If we're going to get political about it, how about KDE's reliance on Trolltech's, a member of the Canopy Group alongside SCO?
The parent post is a troll and should be modded into oblivion!
Here at Trolltech we take our independence very very seriously and I can assure you that the Canopy Group has no control or influence over us of any kind. In fact we are not controlled by anyone outside of our own board of directors.
On behalf of Trolltech, I can confirm that Canopy has NO control or influence over our company or the future of QT. Glad I could provide this reassurance.
New open letter idea: explain how you CAN lose your free code even if you don't incorporate any SCO code into it, as long as SCO keeps saying you have.
Expect 20 more years to move them to a wearable computer with HUD and voice recognition (by then it will be standard. You can have it even now if you want to.)
Even handwriting recognition isn't as bad as voice command. Especially for a wearable, you want something unobtrusive, not to be blurting out commands like "I want to ask how this guy's family are, look up the names of his wife and kids" or "remind me what this meeting's about before I make myself look even more stupid". Wearables should mean instant unobtrusive access to data, not having to chatter away with your compuer in the middle of a conversation with others.
I don't know what the best way of communicating with a wearable will be, but they're going to have to come up with comething better than voice recognition. I agree though that tablet PCs, at least as presently designed, are a dead end.
WRONG. People looking for a laptop are often looking for something useful. People looking for a tablet are generally looking for something gimicky. Buying a gimicky tablet and then never using it - or using it and people seeing just how poor a laptop substitute you parted with money for - becomes embarrasing. If you buy an all in one then you can show off the tablet side (hey, cool toy!) but still actually use the laptop (quicker, easier, practical).
If the average speed on the highway is above the "legal" limit, you don't think the law ought to change?
How many times do I have to say this? Yes, if the speed limits are wrong then they should be changed. That might mean increasing them or decreasing them. Feel free to argue either way about particular speed limits or speed limits in general if you like.
However, that is completely different from suggesting that they shouldn't be enforced.
1. Get the speed limits right, if they're not right at present.
2. ENFORCE THEM.
Arguing that there's something wrong with the police enforcing the speed limits if what you mean is that the appropriate authorities have got the speed limits wrong is stupid and does nothing to address the genuine issues.
The police and courts should have the power to enforce speed limits. The police and courts should have the means to enforce speed limits. The police and courts should in fact enforce the speed limits. And YES, the speed limits should be set at appropriate levels.
I think it's worth checking out the Trolltech quotes near the bottom of this article as well:
Other panelists, including representatives from Trolltech, SuSE Linux, and MySQL's CEO, Marten Mickos, commented on the SCO legal claims.
Eireik Chambe-Eng of Trolltech, said: "The SCO case is like a speed bump in the history of Linux and something which will strengthen Linux. It brings focus on IP and I think that's a good thing. SCO has a very bad case, it doesn't seem like they have a case at all. It's difficult to understand why they'd be playing the way they're playing if they had a good case".
It's unlikely that the judge will ever look there anyway. Like a lot of the stuff in this supposed Memorandum of Law, the footnote on the history of the term "FUD" is not a matter of law and appears to have no relevance to the decision the judge is being asked to make. I doubt he'll spend any time on it.
In fact, if the average vehicle was moving at 45 MPH, it would be safer to travel above the speed limit. It's quite common for drivers to go 5-10 MPH over, especially when travelling downhill. You risk get rear-ended if you slow down too much on the hill.
So, you're conceding that people driving over the speed limit are making the roads dangerous for people who are abiding by the law and driving within the speed limit, correct?
And your conclusion from this is not that this dangerous practice needs to be corrected but rather that because people unlawfully speeding are making the roads dangerous for those that stay within the speed limit that therefore there isn't a problem?
I think Slashdot desperately needs a +0, bizarre rating for those of us that want to be able to seek out gems like the above.
Actually speeding can't. being hit by a car can be fatal, but the mere act of speeding is harmless.
True, and shooting into a crowd can't be fatal, the bullets hitting someone can but the mere act of shooting is harmless. What a good point you make. You must have been really proud of that one.
Of course being hit by a car at 1mph under the limit can be just as fatal as being hit by a car at 1mph over the speed limit, depending on envirnmental, car and driver conditions
Yeah, and you can drown in an inch of water.
In fact, just breathing in the atmosphere can be just as fatal, depening on environmental coniditions.
I think it's safe to say with this level of argument that you're not even remotely interested in thinking about the issues or providing reasoned responses.
When you get a ticket going 70km/h in a 60km/h zone at the bottom of a fucking hill, you'll question it too.
If you're saying that you can't keep proper control over your car while going down hill then the fact that you're speeding is even more worrying than ever.
I don't care whether it's a defect in your car or a lack of ability on your part, if you're incapable of even keeping your car below 60 miles per hour then stopping in an emergency situation must be completely out of the question.
If hills cause you problem, then start braking earlier.
How serious? Enough to get the cop sacked? Or enough to get the whole scheme overturned?
Obviously it would depend on the scope of the problem. If we're talking about evidence of wide spread corruption then obviously the whole scheme that appears to be encouraging that corruption would need to be looked at. Whether that means more safeguards or scrapping the whole thing again depends on what the actual evidence is showing.
Corruption of the sort you're suggesting (but so far not supporting) is more serious than speeding (and I say that in full recognition of the fact that speeding can be fatal to third parties).
I think your theory that speed limits should be infinite because some combination of vehicle and driver might be able to cope with that regardless of the road is insane, but if you really think so then by all means argue for lifting speed limits completely. That is completely different in any event to arguing that black boxes should not be used to determine the facts of a particular case.
If, however, you're just saying that that maximum limit is higher than is often mandated right now then how about READING THE POST YOU WERE REPLYING TO and noting that I said the particular speed limit might be too high or too low and that setting the limit right and enforcing it is the solution.
1. Work out what the speed limit should be (or decide that it should be totally unrestricted).
2. If you set a limit then enforce it. Setting a limit and not enforcing it is pointless.
IF there was evidence that the police were accusing people of speeding when they weren't, so as to collect extra revenues, then that would be a VERY serious matter and you'd have an excellent point. So far, however, you seem to be saying that the police are in fact being incentivised to enforce the law and ticket people who are actually speeding. What could possibly be wrong with that?
And yes, "because everyone is doing it" is a perfectly good excuse for speeding, because if I drive the speed limit than I am going slow enough compared to the regular traffic that I am a HAZARD.
So better enforcement would solve this problem for everyone.
Getting the speed limit right (which might be higher or lower in particular cases) and then enforcing it properly is the best way forwards. IF these boxes, or later developments to them, make the enforcement side of that easier then so much the better.
1) Driver kills or seriously injurs someone, and claims innocence - the box will tell the truth, and if they're guilty of the crime, they SHOULD be found out and punished.
2) The driver is dead, in which case the box will tell his story for him - and tell it accurately.
Hey, technology being used for a useful purpose. Does that answer your "so what"? Slashdot does still feature this stuff occasionally.
This thing won't be used for your common speeding violation... it's been in cars for a long while, it serves it's purpose, and there's no reason to be up in arms over it.
Who's up in arms over it? The most controversial thing I've seen in this discussion is you saying it won't be used in speeding cases in general. If that's due to limits in technology (I gather it doesn't record for long) then that isn't an issue either. If it could be used in common speeding cases and isn't then I'd like to know why not.
Dangerous-driving conviction? And that's bad exactly how?
Nobody in the Slashdot write up, in the linked article OR in the preceeding comments at the time of posting suggested that they objected to this conviction. Your question, modded as "insightful" is just weird.
Next time there's a story about the 2.6 kernel or something I'll post "2.6 kernel? And that's bad exactly how?" for some free karma.
Therefore, it's the duty of every patriotic citizen to help economy by avoiding "free" stuff.
Indeed! I'm glad you brought this up, because the REAL damage to the economy is being done by people using supposedly "free" air instead of buying proprietary Canopy canned air. I thikn a lot of people have no idea how many jobs are being lost over this.
But it's even worse than you may imagine. When people do use our proprietary canned air, some of it can leak into the atmosphere and mix with so-called-free air. That's right, the atmosphere of the entire planet is a derivative of our product, and people are not paying licenses to use it.
If you ever breathe then please respect our IP rights and pay our one time $699 license fee and we promise to almost definitely not bring any legal action over this against you in the future.
I ask you, do providers of "free" air indemnify you against this sort of action?
Flamebate or not, that's about the most retarded undestanding of american politics i've ever seen.
That it consists of two main teams trying to win points whilst being mindlessly cheered on by their own supporters? Looked like he understood it pretty well to me.
Unfortunately, most jokes (no matter how lame) get modded up to 5. If a post is modded "Funny," it should be that: funny. If it somehow managed to garner enough postive moddage to get to "5, Funny," I expect it to be laugh-out-loud funny.
That's all very well in theory, but in practice the only way of marking a post so that people who can't cope with humour/attempted humour won't reply to it seriously is by modding it funny. Yes, that's absurd, but it's true. Maybe they're just trolls, but the number of people who apparently can't see obvious, lame, attempts at humour around here is scary. The modding system is currently the only defence.
Slashdot Mirror
If we're going to get political about it, how about KDE's reliance on Trolltech's, a member of the Canopy Group alongside SCO?
The parent post is a troll and should be modded into oblivion!
Here at Trolltech we take our independence very very seriously and I can assure you that the Canopy Group has no control or influence over us of any kind. In fact we are not controlled by anyone outside of our own board of directors.
I hope that has helped to reasure everyone.
Regards
Director Ralphie
On behalf of Trolltech, I can confirm that Canopy has NO control or influence over our company or the future of QT. Glad I could provide this reassurance.
Director Ralphie.
Remember that it was written by an OSS hippy, not a lawyer.
I've never heard Eben Moglen called a hippy before, interesting perspective you have there, but I'm afraid he's definitely a lawyer.
New open letter idea: explain how you CAN lose your free code even if you don't incorporate any SCO code into it, as long as SCO keeps saying you have.
My vouchers go to whoever will pay me the largest percentage of the value back. Start bidding please.
Expect 20 more years to move them to a wearable computer with HUD and voice recognition (by then it will be standard. You can have it even now if you want to.)
Even handwriting recognition isn't as bad as voice command. Especially for a wearable, you want something unobtrusive, not to be blurting out commands like "I want to ask how this guy's family are, look up the names of his wife and kids" or "remind me what this meeting's about before I make myself look even more stupid". Wearables should mean instant unobtrusive access to data, not having to chatter away with your compuer in the middle of a conversation with others.
I don't know what the best way of communicating with a wearable will be, but they're going to have to come up with comething better than voice recognition. I agree though that tablet PCs, at least as presently designed, are a dead end.
Windows Tablet PC == Bad
Linux Tablet PC == Good
Close.
Windows Tablet PC == Okay, so maybe it is a cool toy but HA, apart from the gimmick value what's the point?
Linux Tablet PC == Okay, maybe it doesn't have much going for it beyond gimmick value but WOW, what a cool toy!
The difference in emphasis is a little more subtle than Good vs. Bad.
WRONG. People looking for a laptop are often looking for something useful. People looking for a tablet are generally looking for something gimicky. Buying a gimicky tablet and then never using it - or using it and people seeing just how poor a laptop substitute you parted with money for - becomes embarrasing. If you buy an all in one then you can show off the tablet side (hey, cool toy!) but still actually use the laptop (quicker, easier, practical).
Honestly, I think even my explanation was more convincing than that, and that's saying something.
If the average speed on the highway is above the "legal" limit, you don't think the law ought to change?
How many times do I have to say this? Yes, if the speed limits are wrong then they should be changed. That might mean increasing them or decreasing them. Feel free to argue either way about particular speed limits or speed limits in general if you like.
However, that is completely different from suggesting that they shouldn't be enforced.
1. Get the speed limits right, if they're not right at present.
2. ENFORCE THEM.
Arguing that there's something wrong with the police enforcing the speed limits if what you mean is that the appropriate authorities have got the speed limits wrong is stupid and does nothing to address the genuine issues.
The police and courts should have the power to enforce speed limits. The police and courts should have the means to enforce speed limits. The police and courts should in fact enforce the speed limits. And YES, the speed limits should be set at appropriate levels.
Anything you don't understand?
It's unlikely that the judge will ever look there anyway. Like a lot of the stuff in this supposed Memorandum of Law, the footnote on the history of the term "FUD" is not a matter of law and appears to have no relevance to the decision the judge is being asked to make. I doubt he'll spend any time on it.
In fact, if the average vehicle was moving at 45 MPH, it would be safer to travel above the speed limit. It's quite common for drivers to go 5-10 MPH over, especially when travelling downhill. You risk get rear-ended if you slow down too much on the hill.
So, you're conceding that people driving over the speed limit are making the roads dangerous for people who are abiding by the law and driving within the speed limit, correct?
And your conclusion from this is not that this dangerous practice needs to be corrected but rather that because people unlawfully speeding are making the roads dangerous for those that stay within the speed limit that therefore there isn't a problem?
I think Slashdot desperately needs a +0, bizarre rating for those of us that want to be able to seek out gems like the above.
Actually speeding can't. being hit by a car can be fatal, but the mere act of speeding is harmless.
True, and shooting into a crowd can't be fatal, the bullets hitting someone can but the mere act of shooting is harmless. What a good point you make. You must have been really proud of that one.
Of course being hit by a car at 1mph under the limit can be just as fatal as being hit by a car at 1mph over the speed limit, depending on envirnmental, car and driver conditions
Yeah, and you can drown in an inch of water.
In fact, just breathing in the atmosphere can be just as fatal, depening on environmental coniditions.
I think it's safe to say with this level of argument that you're not even remotely interested in thinking about the issues or providing reasoned responses.
When you get a ticket going 70km/h in a 60km/h zone at the bottom of a fucking hill, you'll question it too.
If you're saying that you can't keep proper control over your car while going down hill then the fact that you're speeding is even more worrying than ever.
I don't care whether it's a defect in your car or a lack of ability on your part, if you're incapable of even keeping your car below 60 miles per hour then stopping in an emergency situation must be completely out of the question.
If hills cause you problem, then start braking earlier.
How serious? Enough to get the cop sacked? Or enough to get the whole scheme overturned?
Obviously it would depend on the scope of the problem. If we're talking about evidence of wide spread corruption then obviously the whole scheme that appears to be encouraging that corruption would need to be looked at. Whether that means more safeguards or scrapping the whole thing again depends on what the actual evidence is showing.
Corruption of the sort you're suggesting (but so far not supporting) is more serious than speeding (and I say that in full recognition of the fact that speeding can be fatal to third parties).
I think your theory that speed limits should be infinite because some combination of vehicle and driver might be able to cope with that regardless of the road is insane, but if you really think so then by all means argue for lifting speed limits completely. That is completely different in any event to arguing that black boxes should not be used to determine the facts of a particular case.
If, however, you're just saying that that maximum limit is higher than is often mandated right now then how about READING THE POST YOU WERE REPLYING TO and noting that I said the particular speed limit might be too high or too low and that setting the limit right and enforcing it is the solution.
1. Work out what the speed limit should be (or decide that it should be totally unrestricted).
2. If you set a limit then enforce it. Setting a limit and not enforcing it is pointless.
Not hard to understand.
IF there was evidence that the police were accusing people of speeding when they weren't, so as to collect extra revenues, then that would be a VERY serious matter and you'd have an excellent point. So far, however, you seem to be saying that the police are in fact being incentivised to enforce the law and ticket people who are actually speeding. What could possibly be wrong with that?
And yes, "because everyone is doing it" is a perfectly good excuse for speeding, because if I drive the speed limit than I am going slow enough compared to the regular traffic that I am a HAZARD.
So better enforcement would solve this problem for everyone.
Getting the speed limit right (which might be higher or lower in particular cases) and then enforcing it properly is the best way forwards. IF these boxes, or later developments to them, make the enforcement side of that easier then so much the better.
1) Driver kills or seriously injurs someone, and claims innocence - the box will tell the truth, and if they're guilty of the crime, they SHOULD be found out and punished.
2) The driver is dead, in which case the box will tell his story for him - and tell it accurately.
Hey, technology being used for a useful purpose. Does that answer your "so what"? Slashdot does still feature this stuff occasionally.
This thing won't be used for your common speeding violation... it's been in cars for a long while, it serves it's purpose, and there's no reason to be up in arms over it.
Who's up in arms over it? The most controversial thing I've seen in this discussion is you saying it won't be used in speeding cases in general. If that's due to limits in technology (I gather it doesn't record for long) then that isn't an issue either. If it could be used in common speeding cases and isn't then I'd like to know why not.
Dangerous-driving conviction? And that's bad exactly how?
Nobody in the Slashdot write up, in the linked article OR in the preceeding comments at the time of posting suggested that they objected to this conviction. Your question, modded as "insightful" is just weird.
Next time there's a story about the 2.6 kernel or something I'll post "2.6 kernel? And that's bad exactly how?" for some free karma.
Therefore, it's the duty of every patriotic citizen to help economy by avoiding "free" stuff.
Indeed! I'm glad you brought this up, because the REAL damage to the economy is being done by people using supposedly "free" air instead of buying proprietary Canopy canned air. I thikn a lot of people have no idea how many jobs are being lost over this.
But it's even worse than you may imagine. When people do use our proprietary canned air, some of it can leak into the atmosphere and mix with so-called-free air. That's right, the atmosphere of the entire planet is a derivative of our product, and people are not paying licenses to use it.
If you ever breathe then please respect our IP rights and pay our one time $699 license fee and we promise to almost definitely not bring any legal action over this against you in the future.
I ask you, do providers of "free" air indemnify you against this sort of action?
Flamebate or not, that's about the most retarded undestanding of american politics i've ever seen.
That it consists of two main teams trying to win points whilst being mindlessly cheered on by their own supporters? Looked like he understood it pretty well to me.
If you don't like the humor, or how much it gets modded, then set the bonus for funny to -2 or -3.
Is there a similar fix for people who reply to the wrong post or am I just going to have to live with that one?
Unfortunately, most jokes (no matter how lame) get modded up to 5. If a post is modded "Funny," it should be that: funny. If it somehow managed to garner enough postive moddage to get to "5, Funny," I expect it to be laugh-out-loud funny.
That's all very well in theory, but in practice the only way of marking a post so that people who can't cope with humour/attempted humour won't reply to it seriously is by modding it funny. Yes, that's absurd, but it's true. Maybe they're just trolls, but the number of people who apparently can't see obvious, lame, attempts at humour around here is scary. The modding system is currently the only defence.