If there are so many people who question whether the invididual is guilty, then obviously the person was NEVER really proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In any case, the case wasn't the issue here. The ruling was, and the ruling was that if a police officer asks, you have to give your name.
Police have been charging people with interfering in an investigation for ages if they didn't cooperate when questioned. Now they don't have to be conducting an investigation.
Huh? Of course you don't need women to the job or to do it well. Whether having women on the team gives you any benefit in terms of actual development is irrelevent. I mean seriously, it's not as if improved games even makes the top 10000 most interesting topics of the day list.
I'm just saying more female coders in general is a good thing. Not because we need more women in the workforce, womens lib, or some special skill they have that men don't.
But the real reason is because it doesn't hurt to have a nice view from your cube.
The craziest thing is that there are feminazi's out there who will be offended by that remark instead of proud of it.
Actually no, I don't use windows. But pretty well all companies I have to spend time fixing problems for do. The rest I just setup, and they just work.
No actually lying is saying things which are untrue. There is no malice or intent to injure, or even a need for damage. Where on earth did you get that idea?
Maybe in your world... in mine if I do a full install just from the distribution cd, without going out to get anything else at all. Well I'll end up with 12 programs to do most everything I might want to do.
It's true, the farther you go from what everyone wants to do and closer to just what you want to do, you do the less applications there are though.
When you say there are so few desktop programs for linux, you must mean there are so few for what you are trying to do.
What are you trying to do? Obviously it's not as common as word processing...
"That being said if Linux were a food, I'd have to say it's teh "make it yourself" burger at Wendys."
I'd agree with that, you have to put it together yourself, with just the already chopped up cooked components.
But the make it yourself bar is stocked with half pound angus beef patties and vegtables from the garden next door that were picked this morning.
You can put 6 patties on the thing with just a hint of lettuce and loads of cheese... but they won't pick up the bun and put these things on it for you.
Also there is no charge for using the "make it yourself" bar, anyone can walk in and use it, all it costs is their time to put what they want on the bun.
Try a class action suit, in which IBM, HP, SUN, Redhat, Oracle, every company which makes money on a business strategy with linux.
Of course you'd need Torvalds in the case to make it work, it's his trademark afterall. But there IS direct economic gain.
You'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who won't see sourcecode as an asset with value, Torvalds is getting back as much as he gives and then some. Just because it's not case doesn't mean it's not economic gain, it only needs to have cash value.
Actually Linux is Trademark Linus Torvalds. True it's not a corporate entity, but if you slander Linux I believe your slandering Mr. Torvalds trademark and he can do something about it.
I also believe that if Mr. Torvalds intended to do so, particularly against Microsoft, then there would be alot of deep pockets ready to back him up. IBM not the least of them. There are alot of companies out there that have an interest in stopping slander against linux.
I have a 128mb USB pen drive myself, and I use it for data transfer (mainly drivers) all the time.
It's no replacement for a floppy drive though.
1. It's not bootable. 2. You need a fully functional OS to be able to use it. 3. USB is extremely flaky. Yes the drives themselves are reliable storage, but USB functionality within the OS, windows in particular is extremely poor and easy to break. In contrast a windows system initializes a floppy drive even when it doesn't really have one.
The most important aspect of a floppy drive is that EVERYthing supports it, it doesn't depend on other subsystems to function... nothing more than a working bios and sometimes partially working bios is enough.
Your not exactly going to flash your bios with a USB pen drive are you?
Not going to run a dos based virus scan eh?
How about a WD drive diagnostic?
Yes many of these could be emulated with a CD, but CD's arent suitable for many reasons. Burners get more and more widespread but arent there yet, and rewriteable cd's are pricey. CD-R's aren't rewriteable and that is enough.
I'm not sure how anyone uses the floppies they need but I keep a couple boxes of blanks and a cd full of disk images. When I need a particular floppy I grab any disk out of the box and image it with what I need... or 10 of them, or however many I need.
Yes I have a usb drive, but it's a daily experience to run into a situation where I have to drop back and punt, using a good old floppy to complete a repair. When something finally replaces the floppy it won't be a usb or firewire drive... it'll have to be a device which isn't removable itself (zip, cd, floppy, something with seperate drive and media) because it takes too much system working to accomplish hot pluggable devices.
So far, I've never ghosted a hard drive using a usb pen drive... but I'll bear it in mind.
I hope that was a joke;) I don't actually know a single ipod owner personally. I don't even know many with mp3 players of any kind. Almost everyone I know has a computer or two though, and all of them have floppy drives.
So why can't you simply use the frequency of collapse (which you can control) rather than the collapsed state itself as "the data"? Poll in fixed intervals.
Or another way (just based on what I've read in this thread thus far) would be the number of particles which have collapsed composing the value.
With either method it doesn't matter what the actual state of the particle is, so long as it's different from what it was before right? As for the fluke possibility of it actually being what it was before... well standard error correction algorithms and protocols should pretty much resolve that.
I'm sure there is some reason neither way would work that I'm ignorant of. But from anything I've read here or elsewhere I can't imagine what. After all, it wouldn't be instant per say and there would be extra overhead this way but, the polling frequency should be settable to whatever we want, and we'd be able to receive data much faster than we can process and interpret it.
"Floppies should have died long before Apple rightly banished them, and should definitely not be used by anyone this day and age, unless you have some sick fondness for losing data."
The problem is apple didn't banish them, and you can't banish the floppy without having some other standard removable cross platform convient AND GLOBALLY AND UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED removable media replace them.
Without a doubt there are better solutions, gazillions of them... the problem is that none have ever caught on. I suppose one day the CD may catch on, but cd burning isn't as simple as floppy copying and rewritable cd's are too damn expensive.
Unfortunately for the Mac users, Apple does not define the desktop. The IBM PC Clone world defines the desktop... Apple cannot banish anything.
For better or worse Apple is now #3 on the desktop with no real growth in sight. On the good side they don't seem to be shrinking either... there is just another wolf growing and it's not the Mac users that wolf is taking.
"They've done everything from make a better product"
Really? I missed that one, what product was this?
I wasn't disagreeing with you entirely like the grandparent however. Just trying to help clarify what he was trying to say on that one point.
I agree with you that MS cannot make monopolies. Really when you think about it, they didn't even build their first monopoly. The IBM PC Compatible won the desktop market, MS was just along for the ride. All they had to there was not be so blatantly horribly terrible that people would throw them away.
When you think about it, now that the IBM PC had created a monopoly for them... well they've used that same tactic, their other monopolies have rode on an existing flagship in the market and not been so terrible that EVERYONE threw them away.
Their desktop monopoly was luck. Their Browser and other monopolies are really just ripples of that first bit of luck. MS has never thus far genuinely won a market.
Even the server share they do have is arguably just a ripple of their desktop monopoly. After all, if you start them in school running windows, then have them run windows in college. Then it's simply a matter of providing a system which isn't to terrible to get them to setup what they are already used to working with rather than something foreign and alien. Even if the alien thing is better.
"Eh? Microsoft isn't the market leader in either app, so what's so 'cute' about it? Microsoft would sure LIKE to be. Same goes for the XBOX, they couldn't buy themselves into #1 there."
Microsoft doesn't and never did have a monopoly in the server market. They DO have a monopoly in the desktop market and THAT is what they leverage to gain other monopolies.
Since their existing monopoly is in the desktop market and not the server market, it stands to reason that they can't exactly leverage their desktop OS monopoly to create server application monopolies.
Buy a buggy and rather crappy OS that was originally intended to run just one application and never designed to be general purpose or secure.
Ride the IBM PC to monopolyhood (MS certainly had no part in attaining it's own dominate position).
Keep OS crappy and buggy, guaranteeing wave after wave of hacks and virus. Has anyone looked at the numbers and noticed that the proportion of viruses written for windows to other OS's is GREATER than the marketshare proportions? The numbers NEVER supported the marketshare argument. 93% of the desktop true. But it's 99.(insert several trailing 9's here)% of the viruses which exploit MS bugs.
Then release anti-virus, after all, who knows the bugs better than you who wrote them in the first place!!!
Step 1. Gain monopoly status in the desktop market.
Step 2. Create easily remote exploitable easy to find SEVERE holes intentionally.
Step 3. Release A/V software to "cure" the computer of the viruses which exploit those holes.
Step 4. Profit!!!
oops... no ? step:(
Seriously is there anyone else who doubts they could get away with this if there weren't so many companies who have no choice but to use their software despite it?
I think selling A/V software exploits their monopoly and is AN EXTREMELY SEVERE conflict of interest... whether it's bundled or not.
Somehow I think we are debating but neither of us are talking about the same thing??
I'm discusing whether C is a high level language or not. Not whether high or low level languages are good and which is superior to the other. If you want flexibility, control, speed, or efficientcy then a low level language is the way to go. If you want portability than a high level language is the way to go.
All of the ease of use and abrastraction in a high level language can be built with a low level language. Going lower level INCREASES capabilities, it certainly doesn't reduce them.
As for the instructions, somehow I think your reading my statements backwards? I'm not claiming that a high level language is high because you can use it without using CPU instructions directly, or that a low level language is low because you cannot code in it WITHOUT using cpu instructions.
I'm saying a high level language is high because you CANNOT code cpu instructions directly. Again the reverse does not make a language high level, being able to code without using cpu instructions.
In a high level language everything MUST be done through a layer of abstraction or embedding of a low level language. Although in C's case you can use very dirty hacks to coerce cpu instructions into ram, proper C usage doesn't support this.
Slashdot Mirror
If there are so many people who question whether the invididual is guilty, then obviously the person was NEVER really proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In any case, the case wasn't the issue here. The ruling was, and the ruling was that if a police officer asks, you have to give your name.
Police have been charging people with interfering in an investigation for ages if they didn't cooperate when questioned. Now they don't have to be conducting an investigation.
Huh? Of course you don't need women to the job or to do it well. Whether having women on the team gives you any benefit in terms of actual development is irrelevent. I mean seriously, it's not as if improved games even makes the top 10000 most interesting topics of the day list.
I'm just saying more female coders in general is a good thing. Not because we need more women in the workforce, womens lib, or some special skill they have that men don't.
But the real reason is because it doesn't hurt to have a nice view from your cube.
The craziest thing is that there are feminazi's out there who will be offended by that remark instead of proud of it.
more female developers is always a good thing.
do the install from behind a linux firewall. Windows is very insecure in every fashion you can come up with.
Linux is not, so count on linux for your security if you really have to do an XP install.
Actually no, I don't use windows. But pretty well all companies I have to spend time fixing problems for do. The rest I just setup, and they just work.
No actually lying is saying things which are untrue. There is no malice or intent to injure, or even a need for damage. Where on earth did you get that idea?
Slander is telling a lie which causes damage.
Slander is more sever than lying alone, not less.
Maybe in your world... in mine if I do a full install just from the distribution cd, without going out to get anything else at all. Well I'll end up with 12 programs to do most everything I might want to do.
It's true, the farther you go from what everyone wants to do and closer to just what you want to do, you do the less applications there are though.
When you say there are so few desktop programs for linux, you must mean there are so few for what you are trying to do.
What are you trying to do? Obviously it's not as common as word processing...
"That being said if Linux were a food, I'd have to say it's teh "make it yourself" burger at Wendys."
I'd agree with that, you have to put it together yourself, with just the already chopped up cooked components.
But the make it yourself bar is stocked with half pound angus beef patties and vegtables from the garden next door that were picked this morning.
You can put 6 patties on the thing with just a hint of lettuce and loads of cheese... but they won't pick up the bun and put these things on it for you.
Also there is no charge for using the "make it yourself" bar, anyone can walk in and use it, all it costs is their time to put what they want on the bun.
I dunno, if I was a drug dealer I might. After all even drug dealers have some morals.
Try a class action suit, in which IBM, HP, SUN, Redhat, Oracle, every company which makes money on a business strategy with linux.
Of course you'd need Torvalds in the case to make it work, it's his trademark afterall. But there IS direct economic gain.
You'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who won't see sourcecode as an asset with value, Torvalds is getting back as much as he gives and then some. Just because it's not case doesn't mean it's not economic gain, it only needs to have cash value.
Actually Linux is Trademark Linus Torvalds. True it's not a corporate entity, but if you slander Linux I believe your slandering Mr. Torvalds trademark and he can do something about it.
I also believe that if Mr. Torvalds intended to do so, particularly against Microsoft, then there would be alot of deep pockets ready to back him up. IBM not the least of them. There are alot of companies out there that have an interest in stopping slander against linux.
But I could be wrong, IANAL.
I have a 128mb USB pen drive myself, and I use it for data transfer (mainly drivers) all the time.
It's no replacement for a floppy drive though.
1. It's not bootable.
2. You need a fully functional OS to be able to use it.
3. USB is extremely flaky. Yes the drives themselves are reliable storage, but USB functionality within the OS, windows in particular is extremely poor and easy to break. In contrast a windows system initializes a floppy drive even when it doesn't really have one.
The most important aspect of a floppy drive is that EVERYthing supports it, it doesn't depend on other subsystems to function... nothing more than a working bios and sometimes partially working bios is enough.
Your not exactly going to flash your bios with a USB pen drive are you?
Not going to run a dos based virus scan eh?
How about a WD drive diagnostic?
Yes many of these could be emulated with a CD, but CD's arent suitable for many reasons. Burners get more and more widespread but arent there yet, and rewriteable cd's are pricey. CD-R's aren't rewriteable and that is enough.
I'm not sure how anyone uses the floppies they need but I keep a couple boxes of blanks and a cd full of disk images. When I need a particular floppy I grab any disk out of the box and image it with what I need... or 10 of them, or however many I need.
Yes I have a usb drive, but it's a daily experience to run into a situation where I have to drop back and punt, using a good old floppy to complete a repair. When something finally replaces the floppy it won't be a usb or firewire drive... it'll have to be a device which isn't removable itself (zip, cd, floppy, something with seperate drive and media) because it takes too much system working to accomplish hot pluggable devices.
So far, I've never ghosted a hard drive using a usb pen drive... but I'll bear it in mind.
Certifications and Degrees are worthless in the real world. In either case they will learn more in the first year actually doing the job.
"If nature didnt want something to happen or occur, we would know about it."
Actually we'd never know about it, if we knew about it, then it would automatically be natural.
I hope that was a joke ;) I don't actually know a single ipod owner personally. I don't even know many with mp3 players of any kind. Almost everyone I know has a computer or two though, and all of them have floppy drives.
What if your data is determined not by the current state of transition itself, but rather whether or not a transition has occured?
Transition occured, 1, didn't occur 0
So why can't you simply use the frequency of collapse (which you can control) rather than the collapsed state itself as "the data"? Poll in fixed intervals.
Or another way (just based on what I've read in this thread thus far) would be the number of particles which have collapsed composing the value.
With either method it doesn't matter what the actual state of the particle is, so long as it's different from what it was before right? As for the fluke possibility of it actually being what it was before... well standard error correction algorithms and protocols should pretty much resolve that.
I'm sure there is some reason neither way would work that I'm ignorant of. But from anything I've read here or elsewhere I can't imagine what. After all, it wouldn't be instant per say and there would be extra overhead this way but, the polling frequency should be settable to whatever we want, and we'd be able to receive data much faster than we can process and interpret it.
"Floppies should have died long before Apple rightly banished them, and should definitely not be used by anyone this day and age, unless you have some sick fondness for losing data."
The problem is apple didn't banish them, and you can't banish the floppy without having some other standard removable cross platform convient AND GLOBALLY AND UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED removable media replace them.
Without a doubt there are better solutions, gazillions of them... the problem is that none have ever caught on. I suppose one day the CD may catch on, but cd burning isn't as simple as floppy copying and rewritable cd's are too damn expensive.
Unfortunately for the Mac users, Apple does not define the desktop. The IBM PC Clone world defines the desktop... Apple cannot banish anything.
For better or worse Apple is now #3 on the desktop with no real growth in sight. On the good side they don't seem to be shrinking either... there is just another wolf growing and it's not the Mac users that wolf is taking.
"They've done everything from make a better product"
Really? I missed that one, what product was this?
I wasn't disagreeing with you entirely like the grandparent however. Just trying to help clarify what he was trying to say on that one point.
I agree with you that MS cannot make monopolies. Really when you think about it, they didn't even build their first monopoly. The IBM PC Compatible won the desktop market, MS was just along for the ride. All they had to there was not be so blatantly horribly terrible that people would throw them away.
When you think about it, now that the IBM PC had created a monopoly for them... well they've used that same tactic, their other monopolies have rode on an existing flagship in the market and not been so terrible that EVERYONE threw them away.
Their desktop monopoly was luck. Their Browser and other monopolies are really just ripples of that first bit of luck. MS has never thus far genuinely won a market.
Even the server share they do have is arguably just a ripple of their desktop monopoly. After all, if you start them in school running windows, then have them run windows in college. Then it's simply a matter of providing a system which isn't to terrible to get them to setup what they are already used to working with rather than something foreign and alien. Even if the alien thing is better.
Yeah, taking out the floppies was the stupidest fscking thing they ever did.
"Eh? Microsoft isn't the market leader in either app, so what's so 'cute' about it? Microsoft would sure LIKE to be. Same goes for the XBOX, they couldn't buy themselves into #1 there."
Microsoft doesn't and never did have a monopoly in the server market. They DO have a monopoly in the desktop market and THAT is what they leverage to gain other monopolies.
Since their existing monopoly is in the desktop market and not the server market, it stands to reason that they can't exactly leverage their desktop OS monopoly to create server application monopolies.
They could just you know, start playing on a level field and fix their products.
You know, actually compete by releasing superior products instead of using their monopoly to push proprietary technology and create lockin.
Then nobody needs to lighten up eh?
Obviously this was always their gameplan.
:(
Buy a buggy and rather crappy OS that was originally intended to run just one application and never designed to be general purpose or secure.
Ride the IBM PC to monopolyhood (MS certainly had no part in attaining it's own dominate position).
Keep OS crappy and buggy, guaranteeing wave after wave of hacks and virus. Has anyone looked at the numbers and noticed that the proportion of viruses written for windows to other OS's is GREATER than the marketshare proportions? The numbers NEVER supported the marketshare argument. 93% of the desktop true. But it's 99.(insert several trailing 9's here)% of the viruses which exploit MS bugs.
Then release anti-virus, after all, who knows the bugs better than you who wrote them in the first place!!!
Step 1. Gain monopoly status in the desktop market.
Step 2. Create easily remote exploitable easy to find SEVERE holes intentionally.
Step 3. Release A/V software to "cure" the computer of the viruses which exploit those holes.
Step 4. Profit!!!
oops... no ? step
Seriously is there anyone else who doubts they could get away with this if there weren't so many companies who have no choice but to use their software despite it?
I think selling A/V software exploits their monopoly and is AN EXTREMELY SEVERE conflict of interest... whether it's bundled or not.
Somehow I think we are debating but neither of us are talking about the same thing??
I'm discusing whether C is a high level language or not. Not whether high or low level languages are good and which is superior to the other. If you want flexibility, control, speed, or efficientcy then a low level language is the way to go. If you want portability than a high level language is the way to go.
All of the ease of use and abrastraction in a high level language can be built with a low level language. Going lower level INCREASES capabilities, it certainly doesn't reduce them.
As for the instructions, somehow I think your reading my statements backwards? I'm not claiming that a high level language is high because you can use it without using CPU instructions directly, or that a low level language is low because you cannot code in it WITHOUT using cpu instructions.
I'm saying a high level language is high because you CANNOT code cpu instructions directly. Again the reverse does not make a language high level, being able to code without using cpu instructions.
In a high level language everything MUST be done through a layer of abstraction or embedding of a low level language. Although in C's case you can use very dirty hacks to coerce cpu instructions into ram, proper C usage doesn't support this.
What does that have to do with high level languages not using cpu instructions directly?
And no, embedded asm or hacks to make it happen doesn't count.