Even the politician at which you people are poking fun called it a "a series of tubes".
He did a lot more then that, if you haven't heard the speech you shouldn't comment
When he said "a series of tubes" he meant it that way, literary a series of tubes connected to each other, not a network of tubes.
The analogy breaks down in network anyway, that's why only the connection to ones ISP is refered to as pipe, beyond that there are nice things such as balancing and other magic that makes sure that when someone sends you "an internet" it does not get delayed for everal days because somone else on your ISP is streaming a movie.
Consider point 1. They are required to provide the corresponding source code of the "derived work", but what constitutes a "derived work" and what constitutes "mere aggregation" in GPL terms is a philosophically open question.
It may be a philosophical question in some ways, but the fact that a binary compiled from GPL code is such a derived work should be pretty clear, so let's look at the "corresponding source code" side:
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
As I read that it means that it should compile and if the original author can't compile the code then it sounds suspect to me.
Software to support video communications over the internet doesn't sound to me like it's inherently Jin-derived, regardless of whether it happens to sit next to Jin in a pretty window or whether its class files are aggregated alongside some modified Jin class files.
And to me it sounds that the seperate programs didn't cut it in terms of integration and they were forced to do it in one. The GPL couln't stop them from making a chess program and a video communication program that work really good together, yet they clearly didn't take this route.
A series of tubes _is_ an acceptable analogy. No, it's not an _exceptionally good_ analogy (literally speaking), but it is certainly not below average.
Except that when you download a "WHOLE BOOK!" my tube doesn't get clogged because I'm on the other side of the planet--a network of tubes is very different from a series of tubes. Aside from that I'd like to think that/.ers use "tubes" as a reference to the general stupidity of the tubes speech, not just the tubes analogy.
The OS X kernel _is_ Mach with a BSD API. While the BSD kernels have traditionally been slower then Linux kernels - the are more stable and robust. period.
You make no sense, why does the performance and/or robustnes of BSD kernels matter if the kernel is in fact Mach?
But you can avoid having the local mafia claiming they have the right to force you to pay protection money or imprison you.
You are right... But only on the "imprison you" part, they certainly won't, I don't see that as an advantage though. I suggest you apply some critical thinking to your utopia.
So a motive for revenge (eventualy attacking someone who is perceived as a "bully" is just that, self defense is the here and now when you are attacked) is authority enough to be use violence in your society without coercion...
4 and 5 are excluding each other IMHO, the best you can hope is the same rendering engine. So while I use different browsers on GNOME and Windows (Epiphany and Firefox) I still get the same rendering and good integration.
You on the other hand fail the facts test. Acid2 is not a W3C test:
Acid2 is a test page for web browsers published by The Web Standards Project (WaSP).
Passing the Acid2 doesn't mean all that much:
Everything that Acid2 tests is specified in a Web standard, but not all Web standards are tested. Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification.
So if a browser passes it can be because:
it has really great standards support
it has the bits tested by Acid2, but everything else could be broken
it has been optimized for the test and does not actually conform to the standard even in the tested bits
The LCDs are a pain because they are so blurry in comparison, and the color rendition is horrible (esp for the shaddows in movies). But for space they can't be beat.
I agree that colors are suboptimal, my SyncMaster 173p+ is "good enough" in that department, but far from perfect. The sharpnes on the other hand makes up for it (had a crappy CRT before that, so hardly a fair comparison), so I'd speculate that you have them on VGA cables.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a fat pipe to the internet != Internet is a fat pipe.
Argue with the Open Source Initiative, they invented and defined the term.
So it isn't open source after-all.
What's a measly 80 years compared to a human lifespan?
So coercion exists until then still.
So a motive for revenge (eventualy attacking someone who is perceived as a "bully" is just that, self defense is the here and now when you are attacked) is authority enough to be use violence in your society without coercion...
So what do they do if they have parasites? What do they do about mosquitoes?
Grandparent was asking what the downside for Apple is, the downsides for customers are clear enough.
4 and 5 are excluding each other IMHO, the best you can hope is the same rendering engine. So while I use different browsers on GNOME and Windows (Epiphany and Firefox) I still get the same rendering and good integration.
Snakes on the internets are no problem, they crawl along the tubes and don't clog them.
You on the other hand fail the facts test. Acid2 is not a W3C test:
Passing the Acid2 doesn't mean all that much: So if a browser passes it can be because:C didn't define fission.
A and B are nuclear as well then...
Since when is BetaCAM RGB based?