Well, it is the USA that constantly glorifies itself as the "Beacon of the Free World" and "Bastion of Freedom".
And it seems to me that most EU nations have similar mantles they wrap around themselves. No nation is perfect, no nation is holy. But talk to a European and they damned well make it sound like their country is. You don't have to look far in this very thread to see an example.
It is this double standard that disgusts me. The US has become the universal devil for everyone to use in their ad hominem attacks. Want to argue against a proposed EU policy? Simply remark on its similarities to an existing US law. Want to argue against a political candidate? Simply accuse him or her of having dinner with Bush.
Americans used to do something similar with regards to the USSR. It was called "red baiting". It was as wrong then as "US baiting" is now. But at least we had the excuse of having a genuine totalitarian regime as our foil.
What the difference with "probably cause"? Couldn't a "psudo-corporate" entity pay the police to raid your home for intimidation purposes? Wouldn't it be equally difficult to sue them from your jail cell?
I would have to disagree with you. While FreeBSD does seem, in my opinion, to be slightly faster than Linux, this cannot account for the poor performance the prior poster was complaining about.
Go try out Slackware, Gentoo, or another "minimal" distribution. You'll find the Linux to be just as fast as FreeBSD. Fatter distros (who like to refer to themselves as "big boned") are another story.
Also, a number of Philip K. Dick's books addressed the power of the drug war to instantly criminalize somebody, a power which oculd be used selectively against dissenters and political troublemakers.
Interesting in that both Clinton's and Bush's opponents tried to make political hay out of their prior drug uses.
I'm guessing that this SCOTUS ruling is completely irrelevant to you hatred of the US. There are, of course, no perfect states of governance anywhere in the world, but don't let that stop you from making the US a special target of your frustration.
Cast scorn upon the SCOTUS, by all means! They deserve it for this ruling! But don't go overboard and use this as an excuse to heap all the world's evils upon the US.
If the police overstep their bounds on this, you can sue them afterwards. Just like if they committed a search of your home because they invented a probable cause after the fact.
And IRS field agents. Yes, IRS agents are also peace officers by law, and entitled to carry and use a firearm in the performance of their job. I am not aware that any actually do, but I do recall when that law was passed a few years ago.
This was SCOTUS, not POTUS. I realize that this is Slashdot, and our membership here requires us to rag on the POTUS at every opportunity, but you could just put that in your sig instead of having to twist the ending of your post to get it in.
The biggest problem, I believe, with Star Trek is that they've tended to let the show ride on random events rather than running plots. The times when they have gone to more of a story arc they have made the shows far more worthwhile.
I will have to disagree. While there is merit in long term story arcs, they can be very painful for those unable to view every episode. I started watching B5 but was unable to watch every episode. So every time I came back I ended up being lost. I always hated those "when did Delenn get hair" moments. Only the release of all the episodes on DVD saved it for me.
While you certainly don't want to keep your characters static and unchanging, asking an audience to tune in religiously once a week for the next five years just to keep up with the plot, is asking a heck of a lot.
It's even more broad that that. The QPL does not specify OSI-approved licenses only, it only specifies that the source code be available with rights to modify and redistribute. Pine and povray might possibly qualify. Old BSD licenses with advert clauses most certainly do. qmail and djbdns probably not.
the GPL largely does not enforce issues between the kernel and userspace apps, and Linus has taken an interpretation that the GPL is not forced upon kernel modules
What justifies this kernel/userspace boundary exception? Or the slightly more common process boundary exception? This isn't specified in copyright law. It isn't specified in the GPL. It's an arbitrary distinction. In fact it is so arbitrary that Linus included an explicit exception to the GPL because a great number of developers believed otherwise. Without it Linux may have never achieved commercial acceptability.
Unfortunately that explanation of the QPL is severly flawed.
1) The problem with a pure-QPL Qt was that it was not considered GPL compatible. The explanation missed this point, and it was the sole reason Debian and Redhat had conniption fits over KDE.
2) The explanation says that the QPL allows changing the license on later releases. While this is true, it's also true for the GPL. Neither can be changed retroactively, but authors may always change their licensings for new releases.
I'm wondering why CPS (commercial proprietary software) always reinvents the wheel. I walk into a store and I see six shrink-wrapped titles for anti-virus software. I see a dozen shrink-wrapped titles for anti-spyware. And there's at least a handful of shrink-wrapped titles for firewalls.
Unfortunately, most generic names are already trademarked. Since Free Software developers do not have the resources to do a trademark search, it's safest to pick a "unique" name. Consider the grief that came about with "KIllustrator".
I'm wondering if you also argue that Mac OSX is woefully unsuitable for newbies because they used the name "Safari" for their web browser...
I would have to blame Mandrake for your slow down. On a system at work I had a dual boot Win2k and FreeBSD/KDE. Doing am informal test of the two, the FreeBSD/KDE boot was much faster, and most application launches were much faster as well.
When people talk about Unix lineages and relationships, they RARELY mean direct genetic derivation. There was a lot of genetic derivation going on, but people just weren't interested in it.
I am not a Republican, but I have seen far more of them support traditional civil liberties than Democrats. For every Hatch (R for RIAA) you have a Hollings (D for Disney). Every Republican who believes in smaller government should be in favor or reducing the scope of copyright law. Many notable Republicans are already there, such as Steve Forbes and Phyllis Schafly.
I don't care about the V-Chip so much as I cared about the Clipper chip that Clinton tried to ram down the public's throat back when hardly anyone was aware of the issue. Had he gotten that through none of the current debate over online freedoms would even matter.
I have looked at the voting records of both sides, and not merely listened to the predigested pap the media serves up. The voting record shows that the majority of BOTH Democrats and Republicans are self serving power hungry idiots, but that BOTH parties still have a few exceptions.
When a new technology allows you to do something better USE IT.
Just as long as you don't believe it's going to give you significant productivity advantages. Because it's not. That was Brook's other famous work, "No Silver Bullet." He said that all the huge breakthroughs in software productivity had happened during the first twenty years, and that all that was left were incremental improvements. He wrote it because at the time there were bunches of people touted various nostrums to double your productivity.
A few years ago he revisited NSB, and discovered that he was still correct. In ten years we had seen any one technology or process that doubled productivity. OO didn't do it. RAD didn't do it. 4GL didn't do it. But there were still people promoting "get productive quick" solutions. Just like today...
I have read this book. But that means absolutely nothing, because the upper management of my company has not read it. We're making every mistake Brooks wrote about in MMM. We're even making mistakes written about in NSB.
We're making mistakes Brooks never dreamed of, because Brooks didn't write in a time of offshoring development. We have a CEO who truly believes that two inexperienced developers twelve time zones away are more productive than one experienced developer in house.
Maybe I've been living in a cave for the last decade, and maybe my intelligence has been permanently damaged because I use C, but would someone please explain to me why everyone is getting erections over Mozilla as a platform? Why the circle jerk?
Mozilla may be crossplatform and allows distributed applications, but so does Java, and in the more than a decade it's been around, it still hasn't destroyed Microsoft like it promised. Why can Mozilla success where Java hasn't? And why must I use Mozilla when Java is going to give me the exact same benefits plus a hundred more?
I'm not confusing it with tcl, but perhaps I'm not remembering it right. I seem to recall that you could do anything in Lisp with just strings and lists of strings. No need for any other data type.
Slashdot Mirror
re-use of old 8080 PCs with Linux
I'll believe it when I see it...
Well, it is the USA that constantly glorifies itself as the "Beacon of the Free World" and "Bastion of Freedom".
And it seems to me that most EU nations have similar mantles they wrap around themselves. No nation is perfect, no nation is holy. But talk to a European and they damned well make it sound like their country is. You don't have to look far in this very thread to see an example.
It is this double standard that disgusts me. The US has become the universal devil for everyone to use in their ad hominem attacks. Want to argue against a proposed EU policy? Simply remark on its similarities to an existing US law. Want to argue against a political candidate? Simply accuse him or her of having dinner with Bush.
Americans used to do something similar with regards to the USSR. It was called "red baiting". It was as wrong then as "US baiting" is now. But at least we had the excuse of having a genuine totalitarian regime as our foil.
What the difference with "probably cause"? Couldn't a "psudo-corporate" entity pay the police to raid your home for intimidation purposes? Wouldn't it be equally difficult to sue them from your jail cell?
I would have to disagree with you. While FreeBSD does seem, in my opinion, to be slightly faster than Linux, this cannot account for the poor performance the prior poster was complaining about.
Go try out Slackware, Gentoo, or another "minimal" distribution. You'll find the Linux to be just as fast as FreeBSD. Fatter distros (who like to refer to themselves as "big boned") are another story.
Also, a number of Philip K. Dick's books addressed the power of the drug war to instantly criminalize somebody, a power which oculd be used selectively against dissenters and political troublemakers.
Interesting in that both Clinton's and Bush's opponents tried to make political hay out of their prior drug uses.
I would mod you up, but Slashdot has never once seen fit to give me any points to do so.
I'm guessing that this SCOTUS ruling is completely irrelevant to you hatred of the US. There are, of course, no perfect states of governance anywhere in the world, but don't let that stop you from making the US a special target of your frustration.
Cast scorn upon the SCOTUS, by all means! They deserve it for this ruling! But don't go overboard and use this as an excuse to heap all the world's evils upon the US.
If the police overstep their bounds on this, you can sue them afterwards. Just like if they committed a search of your home because they invented a probable cause after the fact.
And IRS field agents. Yes, IRS agents are also peace officers by law, and entitled to carry and use a firearm in the performance of their job. I am not aware that any actually do, but I do recall when that law was passed a few years ago.
This was SCOTUS, not POTUS. I realize that this is Slashdot, and our membership here requires us to rag on the POTUS at every opportunity, but you could just put that in your sig instead of having to twist the ending of your post to get it in.
The biggest problem, I believe, with Star Trek is that they've tended to let the show ride on random events rather than running plots. The times when they have gone to more of a story arc they have made the shows far more worthwhile.
I will have to disagree. While there is merit in long term story arcs, they can be very painful for those unable to view every episode. I started watching B5 but was unable to watch every episode. So every time I came back I ended up being lost. I always hated those "when did Delenn get hair" moments. Only the release of all the episodes on DVD saved it for me.
While you certainly don't want to keep your characters static and unchanging, asking an audience to tune in religiously once a week for the next five years just to keep up with the plot, is asking a heck of a lot.
It's even more broad that that. The QPL does not specify OSI-approved licenses only, it only specifies that the source code be available with rights to modify and redistribute. Pine and povray might possibly qualify. Old BSD licenses with advert clauses most certainly do. qmail and djbdns probably not.
the GPL largely does not enforce issues between the kernel and userspace apps, and Linus has taken an interpretation that the GPL is not forced upon kernel modules
What justifies this kernel/userspace boundary exception? Or the slightly more common process boundary exception? This isn't specified in copyright law. It isn't specified in the GPL. It's an arbitrary distinction. In fact it is so arbitrary that Linus included an explicit exception to the GPL because a great number of developers believed otherwise. Without it Linux may have never achieved commercial acceptability.
Unfortunately that explanation of the QPL is severly flawed.
1) The problem with a pure-QPL Qt was that it was not considered GPL compatible. The explanation missed this point, and it was the sole reason Debian and Redhat had conniption fits over KDE.
2) The explanation says that the QPL allows changing the license on later releases. While this is true, it's also true for the GPL. Neither can be changed retroactively, but authors may always change their licensings for new releases.
I'm wondering why CPS (commercial proprietary software) always reinvents the wheel. I walk into a store and I see six shrink-wrapped titles for anti-virus software. I see a dozen shrink-wrapped titles for anti-spyware. And there's at least a handful of shrink-wrapped titles for firewalls.
Why? Why? Why?
Unfortunately, most generic names are already trademarked. Since Free Software developers do not have the resources to do a trademark search, it's safest to pick a "unique" name. Consider the grief that came about with "KIllustrator".
I'm wondering if you also argue that Mac OSX is woefully unsuitable for newbies because they used the name "Safari" for their web browser...
I would have to blame Mandrake for your slow down. On a system at work I had a dual boot Win2k and FreeBSD/KDE. Doing am informal test of the two, the FreeBSD/KDE boot was much faster, and most application launches were much faster as well.
When people talk about Unix lineages and relationships, they RARELY mean direct genetic derivation. There was a lot of genetic derivation going on, but people just weren't interested in it.
once you use GNU/Linux, you don't *want* to use other stuff
Wow, talk about customer lock-in! I guess that addiction didn't take hold for me, because I moved from Linux to FreeBSD...
So both parties are equally at fault for this bill.
We know this! We're only arguing against the original poster who was laying all of the world's evils at the feet of the Republicans.
Oh puh-leaze!!
I am not a Republican, but I have seen far more of them support traditional civil liberties than Democrats. For every Hatch (R for RIAA) you have a Hollings (D for Disney). Every Republican who believes in smaller government should be in favor or reducing the scope of copyright law. Many notable Republicans are already there, such as Steve Forbes and Phyllis Schafly.
I don't care about the V-Chip so much as I cared about the Clipper chip that Clinton tried to ram down the public's throat back when hardly anyone was aware of the issue. Had he gotten that through none of the current debate over online freedoms would even matter.
I have looked at the voting records of both sides, and not merely listened to the predigested pap the media serves up. The voting record shows that the majority of BOTH Democrats and Republicans are self serving power hungry idiots, but that BOTH parties still have a few exceptions.
When a new technology allows you to do something better USE IT.
Just as long as you don't believe it's going to give you significant productivity advantages. Because it's not. That was Brook's other famous work, "No Silver Bullet." He said that all the huge breakthroughs in software productivity had happened during the first twenty years, and that all that was left were incremental improvements. He wrote it because at the time there were bunches of people touted various nostrums to double your productivity.
A few years ago he revisited NSB, and discovered that he was still correct. In ten years we had seen any one technology or process that doubled productivity. OO didn't do it. RAD didn't do it. 4GL didn't do it. But there were still people promoting "get productive quick" solutions. Just like today...
If you haven't read it, go read it.
I have read this book. But that means absolutely nothing, because the upper management of my company has not read it. We're making every mistake Brooks wrote about in MMM. We're even making mistakes written about in NSB.
We're making mistakes Brooks never dreamed of, because Brooks didn't write in a time of offshoring development. We have a CEO who truly believes that two inexperienced developers twelve time zones away are more productive than one experienced developer in house.
Maybe I've been living in a cave for the last decade, and maybe my intelligence has been permanently damaged because I use C, but would someone please explain to me why everyone is getting erections over Mozilla as a platform? Why the circle jerk?
Mozilla may be crossplatform and allows distributed applications, but so does Java, and in the more than a decade it's been around, it still hasn't destroyed Microsoft like it promised. Why can Mozilla success where Java hasn't? And why must I use Mozilla when Java is going to give me the exact same benefits plus a hundred more?
I'm not confusing it with tcl, but perhaps I'm not remembering it right. I seem to recall that you could do anything in Lisp with just strings and lists of strings. No need for any other data type.