This is precisely the intent of the original patent laws in the US. Grant the inventor a monopoly for a limited time and then release it for public use. And I applaud their choice of the GPL over, say, the BSD license, strictly due to the fact that the GPL will keep the source open. How many times is it needed to be pointed out what Microsoft did with the BSD TCP/IP stack???
Microsoft doesn't need to work that hard to make more money.
This is not about the money. It's about domination.
It's not about the domination per se. It's about being able to guarantee dividend checks to shareholders for Q1 2007 & beyond. Dominating the market and crippling/destroying any competition or percieved competition is good for the dividend checks. Let's face it, even the daily fines from all the antitrust suits lost so far by MS haven't really cut into their profit margin. Hell, they just pay the fine, take it off in taxes, & call it 'the cost of doing business'. Until courts start levying fines with real teeth, we'll just keep seeing more of the same, more of the same...
Agreeing to licence "IP" from Microsoft just gives legitimacy to any claims they are going to pursue against other Linux vendors/developers. It sets a bad precedent, even if those claims are likely to be bogus. It is obvious MS are thinking this way, otherwise why would they pay Novell rather than the other way round?
TFA says Microsoft ain't about to license any IP that can be GPL'ed. So what is Novell really getting? A promise not to get sued for 5 years. Period.
MS will open stuff up, and I will take and run with what I can get away with.
No, they won't. TFA states they won't. Their intention is to keep MS as MS, Linux as Linux.
From TFA:
"Let me be clear about one thing, we don't license our intellectual property to Linux because of the way Linux licensing GPL framework works, that's not really a possibility," said Microsoft chief executive, Steve Ballmer.
See what I mean? Only thing this could be is a shotgun wedding with Novell to 'shield them' from litigation while they attempt to take down the rest of the distros. And when Novell has served its purpose... Well, the lamb CAN exist with the lion, but only as lunch. Any bets on who's gonna be lunch?
Well don't download it all. just the things you need to pull down maps of your ranch, or in this case uhm.. liberal anti-american hate speech.
Liberal speech isn't necessarily anti-American speech, unless ytou buy into the whole neocon bit of 'Only we can save the Republic. You're either for us, or you're with the terrists'.
I stand behind the nation, not the bozo who happens to hang out at 1600 Pennsylvania. According to law, it's just a temp job, and eventually he'll be gone...
No, my point was that women's rights has come a long way since the 1850's and should not be rewound.
That is only one of many, many things that have changed since the 1800's, and is one thing that shouldn't have.
The above sentence is one I'm having problems decoding. If by me 'not paying attention' means I don't obviously understand your erudite opinion, then yes, you're right. Personally, I'd rather you just come out and say what you mean. What is the 'one thing that shouldn't have (changed)'? A woman's right to choose?
Being in prison for the rest of his life gives his supporters time to overthrow a replacement government and then put him back in power. Once the death sentence is carried out, there is no coming back.
I hope I'm wrong, but I get the distinct feeling the current Iraqi regime's lifespan will be measured in days the instant the last US troop gets on the plane. And of course we'll be back in in a couple weeks when that happens. After 650,000+ deaths, I kinda doubt they REALLY want us there, or want us back, but KBR isn't done milking Big Unc yet...
When did you decide to just turn into a big banana-republic, slaves with no rigths and no liberties, to a tiny insanely rich elite?
The instant that Congress forgot that the citizenry was supposed to be served, not the corporations. Of course, the corporations had more money & better lobbyists...
Ever read a Vernor Vinge story called 'The Ungoverned'? Interesting premise, that we've culturally evolved beyond governments.
I know. But the (nominal) democracy forces the leaders to atleast pay lip-service to the idea that they actually intend to follow the agreements that USA voluntarily enters into. I think there's a limit to what the US public will stand for, though I'm amazed that the public has accepted as much as it has already.
We'll know Tuesday. However, we've already pulled out of a couple important treaties and pretty much ignore the Geneva Conventions with the 'enemy combatant' fiction.
Time will tell I guess, but in the end it was (more or less) resentment at home that forced the troops out of Vietnam, I ain't so convinced the same thing couldn't happen in Iraq, or with respect to ridicolous unconstitutional violations of basic rigths under the banner of "figthing terrorism"
Depends. War is Big Business. Plenty good tax payer dollars to be made supplyin the Army with the tools of the trade (apologies to Country Joe & The Fish). Add to this concept 'no-bid' contracts for companies like Haliburton & the Carlyle Group and you get massive cost overruns that turn into pure profits for these same companies. As my nephew said when he got back from Iraq, 'If you don't know KBR (a subsidary of Haliburton), you've never been to Iraq.' Keep in mind that the neocon 'prophet' Leo Strauss wrote in '53 that Western civilisation needs to be saved from itself ( http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/showthread.php?i d=200 ), and that Strauss students include Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz. These guys are all failed academics that no university would hire due to their extreme political views. So, it looks like you get to add to the old adage that 'Those who can, do. Those that can't, teach' the phrase 'Those who can't do and can't teach, hold public office, not necessarily an elected one'. And once they got their foot in the door with the government, they get snapped up by big business when their party leaves office strictly for their networking. Who they know in government determines where they'll 'work' next and how much they'll make.
The current crop of government bozos seems to be more interested in the rights of corporations than the rights of the individual citizens. We're becoming daily more of a 'product' for the megacorps. Just look at the record.
This shows abortions becoming illegal in the US during the 1850's, with women gaining the right to vote with the 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920. This tells me that for 70 years, give or take, women not only had no control over their bodies, but no voice to change it. And it was another 53 years later, in Roe vs Wade, 1973, that women actually won the right to an abortion recognised. Read your history.
Requiring any sort of "approval" for leaving a country (your own or any other) is a blatant violation of the human rights. Article 13 (2) says:
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
This is from the International Bill of Rights, not US law. The US has been flaunting international law for quite some time. Kind of a 'do as we say, don't do as we do' kinda thing...
The way things are going, the more Alex Jones starts looking less of a nutball and more of an astute observer. And THAT'S a scary thought.
This ridiculous statement is akin to the statement that, since there was cleaner air and slavery in this country in 1860, that anyone wishing for cleaner air wants to go back in time and have cleaner air and slavery. Some things that have been lost shouldn't have been, while some aren't worthy of regaining.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized there is a constitutional right to travel internationally. Indeed, it has declared that the right to travel is "a virtually unconditional personal right." The United States has also signed treaties guaranteeing "freedom of travel." So if these regulations do go into effect, you can expect a lengthy court battle, both nationally and internationally."
This is what the lesser of two evils system gets you. Democrats voted "Anybody but Bush" in 2004, is it really surprising that there are people saying "Anybody but Democrats"?
The main problem is, the 'lesser of two evils' is still evil. It would be nice to have real choices on Tuesday, but it just isn't happening. My solution? Vote against any of the incumbants.
I thought the Republicans were supposed to be "pro-business" - surely they can understand the potential negative consequences of this kind of thing? Having said that, they don't seem to be worried about the negative effects of their neanderthal foreign policies, so perhaps not.
They are. You don't think the current crop of neocons are REAL Republicans, do you????
But they can call an investigation and require the executive branch to testify under oath about the lawbreaking they've already admitted to, and even without the Senate they can impeach the president, although the Senate's required to get rid of him. Although after repeatedly being charged with violating the law, even a Republican Senate probably won't have enough political capital not to impeach him.
Um, not quite. The House sends the Bill of Impeachment to the Senate, the Senate holds the trial. The House can send as many Bills of Impeachment to the Senate as they feel like, the Senate does NOT have to convict. In this manner, the House acts like a Grand Jury, in that they determine there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial, but they do NOT conduct the trial, merely bind the defendant over to trial.
Also note that while you have to impeach the president and vice-president to get them out of office, you can impeach almost anyone in the executive branch, like, oh, Donald Rumsfeld, and have them tried in the Senate. Or anyone who was in the executive branch.
You really think anybody in the Senate is going to vote their conscience rather than the Party line?
I am sickened by the attitude of many "pro-life" supporters, particularly in the Christian Right, who seem to relish the thought of punishing women who have a momentary indiscretion, with a lifetime of caring for a child they don't want. Wrapped up in their jealous veils of moral superiority, they castigate pro-lifers for not respecting the dignity and sanctity of life, but have no problem using that same life as a weapon, a fitting albatross to hang around the necks of the sinful, the fornicatory, sinfully irresponsible.
About the only thing on the pro-lifer agenda is to breed more pro-lifers and 'curst be he who cries 'Hold! Enough!''
Slashdot Mirror
Look at it this way.
This is precisely the intent of the original patent laws in the US. Grant the inventor a monopoly for a limited time and then release it for public use. And I applaud their choice of the GPL over, say, the BSD license, strictly due to the fact that the GPL will keep the source open. How many times is it needed to be pointed out what Microsoft did with the BSD TCP/IP stack???
Which is why a GPL'ed Java is a Good Thing.
I take it you're anti-abortion. then. My suggestion is, if you don't like abortions, just don't have one.
No, the road to Hell is paved with Cat-5 cable. I read it on Slashdot.
It's not about the domination per se. It's about being able to guarantee dividend checks to shareholders for Q1 2007 & beyond. Dominating the market and crippling/destroying any competition or percieved competition is good for the dividend checks. Let's face it, even the daily fines from all the antitrust suits lost so far by MS haven't really cut into their profit margin. Hell, they just pay the fine, take it off in taxes, & call it 'the cost of doing business'. Until courts start levying fines with real teeth, we'll just keep seeing more of the same, more of the same...
TFA says Microsoft ain't about to license any IP that can be GPL'ed. So what is Novell really getting? A promise not to get sued for 5 years. Period.
No, they won't. TFA states they won't. Their intention is to keep MS as MS, Linux as Linux.
From TFA:
See what I mean? Only thing this could be is a shotgun wedding with Novell to 'shield them' from litigation while they attempt to take down the rest of the distros. And when Novell has served its purpose... Well, the lamb CAN exist with the lion, but only as lunch. Any bets on who's gonna be lunch?
Liberal speech isn't necessarily anti-American speech, unless ytou buy into the whole neocon bit of 'Only we can save the Republic. You're either for us, or you're with the terrists'.
I stand behind the nation, not the bozo who happens to hang out at 1600 Pennsylvania. According to law, it's just a temp job, and eventually he'll be gone...
You can get it on bittorrent, but the tracker is password protected.
The above sentence is one I'm having problems decoding. If by me 'not paying attention' means I don't obviously understand your erudite opinion, then yes, you're right. Personally, I'd rather you just come out and say what you mean. What is the 'one thing that shouldn't have (changed)'? A woman's right to choose?
Actually, attempting to stay in power is the goal of any political party.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/102006/1011 06.shtml
I hope I'm wrong, but I get the distinct feeling the current Iraqi regime's lifespan will be measured in days the instant the last US troop gets on the plane. And of course we'll be back in in a couple weeks when that happens. After 650,000+ deaths, I kinda doubt they REALLY want us there, or want us back, but KBR isn't done milking Big Unc yet...
The instant that Congress forgot that the citizenry was supposed to be served, not the corporations. Of course, the corporations had more money & better lobbyists...
Ever read a Vernor Vinge story called 'The Ungoverned'? Interesting premise, that we've culturally evolved beyond governments.
Other than the verdict and the sentence, you mean. Lemme be one of many zillions to ask, 'Who didn't see this coming?'
We'll know Tuesday. However, we've already pulled out of a couple important treaties and pretty much ignore the Geneva Conventions with the 'enemy combatant' fiction.
Depends. War is Big Business. Plenty good tax payer dollars to be made supplyin the Army with the tools of the trade (apologies to Country Joe & The Fish). Add to this concept 'no-bid' contracts for companies like Haliburton & the Carlyle Group and you get massive cost overruns that turn into pure profits for these same companies. As my nephew said when he got back from Iraq, 'If you don't know KBR (a subsidary of Haliburton), you've never been to Iraq.' Keep in mind that the neocon 'prophet' Leo Strauss wrote in '53 that Western civilisation needs to be saved from itself ( http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/showthread.php?i d=200 ), and that Strauss students include Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz. These guys are all failed academics that no university would hire due to their extreme political views. So, it looks like you get to add to the old adage that 'Those who can, do. Those that can't, teach' the phrase 'Those who can't do and can't teach, hold public office, not necessarily an elected one'. And once they got their foot in the door with the government, they get snapped up by big business when their party leaves office strictly for their networking. Who they know in government determines where they'll 'work' next and how much they'll make.
The current crop of government bozos seems to be more interested in the rights of corporations than the rights of the individual citizens. We're becoming daily more of a 'product' for the megacorps. Just look at the record.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/ a/abortion.htm
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_ab ortion.html
And then this:
http://www.nwhm.org/exhibits/tour_1.html
This shows abortions becoming illegal in the US during the 1850's, with women gaining the right to vote with the 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920. This tells me that for 70 years, give or take, women not only had no control over their bodies, but no voice to change it. And it was another 53 years later, in Roe vs Wade, 1973, that women actually won the right to an abortion recognised. Read your history.
This is from the International Bill of Rights, not US law. The US has been flaunting international law for quite some time. Kind of a 'do as we say, don't do as we do' kinda thing...
The way things are going, the more Alex Jones starts looking less of a nutball and more of an astute observer. And THAT'S a scary thought.
Which ridiculous statement are you refering to?
That is, of course, unless the SCOTUS http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp ?documentID=17065 refuses to hear a case...
And with the current makeup of the current Court, I find that VERY likely...
The main problem is, the 'lesser of two evils' is still evil. It would be nice to have real choices on Tuesday, but it just isn't happening. My solution? Vote against any of the incumbants.
They are. You don't think the current crop of neocons are REAL Republicans, do you????
Um, not quite. The House sends the Bill of Impeachment to the Senate, the Senate holds the trial. The House can send as many Bills of Impeachment to the Senate as they feel like, the Senate does NOT have to convict. In this manner, the House acts like a Grand Jury, in that they determine there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial, but they do NOT conduct the trial, merely bind the defendant over to trial.
You really think anybody in the Senate is going to vote their conscience rather than the Party line?
My test for being a useful 'person' is, can it get a job? Can it be trained for a job?
About the only thing on the pro-lifer agenda is to breed more pro-lifers and 'curst be he who cries 'Hold! Enough!''