... another l337 distro. But it has an extremely user-friendly and helpful web forum forums.gentoo.org.
The Gentoo forum attracts new users because it is an easy and user-friendly way to get help... it is also nicely designed. It doesn't require approval by a moderator to ask a question.
The Debian answer to every complaint is basically "this is free, we don't have to please you." Which is certainly true and understandable. But Gentoo is just as free.
So I recommend Gentoo to people who want to learn Linux... later, after they don't need help anymore, they can always switch to Debian.
Even though I use Debian now, I still go to the Gentoo forums to look for how-tos and other information that is not specific to that distro.
Come to think of it, Gentoo's documentation is a lot more easy to deal with too.
And what's with the Spartan Debian web site? Is it being plain for plain's sake?
I remember reading about a Debian distribution for doctors and another one for lawyers.
Are those projects still in active development?
I would like to get involved in a distribution for lawyers... since I intend to become a lawyer before the year is up (taking the bar at the end of July).
Of course, it was dumb of them to ditch the old Linux version... but at least they're coming to their senses.
I just bought the cd version of Corel Linux 1.0 in order to get the deb package of WordPerfect 8.1. It was only 2 dollars on eBay. It still works even in Debian unstable. You just have to fiddle with the dependencies a bit.
You can still download WordPerfect 8 for Linux and install it, though the legality of this isn't completely clear. Corel at one time made it available for free download. Several sites continue to offer it and Corel has done nothing to stop them. See the WordPerfect on Linux FAQ for more info.
WordPerfect 8/8.1 is a lot faster than OpenOffice, and more importantly, it reads WordPerfect files. A lot of law offices have all of their documents in WordPerfect.
There is a pretty good WordPerfect filter for OpenOffice (LibWPD), but it's hard to compete with the real thing.
I think this will cause many law firms to consider switching to Linux.
That's true... at least they will if they think you are a good card counter. If you are a normal card counter (one of the many thousands who THINK they are good card counters), then they will do all they can to encourage you.
Back to your point. Yes, they can throw you out. Any business can refuse to do business with you as long as it isn't because of your race, religion, gender, etc... Certainly they have the right to ask you to leave... not the same as having you arrested and charged with a crime though.
Er, reread my post. I didn't say anything about a camera.
Moreover, they have problems even with you using nothing but your own brain to improve your odds (indeed, they don't care to have you improve your odds at all).
No shit. But AFAIK, card counting is not illegal anywhere. Using a computer to help you guess... That is.
Again, I ask just one person to post a website with real math backing this up.
There is a THEORETICAL mathematical advantage.
It's been known for about 50 years. If you know that there are a lot of face cards in the deck, you know that you have a better chance of winning (and the dealer a better chance of busting), so at that point you bet more money.
Do a google search for "Ed Thorpe" and you'll find plenty of info. You can even run your own computer simulations if you want to be a nihilist about it.
First of all, I don't know what kind of advantage you are talking about. Even in the most favorable of games, using the most complex card-counting system, your advantage at blackjack isn't going to be more than a few percentage points. As a team working covertly you might get a 50% advantage, but on your own there's no way.
Second, to get that advantage, you have to make no mistakes. NONE. You have to play for weeks to overcome the standard deviation (assuming you even have enough money to stay in play). And if you don't play perfectly, you will either not make money, or worse, you will lose it.
Casinos love the "blackjack myth" because it draws more suckers to the tables.
If you want to beat someone at gambling, why would you pick an opponent who has more than a lifetime of experience? The casinos have been making money for a very long time.
Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy
Although I support applying the definition of "profane" as discussed in Tallman to this particular incident, this too is a new finding by the Commission. The courts never applied the standard in Tallman to an isolated broadcast of the fword and the FCC has never used this definition in any analysis of "profane" content, let alone the use of expletives. Rather, "profane language" has historically been interpreted in a legal sense to mean blasphemy. Moreover, the Mass Media Bureau in a document entitled "The Public and Broadcasting" stated that "[p]rofanity that does not fall under one of the above two categories [indecency or obscenity] is fully protected by the First Amendment and cannot be regulated." [footnotes omitted]
OMG, an FCC Commissioner mentioning the First Amendment...
Doea repair of a localy bought vehicle by a local dealer qualify? I don't really think so.
As a matter of fact it does.
How do you think Congress can pass laws banning handguns in designated school zones? The Supreme Court let them do it because Congress added the wording "affecting interstate commerce" to the statute.
All they have to do is say that it affects interstate commerce... It isn't really a limitation at all.
There is already a system in place to draft health care personnel, and this system would be expanded in order to 'rapidly register and draft' computer specialists.
Ok, I can understand this for health care personnel in case of another 9/11 scale attack... but computer specialists?
Is it to help Homeland Security protect us by installing "telescreens" in our houses?
Maybe I'm just being dense... which works in my favor. Thankfully I was dumb enough to go for an arts degree and mess with computers as a hobby instead of a career.
GPL doesn't really apply to Motorola in this case. They are simply taking software from Montavista. Montavista is the one you should ask about GPL compliance.
Um, did Linus change his name to Montavista and start selling proprietary versions of Linux (with permission of all his contributors)?
Did someone somehow write a Linux clone from scratch without using any of the original code?
If neither of those has occurred, GPL compliance will be required or Motorola will be in violation of Linus' (and others') copyrights.
Do a public records search to see if your doctor has been sued for malpractice before. If he has ever been sued, just fire him. You don't want the risk... Isn't that what they are saying to us?
I'll probably get modded down for this and told to take off the tin-foil hat, but...
It seems like Darl is doing someone else's lobbying for them.
There's a lot at stake here for a certain software monopolist. And most of Darl's arguments benefit that Redmond company more than SCO.
Why would it benefit SCO to lobby Congress against open source? It really doesn't. The more open source goes on, the more companies that SCO can sue. On the other hand, it does benefit a certain software company that actually SELLS software, and is currently suffering from open source competition.
Go ahead and call me a conspiracy-theorist. I think this is the best indication we've had yet that Microsoft is doing some under the table bankrolling of Darl's Misadventures (in addition to the above-table money they have already given SCO)... where there's smoke, there's fire.
I just want to point out to everyone that the MPAA only got an injunction; they did not win a lawsuit.
True, but to get an injunction, the judge has to find that you are likely to win the lawsuit. The judge is already saying he thinks the MPAA will win this.
MPAA is the likely winner here... at least until 123Studios appeals... and that assumes that they have money for an appeal.
"The FCC announced this month that it would develop rules for what is known as Voice Over Internet Protocol, or VOIP."
What if I am using my computer to talk to another person on their computer, and we don't connect to the POTS lines at all... are we using VOIP and therefore required to have 911 access?
Does it depend on whether we are paying a third party to facilitate our calls?
I RTFAed, but it doesn't explain what the rule covers.
I suppose that the question here is: why? Is the new licence really that bad? Is this reaction warranted?
It is warranted.
Whether it's "that bad" doesn't matter so much as "is it really incompatible with the GPL."
If distributors would violate the GPL by linking GPLed programs to XFree4.4, they could be liable for statutory damages under copyright law.
One would hope that no author (of a GPLed program) would sue Debian (or others) for linking to XFree4.4. But hope doesn't pay the bills. Distributors need to comply fully with the licenses of the software they distribute.
Other than Debian, the distributors that have made this decision are businesses. It is not that they are GPL nazis... they are just dotting their Is and crossing their Ts.
The First Amendment only protects you from government action. It gives you no protection whatsoever against the actions of private individuals or companies.
California's state bill of rights provides some free speech protection against owners of private land made open to the public. That's about the only place you'll get free speech protection against a private actor.
HP is within their rights. If you want to print joke money, buy from another company.
This logic leads to a police state. Every business would have less crime if they supported armed gaurds and video cameras -- but everyone would go broke.
Hopefully the electorate and its representatives are smart enough to avoid that... but again, it's for the political process to determine, NOT the courts.
The reason they don't do this in restaurants is because the clientele of restaurants have more social clout than cyber geeks. The courts should expose the inequity. This is completely different than if the owner of the establishmet does it.
It's political clout they have... and that's the point. It is not the purpose of courts to right every single inequity that exists.
Look, I don't like the ordinance either, but we've been regulating businesses in this country for a long time now. Almost every one of those regulations costs businesses money. A court can't just go in and say, "this is going to make it too hard on the businesses... we like cybercafes, so we're going to overturn the law." That's a political decision that's unsuited for the courts.
I'm not arguing with your point of view of what is right. I am saying simply this: legislatures make stupid laws all the time, but stupidity is not grounds for overturning those laws.
Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy?
on
Stallman Goes to India
·
· Score: 1
The employee is not getting the money he put into the system. He's getting the money his employer put into the system as forced on them by our government.
Tom, I agree with almost all of what you wrote, but regarding the text above, I must ask a rhetorical question. If you worked in a state that didn't require unemployment insurance--all other things being equal--wouldn't you expect a higher salary?
It is true that it doesn't show up as a deduction on your paycheck. But your paycheck would be bigger if your employer did not have to pay it. I believe it is even tied to the number of employees that an employer hires. That would make an even more direct relationship, but don't quote me on it.
I agree with you that this is terrible policy on the part of the city council.
But unless it infringes on a fundamental right, the court should not step in and judge the importance (or unimportance) of security at cybercafes.
Requiring a higher level of security for certain businesses bears a rational relationship to the objective of reducing crime. That's all the city has to show.
The place to remedy this is in the ballot box and in the tax office.
Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy?
on
Stallman Goes to India
·
· Score: 1
But our other social programs, like unemployment checks, welfare, and the such are time-limited.
The programs that provide "unemployment checks" are paid for out of your paycheck and not taxpayer monies. The amount you can get depends on the amount you were making (ie contributing) and the length of time you were employed.
Considering this, it seems wrong to call "unemployment checks" a social program, and to equate "employment checks" with "welfare" checks.
Someone who takes an unemployment check has met with an unpleasant surprise (the loss of their job). They take only from the funds that they contributed to. Someone who honestly receives unemployment checks for a short time should not feel any shame.
Slashdot Mirror
... another l337 distro. But it has an extremely user-friendly and helpful web forum forums.gentoo.org.
The Gentoo forum attracts new users because it is an easy and user-friendly way to get help... it is also nicely designed. It doesn't require approval by a moderator to ask a question.
The Debian answer to every complaint is basically "this is free, we don't have to please you." Which is certainly true and understandable. But Gentoo is just as free.
So I recommend Gentoo to people who want to learn Linux... later, after they don't need help anymore, they can always switch to Debian.
Even though I use Debian now, I still go to the Gentoo forums to look for how-tos and other information that is not specific to that distro.
Come to think of it, Gentoo's documentation is a lot more easy to deal with too.
And what's with the Spartan Debian web site? Is it being plain for plain's sake?
Let the flames begin.
Are those projects still in active development?
I would like to get involved in a distribution for lawyers... since I intend to become a lawyer before the year is up (taking the bar at the end of July).
I just bought the cd version of Corel Linux 1.0 in order to get the deb package of WordPerfect 8.1. It was only 2 dollars on eBay. It still works even in Debian unstable. You just have to fiddle with the dependencies a bit.
You can still download WordPerfect 8 for Linux and install it, though the legality of this isn't completely clear. Corel at one time made it available for free download. Several sites continue to offer it and Corel has done nothing to stop them. See the WordPerfect on Linux FAQ for more info.
WordPerfect 8/8.1 is a lot faster than OpenOffice, and more importantly, it reads WordPerfect files. A lot of law offices have all of their documents in WordPerfect.
There is a pretty good WordPerfect filter for OpenOffice (LibWPD), but it's hard to compete with the real thing.
I think this will cause many law firms to consider switching to Linux.
"Enhance your 'maleness,' vote W!"
That's true... at least they will if they think you are a good card counter. If you are a normal card counter (one of the many thousands who THINK they are good card counters), then they will do all they can to encourage you.
Back to your point. Yes, they can throw you out. Any business can refuse to do business with you as long as it isn't because of your race, religion, gender, etc... Certainly they have the right to ask you to leave... not the same as having you arrested and charged with a crime though.
Er, reread my post. I didn't say anything about a camera.
Moreover, they have problems even with you using nothing but your own brain to improve your odds (indeed, they don't care to have you improve your odds at all).
No shit. But AFAIK, card counting is not illegal anywhere. Using a computer to help you guess... That is.
There is a THEORETICAL mathematical advantage.
It's been known for about 50 years. If you know that there are a lot of face cards in the deck, you know that you have a better chance of winning (and the dealer a better chance of busting), so at that point you bet more money.
Do a google search for "Ed Thorpe" and you'll find plenty of info. You can even run your own computer simulations if you want to be a nihilist about it.
It is usually illegal to use a "device" other than your brain to help you make bets in a casino.
It's cheating in the same way that it would be cheating if you used a hidden computer to win a chess tournament.
First of all, I don't know what kind of advantage you are talking about. Even in the most favorable of games, using the most complex card-counting system, your advantage at blackjack isn't going to be more than a few percentage points. As a team working covertly you might get a 50% advantage, but on your own there's no way.
Second, to get that advantage, you have to make no mistakes. NONE. You have to play for weeks to overcome the standard deviation (assuming you even have enough money to stay in play). And if you don't play perfectly, you will either not make money, or worse, you will lose it.
Casinos love the "blackjack myth" because it draws more suckers to the tables.
If you want to beat someone at gambling, why would you pick an opponent who has more than a lifetime of experience? The casinos have been making money for a very long time.
Although I support applying the definition of "profane" as discussed in Tallman to this particular incident, this too is a new finding by the Commission. The courts never applied the standard in Tallman to an isolated broadcast of the fword and the FCC has never used this definition in any analysis of "profane" content, let alone the use of expletives. Rather, "profane language" has historically been interpreted in a legal sense to mean blasphemy. Moreover, the Mass Media Bureau in a document entitled "The Public and Broadcasting" stated that "[p]rofanity that does not fall under one of the above two categories [indecency or obscenity] is fully protected by the First Amendment and cannot be regulated." [footnotes omitted]
OMG, an FCC Commissioner mentioning the First Amendment...
Bzzzt! Opinion too nuanced!
The terrorists have already won.
No reappointment for you!
As a matter of fact it does.
How do you think Congress can pass laws banning handguns in designated school zones? The Supreme Court let them do it because Congress added the wording "affecting interstate commerce" to the statute.
All they have to do is say that it affects interstate commerce... It isn't really a limitation at all.
Ok, I can understand this for health care personnel in case of another 9/11 scale attack... but computer specialists?
Is it to help Homeland Security protect us by installing "telescreens" in our houses?
Maybe I'm just being dense... which works in my favor. Thankfully I was dumb enough to go for an arts degree and mess with computers as a hobby instead of a career.
Um, did Linus change his name to Montavista and start selling proprietary versions of Linux (with permission of all his contributors)?
Did someone somehow write a Linux clone from scratch without using any of the original code?
If neither of those has occurred, GPL compliance will be required or Motorola will be in violation of Linus' (and others') copyrights.
Do a public records search to see if your doctor has been sued for malpractice before. If he has ever been sued, just fire him. You don't want the risk... Isn't that what they are saying to us?
Porn is educational for children. And if they don't like it, maybe they will learn to type better.
I'll probably get modded down for this and told to take off the tin-foil hat, but...
It seems like Darl is doing someone else's lobbying for them.
There's a lot at stake here for a certain software monopolist. And most of Darl's arguments benefit that Redmond company more than SCO.
Why would it benefit SCO to lobby Congress against open source? It really doesn't. The more open source goes on, the more companies that SCO can sue. On the other hand, it does benefit a certain software company that actually SELLS software, and is currently suffering from open source competition.
Go ahead and call me a conspiracy-theorist. I think this is the best indication we've had yet that Microsoft is doing some under the table bankrolling of Darl's Misadventures (in addition to the above-table money they have already given SCO)... where there's smoke, there's fire.
True, but to get an injunction, the judge has to find that you are likely to win the lawsuit. The judge is already saying he thinks the MPAA will win this.
MPAA is the likely winner here... at least until 123Studios appeals... and that assumes that they have money for an appeal.
1. Performance
2. Melody
3. Lyrics
They used only the lyrics, but they didn't have the rights to them.
Here we have Apple, a company which owes its existence to copyright law... blatantly violating those very same laws.
I'm not a big eminem fan, nor an Apple hater... but they really do deserve to get their balls nailed to the wall on this one.
What if I am using my computer to talk to another person on their computer, and we don't connect to the POTS lines at all... are we using VOIP and therefore required to have 911 access?
Does it depend on whether we are paying a third party to facilitate our calls?
I RTFAed, but it doesn't explain what the rule covers.
It is warranted.
Whether it's "that bad" doesn't matter so much as "is it really incompatible with the GPL."
If distributors would violate the GPL by linking GPLed programs to XFree4.4, they could be liable for statutory damages under copyright law.
One would hope that no author (of a GPLed program) would sue Debian (or others) for linking to XFree4.4. But hope doesn't pay the bills. Distributors need to comply fully with the licenses of the software they distribute.
Other than Debian, the distributors that have made this decision are businesses. It is not that they are GPL nazis... they are just dotting their Is and crossing their Ts.
Uh, no.
The First Amendment only protects you from government action. It gives you no protection whatsoever against the actions of private individuals or companies.
California's state bill of rights provides some free speech protection against owners of private land made open to the public. That's about the only place you'll get free speech protection against a private actor.
HP is within their rights. If you want to print joke money, buy from another company.
Hopefully the electorate and its representatives are smart enough to avoid that... but again, it's for the political process to determine, NOT the courts.
The reason they don't do this in restaurants is because the clientele of restaurants have more social clout than cyber geeks. The courts should expose the inequity. This is completely different than if the owner of the establishmet does it.
It's political clout they have... and that's the point. It is not the purpose of courts to right every single inequity that exists.
Look, I don't like the ordinance either, but we've been regulating businesses in this country for a long time now. Almost every one of those regulations costs businesses money. A court can't just go in and say, "this is going to make it too hard on the businesses... we like cybercafes, so we're going to overturn the law." That's a political decision that's unsuited for the courts.
I'm not arguing with your point of view of what is right. I am saying simply this: legislatures make stupid laws all the time, but stupidity is not grounds for overturning those laws.
Tom, I agree with almost all of what you wrote, but regarding the text above, I must ask a rhetorical question. If you worked in a state that didn't require unemployment insurance--all other things being equal--wouldn't you expect a higher salary?
It is true that it doesn't show up as a deduction on your paycheck. But your paycheck would be bigger if your employer did not have to pay it. I believe it is even tied to the number of employees that an employer hires. That would make an even more direct relationship, but don't quote me on it.
I agree with you that this is terrible policy on the part of the city council.
But unless it infringes on a fundamental right, the court should not step in and judge the importance (or unimportance) of security at cybercafes.
Requiring a higher level of security for certain businesses bears a rational relationship to the objective of reducing crime. That's all the city has to show.
The place to remedy this is in the ballot box and in the tax office.
The programs that provide "unemployment checks" are paid for out of your paycheck and not taxpayer monies. The amount you can get depends on the amount you were making (ie contributing) and the length of time you were employed.
Considering this, it seems wrong to call "unemployment checks" a social program, and to equate "employment checks" with "welfare" checks.
Someone who takes an unemployment check has met with an unpleasant surprise (the loss of their job). They take only from the funds that they contributed to. Someone who honestly receives unemployment checks for a short time should not feel any shame.