Well that's just what the court case is all about, right? I mean, I never meant to suggest that, in fact, SCO was right or anything, I was merely outlining where I thought that the debate would take focus. If it's true that the IBM/AT&T agreement takes precedence over the Sequent/AT&T agreement even when talking about code developed at Sequent and put into Dynix before IBM bought Sequent, then I think that's great. Personally, I'd like SCO to FOAD. My point is that I don't know what the contract law says about this situation, or even if it says anything at all. That's all I'm saying. But my desire for a clear headed analysis forces me to put aside my dislike for SCO and just examine the situation as I see it, that's all I'm saying.
I suppose, though, since no one has as of yet explained it to me, I can't say I've tried to understand it. Got any info?
Oh, what the hell, I'll guess. I'm guessing that with OOP, how multiple inheritance is defined is dependent on what language you are talking about, and in contract law it is dependent on the law and on precedent.
An approach that I would personally favour in both programming and law is that where two classes (contracts) need to be parents of another class, where the two classes (contracts) have the same functions/variables (clauses/definitions), the class (contract) lower down in the hierarchy (chronology); i.e., the more immediate parent node, takes precedence.
This strikes me, off the top of my head, as being fairly reasonable at least in programming. I don't really know how the hierarchy would work in contract law. Again, someone more knowledgeable will have to comment.
This is INCORRECT. As I have written in a paper available here, IBM's contract with AT&T (and now SCO) explicitly states that code developed by IBM is the property of IBM and is NOT a derivative workof AT&T (now SCO).
HOWEVER, the contract between Sequent and AT&T has NOT been made public by SCO nor IBM and so it is not clear to third parties whether or not the Sequent-AT&T agreements give Sequent the same rights as were given to IBM, though one may speculate based on the format of the IBM-AT&T agreements (see my article for full details).
Fundamentally, this is a contract law case in which the status of the Sequent-AT&T and IBM-AT&T agreements are defined. In other words, when IBM bought Sequent, what happened to the Sequent-AT&T agreement? Were it made null and all dealings between Sequent and AT&T now under the stipulations of the IBM-AT&T agreement? Or is it the case that code developed by Sequent is still bound by the original Sequent-AT&T contract?
Someone more familiar with contract law will have to respond; however, I believe that if in fact ANY code developed by Sequent BEFORE it was bought by IBM AND that code was placed in a SysV derivative (in this case probably Dynix/ptx) AND that code was placed in the Linux kernel, then it may very well be the case that SCO is standing of firm legal ground on that issue.
There are, of course, other details to this situation which may invalidate SCO's claims to right of the code, such as the GPL, and unclean hands doctrine (both arguments which IBM has included in its rebuttal) but I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens. Also, read my article.:)
It's the people who have enough confidence to try to do things they don't know how to do who would struggle!
Well, obviously. I struggle when I'm doing something that I don't know how to do. Like, when I'm in the middle of re-building a porsche engine, I usually stop and think to myself, "this is incredible, I'm doing something and yet I don't know how to do it!". Yes, I amaze myself sometimes when I do things that I don't know how to do. It's defnitely a struggle though, because whenever I stop to realise that I don't know what I'm doing, yet I'm actually doing it, the universe stops and tells me I'm doing something I don't know how to do, which it doesn't understand.
I suppose that if I thought a bit more about it, I'd realise that in fact when I struggle to do something that I don't know how to do, but I start doing it anyway, what I do do is not what I want to do (because I don't know how), but in fact I do something altogether that I only think is what I want to do. Like, for example, the other day I wanted to install a new hard disk in FreeBSD and instead of using fdisk, then disklabel, then newfs, and mounting my new drive, I typed in "cd/" and then "rm -rdf". Which was a struggle, and a definitely usability issue with FreeBSD. But then, I tried to burn a CD in Windows (something I'd never done before, so I didn't know how to do it) but I ended up typing "cd \" and "deltree *.*"
This was a total struggle, because I was doing something that I didn't know how to do, but I thought I knew how to do it, but I really didn't and so I struggled.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned portupgrade...
on
FreeBSD Ports Tricks
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There's a great utility in the ports tree called portupgrade. It's very handy and allows for quick and easy upgrading of your ports.
It lives in/usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade
Check it out. Start with the manual page (man portupgrade) after you install it, then use Google for more info. It's well worth it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a mathematical physics model can accurately explain Zeno's paradox as well as a philosophical explanation can.
This is going to be a bit long, so bear with me.
First of all, as others have said here, the solution to Zeno's paradox has been discussed at length and largely agreed to be this.
The idea here is that you can have a functon that describes distance covered over some arbitrary time interval. The point is that you must be able to describe a time interval.
Our amateur physicist is claiming that in fact you can't describe an arbitrary time interval because there is no such thing-- there is only an infinite set of time and that once you pick an arbitrary interval out of that set, you're not talking about a moving object but rather an arbitrary point in space as well. That is, you can't pick out an arbitrary point or interval in time and still be talking about motion or distance outside of that interval, and, in the case of Zeno's paradox, you have to 'unfreeze' time to watch the race continue, in which case your runner is back to having to cover an infinite distance.
What I'm saying is that physics has described a mathematical, theoretical solution to the paradox. What it has not done is provide a solution which is intuitive to the spirit of the paradox.
Now, you might be thinking to yourself that the mathematical solution is a very intuitive solution-- after all, if I go to watch a race between a tortoise and Achilles, I'm sure to see Achilles leave that turtle in the dust, and now it's nice that I have a physics solution that explains what I see. You'd be correct! But here's where I make my claim, and I know it's very strange.
A sentence in the article that caught my eye the most is this one:
"There's no such thing as an instant in time or present moment in nature. It's something entirely subjective that we project onto the world around us. That is, it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness."
We're taught from all directions in Western society that math and physics and the sciences are objective, and things in the humanities are subjective. I suggest that the opposite is true, for certain technical definitions of subjective and objective.
My claim is that it is the sciences which are subjective descriptions of the world, and that subject-less, non-located descriptions are objective. Science relies on measurement and mathematics to get anywhere, but measurement and math are subject dependent. You cannot measure what you cannot experience. Yes, that includes your instruments.
In the case of this amateur phyisicst's work, he is making a claim about the world that attempts to describe things from a non-subjective perspective. His claim is essentially, I think, rather intuitive and obvious. His claim is just that it is us, as subjects, we project time intervals on a universe in which they may not really exist-- that is, time is not objectively quantifiable because objective quantification implies no people around to do the quantification, which means that there aren't any physicists to use mathematics to describe their reality.
While to most philosophers this sort of claim is routine, most physicists and mathematicians are aghast at the suggestion that their science is essentially dependent on the experience they have as subjects. I think that even though some physicists are starting to take note of this, it won't do much to hurt physics (nor should it), nor will it invalidate arguments and proofs which already deal with Zeno's paradox (nor should it). What I hope that it will do, however, is make some of the more arrogant physicists who have a large chip on their shoulder (Hi, Alan Sokal!) understand that they are not the keepers of objective world views, and that the work they do is just as subjective as any other human endeavour.
Heh, yeah, right, like we want our scientists to pay attention to philosophy. You know what would happen then, right? Scientists would realise that they actually know far less about the world than they realise and they'd all move to a cabin in the woods and write strange and impenetrable poetry instead of staying in the lab and coming up with useful theories which engineers can then use to create an even better dishwasher.
Listen, bub, we need people to design our machines and technology can't improve without a better understanding of our physical world. I want my flying cars, damnit, and no stinkin' philosopher is going to expose the hard questions to vulnerable scientists and engineers to distract them from making my dishwasher!
Actually if you read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms you'll notice that where the Americans believed in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the Canadians wrote "life, liberty and security of the person".
This is, in many ways, a fundamental concept of socialism. In political thought, the debate between the weighted merits of positive and negative freedoms is seen as elementary and fundamental in law. In Canada, I'm happy to say (as a Canadian) that our judiciary has more often than not interpreted the Charter in such a way so as when ruling on laws that affect the individual only they err on the side of liberty. At the same time, they understand the concept of the "greater social good" and so work to protect society as a whole and, in particular, those who are at the bottom rungs of the economic and social scale.
I think it's an excellent country that has really gotten it "right".
I suppose it depends on what you think it is that he's doing that is making him so respected. He is still acting as steward for the project, and I hear he's doing a fairly good job of it. Anyway, I think Linus' contribution to the social good was opening up the development of the kernel. I think making that sort of choice isn't mutually exclusive to being married.
By the way, when did Linus get married anyway? Maybe he was dating in 1991, at the very least?
I agree that some people ought to think twice before accepting that kind of responsibility. But even in the case you cite, the creativity is still being exercised. Those children are going to grow up with some kind of personality, and the creation of that personality is going to be largely effected not only by the mother and her behaviours but also by social and cultural factors. That's still creative.
But, anyway, like I said, I still appreciate your sarcasm and the point I think that you were making. If you aren't ready to have wife and kids (and you sure as hell better be ready and willing to commit to your partner for life), you're doing everyone a favour by hacking in solitude for a few more years.
Bottom line? Don't push yourself into "domestication" if you're not ready, but if you are ready don't turn your back on it because you are afraid that it means you won't be able to devote all of your time to writing software or building engines. I think it's a false dichotomy anyway-- this so-called "study" seems to have said nothing of those thinkers, scientists, or artists who managed to have a good family life while still contributing to their fields. Albert Einstein had an illegitimate child in 1902 and was married in 1903. His first son was born in 1904. He did not submit his doctoral thesis until the next year, 1905. He did not receive the Nobel Prize until 1921.
Mind you, Einstein divorced his first wife in 1919 and remarried only months later. It is possible that his first marriage fell apart because he was concentrating on his work instead of on his family.
Bottom line, to be repeated ad nauseam, if you're not ready, then wait (and always, always, wear a condom). But don't turn your back on something almost universally regarded as beautiful if and when the time is right.
If you take the position that there is something phenomenologically unique about the human experience-- and I agree with you that there is-- then I think it is safe to say that there is something phenomenologically unique about human experience even when the activities which bring about those experiences are common to other species. Given this, I think you'll agree, sound supposition, surely that "so much more" that we can do also includes raising children?
Also, while I certainly won't argue that your opinion about domestication is your own opinion, I would ask you to look again at your animal needs and capacities. Your dismissal of what they do, whoever they are, is also a dismissal of part of yourself. I don't understand the logic behind those arguments which attempt to affirm one's humanity by trampling one's more base emotions. My own opinion is that all aspects of the human animal are integral to the human experience.
To label certain acts and lifestyles, which humans have in common with non-human animals, as being inhuman, only because they are common to non-human animals, is not only a flawed logical move, it is also a denial of part of oneself. If we are to understand ourselves fully, we must open ourselves to understanding all manner of human activities.
But to be honest I think that if you find yourself in a loving relationship that withstands the test of time, and you have the insight to realise that the ultimate creative activity is raising a child anyway, choosing a life of solitude to work on a physics problem or write an operating system is pathetic.
Remember, Linus has a wife and kids. Even he knows where it's at.
As well, make sure that you use google to search for T-568A or T-568B. These are the proper standards for wiring Cat5 ethernet. To make a straight-through cable, use the same wiring standard at both ends. To make a cross-over cable, make one end 568A and the other end 568B.
Aww, what the hell. I do the Google search for you.
Also, if you're in the middle of some renovations and your walls are being shifted or otherwise opened, run all of your cable in conduit! This will make upgrades much easier. Plan ahead!
I mark my territory by making sure everything breaks regularly. My employers know who to call. When the police arrive, though, things get really confusing.
If they can convince a judge or jury to rule that the code that was inserted into Linux was the same code as was previously inserted into System V they win,( it's a system V derivative, and therefore owned by SCO).
It's not about System V. It's about DYNIX/ptx. AIX is a SysV derivative as far as I know. Whether or not it's a SysV R2 derivative is another matter. But IBM's original agreement with AT&T gave IBM ownership (in the copyright sense) of not only individual pieces of code that was developed by or for IBM, but also derivative works developed by or for IBM.
At this point in time, neither SCO nor IBM has not made public the nature of the agreement between AT&T and Sequent (the developers of DYNIX/ptx). If that agreement affords the same rights of ownership given to IBM, then SCO certainly has no case at all. If, however, that contract is different from the one signed by IBM and AT&T, and Sequent is not afforded that declaration of ownership, it may be that SCO has a case.
Of course, there are many other defenses and attacks left to deal with but we'll have to wait for the day in court to see how it all pans out.
And while we may think that such an arrangement is silly, because it is, it's up to the lawyers involved to ensure that whatever contracts they sign on behalf of their companies are good for the company. It's caveat emptor-- it's the company's lawyers better know what they're doing. In this case, the agreement between IBM and AT&T was modified by IBM at the time of the agreement so that the stuff that IBM developed, including derivative works, was owned by IBM. The whole issue is that SCO hasn't yet told us what agreement existed between AT&T and Sequent. SCO's claim that IBM has put IBM-developed code into Linux kernel doesn't hold any water because the agreement between IBM and AT&T ensures that IBM has this right. HOWEVER, SCO also claims that IBM took code from DYNIX/ptx, which was a SysV derivative created by Sequent, and allowed it to be placed into the Linux kernel by IBM employees who had access to the DYNIX code (indeed, IBM employees who wrote that code for Sequent). The whole point is that we don't know if the agreement between Sequent and AT&T allowed for this. SCO seems to be claiming that it did not. We won't know until the agreement is made public.
Your premiss number (2) is false. The code was put there by the copyright owner. The code in question, according to SCO's own claim, came from IBM's engineers. If you had read the legal filings (which I doubt you have), and in particular Exhibit C Paragraph 2, you would see that EVEN if IBM added code that they then added back to System V "derived works"; e.g., AIX or UnixWare, since the code was written by IBM's engineers, now pay attention, IBM OWNS THE SOURCE CODE EVEN IF IT WAS PLACED INTO SYSTEM V DERIVATIVE WORKS. Why do you think that IBM has been so curt and so blunt in their statements? This lawsuit is a joke, and it's pure FUD. Once the case goes to trial and lawyers get to debate it in front of a judge, I doubt it's going to stay around very long. In fact, I would imagine that IBM's lawyers will file a motion on the first day of proceedings for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
I hate to burst your bubble, Hemos, but IBM's response to the lawsuit was filed in court in late March. The press release on NewsForge isn't a scoop. But it isn't bad journalism either. IBM's response filed in court was filled with a lot of legal terminology and was many pages long. All Robin did in this case was to go to IBM and ask them to summarise their court-filed response into a nice short press release/sound bite for the Slashdot crowd. It is, however, a month late.
... but on the whole I think it's a high-quality modification. It's relatively compact-- a single unit. It seems quite portable and although he doesn't say the weight of the unit I'll bet it's lighter than it seems.
I don't think that too many people have the skills to operate the tools or the patience to engineer the details for carrying out a project like this.
Kudos to a fellow Vancouverite. That's an excellent modification.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that's just what the court case is all about, right? I mean, I never meant to suggest that, in fact, SCO was right or anything, I was merely outlining where I thought that the debate would take focus. If it's true that the IBM/AT&T agreement takes precedence over the Sequent/AT&T agreement even when talking about code developed at Sequent and put into Dynix before IBM bought Sequent, then I think that's great. Personally, I'd like SCO to FOAD. My point is that I don't know what the contract law says about this situation, or even if it says anything at all. That's all I'm saying. But my desire for a clear headed analysis forces me to put aside my dislike for SCO and just examine the situation as I see it, that's all I'm saying.
Look at Section 2.01 of Exhibit F. Derivative works fall under the contract terms.
I suppose, though, since no one has as of yet explained it to me, I can't say I've tried to understand it. Got any info?
Oh, what the hell, I'll guess. I'm guessing that with OOP, how multiple inheritance is defined is dependent on what language you are talking about, and in contract law it is dependent on the law and on precedent.
An approach that I would personally favour in both programming and law is that where two classes (contracts) need to be parents of another class, where the two classes (contracts) have the same functions/variables (clauses/definitions), the class (contract) lower down in the hierarchy (chronology); i.e., the more immediate parent node, takes precedence.
This strikes me, off the top of my head, as being fairly reasonable at least in programming. I don't really know how the hierarchy would work in contract law. Again, someone more knowledgeable will have to comment.
This is INCORRECT. As I have written in a paper available here, IBM's contract with AT&T (and now SCO) explicitly states that code developed by IBM is the property of IBM and is NOT a derivative workof AT&T (now SCO).
:)
HOWEVER, the contract between Sequent and AT&T has NOT been made public by SCO nor IBM and so it is not clear to third parties whether or not the Sequent-AT&T agreements give Sequent the same rights as were given to IBM, though one may speculate based on the format of the IBM-AT&T agreements (see my article for full details).
Fundamentally, this is a contract law case in which the status of the Sequent-AT&T and IBM-AT&T agreements are defined. In other words, when IBM bought Sequent, what happened to the Sequent-AT&T agreement? Were it made null and all dealings between Sequent and AT&T now under the stipulations of the IBM-AT&T agreement? Or is it the case that code developed by Sequent is still bound by the original Sequent-AT&T contract?
Someone more familiar with contract law will have to respond; however, I believe that if in fact ANY code developed by Sequent BEFORE it was bought by IBM AND that code was placed in a SysV derivative (in this case probably Dynix/ptx) AND that code was placed in the Linux kernel, then it may very well be the case that SCO is standing of firm legal ground on that issue.
There are, of course, other details to this situation which may invalidate SCO's claims to right of the code, such as the GPL, and unclean hands doctrine (both arguments which IBM has included in its rebuttal) but I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens. Also, read my article.
It's the people who have enough confidence to try to do things they don't know how to do who would struggle!
Well, obviously. I struggle when I'm doing something that I don't know how to do. Like, when I'm in the middle of re-building a porsche engine, I usually stop and think to myself, "this is incredible, I'm doing something and yet I don't know how to do it!". Yes, I amaze myself sometimes when I do things that I don't know how to do. It's defnitely a struggle though, because whenever I stop to realise that I don't know what I'm doing, yet I'm actually doing it, the universe stops and tells me I'm doing something I don't know how to do, which it doesn't understand.
I suppose that if I thought a bit more about it, I'd realise that in fact when I struggle to do something that I don't know how to do, but I start doing it anyway, what I do do is not what I want to do (because I don't know how), but in fact I do something altogether that I only think is what I want to do. Like, for example, the other day I wanted to install a new hard disk in FreeBSD and instead of using fdisk, then disklabel, then newfs, and mounting my new drive, I typed in "cd
This was a total struggle, because I was doing something that I didn't know how to do, but I thought I knew how to do it, but I really didn't and so I struggled.
There's a great utility in the ports tree called portupgrade. It's very handy and allows for quick and easy upgrading of your ports.
/usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade
It lives in
Check it out. Start with the manual page (man portupgrade) after you install it, then use Google for more info. It's well worth it.
Apparently, your sense of humour module is malfunctioning. I suggest getting that checked out as soon as you can.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a mathematical physics model can accurately explain Zeno's paradox as well as a philosophical explanation can.
This is going to be a bit long, so bear with me.
First of all, as others have said here, the solution to Zeno's paradox has been discussed at length and largely agreed to be this.
The idea here is that you can have a functon that describes distance covered over some arbitrary time interval. The point is that you must be able to describe a time interval.
Our amateur physicist is claiming that in fact you can't describe an arbitrary time interval because there is no such thing-- there is only an infinite set of time and that once you pick an arbitrary interval out of that set, you're not talking about a moving object but rather an arbitrary point in space as well. That is, you can't pick out an arbitrary point or interval in time and still be talking about motion or distance outside of that interval, and, in the case of Zeno's paradox, you have to 'unfreeze' time to watch the race continue, in which case your runner is back to having to cover an infinite distance.
What I'm saying is that physics has described a mathematical, theoretical solution to the paradox. What it has not done is provide a solution which is intuitive to the spirit of the paradox.
Now, you might be thinking to yourself that the mathematical solution is a very intuitive solution-- after all, if I go to watch a race between a tortoise and Achilles, I'm sure to see Achilles leave that turtle in the dust, and now it's nice that I have a physics solution that explains what I see. You'd be correct! But here's where I make my claim, and I know it's very strange.
A sentence in the article that caught my eye the most is this one:
"There's no such thing as an instant in time or present moment in nature. It's something entirely subjective that we project onto the world around us. That is, it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness."
We're taught from all directions in Western society that math and physics and the sciences are objective, and things in the humanities are subjective. I suggest that the opposite is true, for certain technical definitions of subjective and objective.
My claim is that it is the sciences which are subjective descriptions of the world, and that subject-less, non-located descriptions are objective. Science relies on measurement and mathematics to get anywhere, but measurement and math are subject dependent. You cannot measure what you cannot experience. Yes, that includes your instruments.
In the case of this amateur phyisicst's work, he is making a claim about the world that attempts to describe things from a non-subjective perspective. His claim is essentially, I think, rather intuitive and obvious. His claim is just that it is us, as subjects, we project time intervals on a universe in which they may not really exist-- that is, time is not objectively quantifiable because objective quantification implies no people around to do the quantification, which means that there aren't any physicists to use mathematics to describe their reality.
While to most philosophers this sort of claim is routine, most physicists and mathematicians are aghast at the suggestion that their science is essentially dependent on the experience they have as subjects. I think that even though some physicists are starting to take note of this, it won't do much to hurt physics (nor should it), nor will it invalidate arguments and proofs which already deal with Zeno's paradox (nor should it). What I hope that it will do, however, is make some of the more arrogant physicists who have a large chip on their shoulder (Hi, Alan Sokal!) understand that they are not the keepers of objective world views, and that the work they do is just as subjective as any other human endeavour.
Regards,
Edward
Heh, yeah, right, like we want our scientists to pay attention to philosophy. You know what would happen then, right? Scientists would realise that they actually know far less about the world than they realise and they'd all move to a cabin in the woods and write strange and impenetrable poetry instead of staying in the lab and coming up with useful theories which engineers can then use to create an even better dishwasher.
Listen, bub, we need people to design our machines and technology can't improve without a better understanding of our physical world. I want my flying cars, damnit, and no stinkin' philosopher is going to expose the hard questions to vulnerable scientists and engineers to distract them from making my dishwasher!
Actually if you read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms you'll notice that where the Americans believed in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the Canadians wrote "life, liberty and security of the person".
This is, in many ways, a fundamental concept of socialism. In political thought, the debate between the weighted merits of positive and negative freedoms is seen as elementary and fundamental in law. In Canada, I'm happy to say (as a Canadian) that our judiciary has more often than not interpreted the Charter in such a way so as when ruling on laws that affect the individual only they err on the side of liberty. At the same time, they understand the concept of the "greater social good" and so work to protect society as a whole and, in particular, those who are at the bottom rungs of the economic and social scale.
I think it's an excellent country that has really gotten it "right".
I suppose it depends on what you think it is that he's doing that is making him so respected. He is still acting as steward for the project, and I hear he's doing a fairly good job of it. Anyway, I think Linus' contribution to the social good was opening up the development of the kernel. I think making that sort of choice isn't mutually exclusive to being married.
By the way, when did Linus get married anyway? Maybe he was dating in 1991, at the very least?
I agree that some people ought to think twice before accepting that kind of responsibility. But even in the case you cite, the creativity is still being exercised. Those children are going to grow up with some kind of personality, and the creation of that personality is going to be largely effected not only by the mother and her behaviours but also by social and cultural factors. That's still creative.
But, anyway, like I said, I still appreciate your sarcasm and the point I think that you were making. If you aren't ready to have wife and kids (and you sure as hell better be ready and willing to commit to your partner for life), you're doing everyone a favour by hacking in solitude for a few more years.
Bottom line? Don't push yourself into "domestication" if you're not ready, but if you are ready don't turn your back on it because you are afraid that it means you won't be able to devote all of your time to writing software or building engines. I think it's a false dichotomy anyway-- this so-called "study" seems to have said nothing of those thinkers, scientists, or artists who managed to have a good family life while still contributing to their fields. Albert Einstein had an illegitimate child in 1902 and was married in 1903. His first son was born in 1904. He did not submit his doctoral thesis until the next year, 1905. He did not receive the Nobel Prize until 1921.
Mind you, Einstein divorced his first wife in 1919 and remarried only months later. It is possible that his first marriage fell apart because he was concentrating on his work instead of on his family.
Bottom line, to be repeated ad nauseam, if you're not ready, then wait (and always, always, wear a condom). But don't turn your back on something almost universally regarded as beautiful if and when the time is right.
If you take the position that there is something phenomenologically unique about the human experience-- and I agree with you that there is-- then I think it is safe to say that there is something phenomenologically unique about human experience even when the activities which bring about those experiences are common to other species. Given this, I think you'll agree, sound supposition, surely that "so much more" that we can do also includes raising children?
Also, while I certainly won't argue that your opinion about domestication is your own opinion, I would ask you to look again at your animal needs and capacities. Your dismissal of what they do, whoever they are, is also a dismissal of part of yourself. I don't understand the logic behind those arguments which attempt to affirm one's humanity by trampling one's more base emotions. My own opinion is that all aspects of the human animal are integral to the human experience.
To label certain acts and lifestyles, which humans have in common with non-human animals, as being inhuman, only because they are common to non-human animals, is not only a flawed logical move, it is also a denial of part of oneself. If we are to understand ourselves fully, we must open ourselves to understanding all manner of human activities.
But to be honest I think that if you find yourself in a loving relationship that withstands the test of time, and you have the insight to realise that the ultimate creative activity is raising a child anyway, choosing a life of solitude to work on a physics problem or write an operating system is pathetic.
Remember, Linus has a wife and kids. Even he knows where it's at.
As well, make sure that you use google to search for T-568A or T-568B. These are the proper standards for wiring Cat5 ethernet. To make a straight-through cable, use the same wiring standard at both ends. To make a cross-over cable, make one end 568A and the other end 568B.
Aww, what the hell. I do the Google search for you.
Excellent resource, but it's a large PDF.
Also, if you're in the middle of some renovations and your walls are being shifted or otherwise opened, run all of your cable in conduit! This will make upgrades much easier. Plan ahead!
make sure you understand the problem
I understand the problem. It is you.
I mark my territory by making sure everything breaks regularly. My employers know who to call. When the police arrive, though, things get really confusing.
If they can convince a judge or jury to rule that the code that was inserted into Linux was the same code as was previously inserted into System V they win,( it's a system V derivative, and therefore owned by SCO).
It's not about System V. It's about DYNIX/ptx. AIX is a SysV derivative as far as I know. Whether or not it's a SysV R2 derivative is another matter. But IBM's original agreement with AT&T gave IBM ownership (in the copyright sense) of not only individual pieces of code that was developed by or for IBM, but also derivative works developed by or for IBM.
At this point in time, neither SCO nor IBM has not made public the nature of the agreement between AT&T and Sequent (the developers of DYNIX/ptx). If that agreement affords the same rights of ownership given to IBM, then SCO certainly has no case at all. If, however, that contract is different from the one signed by IBM and AT&T, and Sequent is not afforded that declaration of ownership, it may be that SCO has a case.
Of course, there are many other defenses and attacks left to deal with but we'll have to wait for the day in court to see how it all pans out.
And while we may think that such an arrangement is silly, because it is, it's up to the lawyers involved to ensure that whatever contracts they sign on behalf of their companies are good for the company. It's caveat emptor-- it's the company's lawyers better know what they're doing. In this case, the agreement between IBM and AT&T was modified by IBM at the time of the agreement so that the stuff that IBM developed, including derivative works, was owned by IBM. The whole issue is that SCO hasn't yet told us what agreement existed between AT&T and Sequent. SCO's claim that IBM has put IBM-developed code into Linux kernel doesn't hold any water because the agreement between IBM and AT&T ensures that IBM has this right. HOWEVER, SCO also claims that IBM took code from DYNIX/ptx, which was a SysV derivative created by Sequent, and allowed it to be placed into the Linux kernel by IBM employees who had access to the DYNIX code (indeed, IBM employees who wrote that code for Sequent). The whole point is that we don't know if the agreement between Sequent and AT&T allowed for this. SCO seems to be claiming that it did not. We won't know until the agreement is made public.
Your premiss number (2) is false. The code was put there by the copyright owner. The code in question, according to SCO's own claim, came from IBM's engineers. If you had read the legal filings (which I doubt you have), and in particular Exhibit C Paragraph 2, you would see that EVEN if IBM added code that they then added back to System V "derived works"; e.g., AIX or UnixWare, since the code was written by IBM's engineers, now pay attention, IBM OWNS THE SOURCE CODE EVEN IF IT WAS PLACED INTO SYSTEM V DERIVATIVE WORKS. Why do you think that IBM has been so curt and so blunt in their statements? This lawsuit is a joke, and it's pure FUD. Once the case goes to trial and lawyers get to debate it in front of a judge, I doubt it's going to stay around very long. In fact, I would imagine that IBM's lawyers will file a motion on the first day of proceedings for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Regards,
Edward
Yeah, in a sense it's the Internet's version of a "Dead Drop".
I hate to burst your bubble, Hemos, but IBM's response to the lawsuit was filed in court in late March. The press release on NewsForge isn't a scoop. But it isn't bad journalism either. IBM's response filed in court was filled with a lot of legal terminology and was many pages long. All Robin did in this case was to go to IBM and ask them to summarise their court-filed response into a nice short press release/sound bite for the Slashdot crowd. It is, however, a month late.
I don't think that too many people have the skills to operate the tools or the patience to engineer the details for carrying out a project like this.
Kudos to a fellow Vancouverite. That's an excellent modification.
Don Cherry definitely blows a lot of hot air! We could use that gas to power our cities. Yay for Grapes!
I thought the "everything-is-prefixed-with-my" paradigm came from Perl.