UDI encourages binary only drivers which is a Bad Thing.
It also help developers. They would only have to--or at least should have to--test the driver on one OS for it to function on multiple OS's. As a developer, I can greatly appreciate how much easier it would be for testing. XFree86 v4.0 will have this feature.
UDI can only hurt linux.
Why? More drivers will be available to Linux and *BSD. This cannot hurt Linux for any user out there.
What would motivate them to release specs then?
Possibly good PR. Remember that hardware manufacturers had no reason whatsoever to publish specs for Linux, but they did so anyway. They did this even when there were very few people using it and Linux was an unknown name. Why will this make them change their mind?
However, I don't see the point in taxing "the internet", per se. I mean, if you're going to do it, be fair about it...tax every out of state package, be it mail order, fax order, internet order, phoned in, whatever.
I am going to have to smack you.;) If they read/., they might get the idea to tax all of those methods.
You may die from hitting your head with a brick. Since it is only a maybe, it is ok to do it. Not! I found no research that found smoking marijuana to be healthy to the general public, but I did find cases where it was unhealthy.
I do not have a problem with drug research about marijuana, but I do mind letting it be used for entertainment.
..., where censors have a more sensible attitude towards sex.
Ask yourself why did they have to get the NC17 rating? They could have brought it out as is with an X rating. Don't blame the censors. They didn't actually censor it; the marketers did. All the "censors" do is give a movie a rating.
Perhaps because I have known more people who died from alcohol and cigarettes than pot?
More people consume alcohol and cigarettes, and they consume it more often since it is legal; they can do it in public. It is easy to see that you would know more people who have died from those factors than pot.
Perhaps because I know people who have successfully used it as medicine?
Prescribed by doctors?
Perhaps because I know that doctors seriously discuss the medical problems and benefits and say nothing that agrees with your crap?
I have never heard any of my doctors say it was ok. I have heard that it was unsafe from a couple of them. I'll ask my cousin who is a doctor.
It may appear harmless, but it may not be. When I was in high school, a teacher told us that weed has something like 421 different chemical compounds in it. Doctors only know what 11 (or maybe 21) of them do to the human body. I do not like the idea of consuming something that I have no idea what it will do to me. It might not kill me, but it could alter a person's genes. My children may be much more intelligent than those who do smoke.
Microsoft could get something which is _like_ xfs, the point is that they are not able to say: "Hey, we have xfs too, based on the original sources.".
I believe Hell will freeze over before Microsoft brags about using anyone else's source. Microsoft invented sockets, remember? Winsock instead of Berkeley sockets. If they even used the source code to XFS, they would rename it the WinFS or something like that.
I still think that we should not fear having the code with a BSD license on it. Microsoft will still get the technology behind it. Besides, bragging rights always seem to outway using the best code, and Microsoft does enjoy that use that right to its fullest.
OTOH, Microsoft has a million "monkeys". If they can look at the source, they can basically just duplicate all the ideas found in it with the man-power they have. To Microsoft, just being able to see the source would be equivalent to releasing it under the BSD license.
Why is a parents permission not good enough? If they don't want to accompany their child, they shouldn't have to
I think a rating of 'R' requires parental supervision. Not necessarily my opinion; that is what the 'R'-rating says.
As for the maturity of the individual who helped mentally handicapped children, I can only tell him that life sucks. He/She may be mature enough to understand the movie, but the rating system does not analyze each individual. This is unlike the interview he must have received before being given the responsiblility of those children.
Would waiting until they are 21 change this, probably not they still, at the age of 21, would have the same lack of experience.
Same lack of experience, yes. Higher maturity, probably, but not guaranteed. Hey, I am honest.
Who are you to judge? Isn't that a parents job?
Then the parents should be the only ones allowed to take children into a movie which is rated 'R'. Since it is the parents' job, they should be required to stay with their children throughout the movie.
Look to your example letters. What does helping retarded children have to do with watching erotica (Kidman's butt)?
What retarded children? What are you talking about.
Did you even read the article?
P.S. Off topic, but I have to say it: please format your comments better. Thank you.
Face it, it's not going to be better under George W. Bush either.
Why do you say this? What evidence do you have? I realize Bush Senior supported the Clipper chip to some extent and Clinton fell in love with it, but I have not heard anything good or bad about Bush Junior regarding encryption.
I understand why Lilly is doing it and support it 100%. If a company get hurt from leaked information or lies about it, I get hurt (as long as I own the stock).
Of those who will own RedHat stock, how will you feel if someone told lies to drive your stock down? I bet it would not make any of you happy.
Remember that a public company is owned by many individual investors. When someone does something illegal to hurt the stock price, it hurts all of those individuals as well. As for private companies, don't forget they have to pay their employees.
Because either you allow all religions, or you allow no religions. Anything less is religious descrimination, and therefore unconstitutional. You cannot say "I will only allow the religions I like."
They only teach certain histories and languages in school. Would that then be called racist? They never offered me Irish history or language in high school, and college did not offer Irish language. They should offer all or nothing?
I know it does not seem fair to everyone, but you can't make everyone happy. Fact of life #2.
I don't recall it being considered one during Sociology class at school. I could be wrong.
Do you want your children to have a warlock leading the class in a prayer?
No. I also think all-or-nothing solutions should be avoided. If Christianity and Buddahism (sp?) are allowed a presence in school (not mandated), why does satanism have to be allowed?
In a sense, the one who compiles the database is the owner. Do you own the entry in your local phone book that has your name, number and address? Do you want it back?
When there was a discussion about the CDDB database, I could see somewhat more clearly that the people who entered in all the songs for a CD might have "ownership" of those entries. With NSI, they entered in all the information much like a phone book from the billing and administrative information you provided them.
OTOH, for the competitors of NSI to function correctly they will need access to that database. I doubt they need a full copy of it though. A copy would be out of date before it was done being copied.
And hey, I think we should teach kids to worship Allah in school, 'cause my kids do it. Hope your kids don't mind too much.
As an elective, I don't see a problem with having religion taught in schools. Or would you rather prohibit your children from studying (or worshipping) Allah?
Explain. I run Linux as a firewall. It must therefore be boring according to your definition.
I have been using Linux regularly since the 0.99.14x days--only briefly around 0.77 (I can't recall exactly). I will be trying out FreeBSD on my next system withing a month or two. What programs will I NOT be able to run with FreeBSD?
I have two favorite games: Netrek and AOE. The first can be played on most UNIX systems. The second runs just as well under FreeBSD as it does Linux: not at all.
You are entitled to your opinions, but please give evidence when you come down so roughly on something.
Slashdot Mirror
UDI encourages binary only drivers which is a Bad Thing.
It also help developers. They would only have to--or at least should have to--test the driver on one OS for it to function on multiple OS's. As a developer, I can greatly appreciate how much easier it would be for testing. XFree86 v4.0 will have this feature.
UDI can only hurt linux.
Why? More drivers will be available to Linux and *BSD. This cannot hurt Linux for any user out there.
What would motivate them to release specs then?
Possibly good PR. Remember that hardware manufacturers had no reason whatsoever to publish specs for Linux, but they did so anyway. They did this even when there were very few people using it and Linux was an unknown name. Why will this make them change their mind?
I think people are being a touch paranoid.
However, I don't see the point in taxing "the internet", per se. I mean, if you're going to do it, be fair about it...tax every out of state package, be it mail order, fax order, internet order, phoned in, whatever.
;) If they read /., they might get the idea to tax all of those methods.
I am going to have to smack you.
You may die from hitting your head with a brick. Since it is only a maybe, it is ok to do it. Not! I found no research that found smoking marijuana to be healthy to the general public, but I did find cases where it was unhealthy.
I do not have a problem with drug research about marijuana, but I do mind letting it be used for entertainment.
More articles:
A rticle 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
..., where censors have a more sensible attitude towards sex.
Ask yourself why did they have to get the NC17 rating? They could have brought it out as is with an X rating. Don't blame the censors. They didn't actually censor it; the marketers did. All the "censors" do is give a movie a rating.
Intelligence is the product of Research.
I did some digging:
Article 1 - Fetus does not like pot
Article 2 - Using pot as birth control? Not too bright, IMO
Perhaps because I have known more people who died from alcohol and cigarettes than pot?
More people consume alcohol and cigarettes, and they consume it more often since it is legal; they can do it in public. It is easy to see that you would know more people who have died from those factors than pot.
Perhaps because I know people who have successfully used it as medicine?
Prescribed by doctors?
Perhaps because I know that doctors seriously discuss the medical problems and benefits and say nothing that agrees with your crap?
I have never heard any of my doctors say it was ok. I have heard that it was unsafe from a couple of them. I'll ask my cousin who is a doctor.
Everyone does it, ...
...it seems like a pretty harmless drug.
I don't, therefore, your statement is untrue.
It may appear harmless, but it may not be. When I was in high school, a teacher told us that weed has something like 421 different chemical compounds in it. Doctors only know what 11 (or maybe 21) of them do to the human body. I do not like the idea of consuming something that I have no idea what it will do to me. It might not kill me, but it could alter a person's genes. My children may be much more intelligent than those who do smoke.
Microsoft could get something which is _like_ xfs, the point is that they are not able to say: "Hey, we have xfs too, based on the original sources.".
I believe Hell will freeze over before Microsoft brags about using anyone else's source. Microsoft invented sockets, remember? Winsock instead of Berkeley sockets. If they even used the source code to XFS, they would rename it the WinFS or something like that.
I still think that we should not fear having the code with a BSD license on it. Microsoft will still get the technology behind it. Besides, bragging rights always seem to outway using the best code, and Microsoft does enjoy that use that right to its fullest.
OTOH, Microsoft has a million "monkeys". If they can look at the source, they can basically just duplicate all the ideas found in it with the man-power they have. To Microsoft, just being able to see the source would be equivalent to releasing it under the BSD license.
Sorry, I must have skipped the part about Raw Iron.
I still have to ask how using a Solaris kernel drops their dependency on Windows NT. Why not ask people to just run Solaris?
P.S. Obviously, I do not know much about Raw Iron.
Analysts say it's a smart move for Oracle to latch onto the growing Linux movement and to lessen its reliance on Microsoft and Windows.
:)
Wasn't Oracle trying to distance themselves from all OS's with "RAW"-something or other?
I believe they are latching on to the hype over Linux more than lessening their reliance of Microsoft. They are fairly cross-platform already.
Really, how dependent is Oracle on Microsoft systems? When I think of Oracle I always think UNIX. It is probably just me.
Why is a parents permission not good enough? If they don't want to accompany their child, they shouldn't have to
I think a rating of 'R' requires parental supervision. Not necessarily my opinion; that is what the 'R'-rating says.
As for the maturity of the individual who helped mentally handicapped children, I can only tell him that life sucks. He/She may be mature enough to understand the movie, but the rating system does not analyze each individual. This is unlike the interview he must have received before being given the responsiblility of those children.
Same lack of experience, yes. Higher maturity, probably, but not guaranteed. Hey, I am honest.
Who are you to judge? Isn't that a parents job?
Then the parents should be the only ones allowed to take children into a movie which is rated 'R'. Since it is the parents' job, they should be required to stay with their children throughout the movie.
What retarded children? What are you talking about.
Did you even read the article?
P.S. Off topic, but I have to say it: please format your comments better. Thank you.
I see everyone failing to view the page using Netscape or IE. Just use Lynx. It works great for me.
Also, try turning off JavaScript before going there. It might help.
Face it, it's not going to be better under George W. Bush either.
Why do you say this? What evidence do you have? I realize Bush Senior supported the Clipper chip to some extent and Clinton fell in love with it, but I have not heard anything good or bad about Bush Junior regarding encryption.
I understand why Lilly is doing it and support it 100%. If a company get hurt from leaked information or lies about it, I get hurt (as long as I own the stock).
Of those who will own RedHat stock, how will you feel if someone told lies to drive your stock down? I bet it would not make any of you happy.
Remember that a public company is owned by many individual investors. When someone does something illegal to hurt the stock price, it hurts all of those individuals as well. As for private companies, don't forget they have to pay their employees.
Just some stuff to think about.
Because either you allow all religions, or you allow no religions. Anything less is religious descrimination, and therefore unconstitutional. You cannot say "I will only allow the religions I like."
They only teach certain histories and languages in school. Would that then be called racist? They never offered me Irish history or language in high school, and college did not offer Irish language. They should offer all or nothing?
I know it does not seem fair to everyone, but you can't make everyone happy. Fact of life #2.
Religion in schools is NOT an elective.
It definitely is not required.
Satanism IS a recognized religion.
I don't recall it being considered one during Sociology class at school. I could be wrong.
Do you want your children to have a warlock leading the class in a prayer?
No. I also think all-or-nothing solutions should be avoided. If Christianity and Buddahism (sp?) are allowed a presence in school (not mandated), why does satanism have to be allowed?
In a sense, the one who compiles the database is the owner. Do you own the entry in your local phone book that has your name, number and address? Do you want it back?
When there was a discussion about the CDDB database, I could see somewhat more clearly that the people who entered in all the songs for a CD might have "ownership" of those entries. With NSI, they entered in all the information much like a phone book from the billing and administrative information you provided them.
OTOH, for the competitors of NSI to function correctly they will need access to that database. I doubt they need a full copy of it though. A copy would be out of date before it was done being copied.
I feel that it is a tough call to make.
And hey, I think we should teach kids to worship Allah in school, 'cause my kids do it. Hope your kids don't mind too much.
As an elective, I don't see a problem with having religion taught in schools. Or would you rather prohibit your children from studying (or worshipping) Allah?
What would be the problem with putting them all up? Five (or whatever) sheets of paper (in a stack) would not take up too much room.
But now the point: BSD is boring
Explain. I run Linux as a firewall. It must therefore be boring according to your definition.
I have been using Linux regularly since the 0.99.14x days--only briefly around 0.77 (I can't recall exactly). I will be trying out FreeBSD on my next system withing a month or two. What programs will I NOT be able to run with FreeBSD?
I have two favorite games: Netrek and AOE. The first can be played on most UNIX systems. The second runs just as well under FreeBSD as it does Linux: not at all.
You are entitled to your opinions, but please give evidence when you come down so roughly on something.
Would these be considered different Linux OS's then:
Real Time Linux
Linux Router Project
They are patched versions of Linux, but I would still consider them different at the kernel level.
Now, another Sun staffer claims Open-Source-like attributes when the SCSL is clearly not Open Source.
He claimed open-source-like attributes; he did not claim it was Open Source.
He seems very straight-forward to me.
So "free speech" only applies to those who follow the guidelines. I can only "speak" about the GPL if want to use GPL'd code.
This does not sound like free speech to me. It appears to be a form of censorship.