Lets say I operate a video arcade. When did it become MY job to police YOUR kids?
When was the last time you saw an arcade that was not policed? Most have at least one person watching what the patrons are doing to the machines.
Just tell your kids that they aren't allowed to play violent games. Can't trust them to obey you when you aren't watching? Why not?
Maybe they won't be able to tell the difference between mildly violent and quite violent. Maybe you have told them 100000 things not to do, but you forgot this point. Parents are not infallible, yet you believe they are. Why?
How does shareware let the actual authors (say PhD or Masters or Degree candidates) continue to use the software they developed and reap benefits from it?
Are they the ones that reap the benefits or is it the University they work for?
The source for SoftUpdates was always there for everyone to read. For commercial-use, you had to pay. Afterwards, everyone was able to use or develop it freely without even the fear of license collision.
Another possiblity is how SoftUpdates was handled. It was released as a shareware--I do not really remember the exact license--project, but after a couple of years was released under a BSD license. This allowed money to be made, yet the code was open sourced for everyone to use after the couple of years.
we have been asking about DirecTVDSL. They have been playing games with us concerning the news server. Check it out here (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/telocity~root=tel ocity~parent=telocity~mode=shut). The limit is now 200MB/day, but it has been constantly changing for a few months. It started with a powerful new server which overloaded the line into their building. For these past months, they have been trying different ideas on how to cap their customers. It has been quite annoying. Others can probably tell it better.
Without seeing the error logs, I cannot comment on your problem. I found FreeBSDhelp on Efnet to be quite useful.
The kernel wouldn't boot. And the instructions in the FBSD handbook on how to recover from a bad kernel didn't work, because the sendmail daemon kept locking up whenever I tried to run the original generic kernel.
FWIW, I'm currently a tcsh user, although I have been looking very hard at zsh the past week or so and will probably switch very soon now. zsh solves a lot of the problems I've been having with tcsh...
I was a tcsh user until a few weeks ago. I switched over to zsh. It takes a bit of getting used to it, but it is very nice. If tcsh had functions and stdout and stderr separation (redirecting stdout to one file and stderr to another), I probably would have continued to use it.
Secondly, no one should depend on any for profit companies to guarantee support for the movement. IBM or any proprietary companies may come and go as they wish......but we need more than mere promises from CEOs of such companies to protect the interests of the movement....alot of folks just plain miss this point, each time they piss on the GPL.
Even though I dislike some of the attributes of the GPL, I agree with your point that we should not depend on for-profit companies for support of open source regardless of the license.
other companies could come along and steal his code, modify it, close it and sell it as their own.
You should rephrase that. The most other companies could do is come along and fork the code with which they could modify, close, and/or sell it. You can't steal what is given to everyone openly.
IBM is doing the same thing with their work. You can use their modifications to Linux if you like, but you must keep them open...
That is actually incorrect. IBM is working at many levels:
1) Lotus is IBM. Completely closed.
2) Much software is LGPL or GPL.
3) Some software is IPL. Postfix for example.
4) Many of the improvements made to Apache come from IBM. They appear to not be afraid of Microsoft forking their code.
5) I think OpenAFS is under an MIT license.
It is censorship, but most people think of censorship when it comes from the government. That is where the confusion probably lies.
While it is commendable that they are trying to be considerate of those suffering, I still don't understand some of their choices:
1) Kansas "Dust in the Wind". This is song is more enlightening than sad.
2) Cat Stevens "Peace Train" & "Morning Has Broken". Cat Stevens?!? Since when were his songs inappropriate?
3) Neil Diamond "America". As others have pointed out, this is considered a patriotic song. You would think this would be required playing.
4) Foo Fighters "Learn to Fly". I don't know this song, but I noticed they didn't go after Pink Floyd "Learning to Fly". They longer version of the word must have confused them.
5) Frank Sinatra "New York, New York". Wouldn't this be considered inspirational?
Maybe everyone should find the ClearChannel station in their area and request a song off of this list.
Why worry about what happens within Microsoft? Just strangle their hold on everyone else. The browser thing never bothered me; it was the charges on PC makers for selling a system without Windows. Why should I have to pay for Windows when I don't want it?
In 1996, several of the developers at a company I worked and myself discussed the possibility of a Microsoft break-up. The conclusion: the break-up might help Microsoft in the long run.
If we take AT&T as an example, we will all notice that the Baby Bell's and AT&T may be competing, but they are also quite easily squishing out the competition around them. Since none truly have a monopoly (at least outside of their respective regions), regulations have been harder to make against them. Just think about what we call them: Baby Bells. They may be very fat babies, but the citizens think of them as babies.
Microsoft's size is also a deterrent for growth. Sometimes it is easier to dominate from a smaller position. It is much easier to organize and grow. If we keep Microsoft as one large corporation with shakles, we will probably do the country a greater service than breaking it apart and waiting for them to get us later.
Personally, I was worried that the Justice Department was going to just slice Microsoft apart and not really force the law on this slippery snake. With the only punishment the government wants to get being financial and restrictive, they are more likely to get it. I don't see this as favoritism but wisdom.
On a related note, I have a question for all of those hating Bush without reason when it comes to the decision (made be Ashcroft, not Bush) concerning not breaking-up Microsoft. What would be the ideal punishment? Would it make a difference if the restrictions placed around Microsoft's neck were instead around two companies?
If the restrictions are good enough, I would not care how many companies the Microsoft monopoly had in it. I just keep seeing them getting off easier if they are broken up. The judge might think they have been punished enough by a break-up and forego any thing further.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets say I operate a video arcade. When did it become MY job to police YOUR kids?
When was the last time you saw an arcade that was not policed? Most have at least one person watching what the patrons are doing to the machines.
Just tell your kids that they aren't allowed to play violent games. Can't trust them to obey you when you aren't watching? Why not?
Maybe they won't be able to tell the difference between mildly violent and quite violent. Maybe you have told them 100000 things not to do, but you forgot this point. Parents are not infallible, yet you believe they are. Why?
How does shareware let the actual authors (say PhD or Masters or Degree candidates) continue to use the software they developed and reap benefits from it?
Are they the ones that reap the benefits or is it the University they work for?
The source for SoftUpdates was always there for everyone to read. For commercial-use, you had to pay. Afterwards, everyone was able to use or develop it freely without even the fear of license collision.
Another possiblity is how SoftUpdates was handled. It was released as a shareware--I do not really remember the exact license--project, but after a couple of years was released under a BSD license. This allowed money to be made, yet the code was open sourced for everyone to use after the couple of years.
we have been asking about DirecTVDSL. They have been playing games with us concerning the news server. Check it out here (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/telocity~root=tel ocity~parent=telocity~mode=shut). The limit is now 200MB/day, but it has been constantly changing for a few months. It started with a powerful new server which overloaded the line into their building. For these past months, they have been trying different ideas on how to cap their customers. It has been quite annoying. Others can probably tell it better.
Without seeing the error logs, I cannot comment on your problem. I found FreeBSDhelp on Efnet to be quite useful.
The kernel wouldn't boot. And the instructions in the FBSD handbook on how to recover from a bad kernel didn't work, because the sendmail daemon kept locking up whenever I tried to run the original generic kernel.
You couldn't boot into single-user mode?
Oops. I was thinking about the other bills Congress was passing.
It wasn't the Bush administration. It was both sides (Republican and Democrat). How many nays were there in the Senate? I believe there was only one.
FWIW, I'm currently a tcsh user, although I have been looking very hard at zsh the past week or so and will probably switch very soon now. zsh solves a lot of the problems I've been having with tcsh...
I was a tcsh user until a few weeks ago. I switched over to zsh. It takes a bit of getting used to it, but it is very nice. If tcsh had functions and stdout and stderr separation (redirecting stdout to one file and stderr to another), I probably would have continued to use it.
As the person below you said, thankfully, other products use this battery. My wife also told me that a least one camera she has seen uses it.
BTW, the 28S currently exists as a financial calculator in the HP line.
I saw it at Fry's. Does it do everything the 28S does? I may have to buy it for a back-up if it is cheap enough.
This is scary. I have an HP28S, but I am afraid of what to do if it ever dies. Tonight I am going out to buy some N Types for it.
:(
BTW, does anyone know if this is the only item to use these types of batteries? I hope not or else we will have to do something drastic to use them.
So the existing stickers are all that are left, and there aren't that many of them.
Maybe they can make a bit of money auctioning those stickers off?
Windows for games
:)
Personally, I call it Wintendo.
Secondly, no one should depend on any for profit companies to guarantee support for the movement. IBM or any proprietary companies may come and go as they wish......but we need more than mere promises from CEOs of such companies to protect the interests of the movement....alot of folks just plain miss this point, each time they piss on the GPL.
Even though I dislike some of the attributes of the GPL, I agree with your point that we should not depend on for-profit companies for support of open source regardless of the license.
other companies could come along and steal his code, modify it, close it and sell it as their own.
...
You should rephrase that. The most other companies could do is come along and fork the code with which they could modify, close, and/or sell it. You can't steal what is given to everyone openly.
IBM is doing the same thing with their work. You can use their modifications to Linux if you like, but you must keep them open
That is actually incorrect. IBM is working at many levels:
1) Lotus is IBM. Completely closed.
2) Much software is LGPL or GPL.
3) Some software is IPL. Postfix for example.
4) Many of the improvements made to Apache come from IBM. They appear to not be afraid of Microsoft forking their code.
5) I think OpenAFS is under an MIT license.
As the AC implied, would you consider releasing it under a BSD or MIT license? This would allow inclusion within the BSD's as well as Linux.
How do we know this is the real troll? You just might be wanting us to flame away at some unsuspecting person.
Actually, wasn't there a few companies that got into hot water because they treated all e-mail as their property? I believe it was a few years ago.
Awesome! I was hoping they would at least finish the series. I am just glad they are confused on 'when' instead of 'if'.
It is censorship, but most people think of censorship when it comes from the government. That is where the confusion probably lies.
While it is commendable that they are trying to be considerate of those suffering, I still don't understand some of their choices:
1) Kansas "Dust in the Wind". This is song is more enlightening than sad.
2) Cat Stevens "Peace Train" & "Morning Has Broken". Cat Stevens?!? Since when were his songs inappropriate?
3) Neil Diamond "America". As others have pointed out, this is considered a patriotic song. You would think this would be required playing.
4) Foo Fighters "Learn to Fly". I don't know this song, but I noticed they didn't go after Pink Floyd "Learning to Fly". They longer version of the word must have confused them.
5) Frank Sinatra "New York, New York". Wouldn't this be considered inspirational?
Maybe everyone should find the ClearChannel station in their area and request a song off of this list.
So if newspapers ran an untruthful account of you doing something borderline illegal, ...
That is called slander. It would be time to sue if they did not post a retraction.
Why worry about what happens within Microsoft? Just strangle their hold on everyone else. The browser thing never bothered me; it was the charges on PC makers for selling a system without Windows. Why should I have to pay for Windows when I don't want it?
I think it was actually only around 65535. More than that, and their excellent bug tracking software overflows...
Good thing they at least don't sign their shorts or else we would be seeing only 32767.
Also, it does not overflow for Microsoft; they just think they have eliminated a lot of bugs when the bits cycle around.
In 1996, several of the developers at a company I worked and myself discussed the possibility of a Microsoft break-up. The conclusion: the break-up might help Microsoft in the long run.
If we take AT&T as an example, we will all notice that the Baby Bell's and AT&T may be competing, but they are also quite easily squishing out the competition around them. Since none truly have a monopoly (at least outside of their respective regions), regulations have been harder to make against them. Just think about what we call them: Baby Bells. They may be very fat babies, but the citizens think of them as babies.
Microsoft's size is also a deterrent for growth. Sometimes it is easier to dominate from a smaller position. It is much easier to organize and grow. If we keep Microsoft as one large corporation with shakles, we will probably do the country a greater service than breaking it apart and waiting for them to get us later.
Personally, I was worried that the Justice Department was going to just slice Microsoft apart and not really force the law on this slippery snake. With the only punishment the government wants to get being financial and restrictive, they are more likely to get it. I don't see this as favoritism but wisdom.
On a related note, I have a question for all of those hating Bush without reason when it comes to the decision (made be Ashcroft, not Bush) concerning not breaking-up Microsoft. What would be the ideal punishment? Would it make a difference if the restrictions placed around Microsoft's neck were instead around two companies?
If the restrictions are good enough, I would not care how many companies the Microsoft monopoly had in it. I just keep seeing them getting off easier if they are broken up. The judge might think they have been punished enough by a break-up and forego any thing further.
Ouch! That is expensive. Is that just your area or all of California (it is a big state)?
Before tax I paid 9 cents / Kwh for August. How much is it in California?