He wasn't a secret keeper; Dumbledore himself was. But with Dumbledore's death, everyone to whom he had told the location of the headquarters became secret-keepers; someone (Moody I think) explain this in the beginning of the TDH.
1. I am concerned how could Snape not tell it and get away with Voldemort. He would be obviusly interested, and he would know Snape could do it. Some AC replied Moody set up a curse to prevent Snape from telling anyone - but I assume this is the curse anyone who entered Grimmauld Place suffered. It didn't seem to last much, but I guess it could have lasted enough to prevent Snape from telling others in the beginning of the book - or at least giving Voldemort a plausible excuse. But this is highly speculative I think.
2. That's a nice explanation, even if I am not sure if I could call the goblin greedy - he simply believed it belonged to the goblins as Bill explained.
3. I am assuming the Elder Wand is indeed unbeatable. Of course, I might be wrong, and it might just be, as someone else suggested, just so powerful that it made his master virtually unbeatable. Then it would fit nicely with your argument.
4. Again, possible, but not really something we can be certain with the info provided.
Perhaps I didn't express my doubts clear enough. Snape was not a traitor, but he did his best to look like one - even on Dumbledore's orders. How he could get away with not telling Voldemort and the Death Eaters its location? Specially after they seemed to suspect Harry was there.
As for the sword, I was thinking about how it got back to Neville after being retrieved by Griphook.
The Elder Wand supposedly made his master unbeatable in a duel, and Dumbledore beat Grindenwald, and again he did not beat Voldemort afterwards. If skill was involved there would be no benefit in having such a wand, methinks. I assume Draco Malfoy managed to put it away from him since he wasn't really dueling Malfoy. Perhaps the wand wasn't effective with Dumbledore since he obviusly didn't kill Grindenwald, but there is still the question of how he beated Grindenwald to start with. Rowling said there would be debatable things even after the last book.
I concede that Dumbledore might have knowledge of the plan beforehand, but there is nothing in the books that support this. At this point it is just a guess, a good one I say.
If Snape could enter Grimmauld Place, then why didn't he told the Death Eaters where it was? Voldemort should be aware that wherever the Headquarter of the Order was, Snape knew it, and with Dumbledore's death Snape would become a secret keeper.
Not really a mistake but... how did Griffyndorf's sword got away from the goblins?
How could Dumbledore best Grindenwald if the latter had the Elder Wand? also, how did he not defeat Voldemort completely with the Elder Wand when they dueled?
How did Dumbledore's painting know of the plan to take Harry off Private Drive, in order to counsel Snape?
Concise explanation. Why do some people find it so difficult to see that no one is forced to use whichever GPL version they are talking about? Don't agree with GPLv3, fine,stick with v2, use BSD or another license. Heck, write your own. The GPL exists to provide the user these freedoms. Not everyone will agree with that. But as we begin to see more and more GPL software encased inside hardware where it can't be effectively modified by the end user, more and more shady patent agreements like Novell's, perhaps more FOSS developers will understand why GPLv3 came into being and adopt it.
The N800 is a capable machine: it addresses the weakness of the N770, lack of RAM and a weird card format. IIRC, it still doesn't give you USB-host out of the box, and even though Maemo has improved a lot, it is still has a bit to learn from other interfaces in term of usability. It is a nice device, for sure, the screen gives you more resolution than any other device in this price point and size.
I owned a Clié running PalmOS, an older Cassiopeia running WindowsCE, or sort of. I bought a Dell X50v, VGA screen and everything, and sold it after a few months. Currently own a Nokia 770, which runs Debian, and I have an older Symbian smartphone as well. While novel interfaces like the one in the iPhone, multitouch included, may help with the accessibility of handheld devices, I came not so long ago to a striking conclusion: form-factor makes handhelds impractical. Either they are too small to have a decent, readable screen and convenient input method, or they are too big to be portable. The iPhone is big for a mobile phone, and even then its input methods are only so so. UMPCs attained a laughable market share - they are not portable. Then anything smaller than 10" is hard to view, and even harder to type in. I fear OLPC, or however they are called today, might fail because of their smallish screen.
So basically I can't see how a mobile device running Linux will suceed in the market, just because it runs Linux. It is great seeing Linux gaining more support and everything, and it will probably bring the costs down, but even then the problem with this kind of device is that it doesn't fit the needs of the intended users, or most of them - few geeks that like to ssh into their servers in the basement from their mobile phones like me doesn't count. The concept is essentially flawed, blame our phisiology if you want.
So forking code has become ethically and morally wrong? Since when? What is this fuss about Open Source anyways, if we consider it wrong from the moment someone does something in a way we happen to not like or approve anymore? Of course the copyright owner will retain the right to release the code under GPLv2, but I I fork CUPS right now and I want to release all modifications under GPLv3, there is nothing wrong with it. It may be hard to work with a codebase that has dual licensing, but there is nothing either unlawful or unethical about it.
get the code? I downloaded this funky utility called Ubuntu from Microsoft, and it says in a funny EULA called GPL or something that I should be able to get the source code from whoever distributes it. Since my Windows system has been rock stable and much quicker after I installed this utility, I guess it's a keeper, and I think it is a pretty good marketing idea from Redmond to let us see how do they actually program these things. Course, this Ubuntu stuff is only a utilty or a driver according to that page, but even then this is pretty slick. Can you imagine if someone would let us see the source code for, say, a a WHOLE OPERATING SYSTEM? wow! Perhaps that is MS next step and this whole Ubuntu downloads are a marketing test. So spread the word guys...
if it was a.plan, I'd disagree it is the same thing as a blog..plans had to do with a project, a work schedule, and while I understand they could be used in a manner similar to how blogs are used today, that wasn't their intention at least initially. A blog is a log of whatever happened to you and you fancy putting there, while a.plan is a... well, a plan, or at least had to do with it.
because the market/consumers have no real need of new media types, and the few of them who actually understand that know that the push for HD media is tied to stricter forms of DRM instead of tangible benefits to consumers? That seems rational enough for me.
what stops someone else from adopting the same business model? Nothing at all, they'd have to write their own code, but nothing will prevent people from following someone's else business model. You can't obfuscate *that*, unless you, hum, don't sell your product and keep it safely locked in your basement. I'd hardly call it a viable business model then, but who knows.
Have no restrictions? The two OSs, no matter how they compare to OS X, have a plethora of apps, a good deal of them opensourced, available, with open SDKs and so on. You can code anything you want for Symbian and Windows Mobile platforms. So this excuse that an open iPhone will "bring the network down" doesn't apply, really, or it would have hindered the other platforms too.
since it fits your needs. Pushing ODF, or any other open standard, has nothing to do with that. It has to do to with the ability of people which don't need the features of MS Office, or cannot afford to buy it, to access information that should be public. It also has, marginally, to do with the inability of MS crushing would-be competitors using its monopoly power. Since ODF is an open standard, anyone, including MS, can implement it. The right way, since unlike MS XML based format ODF is actually understandable.
if enough people break, consciously, a law, then one may assume the law was wrong in the first place and so it can't - or shouldn't be applied. After all laws should reflect the public interest, and it seems clear to me that the public is interested in being allowed to copy media. I wonder, how many people living in a resonable modern society which provides access to copying devices - Xerox machines, CD or DVD rewriters, computers, VHS recorders, you name it - has NEVER infringed copyright at some point? I bet very few, if any at all.
Because we are all spending our vacations in the Cretacean, fighting three legged aliens and using Warp Drives all the time (I'll concede that the Island of Dr. Moreau paints a very possible and frightening future. But thinking that he is more accurate than Verne... you've been playing too much HL2 or watching too much Star Trek, or both. I agree that Verne maybe expanded at current technology, but he predicted submarines, airplanes and travelling to other planets in a time most people would mock this. Now they are real, even if he got the methods and technology used wrong. As for being tied to the 1800s politics - he was writting sci-fi right in the middle of the Romantic era! His stories are truthful enough, and I'd call them apolitic, specially the earlier ones. Germans, British, Americans, Scottish, Indians, everyone got their share of the cake. Next someone will criticize him for not pro-actively defending the environment, as in the whale-killing that happens in 20k LUtS (BTW, a tripulant of Nautilus ended being taken by a giant squid that we now know are eaten by the very whales Nemo killed... curious huh?).
Anyways I'll throw in my own favourite sci-fi "seer": Ray Bradbury. I read a short tale of him that described how people would face having wrist-sized personal communicators. Decades before we got cellphones/mobile phones. Sorry, can't remember the name of the story.
More than once in a while a dialog box pops up in Windows that has the text truncated in (brazilian) portughese. Possibly the original english text was smaller and no one in the translation team either noticed, cared or had the power to fix it. I assume this happens in other languages as well. Having been involved with translations with then Mandrake, now Mandriva, I could truly apprecciate the power of GTK in this respect.
But that's not like I am endorsing it. Gnome is too restrictive - even more than OS X, in ways it shouldn't be. KDE is better, but compared to OS X it is just... ugly. Really hard to translate in words, and I highly doubt if HIGs are the answer. I guess it is harder to convince talented designers to open source their efforts than to convince talented programmers.
"because it is a free market out there". It is not. It is a monopoly.Curious that we (learn to )treat the market as if it were indeed free, as if only the customer needs and wishes mattered, when the situation (in most matters/sectors) is completely different, due to the various monopolies/oligopolies that effectively take away the freedom of the customers. A completely "free market" is an abstraction, of course: bussiness always interfere with customers as much as they can - and they'd be foolish not to. But the situation we live in the IT market is completely different from what one studies in economy 101, lest you see Linux distros with infinite demand due to their null price.
6.People who look so antisocial and angry-faced and silent that you can't figure out if they have some terrorist plot behind their eyes. Cheerful people are much easier to be around.
Perhaps this people look angry because they either had someone rest their hands in their hair, OR were seated next to a fat person, OR maybe they are old women and no one stood up for them? Perhaps a fat smelly old woman who hits on girls (and so is lesbian) has touched their hair AND hit their chairs... wait, old women are supposed to be good. I am confused.
If having a pool of countries controlling the oil market is bad, then having a single company controlling the OS market is even worse. I concur the EU might be more simpathetic had MS (and Apple in the iTunes DRM question) been european. I just don't think it is all about cashflow, even if it all boils down to money in the end. Having a single company that can prevent all other (european) companies from suceeding is not good in their eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
He wasn't a secret keeper; Dumbledore himself was. But with Dumbledore's death, everyone to whom he had told the location of the headquarters became secret-keepers; someone (Moody I think) explain this in the beginning of the TDH.
1. I am concerned how could Snape not tell it and get away with Voldemort. He would be obviusly interested, and he would know Snape could do it. Some AC replied Moody set up a curse to prevent Snape from telling anyone - but I assume this is the curse anyone who entered Grimmauld Place suffered. It didn't seem to last much, but I guess it could have lasted enough to prevent Snape from telling others in the beginning of the book - or at least giving Voldemort a plausible excuse. But this is highly speculative I think.
2. That's a nice explanation, even if I am not sure if I could call the goblin greedy - he simply believed it belonged to the goblins as Bill explained.
3. I am assuming the Elder Wand is indeed unbeatable. Of course, I might be wrong, and it might just be, as someone else suggested, just so powerful that it made his master virtually unbeatable. Then it would fit nicely with your argument.
4. Again, possible, but not really something we can be certain with the info provided.
As for the sword, I was thinking about how it got back to Neville after being retrieved by Griphook.
The Elder Wand supposedly made his master unbeatable in a duel, and Dumbledore beat Grindenwald, and again he did not beat Voldemort afterwards. If skill was involved there would be no benefit in having such a wand, methinks. I assume Draco Malfoy managed to put it away from him since he wasn't really dueling Malfoy. Perhaps the wand wasn't effective with Dumbledore since he obviusly didn't kill Grindenwald, but there is still the question of how he beated Grindenwald to start with. Rowling said there would be debatable things even after the last book.
I concede that Dumbledore might have knowledge of the plan beforehand, but there is nothing in the books that support this. At this point it is just a guess, a good one I say.
If Snape could enter Grimmauld Place, then why didn't he told the Death Eaters where it was? Voldemort should be aware that wherever the Headquarter of the Order was, Snape knew it, and with Dumbledore's death Snape would become a secret keeper.
Not really a mistake but... how did Griffyndorf's sword got away from the goblins?
How could Dumbledore best Grindenwald if the latter had the Elder Wand? also, how did he not defeat Voldemort completely with the Elder Wand when they dueled?
How did Dumbledore's painting know of the plan to take Harry off Private Drive, in order to counsel Snape?
Concise explanation. Why do some people find it so difficult to see that no one is forced to use whichever GPL version they are talking about? Don't agree with GPLv3, fine,stick with v2, use BSD or another license. Heck, write your own. The GPL exists to provide the user these freedoms. Not everyone will agree with that. But as we begin to see more and more GPL software encased inside hardware where it can't be effectively modified by the end user, more and more shady patent agreements like Novell's, perhaps more FOSS developers will understand why GPLv3 came into being and adopt it.
The N800 is a capable machine: it addresses the weakness of the N770, lack of RAM and a weird card format. IIRC, it still doesn't give you USB-host out of the box, and even though Maemo has improved a lot, it is still has a bit to learn from other interfaces in term of usability. It is a nice device, for sure, the screen gives you more resolution than any other device in this price point and size.
I owned a Clié running PalmOS, an older Cassiopeia running WindowsCE, or sort of. I bought a Dell X50v, VGA screen and everything, and sold it after a few months. Currently own a Nokia 770, which runs Debian, and I have an older Symbian smartphone as well. While novel interfaces like the one in the iPhone, multitouch included, may help with the accessibility of handheld devices, I came not so long ago to a striking conclusion: form-factor makes handhelds impractical. Either they are too small to have a decent, readable screen and convenient input method, or they are too big to be portable. The iPhone is big for a mobile phone, and even then its input methods are only so so. UMPCs attained a laughable market share - they are not portable. Then anything smaller than 10" is hard to view, and even harder to type in. I fear OLPC, or however they are called today, might fail because of their smallish screen.
So basically I can't see how a mobile device running Linux will suceed in the market, just because it runs Linux. It is great seeing Linux gaining more support and everything, and it will probably bring the costs down, but even then the problem with this kind of device is that it doesn't fit the needs of the intended users, or most of them - few geeks that like to ssh into their servers in the basement from their mobile phones like me doesn't count. The concept is essentially flawed, blame our phisiology if you want.
So forking code has become ethically and morally wrong? Since when? What is this fuss about Open Source anyways, if we consider it wrong from the moment someone does something in a way we happen to not like or approve anymore? Of course the copyright owner will retain the right to release the code under GPLv2, but I I fork CUPS right now and I want to release all modifications under GPLv3, there is nothing wrong with it. It may be hard to work with a codebase that has dual licensing, but there is nothing either unlawful or unethical about it.
And I thought that "Mars Rover and the Deathly Storms" was only coming out in July 21st.
get the code? I downloaded this funky utility called Ubuntu from Microsoft, and it says in a funny EULA called GPL or something that I should be able to get the source code from whoever distributes it. Since my Windows system has been rock stable and much quicker after I installed this utility, I guess it's a keeper, and I think it is a pretty good marketing idea from Redmond to let us see how do they actually program these things. Course, this Ubuntu stuff is only a utilty or a driver according to that page, but even then this is pretty slick. Can you imagine if someone would let us see the source code for, say, a a WHOLE OPERATING SYSTEM? wow! Perhaps that is MS next step and this whole Ubuntu downloads are a marketing test. So spread the word guys...
if it was a .plan, I'd disagree it is the same thing as a blog. .plans had to do with a project, a work schedule, and while I understand they could be used in a manner similar to how blogs are used today, that wasn't their intention at least initially. A blog is a log of whatever happened to you and you fancy putting there, while a .plan is a ... well, a plan, or at least had to do with it.
because the market/consumers have no real need of new media types, and the few of them who actually understand that know that the push for HD media is tied to stricter forms of DRM instead of tangible benefits to consumers? That seems rational enough for me.
Oblivion basically says that crime is not worth it?
what stops someone else from adopting the same business model? Nothing at all, they'd have to write their own code, but nothing will prevent people from following someone's else business model. You can't obfuscate *that*, unless you, hum, don't sell your product and keep it safely locked in your basement. I'd hardly call it a viable business model then, but who knows.
Have no restrictions? The two OSs, no matter how they compare to OS X, have a plethora of apps, a good deal of them opensourced, available, with open SDKs and so on. You can code anything you want for Symbian and Windows Mobile platforms. So this excuse that an open iPhone will "bring the network down" doesn't apply, really, or it would have hindered the other platforms too.
since it fits your needs. Pushing ODF, or any other open standard, has nothing to do with that. It has to do to with the ability of people which don't need the features of MS Office, or cannot afford to buy it, to access information that should be public. It also has, marginally, to do with the inability of MS crushing would-be competitors using its monopoly power. Since ODF is an open standard, anyone, including MS, can implement it. The right way, since unlike MS XML based format ODF is actually understandable.
if enough people break, consciously, a law, then one may assume the law was wrong in the first place and so it can't - or shouldn't be applied. After all laws should reflect the public interest, and it seems clear to me that the public is interested in being allowed to copy media. I wonder, how many people living in a resonable modern society which provides access to copying devices - Xerox machines, CD or DVD rewriters, computers, VHS recorders, you name it - has NEVER infringed copyright at some point? I bet very few, if any at all.
Today it would be called an African-American list.
Anyways I'll throw in my own favourite sci-fi "seer": Ray Bradbury. I read a short tale of him that described how people would face having wrist-sized personal communicators. Decades before we got cellphones/mobile phones. Sorry, can't remember the name of the story.
But that's not like I am endorsing it. Gnome is too restrictive - even more than OS X, in ways it shouldn't be. KDE is better, but compared to OS X it is just... ugly. Really hard to translate in words, and I highly doubt if HIGs are the answer. I guess it is harder to convince talented designers to open source their efforts than to convince talented programmers.
is llicit in China, Pakistan and other countries. Should all /.s be sent to rot in a Chinese prison?
Now, can I join the MAFIAA? please?
"because it is a free market out there". It is not. It is a monopoly.Curious that we (learn to )treat the market as if it were indeed free, as if only the customer needs and wishes mattered, when the situation (in most matters/sectors) is completely different, due to the various monopolies/oligopolies that effectively take away the freedom of the customers. A completely "free market" is an abstraction, of course: bussiness always interfere with customers as much as they can - and they'd be foolish not to. But the situation we live in the IT market is completely different from what one studies in economy 101, lest you see Linux distros with infinite demand due to their null price.
Perhaps this people look angry because they either had someone rest their hands in their hair, OR were seated next to a fat person, OR maybe they are old women and no one stood up for them? Perhaps a fat smelly old woman who hits on girls (and so is lesbian) has touched their hair AND hit their chairs... wait, old women are supposed to be good. I am confused.
If having a pool of countries controlling the oil market is bad, then having a single company controlling the OS market is even worse. I concur the EU might be more simpathetic had MS (and Apple in the iTunes DRM question) been european. I just don't think it is all about cashflow, even if it all boils down to money in the end. Having a single company that can prevent all other (european) companies from suceeding is not good in their eyes.