
Then, late in the primary cycle, he came out for gun control. And the gunnies dropped him like a hot rock. This tanked his run, like jumping off a cliff.
HE betrayed US. We were stabbed in the back. We will never trust him again, and we have LONG memories, spanning far more than one or two presidential election cycles.
Gunnies are a big component of the Republican base. Without their support McCain stands no chance. He'd have to pull a LOT of voters from the Democratic candidate to make up for this block. And he has nothing to offer the left that they can't get from their own candidate.
Is it really all that difficult to conceive of disposing of the nation state? Now that we live in an age of a global society, what do nations do for us?...
You are in much the same position as a cow or sheep proposing to get rid of farmers.
It's easy to conceive of getting rid of nation states. It's really hard to do it. The people in power raise, herd, milk, and slaughter the bulk of the population for their own benefit. Part of this process is culling from the herd those "rogues" who attempt to change the situation, before more of the herd starts following them.
Jebus...can we leave the OS wars out of it? Just this once?
No, we can't. And we shouldn't.
People in the government are putting life-critical and national-security-critical information on computers driven by a software system that is notorious for a multi-decade history of being riddled with security holes, some of which are architectural and unfixable.
Doing this - and CONTINUING to do this when they should know better - is a major part of the issue under discussion.
In this case it has resulted in the disclosure of the identities of dissidents to the intelligence agencies of foreign governments who wish them eliminated. This will probably result in a number of incarcerations, tortures, and deaths.
In other cases it may even lead to outcomes as serious as the US losing a war, being conquered, or being destroyed.
This is an important issue. Failing to fix it may result the deaths of multiple millions of people and creating a future consisting of a jackboot on humanity's neck for generations to come.
For us to refrain from discussing it because you're sick of "OS wars" would be beyond criminal. It only lacks a declaration of war to qualify as treason.
Meaning, it is speculated that when you have less solar activity, it leads to more lower cloud cover.
And a tiny change in cloud cover means a BIG change in temperature. They reflect a lot of incoming solar heat - in the form of light in the short infrared through ultraviolet portion of the spectrum - back out before it has a chance to be absorbed, re-radiated in the long infrared, and trapped by the greenhouse gases.
So if:
- lower sunspots are associated with
- lower solar wind and solar magnetic field, which
- reduces deflection of cosmic rays, which then
- create more ions in the air, thus
- nucleating more condensation, leading to
- clouds forming sooner and more densely, thus
- reflecting more sunlight you can see a large change in temperature in rather short order, even if the solar surface temperature and the resulting incoming solar heat and light (above the atmosphere) doesn't change at all.
Secondly the software update did not respect the data in the nuclear control system and synchronized it to new initial data in the update on the other system! Not a good idea. In critical safety systems, you always practice an update before actually doing one.
I have no problem with a computer on the process control subnet reporting information to a computer on the business subnet.
I have a BIG problem with a computer on the business subnet being able to modify and corrupt data in a computer on the process control subnet.
"I can't dump data to the business side" is a reason to make a log entry and maybe sound a minor alarm. It's not a reason to shut down the reactor (unless the data is needed for regulatory compliance and the process control side isn't able to buffer it until the business side is working correctly.)
But if a business subnet computer can tamper with something as critical as a process control machine's idea of the level of coolant in a reservoir, it rings my "design flaw" alarms.
Is it ONLY able to reset it to "empty" as poorly-designed part of a communication restart sequence? Or could it also make the process control machine think the level was nominal when it WAS empty?
IMHO this should be examined more closely. It may have exposed a dangerous flaw in the software design.
Security flaws don't care if they're exercised by mischance or malice. If nothing else, this is a way to Dos a nuclear plant through a breakin on the business side of the net.
Slashdot Mirror
Get it before Microsoft sues.
Too true. But one nice thing...
If Microsoft is shutting down distribution of XP they're going to have a difficult time showing financial losses on a product they don't sell any more. B-)
... releasing it on June 30th would have been more amusing.
Amusing, yes.
But this gives users an opportunity to try it out BEFORE the closing date. That lets them avoid executing on a migration to some other Microsoft version if Wine 1.0 will do the job for them.
It's a little late already. A lot of people and companies are already committed. But today is vastly better for market penetration (or Microsoft market eviction) than June 30. B-)
Wine doesn't have a "logo" nor a certification program.
If I understand it correctly, "designed for" doesn't mean a certification organization poked at the product. It means the manufacturer advertises it to run on that platform.
So all a manufacturer needs to do is run the same test suites against the product running under wine 1.0 that he runs against it for windows platforms. If it passes, include wine 1.0 in the "designed for" list and accept support calls from customers.
At the risk of slashdotting digibarn...
A framed copy of the cover of Ted Nelson's "Computer Lib / Dream Machines" might be apropos.
Thanks, but I'm quite aware of the theory of the so-called social contract.
However: libertarian, anarchist, nihilist, Objectivist, and a number of other political and philosophical persuasions consider "implied contract" to be an oxymoron and the theory of social contract to be a totally bogus construction used by apologists for state power to justify their impositions, for generation after generation, on people who never agreed to be oppressed.
i think it needs to be understood that those in power are GIVEN power through social contract, and that their position DEPENDS on the needs of the people they govern.
I never signed a social contract. When did you sign yours?
Last time I looked, a contract required adult informed consent of both parties to be valid. Calling the status quo a "contract", social or otherwise, doesn't make it one. Even if some historic figures actually signed an agreement long before the current "parties to the contract" were born.
Will this then apply to books who have had their cover torn off and returned to the publisher? Most of those books carry a "if the cover is missing this book cannot be resold" blurb[?]
Probably not. Promo records are spam. The arrangement between the publishers and the booksellers is contractual. Since the arrangement requires disposition of the remainder of the book in a way that keeps its content out of the market it can be argued that marketing the defaced book is conversion (think "stealing it for your own benefit"), making buying and owning it (knowing, from the missing cover, that it's not what the publisher intended) some variation on "possession of stolen property".
But IANAL so that's a guess.
Good catch!
There goes promotional copies of CDs that reviewers keep, I guess.
Not if they want a good review. B-)
And if the CD is sent unsolicited, then they will have to pay for the return fee or expose themselves to extortion lawsuits or something.
As I understand it: If it's unsolicited (and not the result of a shipping error or a fraudulent order by some third party) there is no obligation to return it, no matter what is printed on it.
Are you serious? Or were you going for the funny mod here?
Serious as a nuclear attack.
I was actually alluding to the "Enemies" part: The foreigners we're not getting along with don't rise to the status of "Enemies" in the treason definition unless there's a declaration of war. (This is why Jane Fonda got to marry first Tom Hayden and later Ted Turner, hang out in mansions, and do her dancing on an aerobics video, rather than marry a fellow inmate, hang out in federal prison, and/or dance at the end of a rope.)
But, yes, refraining from discussion is not an overt act. So I guess the only guys who are skirting the treason definition are the ones who actively argue against arguing, such as the poster I responded to. B-)
I'm not saying to knuckle under and be good sheep.
I'm saying that to end being a domestic animal you first need to be aware that you are one - that the farmer isn't going to just let you go and/or do things your way because you want to. You must make your plans accordingly.
It also helps to be smarter than the farmer - though that isn't required.
Part of being aware of the situation is being aware that just goring the farmer and running for the woods won't usually work. Farmers are ready for that: Animals that attack them are quickly and systematically eliminated from the gene pool, making things quiet in the short term and the next generation that much easier to manage. Far better to convince the farmers to give up on farming your species, let you go peaceably, and find some better way to earn a living. But you don't want them to switch to hunter-gathering, with you as the hunted and your goods as the fruit to be gathered, either. B-)
Utopian dreams require a practical implementation plan.
Perhaps the idea is to so disrupt those blogs that they are unable to organize anti-McCain activities?
How'd that whole "owning the Internet" thing work out for Ron Paul?
Got him a whole BUNCH of campaign money for starters.
The corporate media had to go to blatantly refusing to mention his existence to make up for that. He got started about four to six months too late to win the nomination on word-of-mouth alone in the face of media silence. (Doubling time for that is about 2 months.)
But hang in there. While the presidential seat is a trophy, the real battles are for congressional seats, the parties' political directions, and the meme structrure of political debate. That's longer term than one presidential race. That's what he got into politics for and (after beating his head against the wall for decades) he's doing just fine on those fronts right now.
... the John McCain you knew died when his own party turned on him and sold him out in 2000.
What ARE you talking about?
As I recall it, back in the 2000 primaries most of the R candidates were anti-gun, with McCain the sole (apparent) exception. So the gunnies (myself included) were supporting him heavily.
Then, late in the primary cycle, he came out for gun control. And the gunnies dropped him like a hot rock. This tanked his run, like jumping off a cliff.
HE betrayed US. We were stabbed in the back. We will never trust him again, and we have LONG memories, spanning far more than one or two presidential election cycles.
Gunnies are a big component of the Republican base. Without their support McCain stands no chance. He'd have to pull a LOT of voters from the Democratic candidate to make up for this block. And he has nothing to offer the left that they can't get from their own candidate.
Is it really all that difficult to conceive of disposing of the nation state? Now that we live in an age of a global society, what do nations do for us? ...
You are in much the same position as a cow or sheep proposing to get rid of farmers.
It's easy to conceive of getting rid of nation states. It's really hard to do it. The people in power raise, herd, milk, and slaughter the bulk of the population for their own benefit. Part of this process is culling from the herd those "rogues" who attempt to change the situation, before more of the herd starts following them.
clearly the Chinese have money to waste ... All the other governments just wait for ...
The Chinese have a LOT of manpower. So why wait? And why do only ONE attack?
In a competition you use your strengths to your advantage.
Jebus...can we leave the OS wars out of it? Just this once?
No, we can't. And we shouldn't.
People in the government are putting life-critical and national-security-critical information on computers driven by a software system that is notorious for a multi-decade history of being riddled with security holes, some of which are architectural and unfixable.
Doing this - and CONTINUING to do this when they should know better - is a major part of the issue under discussion.
In this case it has resulted in the disclosure of the identities of dissidents to the intelligence agencies of foreign governments who wish them eliminated. This will probably result in a number of incarcerations, tortures, and deaths.
In other cases it may even lead to outcomes as serious as the US losing a war, being conquered, or being destroyed.
This is an important issue. Failing to fix it may result the deaths of multiple millions of people and creating a future consisting of a jackboot on humanity's neck for generations to come.
For us to refrain from discussing it because you're sick of "OS wars" would be beyond criminal. It only lacks a declaration of war to qualify as treason.
Now with animal acts.
Where's Jack Bauer when you need him ???
Recovering from post traumatic stress disorder, a number of wounds, and radiation poisoning.
Apparently, no spotting at all. Word is the sun is tremendously worried and was seen at CVS in the pregnancy test section.
Actually it just got hold of some benzoyl peroxide. It's ecstatic that its acne has finally cleared up.
Meaning, it is speculated that when you have less solar activity, it leads to more lower cloud cover.
And a tiny change in cloud cover means a BIG change in temperature. They reflect a lot of incoming solar heat - in the form of light in the short infrared through ultraviolet portion of the spectrum - back out before it has a chance to be absorbed, re-radiated in the long infrared, and trapped by the greenhouse gases.
So if:
- lower sunspots are associated with
- lower solar wind and solar magnetic field, which
- reduces deflection of cosmic rays, which then
- create more ions in the air, thus
- nucleating more condensation, leading to
- clouds forming sooner and more densely, thus
- reflecting more sunlight
you can see a large change in temperature in rather short order, even if the solar surface temperature and the resulting incoming solar heat and light (above the atmosphere) doesn't change at all.
Someone has to file suit to have the law overturned as unconstitutional, and get SCOTUS to agree that it is indeed unconstitutional.
Yep.
Just like any other law. B-(
We liken that to changing your tire while driving down the road.
;}
Oh sure, NOW you think of a debian slogan
Good thing it wasn't written in Smalltalk. The slogan there is building the rest of the boat while underway.
Secondly the software update did not respect the data in the nuclear control system and synchronized it to new initial data in the update on the other system! Not a good idea. In critical safety systems, you always practice an update before actually doing one.
I have no problem with a computer on the process control subnet reporting information to a computer on the business subnet.
I have a BIG problem with a computer on the business subnet being able to modify and corrupt data in a computer on the process control subnet.
"I can't dump data to the business side" is a reason to make a log entry and maybe sound a minor alarm. It's not a reason to shut down the reactor (unless the data is needed for regulatory compliance and the process control side isn't able to buffer it until the business side is working correctly.)
But if a business subnet computer can tamper with something as critical as a process control machine's idea of the level of coolant in a reservoir, it rings my "design flaw" alarms.
Is it ONLY able to reset it to "empty" as poorly-designed part of a communication restart sequence? Or could it also make the process control machine think the level was nominal when it WAS empty?
IMHO this should be examined more closely. It may have exposed a dangerous flaw in the software design.
Security flaws don't care if they're exercised by mischance or malice. If nothing else, this is a way to Dos a nuclear plant through a breakin on the business side of the net.