While I agree, I stand by my point to the Beeb: shoddy journalism:
There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted - illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt - because it has enraged many people devoted to the Linux operating system."
Contrast with:
There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.
One headline-grabbing slur, retracted deep within the article. This is not to the BBC's usual excellent standards.
"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted - illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt - because it has enraged many people devoted to the Linux operating system."
There is so far *no evidence* to support your assertion. Until this has been properly investigated, your claim merely serves to spread "FUD" (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). There is, in fact, *considerable* doubt about whether the attack was launched by a Linux "devotee", not least because SCO took their servers offline prior to the scheduled attack (MyDoom.A). Microsoft (MyDoom.B) did not, and survived unscathed.
Please report facts, not opinions. This is particularly import post-Hutton, when people such as myself fear for the future of the BBC. If you spread FUD like this, you are effectively "crying wolf". Who will believe you when the next whistle-blower steps forward to reveal shady Government practices?
May I suggest you research http://www.groklaw.net prior to any further SCO/Linux stories? I have no relation with Groklaw, however it does seem to carry out adequate research prior to commenting on SCO/Linux.
Q: Are all restrictions prohibited?
A: No, many restrictions are permitted. Clearly-defined, legitimate safety restrictions are permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use provided they are necessary to protect public safety and are no more burdensome than necessary to ensure safety... Restrictions necessary for historic preservation may also be permitted
Aye, it *could* hurt, but realistically it won't go to the FSF. The European Commission will presumably be obliged to add it to the EU's coffers, much as this European voter and resident would like to see the money going to the FSF.
Think about it - that's as likely as the US Supreme Court fining me and donating the money to Amnesty International (well, OK, perhaps a little more likely, but you get the idea).
True. I can't argue with that. And even as a republican I've got to admit that Prince Charles looks like he'd make an alright monarch, too. But the fact remains that (a) we can't vote out a bad monarch, and (b) Tony's sprogs won't be afflicted on us.
Maybe you're assuming either that (a) measures put in place by Parliament will will protect you, or that (b) the armed forces will defend you against a capricious monarch, or that (c) the people will rise up in defense of freedom when it is threatened.
(a) Parliament sits at the pleasure of the Crown - Parliament can be dissolved by the monarch. Just because we might whinge if it happened doesn't mean it can't happen;
(b) The armed forces take the Queen's Shilling: if there's any debate over loyalty to orders, the armed forces are legally obliged to follow the Queen above Parliament;
(c) The people, by and large, don't give a shit.
You may be a citizen of the UK, but you're still a subject of the Crown.
Strictly, the Chinese calendar is a lunisolar calendar, not a lunar calendar. I believe that lunisolar calendars have leap years whenever 12 months won't fit easily into one year. Hopefully this means Gnome will enjoy many leaps;)
Microsoft, for example, was one of the first major software developers to support Apple's Mac OS X, moving quickly to release a version of Mac Office when OS X was still new
and wondered if Microsoft were thinking of another *nix system...
(Oh God don't make me defend the British monarchy...)
Surprisingly, democracy can still occur in monarchies (UK) as well as republics (USA). It just means it's less secure. AFAIK, the current Queen has never refused to sign a bill presented to her by Britain's democratically-elected Parliament. It doesn't mean it couldn't happen, and I'd be a lot happier if Britain had a written constitution guarenteeing that it won't.
...but to answer your question, no, I believe I'm not (any longer) a subject of the Crown. I'm a New Zealand expatriate exiled in Scotland;)
Oh for pity's sake! No! It's a reference to the Bubonic Plague that killed off a large part of the labour force, pushing up wages. I find it really difficult to see even the maddest of racists arguing that "Black" ("Black Plague" minus "Plague"), meaning, presumably, more immigration, could mean higher wages.
Sadly, I'm not entirely joking. And before all the trolls start off on how China's much worse - no shit? But I expect the UK to be a beacon for democracy, whereas right now it's more a flickering birthday candle. Frankly, we'd have a better chance of convincing less free regimes to be more open if we were as democratic as possible.
If you really hate my ideas, this may cheer you up: I can be arrested and detained indefinitely, without trial, in Britain right now. Because I'm not British. That's right, if you're, say, from the USA the British government can hold you forever at Her Majesty's Pleasure!
Oh no! Tell me ain't so! Still, we still have hand-typed URLs, nae skins, nae tabs (wait, don't tell me, IE7 will have them), grudging compliancy wi' standards, etc. So Hell hasn't frozen over just yet.
Dave Shea at the 'zengarden talked about the browser upgrade campaign and its successes and failings - basically it came across as negative. Dave suggests MOSe - Mozilla, Opera, Safari enhancements - to highlight the strengths of modern, standards-compliant browsers, and I'd tend to agree.
Still, the idea of building sites that tell people they're using a 2nd-rate product when better, free products are available does appeal...;)
In Scotland a contract can be dismissed if the court rules that the contract is invalid, illegal, etc. I suspect it's true elsewhere in the EU. I can see a possible argument that MS's EULAs are too onerous as regards the consumer
Also, if Microsoft rejects the court's ruling, wouldn't the EU just prevent MS doing anything in Europe?
[* I am not a Scots lawyer / I am not a European lawyer]
Looks to me like the OP saw the irony in the fact that the UK *is* part of the EU, yet is persuing a policy apparently at variance with the EU.
Have to agree, though, although it was slightly humerous it wasn't particularly informative. Mind you, it still grates when/. posters refer to "England's Prime Minister", etc. How difficult can it be to understand one country comprising several states?
Slashdot Mirror
Aye, mouse-tronaut just sounds...wrong. As for a geek version of mouse, well, ladies and gentlement, I give you...
astro-maus!
While I agree, I stand by my point to the Beeb: shoddy journalism:
Contrast with:
One headline-grabbing slur, retracted deep within the article. This is not to the BBC's usual excellent standards.
And mine:
Friday night:
(a) Even geeks need a social life.
(b) Best time to wreck your social life by trying to evangelise Linux ;)
It does happen but it's dealt with ably!
They're good people, the Keepers of the Wikipedia.
This FCC rule?
I, too, have way too much time on my hands...
Aye, it *could* hurt, but realistically it won't go to the FSF. The European Commission will presumably be obliged to add it to the EU's coffers, much as this European voter and resident would like to see the money going to the FSF.
Think about it - that's as likely as the US Supreme Court fining me and donating the money to Amnesty International (well, OK, perhaps a little more likely, but you get the idea).
I reckon that could have been informative if you'd written that in English ;)
Translation:
I disagree. It comprises aspects of both the Lunar- and the Solar-Calendars.
True. I can't argue with that. And even as a republican I've got to admit that Prince Charles looks like he'd make an alright monarch, too. But the fact remains that (a) we can't vote out a bad monarch, and (b) Tony's sprogs won't be afflicted on us.
Can't it?
Maybe you're assuming either that (a) measures put in place by Parliament will will protect you, or that (b) the armed forces will defend you against a capricious monarch, or that (c) the people will rise up in defense of freedom when it is threatened.
(a) Parliament sits at the pleasure of the Crown - Parliament can be dissolved by the monarch. Just because we might whinge if it happened doesn't mean it can't happen;
(b) The armed forces take the Queen's Shilling: if there's any debate over loyalty to orders, the armed forces are legally obliged to follow the Queen above Parliament;
(c) The people, by and large, don't give a shit.
You may be a citizen of the UK, but you're still a subject of the Crown.
Yes, but, where are they in the poll? ;)
Strictly, the Chinese calendar is a lunisolar calendar, not a lunar calendar. I believe that lunisolar calendars have leap years whenever 12 months won't fit easily into one year. Hopefully this means Gnome will enjoy many leaps;)
I believe that motorcycles are a short-term solution, until Avian 'flu has been eradicated ;)
Talking of Linux, I read
and wondered if Microsoft were thinking of another *nix system...(Oh God don't make me defend the British monarchy...)
Surprisingly, democracy can still occur in monarchies (UK) as well as republics (USA). It just means it's less secure. AFAIK, the current Queen has never refused to sign a bill presented to her by Britain's democratically-elected Parliament. It doesn't mean it couldn't happen, and I'd be a lot happier if Britain had a written constitution guarenteeing that it won't.
...but to answer your question, no, I believe I'm not (any longer) a subject of the Crown. I'm a New Zealand expatriate exiled in Scotland ;)
Phew! Sorry about the rant - late, needing sleep...
Oh for pity's sake! No! It's a reference to the Bubonic Plague that killed off a large part of the labour force, pushing up wages. I find it really difficult to see even the maddest of racists arguing that "Black" ("Black Plague" minus "Plague"), meaning, presumably, more immigration, could mean higher wages.
...but then, IHBT, right?
Easy! No.
HTH!
Sadly, I'm not entirely joking. And before all the trolls start off on how China's much worse - no shit? But I expect the UK to be a beacon for democracy, whereas right now it's more a flickering birthday candle. Frankly, we'd have a better chance of convincing less free regimes to be more open if we were as democratic as possible.
If you really hate my ideas, this may cheer you up: I can be arrested and detained indefinitely, without trial, in Britain right now. Because I'm not British. That's right, if you're, say, from the USA the British government can hold you forever at Her Majesty's Pleasure!
You can all sleep safer, now, knowing that.
Oh no! Tell me ain't so! Still, we still have hand-typed URLs, nae skins, nae tabs (wait, don't tell me, IE7 will have them), grudging compliancy wi' standards, etc. So Hell hasn't frozen over just yet.
Dave Shea at the 'zengarden talked about the browser upgrade campaign and its successes and failings - basically it came across as negative. Dave suggests MOSe - Mozilla, Opera, Safari enhancements - to highlight the strengths of modern, standards-compliant browsers, and I'd tend to agree.
Still, the idea of building sites that tell people they're using a 2nd-rate product when better, free products are available does appeal...;)
What's a popup?
Wait... [thinks long and hard] ... that's one of those Internet Explorer afflictions, isn't it?
Take one of these, six times a day:
Mozilla, Opera, etc etc etc
Sheesh! Anonymous cowards these days! When I was a lad, etc etc etc
Totally off-topic (unless I can somehow spin Darl McBride as Sauron...), but wasn't Boromir *brother* of Faramir?
Definitive proof!
Mods: mod me down... now!
Agree... except...
;)
<quote>could it not be possible that somewhere in the EU beaurocracy there are some people who are actually trying to do the right thing?</quote>
No.
IANASL/IANAEL*
In Scotland a contract can be dismissed if the court rules that the contract is invalid, illegal, etc. I suspect it's true elsewhere in the EU. I can see a possible argument that MS's EULAs are too onerous as regards the consumer
Also, if Microsoft rejects the court's ruling, wouldn't the EU just prevent MS doing anything in Europe?
[* I am not a Scots lawyer / I am not a European lawyer]
"the EU (therefore by extension the UK)"
/. posters refer to "England's Prime Minister", etc. How difficult can it be to understand one country comprising several states?
Looks to me like the OP saw the irony in the fact that the UK *is* part of the EU, yet is persuing a policy apparently at variance with the EU.
Have to agree, though, although it was slightly humerous it wasn't particularly informative. Mind you, it still grates when