Total garbage. There are laws of physics involved and they won't change just because you wish that they would.
None of the "solutions" in the article, or so far on this discussion would work in practice.
Its possible to make use of some statistical tricks to apparently cram more into the same space, and its possible to take advantage of the piss-poor perception of the average human to inflict sub-standard audio and video on them -- and tell them its all wonderful "because its digital".
But the fact remains that you can't put a gallon into a pint pot, no matter if Stallman says you can or not.
This is one area where there isn't a single good answer.
The registry is useful as a known place to keep information such as what apps. are installed, where they are installed, and where to find something to remove that application.
When it comes to configuration information, that may not be such a wonderful idea. Mainly because the implementation of the registry seems to be inherently non-scalable and somewhat fragile.
Linux does quite well by dumping the config information in various places. Unfortunately, this isn't totally successfull either. There are scaling issues, compatability issues and big issues when trying to manage appication configuration on an enterprise scale.
The real answer is probably to use a defined API to read/write configuration info -- possibly with two kinds, global and individual config. By default, these could write flat files (or XML, or you-name-it) in the user directory, and in some agreed upon common location for global patrameters.
BUT, it should also be possible to replace the backend to the API to, for example, read/write to a Windows registry, or LDAP, or Oracle, or.... Then you choose the backend for the scalability, manageability or simplicity that you desire. the apps know no different - they just use the API.
The parabolic reflector gaves at the focal point a maximum flux of 1000 W/cm2. The experimentations takes place at the focal zone (18 m in front of the paraboloid. The range of available temperature is from 800 to 2500 C (the maximum reachable temperature is 3800 C) for a maximum thermal power of 1000 kW.
This is just one more example of a basic problem with the way government views laws these days.
The problem is that they are not satisfied with laws which define illegal behavior, but insist on progressing beyond that to define lawa to prevent us from even being ABLE to break those laws.
There are perfectly adequate laws on copyright. Now they want to pass laws making it illegal to possess tools which in themselves are harmless but *could* be used to break a law.
This sort of law should probably be very rare. As someone pointed out, based upon this sort of logic ever male should probably be in prison since they possess the equipment necessary to commit rape.
Rather than fighting indicidual pieces of legislation, we should be concentrating our efforts on reforming the creation of "restraining" laws -- which really are probably unconstitutional based upon prior restraint -- but good luck in trying to get one of these before the SCOTUS.
There are TV channels that I avoid because they have (IMHO) just too many adds -- an example being TBS. They will make a 90 minute move last three hours. Worse, they will use adds sparingly during the beginning of a film, then increase the number and frequency as the movie progresses -- presumably thinking that the viewer is "hooked" and can be abused more. Doesn't work with me. I will abandon a movie subject to this sort of abuse, and in many cases, abandon ever watching the channel that does it ever again.
Similarly there are (print) magazines that I refuse to buy, or even look at because its obvious that the articles are viewed just a filler material between the adds. The technique of splitting articles over several pages to expose you to more adds is HIGHLY objectionable. Leads to (me at least) not picking up those magazines again.
Websites are slightly better because you can block (most) of the crap. I don't mind a small amount, I can tune it out. Too much, or those evil adds that obscure the content until you acknowlege them are prime causes of my blacklisting sites and never visiting again.
I do acknowlege that adds finance free content, and will accept reasonable quantities (in all media), but most often, too many media outlets see adds as their primary reason for existence and the content that we all want as unwanted, but for some reason, unavoidable.
The simplest soultion to the problem of pseudo-companies collecting patents is to simply make patents non-transferable.
Patents are intended to benefit the inventor allowing him to get a return on his investment with his invention. This should mean exploit the investment, not sell it -- the second its sold, the patent expires.
The Internet was designed to be resiliant to malfunctions and automatically take appropriate action to ensure connectivity.
Unfortunately, that is not the Internet that we have today. In the original Internet, every router knew about every network connected to the Internet. Most networks had connectivity to many other networks. Discovery protocols allowed alternative routes to be discovered if one failed.
Today, we don't have a (mostly) fully connected net, we have ISPs who don't know anything about networks which they don't "own", only that certain IP prefixes need to be passed to ISP x, y or z.
This makes the infrastructure much more fragile than it was originally intended to be. We ended up with this for a few reasons. First, the wimpy routers in use at the time had limited memory available to hold the network maps. The answer chosen was to no longer attempt to hold a full world view, but to divide the world into regions, certain IP prefixes would "belong" to those regions, and all any router would need to know about was networks in its region, plus how to route traffic to other regions, who would take care of routing within the region. This led to "backbone" connections - high capacity links needed because all traffic between regions now didn't "diffuse" through the network, but was channeled into specific connections. It also set the scene to allow the net to be commercialised, those regional centers were obvious "choke points" that an enterprising company could own and pretty much dictate the pricing to lower level enterprises who would do the dirty work of dealing with end-users.
Slowly but sureley the Internet evolved into a system dependent upon a few companies with high-speed links between them - prime candidates BTW, as locations for government control to be imposed. The self-healing nature of the original Internet was lost because all traffic HAS to pass via the top level companies infrastructure and over their interconnect backbone connections.
We're becoming specialists. The old geezer knows how tech works and the kids don't? Ask an even older geezer who knows how several different areas of tech work. Do you know how to make gunpowder
yes
or rubber
yes
, how to build an elecric generator,
yes
and how the telephone works too?
yes
What about how to saddle a horse?
yes
Every next generation is more specialized than the previous one, and for every previous generation the things they don't know "are just there" and things they do know are "basic education".
What was your point again?
And how old are you? One of those young whippersnappers maybe?:-)
There is a problem when the technology that a civilization is built upon is beyond the comprehension of most of its users, and more importantly, those charged with its maintenance.
Going back a long way, I remember the days when people understood how the technologies they supported worked.
In a previous life I spent some time working for a company that did TV rentals, and being a lowly apprencice was forced to go out repairing broken TVs when the real TV engineers were home celebrating Christmas, or sitting on a beach sunning themselves. In the very early days these TVs used tubes, and were built on a chassis - so when it went wrong, you had to know how to repair it, which meant understanding the principles it operated on, and the practical implementation. As time progressed TVs moved to having replacable printed circuit boards, one dedicated to a particular function. The generation of field TV techs that grew up with (as a gross exageration) these knew no more than to identify which functional area was giving trouble and how to swap the board - the older guys who knew how this stuff worked repaired the boards back at the workshop. From there, it moved to transistorised and then IC based TVs, and the techs (even thouse in the workshop) knew less and less and just swapped boards, and threw the old ones away because it cost more to fix them than to buy new replacements.
I see similar things happening with cars. The days of the auto mechanic understanding how things work, and being able to fix it when it goes wrong are long gone - they swap parts, and when it comes to the modern electronics, they are told which part to swap by diagnostic equipment, that they understand as far as knowing which cable to plug in where, and how to navigate the menus.
As the knowlege of how things really work becomes concentrated in a smaller and smaller part of the population, and especially when that part of the population is more and more often found overseas, the culture/civilization becomes more and more fragile.
Getting back to the subject line, I believe this is related to education. The general population no longer gets an education matching the technological state of the world in which they live. In fact, I would probably go so far as to say that its probably a less complete education (in that respect) than it was 100 years ago.
Same applies to the education level of the techs who keep the technology spinning. They no longer understand it sufficiently to be able to do more than be told what to do by diagnostic tools, and swap components -- and "we" want it this way, since its cheaper than employing people sufficently educated to understand, in depth, the technology they are supporting.
There was a comment earlier about this being the beginning of the development of a Morlock/Eloi world. I'm more than a little concerned that may in fact be true.
Palm made lots of mistakes. They always had screen resolutions which didn't quite make it, features spread over different models so that you couldn't get all the features you wanted in one package, slow processors and, of course, they didn't replace Palm OS with something capable and a bit more crash resistent. Open sourcing it, or just using Linux would probably have made all the difference.
I thought that they had finally seen the light with the Treo 600, but once having bought one, I found that it was slower and had poorer screen resolution than my Tungsten C. Of course, a couple of weeks after I got my '600 the '650 came out with better screen resolution and Bluetooth.
I was thinking of picking up whatever came after the Treo 650, but I already pay enough Microsoft taxes so I will probably look a bit harder at the Razor and its successors when I finally dump my Treo 600.
Overall my experience with Palm (dating from Palm III days) has been dissapointing. None of the devices really lived up to my expectations, and always missed some functionality.
I suspect that dealing with Microsoft is the last nail in the coffin for Palm. pity, they always showed promise, but just could never live up to it.
In addition to getting ridof unrelated ammendments, each and every bill should be read in its entirety to the assembled house/senate. Such readings only being valid while 75% of the members are present -- drop to 74% and its re-scheduled for reading. No bill passes without a full reading.
At the moment, most of your congress persons ever see a bill, its reviewed by their junior staff, and in many cases the vote is determined by their party, or by the size of the check from the real owners of the democratic process -- virtually never by any consideration for the idiots who put them there.
What needs to be targetted is not Outlook, but Exchange.
Having an Outlook copy/rip-off (Evolution) is useless for real enterprise use without the functionality provided by Exchange, which means integrated/shared calendar/email/directory, and to get that you have to be running a Windows box or two (or twenty) loaded with Exchange in your data center.
Microsoft (IMHO) think Evolution is wonderful. It saves them having to port Outlook to Linux, but still requires the high profit-margin, locke-in, proprietary servers (Evolution) in the background. Why do you think they havn't been screaming "IP Infringement!" about Evolution?
This will be a different animal. It will run on top of standard protocol (IMAP, HTTP/CalDAV) and will cut Windows and Exchange right out of the picture. It will succeed where others - notably Sun, have failed -- Sun has a 100% solid mail server, a (now) solid calendar server, and a (still somewhat funky) address book server, but fails to capture real enterprise customers because they absolutely refuse to build an integrated desktop client.
Microsoft will NOT like this. They can see the writing on the wall for the Office suite, and this is liable to hit their only other really profitable hook into the commercial data center - Exchange.
It isn't Outlook that needs to be targetted, its the Exchange server sitting behind it.
Evolution is no real help if you still have to have a Windows box running Exchange sitting in the data center - and thats exactly what you need if you want fully functional and integrated mail/calendaring/directory suitable for enterprise use.
Well, not only that, but can reasonably sized engines produce the power required. Hydrogen doesn't have anything like the energy density of petroleum fuels, so internal combustion engines may not work too well.
The only other current alternative would be to use fuel-cell technology and drive electric motors - which have a poor power/weight ratio.
This may be ok for cars for commuters, but for traveling any distance these cars would be somewhat unpleasant to drive.
If you go look at the broadband links, there is a note saying that its free if you are in the UK, and you have to subscribe if you are not.
I tried subscribing. Its a Real Networks subscription.
I paid my money and signed up, downloaded the subscription player and went to look at the BBC content -- you still can't get the content linked to on the BBC website, you have to go through the Real subscription channel, fighting the pop-up adds and general garbage all the way.
I found the BBC news -- which is really what wanted, the domestic 9 0'clock news broadcast.
Real don't have that. They have a "news channel" which has a few random stories played on after the other, repeatin after about 3 minutes.
No way to get all the other content from the BBC website.
Useless. I asked for, and received, my money back.
The problem is that the BBC have sold sole rights to BBC programming to the so called "BBC America", so we can't get BBC world, and apparently not the domestic content over the web either.
BBC America sucks. If BBC World were available no-one would watch it -- which is, of course, why its not available.
No, thsts folklaw. I assume tou are talking about Plymouth Rock and the fundamentalist group that landed there.
There had been settlement in America long before that - remember that America was England's penal colony until Australia took over.
The people you refer to were not escaping religeous persecution so much as intolerance for their insistance that everyone think/behave the same way they did.
Lets start with HP's comments. as has been mentioned here before, I don't see HP making any great effort to apply the GPL to their code, which is strange if its such a wonderful thing.
This seems more like posturing than anything else.
A much more reasonable request of IBM and Sun might be to ask them (note: not DEMAND!) to consider dual licensing. Obviously they see some advantage to their licences, and presumably they thnk their users do too, so lets see which license people adopt. Its not unreasonable to require that users of their code state at the time of aquiring the code which license they are aquiring under -- no picking the license to match the circumstances -- make people think about what they are doing.
As to the question of which is the world's most wonderful OSS license, well, I have some personal reservations about GPL -- which doen't mean that I don't think that the GPL does not have its place, and that it couldn't be improved.
That said, I also have a lot of sympathy for the point of view expressed by Pamela Jones when she says that it is the GPL and only the GPL that has destroyed the pirate raids of SCO and put them into a defensive mode, trying to defend the indefensible. She is right. The GPL did the world a huge favor here.
Does that mean the GPL could not be made somewhat more flexible? Well, we will see when GPL 3.0 sees the light of day.
Last time I was at Logan I tried to use their system. It was horribly expensive, but I needed to e-mail... so I went ahead. It worked up to the point of charging my credit card and then died on me.
I saw many other people hving the same experience.
I somehow doubt that there really is an internett connection to it, its just a CC charging service.
but isn't this the sort of stuff that ANY network admin worth their salt should be completely aware of?
If they need to be told this stuff they are not (IMHO) worth employing as other than apprentice network engineers.
Or is this level of admin common in Windows environments?
The Russians were actually allied with Germany, and would have taken no significant part in the war if Hitler had not decided that he wantesd Russia as part of his empire, and decided to attack them.
He found out, as did Napoleon before him that poikng the sleeping bear in the eye with a sharp stick is not a good idea.
As it turns out, the Russians were decisive in turning the tide against Gemany. But you have to wonder what the end result might have been if they had remained somewhat neutral.
OSDL should make LSB testing free for most distros.
OSDL and LSB are different organizations, so the only way that OSDL could do this would be by paying for the certification for distros. Its not obvious that this would be a wise/good use of their members' money.
Besides, its not just the LSB certification fees we are talking about here, its all the testing process, QA and problem solving/fixing required to get to the point of being able to certify. Its a LOT of effort.
Then there is the question of how valuable/useful such certification really is. Even the forthcoming LSB 3.0 doesn't really cover enough to be useful for (say) a desktop application with a more than trivial GUI.
Not that efforts like LSB are not useful, and that distros should both contribute to forming the standard, and towards adhering to it, but its a long process to try to take a set of different distros, built from different bases, by different people to serve different user bases to converge into a product that has no distinguishing difference from one distro to another -- remember that distros are not charities, they need to make money to continue to exist, and have a really terrible job in trying to balance the demands of the open source community, their customers and their shareholders (to say nothing of their employees).
There are two ways to get to the nirvana that is Windows (joke!), one is to have an all-powerful big brother (Microsoft, or maybe Apple) - keeping the software tightly under control, and the other is the more organic, evolutionary approach that Linux is following. That organic approach can be made to converge on a solution faster by the efforts of LSB, Distros, OSDL etc. But no one of those bodies has any real control, they have to work by suggestion and basically just doing whatever they can to help -- but the old saying about taking horses to water is appropriate here; with the horse being Linux (GNU/Linux for those that insist), and the water being standardization.
Slashdot Mirror
None of the "solutions" in the article, or so far on this discussion would work in practice.
Its possible to make use of some statistical tricks to apparently cram more into the same space, and its possible to take advantage of the piss-poor perception of the average human to inflict sub-standard audio and video on them -- and tell them its all wonderful "because its digital". But the fact remains that you can't put a gallon into a pint pot, no matter if Stallman says you can or not.
When it comes to configuration information, that may not be such a wonderful idea. Mainly because the implementation of the registry seems to be inherently non-scalable and somewhat fragile.
Linux does quite well by dumping the config information in various places. Unfortunately, this isn't totally successfull either. There are scaling issues, compatability issues and big issues when trying to manage appication configuration on an enterprise scale.
The real answer is probably to use a defined API to read/write configuration info -- possibly with two kinds, global and individual config. By default, these could write flat files (or XML, or you-name-it) in the user directory, and in some agreed upon common location for global patrameters.
BUT, it should also be possible to replace the backend to the API to, for example, read/write to a Windows registry, or LDAP, or Oracle, or .... Then you choose the backend for the scalability, manageability or simplicity that you desire. the apps know no different - they just use the API.
You have been drinking too much Oracle Koolaid....
The parabolic reflector gaves at the focal point a maximum flux of 1000 W/cm2. The experimentations takes place at the focal zone (18 m in front of the paraboloid. The range of available temperature is from 800 to 2500 C (the maximum reachable temperature is 3800 C) for a maximum thermal power of 1000 kW.
http://www.imp.cnrs.fr/foursol/1000_en.shtml
This is just one more example of a basic problem with the way government views laws these days.
The problem is that they are not satisfied with laws which define illegal behavior, but insist on progressing beyond that to define lawa to prevent us from even being ABLE to break those laws.
There are perfectly adequate laws on copyright. Now they want to pass laws making it illegal to possess tools which in themselves are harmless but *could* be used to break a law.
This sort of law should probably be very rare. As someone pointed out, based upon this sort of logic ever male should probably be in prison since they possess the equipment necessary to commit rape.
Rather than fighting indicidual pieces of legislation, we should be concentrating our efforts on reforming the creation of "restraining" laws -- which really are probably unconstitutional based upon prior restraint -- but good luck in trying to get one of these before the SCOTUS.
I object to too many adds.
There are TV channels that I avoid because they have (IMHO) just too many adds -- an example being TBS. They will make a 90 minute move last three hours. Worse, they will use adds sparingly during the beginning of a film, then increase the number and frequency as the movie progresses -- presumably thinking that the viewer is "hooked" and can be abused more.
Doesn't work with me. I will abandon a movie subject to this sort of abuse, and in many cases, abandon ever watching the channel that does it ever again.
Similarly there are (print) magazines that I refuse to buy, or even look at because its obvious that the articles are viewed just a filler material between the adds. The technique of splitting articles over several pages to expose you to more adds is HIGHLY objectionable. Leads to (me at least) not picking up those magazines again.
Websites are slightly better because you can block (most) of the crap. I don't mind a small amount, I can tune it out. Too much, or those evil adds that obscure the content until you acknowlege them are prime causes of my blacklisting sites and never visiting again.
I do acknowlege that adds finance free content, and will accept reasonable quantities (in all media), but most often, too many media outlets see adds as their primary reason for existence and the content that we all want as unwanted, but for some reason, unavoidable.
Patents are intended to benefit the inventor allowing him to get a return on his investment with his invention. This should mean exploit the investment, not sell it -- the second its sold, the patent expires.
Unfortunately, that is not the Internet that we have today. In the original Internet, every router knew about every network connected to the Internet. Most networks had connectivity to many other networks. Discovery protocols allowed alternative routes to be discovered if one failed.
Today, we don't have a (mostly) fully connected net, we have ISPs who don't know anything about networks which they don't "own", only that certain IP prefixes need to be passed to ISP x, y or z.
This makes the infrastructure much more fragile than it was originally intended to be. We ended up with this for a few reasons. First, the wimpy routers in use at the time had limited memory available to hold the network maps. The answer chosen was to no longer attempt to hold a full world view, but to divide the world into regions, certain IP prefixes would "belong" to those regions, and all any router would need to know about was networks in its region, plus how to route traffic to other regions, who would take care of routing within the region. This led to "backbone" connections - high capacity links needed because all traffic between regions now didn't "diffuse" through the network, but was channeled into specific connections. It also set the scene to allow the net to be commercialised, those regional centers were obvious "choke points" that an enterprising company could own and pretty much dictate the pricing to lower level enterprises who would do the dirty work of dealing with end-users.
Slowly but sureley the Internet evolved into a system dependent upon a few companies with high-speed links between them - prime candidates BTW, as locations for government control to be imposed. The self-healing nature of the original Internet was lost because all traffic HAS to pass via the top level companies infrastructure and over their interconnect backbone connections.
The "self healing" Internet is long gone.
yes
or rubber
yes
, how to build an elecric generator,
yes
and how the telephone works too?
yes
What about how to saddle a horse?
yes
Every next generation is more specialized than the previous one, and for every previous generation the things they don't know "are just there" and things they do know are "basic education".
What was your point again?
And how old are you? One of those young whippersnappers maybe? :-)
There is a problem when the technology that a civilization is built upon is beyond the comprehension of most of its users, and more importantly, those charged with its maintenance.
Going back a long way, I remember the days when people understood how the technologies they supported worked.
In a previous life I spent some time working for a company that did TV rentals, and being a lowly apprencice was forced to go out repairing broken TVs when the real TV engineers were home celebrating Christmas, or sitting on a beach sunning themselves. In the very early days these TVs used tubes, and were built on a chassis - so when it went wrong, you had to know how to repair it, which meant understanding the principles it operated on, and the practical implementation. As time progressed TVs moved to having replacable printed circuit boards, one dedicated to a particular function. The generation of field TV techs that grew up with (as a gross exageration) these knew no more than to identify which functional area was giving trouble and how to swap the board - the older guys who knew how this stuff worked repaired the boards back at the workshop. From there, it moved to transistorised and then IC based TVs, and the techs (even thouse in the workshop) knew less and less and just swapped boards, and threw the old ones away because it cost more to fix them than to buy new replacements.
I see similar things happening with cars. The days of the auto mechanic understanding how things work, and being able to fix it when it goes wrong are long gone - they swap parts, and when it comes to the modern electronics, they are told which part to swap by diagnostic equipment, that they understand as far as knowing which cable to plug in where, and how to navigate the menus.
As the knowlege of how things really work becomes concentrated in a smaller and smaller part of the population, and especially when that part of the population is more and more often found overseas, the culture/civilization becomes more and more fragile.
Getting back to the subject line, I believe this is related to education. The general population no longer gets an education matching the technological state of the world in which they live. In fact, I would probably go so far as to say that its probably a less complete education (in that respect) than it was 100 years ago.
Same applies to the education level of the techs who keep the technology spinning. They no longer understand it sufficiently to be able to do more than be told what to do by diagnostic tools, and swap components -- and "we" want it this way, since its cheaper than employing people sufficently educated to understand, in depth, the technology they are supporting.
There was a comment earlier about this being the beginning of the development of a Morlock/Eloi world. I'm more than a little concerned that may in fact be true.
Palm made lots of mistakes. They always had screen resolutions which didn't quite make it, features spread over different models so that you couldn't get all the features you wanted in one package, slow processors and, of course, they didn't replace Palm OS with something capable and a bit more crash resistent. Open sourcing it, or just using Linux would probably have made all the difference.
I thought that they had finally seen the light with the Treo 600, but once having bought one, I found that it was slower and had poorer screen resolution than my Tungsten C. Of course, a couple of weeks after I got my '600 the '650 came out with better screen resolution and Bluetooth.
I was thinking of picking up whatever came after the Treo 650, but I already pay enough Microsoft taxes so I will probably look a bit harder at the Razor and its successors when I finally dump my Treo 600.
Overall my experience with Palm (dating from Palm III days) has been dissapointing. None of the devices really lived up to my expectations, and always missed some functionality.
I suspect that dealing with Microsoft is the last nail in the coffin for Palm. pity, they always showed promise, but just could never live up to it.
At the moment, most of your congress persons ever see a bill, its reviewed by their junior staff, and in many cases the vote is determined by their party, or by the size of the check from the real owners of the democratic process -- virtually never by any consideration for the idiots who put them there.
What needs to be targetted is not Outlook, but Exchange. Having an Outlook copy/rip-off (Evolution) is useless for real enterprise use without the functionality provided by Exchange, which means integrated/shared calendar/email/directory, and to get that you have to be running a Windows box or two (or twenty) loaded with Exchange in your data center.
Microsoft (IMHO) think Evolution is wonderful. It saves them having to port Outlook to Linux, but still requires the high profit-margin, locke-in, proprietary servers (Evolution) in the background. Why do you think they havn't been screaming "IP Infringement!" about Evolution?
This will be a different animal. It will run on top of standard protocol (IMAP, HTTP/CalDAV) and will cut Windows and Exchange right out of the picture. It will succeed where others - notably Sun, have failed -- Sun has a 100% solid mail server, a (now) solid calendar server, and a (still somewhat funky) address book server, but fails to capture real enterprise customers because they absolutely refuse to build an integrated desktop client.
Microsoft will NOT like this. They can see the writing on the wall for the Office suite, and this is liable to hit their only other really profitable hook into the commercial data center - Exchange.
It isn't Outlook that needs to be targetted, its the Exchange server sitting behind it. Evolution is no real help if you still have to have a Windows box running Exchange sitting in the data center - and thats exactly what you need if you want fully functional and integrated mail/calendaring/directory suitable for enterprise use.
Well, not only that, but can reasonably sized engines produce the power required. Hydrogen doesn't have anything like the energy density of petroleum fuels, so internal combustion engines may not work too well. The only other current alternative would be to use fuel-cell technology and drive electric motors - which have a poor power/weight ratio. This may be ok for cars for commuters, but for traveling any distance these cars would be somewhat unpleasant to drive.
If you go look at the broadband links, there is a note saying that its free if you are in the UK, and you have to subscribe if you are not. I tried subscribing. Its a Real Networks subscription. I paid my money and signed up, downloaded the subscription player and went to look at the BBC content -- you still can't get the content linked to on the BBC website, you have to go through the Real subscription channel, fighting the pop-up adds and general garbage all the way. I found the BBC news -- which is really what wanted, the domestic 9 0'clock news broadcast. Real don't have that. They have a "news channel" which has a few random stories played on after the other, repeatin after about 3 minutes. No way to get all the other content from the BBC website. Useless. I asked for, and received, my money back. The problem is that the BBC have sold sole rights to BBC programming to the so called "BBC America", so we can't get BBC world, and apparently not the domestic content over the web either. BBC America sucks. If BBC World were available no-one would watch it -- which is, of course, why its not available.
No, thsts folklaw. I assume tou are talking about Plymouth Rock and the fundamentalist group that landed there. There had been settlement in America long before that - remember that America was England's penal colony until Australia took over. The people you refer to were not escaping religeous persecution so much as intolerance for their insistance that everyone think/behave the same way they did.
A much more reasonable request of IBM and Sun might be to ask them (note: not DEMAND!) to consider dual licensing. Obviously they see some advantage to their licences, and presumably they thnk their users do too, so lets see which license people adopt. Its not unreasonable to require that users of their code state at the time of aquiring the code which license they are aquiring under -- no picking the license to match the circumstances -- make people think about what they are doing.
As to the question of which is the world's most wonderful OSS license, well, I have some personal reservations about GPL -- which doen't mean that I don't think that the GPL does not have its place, and that it couldn't be improved.
That said, I also have a lot of sympathy for the point of view expressed by Pamela Jones when she says that it is the GPL and only the GPL that has destroyed the pirate raids of SCO and put them into a defensive mode, trying to defend the indefensible. She is right. The GPL did the world a huge favor here.
Does that mean the GPL could not be made somewhat more flexible? Well, we will see when GPL 3.0 sees the light of day.
Last time I was at Logan I tried to use their system. It was horribly expensive, but I needed to e-mail ... so I went ahead. It worked up to the point of charging my credit card and then died on me.
I saw many other people hving the same experience.
I somehow doubt that there really is an internett connection to it, its just a CC charging service.
The thief stole knowlege. Valuable knowlege. RIAA will get him...
but isn't this the sort of stuff that ANY network admin worth their salt should be completely aware of? If they need to be told this stuff they are not (IMHO) worth employing as other than apprentice network engineers. Or is this level of admin common in Windows environments?
Pay up - along with an offer to double the payment if they will hit microsoft.com for at least three week.
The Russians were actually allied with Germany, and would have taken no significant part in the war if Hitler had not decided that he wantesd Russia as part of his empire, and decided to attack them.
He found out, as did Napoleon before him that poikng the sleeping bear in the eye with a sharp stick is not a good idea.
As it turns out, the Russians were decisive in turning the tide against Gemany. But you have to wonder what the end result might have been if they had remained somewhat neutral.
OSDL and LSB are different organizations, so the only way that OSDL could do this would be by paying for the certification for distros. Its not obvious that this would be a wise/good use of their members' money.
Besides, its not just the LSB certification fees we are talking about here, its all the testing process, QA and problem solving/fixing required to get to the point of being able to certify. Its a LOT of effort.
Then there is the question of how valuable/useful such certification really is. Even the forthcoming LSB 3.0 doesn't really cover enough to be useful for (say) a desktop application with a more than trivial GUI.
Not that efforts like LSB are not useful, and that distros should both contribute to forming the standard, and towards adhering to it, but its a long process to try to take a set of different distros, built from different bases, by different people to serve different user bases to converge into a product that has no distinguishing difference from one distro to another -- remember that distros are not charities, they need to make money to continue to exist, and have a really terrible job in trying to balance the demands of the open source community, their customers and their shareholders (to say nothing of their employees).
There are two ways to get to the nirvana that is Windows (joke!), one is to have an all-powerful big brother (Microsoft, or maybe Apple) - keeping the software tightly under control, and the other is the more organic, evolutionary approach that Linux is following. That organic approach can be made to converge on a solution faster by the efforts of LSB, Distros, OSDL etc. But no one of those bodies has any real control, they have to work by suggestion and basically just doing whatever they can to help -- but the old saying about taking horses to water is appropriate here; with the horse being Linux (GNU/Linux for those that insist), and the water being standardization.
No. And never was true.