I never submitted the Groklaw story to Slashdot; you're missing the point. The point is that the editors of Slashdot should know by now that any story submission involving SCO is (or shall be) covered in great detail on Groklaw. Adding a link to better coverage of the story at hand is trivial and makes the discussion better (since the Slashdotters are better informed). The Slashdot editors should try it sometime...
it's hard to find a collection of tools under linux that, when cobbled together, resemble the kinds of functionality that $joe_luser is used to right out of the box with windows, for example.
You haven't tried Ubuntu lately, obviously. Its damn near competitive with OS X.
Who cares if our desktops have shiny buttons, 3d rotating icons, transparency, fading, animated window movements, and all of that? How does that improve your experience with your desktop?
I think the point is that making things "pretty" does matter to alot of people (not you obviously). But the real point is that to be competitive in 2006+, your desktop has to be both pretty and functional. That implies usability, consistency, good integration, etc, etc, etc.
Of course, "pretty but unusable" won't work either. It needs to be both functional and attractive. Rather than bling for bling's sake, let's use artistic effects to make the desktop BETTER, and obviously better.
I don't hate Gentoo, but then I'm not a fanboy either (and I'm not suggesting that you are!). The first rule of computing is/should be "do no harm", and emerge --sync broke that rule in this case. Deleting a configuration file that is in use is never a good idea IMHO. And it wasn't a matter of me noticing a warning message; I do sync's as a cron job (which are suppose to be harmless in the first place).
Oddly I know of quite a few people who are planning on dumping Gentoo and switching to Ubuntu. The main reason is the pain of switching "profiles", which is not really supported in Gentoo and can be considered the same as a dist upgrade. The recent modular X headache is another reason, especially when it forces a profile switch to avoid a broken system.
That is exactly the boat that I'm sitting in, and yet the Gentoo developers are keen to perpetuate the myth that there is no equivalent to a dist upgrade in Gentoo. The last straw was when after doing an:
# emerge --sync
my profile completely disappeared an portage was left broken. Forced upgrades don't exactly jive with the 'ultimate in customization' philosophy; a warning and an option would have been nice... The quality of the ebuilds haven't exactly been improving lately either (and yes I file bug reports ad nauseum).
Your text config files are still there (in/etc for example) with Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn't 'force' you to use the gui.
Re:"Age of Electronic voting?
on
Brave New Ballot
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Of course, I wouldn't be satisfied by anything but publishing the voters' choices. Not by name -- give them an anonymous unique voter ID so that they look at the database, they can say "ah, they got mine right".
And then, as you leave the polling place, a big guy mugs you, copies down your 'anonymous' voter ID along with your name (or just steals the voter ID and your ID), and delivers it to his boss. Hope you voted for the person they wanted you to... or else! In other words, you've just opened up the voting public to bullying.
The paper can be a roll behind a glass window in the machine, and when removed is put into a lockbox/safe.
A glass window is not needed; I voted (by scantron) for years by personally putting my ballot in the lockbox. The key is that the computer generated, voter verifiable, paper ballot is your legal vote. Any computer count is just a convienance. If you take the ballot home with you, you didn't vote. This hasn't been a issue for the first two-hundred+ years of voting in the US; no need to make it one now.
Manufacturers should be able to go out of business in any method they desire.
GPLv3 arguments notwithstanding, I don't know of any legal requirement for hardware or software manufacturers to let consumers know the nature of the Digital Restrictions Mess they are getting into when they buy a particular product. So, yes they should be able to go out of business in any method they desire, but consumers should be able to help them do so without having to first buy a product from them (the consumer should see a big red DRM sticker on a product and make an informed decision as to whether to buy it or not).
Keep those bug reports rolling in! Eventually you'll run out of steam, and OpenSSL will run out of bugs. Hmmm, do I want a SSL product that has been reviewed by company X, or a SSL product that has been reviewed by companies X, Y, Z, A, B...;)
In general, a magic number is just a number that the developer made up and assigned some special meaning to. But yes, in this context, I believe you are correct.:)
The USA declared independence and is therefore independant of the British legal system. The same goes for Ireland too. do you think the 1801 Union Act still applies there because it predates their constitution?:P
Really? Then how come British common law is the foundation for Roe v. Wade?
You answered your own question:
Section VI of the opinion was devoted to an analysis of historical attitudes...
British common law is quoted in Roe v. Wade just as an analysis of historical opinions not as binding law here in the U.S.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power...
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Re:Patents are not what they are supposed to be.
on
Paul Graham on Patents
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I really don't know what I'm talking about, but this is Slashdot, so i won't let that stop me;)
At least you're honest. The original intent of patents was to advance science. Protecting the inventor (via a time-limited monopoly) was only the means to that end, not the end itself. From FindLaw (speaking of both copyright and patent law):
"Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts."
Slashdot Mirror
I never submitted the Groklaw story to Slashdot; you're missing the point. The point is that the editors of Slashdot should know by now that any story submission involving SCO is (or shall be) covered in great detail on Groklaw. Adding a link to better coverage of the story at hand is trivial and makes the discussion better (since the Slashdotters are better informed). The Slashdot editors should try it sometime...
This was reported a week ago on Groklaw (in much greater detail).
You haven't tried Ubuntu lately, obviously. Its damn near competitive with OS X.
In the US, you can use websites like USElections.com and your state's Secretary of State website to get informed.
I think the point is that making things "pretty" does matter to alot of people (not you obviously). But the real point is that to be competitive in 2006+, your desktop has to be both pretty and functional. That implies usability, consistency, good integration, etc, etc, etc.
From TFB (the fine blog):
I don't hate Gentoo, but then I'm not a fanboy either (and I'm not suggesting that you are!). The first rule of computing is/should be "do no harm", and emerge --sync broke that rule in this case. Deleting a configuration file that is in use is never a good idea IMHO. And it wasn't a matter of me noticing a warning message; I do sync's as a cron job (which are suppose to be harmless in the first place).
That is exactly the boat that I'm sitting in, and yet the Gentoo developers are keen to perpetuate the myth that there is no equivalent to a dist upgrade in Gentoo. The last straw was when after doing an:
my profile completely disappeared an portage was left broken. Forced upgrades don't exactly jive with the 'ultimate in customization' philosophy; a warning and an option would have been nice... The quality of the ebuilds haven't exactly been improving lately either (and yes I file bug reports ad nauseum).
Your text config files are still there (in /etc for example) with Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn't 'force' you to use the gui.
And then, as you leave the polling place, a big guy mugs you, copies down your 'anonymous' voter ID along with your name (or just steals the voter ID and your ID), and delivers it to his boss. Hope you voted for the person they wanted you to... or else! In other words, you've just opened up the voting public to bullying.
The real solution to e-voting can be found at the Open Voting Consortium.
Comcast black listed IEEE accounts as well for a while. Morons.
I'm sure the SPEWies would love to have one: http://www.spsuauv.org/
Actually, a triple-double in basketball is when a player does three different things 10 or more times each in a single game.
A glass window is not needed; I voted (by scantron) for years by personally putting my ballot in the lockbox. The key is that the computer generated, voter verifiable, paper ballot is your legal vote. Any computer count is just a convienance. If you take the ballot home with you, you didn't vote. This hasn't been a issue for the first two-hundred+ years of voting in the US; no need to make it one now.
GPLv3 arguments notwithstanding, I don't know of any legal requirement for hardware or software manufacturers to let consumers know the nature of the Digital Restrictions Mess they are getting into when they buy a particular product. So, yes they should be able to go out of business in any method they desire, but consumers should be able to help them do so without having to first buy a product from them (the consumer should see a big red DRM sticker on a product and make an informed decision as to whether to buy it or not).
He should be in marketing... oh, wait... nevermind.
Keep those bug reports rolling in! Eventually you'll run out of steam, and OpenSSL will run out of bugs. Hmmm, do I want a SSL product that has been reviewed by company X, or a SSL product that has been reviewed by companies X, Y, Z, A, B... ;)
Free Software is about securing freedom; keeping yourself free is a self-interest.
Reverse engineering is perfectly legal.
In general, a magic number is just a number that the developer made up and assigned some special meaning to. But yes, in this context, I believe you are correct. :)
This is great example of why the media sucks; they don't know how to do basic research anymore, and they don't know how to link: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
You answered your own question:
British common law is quoted in Roe v. Wade just as an analysis of historical opinions not as binding law here in the U.S.
If you can understand weasle-ese, the actual law might help to answer your question.
At least you're honest. The original intent of patents was to advance science. Protecting the inventor (via a time-limited monopoly) was only the means to that end, not the end itself. From FindLaw (speaking of both copyright and patent law):