According to Routers, this is the first time in the history of the EU that a directive is rejected in the second reading. Usually this happens in the first reading (if nobody wants to fix that crap, that Commision has put forward) or after the third reading (when all discussion options are exausted). This time the Parliament had had enough and was so pissed off, that it decided to stop discussion in a half-way.
That is ONLY because FFII put it up like that and only because FFII alerted MEPs about the importance of this directive in the first place. If it weren't for FFII, this directive would be accepted two years ago. I've followed this debate from the first proposal of the Commision: if Hartmut Pilch wouldn't have been there - nobody would have even noticed or understood the implications of this directive. FFII has proven to be more mature and professional then the professional EU lobbies, that have been doing this for decades. I am so glad to be on this team and to see this historical victory.
There is much inconsistency in this: * yes there are metal plates coming up * in the shot were we see metal plates coming up, they are covering left side windows (as seen from inside when looking forward * after landing we can only see the top section of right side covered by a metal plate * the section that is covered by a metal plate after landing has positive sloping while the one slashed out had negative sloping * the shot with general flying out shows all the front windows shattering * the shot with general on the 'roof' does not show any damage or metal plating on the bridge * the bridge spire that we see before glass shuttering is clearly a top-spire, while after landing we see everyone in front-spire (top-spire is lost with most of the ship) while ther is no sign of transition - exactly the opposite, some actions within one shot go from top-spire to front-spire related. * we see no such front-row controller seats in the top-spire until the glass shutter scene * we see no front-spire in fly-by scenes
Also the size of that part of the ship that they manage to land varies from shot to shot.
Of course as a veteran of 'X-Wing' and 'TIE-Fighter' games I can argue at length that corvettes of such small size as displayed in SW3 (only a few time larger then a pre-XWing) are highly impractical and general use of the shuttle design (which we do see in this movie) would be much more appropriate.
On the other hand I clearly enjoyed those per-Xwings and pre-Tie fighters:)
Actually the ship went in a nose-dive when the gravitation change occured. Thus the must have been no gravity on the ship at that point. Some time after the dive started the emergency boosters were engadget - that would give at least double gravity on the ship (if no artifitial gravity control was active) as these boosters slowed the fall speed faster then gravity acceleration increased it (if we see the events close to realtime).
But some other things strike me in this movie: * In the cocpit fight, the general blasts the front window of the spaceship while it is still in space, but, after the air sucks some things out into space, everything seams to get normal again and they even land trought the atmosphere with a freaking HOLE in the windshield!!!
* somehow the relative orientation of ship in space with artificial gravity inside is affecting the direction of said gravity
* ships size of corvette or bigger never land on planets, transport shuttles are used for that, but almost every time a landing is shown, we see thrusters of a 'rebel' corvette
There is lots of such stuff all trought the movie. Apparently the makers no longer know anything about their own universe:P There is no story to be told if there is no consistent world to base it on.
Imagine a running application that you load a debug aspect into in the runtime and it starts giving you heaps of debug output. Then you modify the debug aspect and reload it for some other debug info. And all of thet is possible without stopping the porgramm in question (if you use runtime crossweaving). And even with compile time crossweawing you can easily change debug or authentification settings of the whole 200 Mb app by editing one aspect. By adding just a few lines you can add debugging to any object or function.
I am the lead developer of Amber Linux, I had to reason the name to the stakeholders so I had to base it on the fact that it is developed in Baltics and that Baltics are commonly associated with amber.:)
Valve has specifically stated that they will insure that HL2 works fully under Cedega. Valve even has several people on the team devoted to fixing glitches in Linux under Cedega.
If you wonder, where the cited phrase is in the report, see the point number 342 on 52nd page of the PDF. That is the only place in the report where the swpatents are mentioned and the point doesn't sound good enought to be used in any intergovermental talks, sorry.
I tend to agree to the point of the parent. I have never seen button order of Gnome as a disadvantage. Now i tried to see, why, and it occured to me that: * confirmation on right side (in the end) seems more natural to me; * anyway my reflexes react more to button icons or button texts, NOT to their order; * confirmation dialogs are only placed in places when you should reconsider your action and thus the effort needed to recognise the button to press (which is easy anyway) gives you also the time to reconsider your choice; * it might be also wise to make button order random for the most dangerouse choices, like, when in Debian you try to remove an 'essential' package, the apt-get tool asks you to enter "Yes, I know what I am doing" (IIRC) instead of the usual "yes" or a simple Enter.
I know that Mikrotik do that all the time with their routerboards, especially in countries like Mongolia and Iraq. Works pretty good because of minimal power consuption (like 5 wats:o). P.S. No, I don't work for them. I just use their gear.
Wouldn't the patent have to be revealed, though? No Sure, you'd then have to pay Microsoft a fee, but that would probably be quite small, considering other patent fees.
AFAIK, Patent offices don't allow people to say "patent x will cost $100,000,000 per copy".
No, they do allow that.
Microsoft wouldn't go for it because it would allow greater competitor interoperability. Folks would start writing 100% compatible Open Office converters, and huge numbers of us would switch. True that would be if you assumptions would be right. Unfortunately M$ has already filed patents on MS Office 2003 file format (Browse/. for a story on that). And there is one another minor point: M$ can also say: this patent is 1000$ per user, and I hope we all understand what that means for free software compartibility.
He is wrong. It acctually is much more interesting. Both USPTO and the new directive violate the TRIPS and the Berne convention which both USA and EU signed. TRIPS article 12. says that software is to be considered a literary work. Berne convention clearly states that literary works are not patentable.
The problem is that the European Council and the Irish Presidency claim that their proposition doesn't allow software patents, but that is such a pile of bullshit.
Don't be Braindead and assume that this is bad. Don't be braindead and assume it's good.
I am form a new European Country, from Latvia. I have studiet the effect the software patents will make on our IT industry and let me tel you - it ain't pretty. All European small and medium IT related companies would instantly go to the state of limbo: any large company from Europe or USA or Japan could just sue them with one of 30 000 overbroad software patents (progress bar, tabbet paletes, hyperlinks, selling on web, selling on web with credit card, GIF, JPEG, any-other-trivial-idea-expressed-in-layerspeak-in- 150-a4-pages) and the small company would go bancrupt due to layer fees even before the court proves their innocence. And if the small, but smart company would try to enforce a software patent on a large company, the large would countersue and take the patent in bancupcy procedure for peanuts.
As you see, software patents in Europe are only good for large non-European enterprises. Why should we allow them in Europe then?
On 17-18th of May, there will be a real vote by the Council of Ministers. If they vote against software patents - we win. If Council of Ministers votes for software patents then the bill will return to european Parlament for a re-discussion, which will be postproned to September due to elections. There we will have the chance to discuss this again, this time with a new European Parlament.
Note: the previose EPclearly stated AGAINST software patents.
Slashdot Mirror
I just contacted my government to start discussing this directive. Thanks for the warning.
For some people 15$ is a good weeks paycheck.
According to Routers, this is the first time in the history of the EU that a directive is rejected in the second reading. Usually this happens in the first reading (if nobody wants to fix that crap, that Commision has put forward) or after the third reading (when all discussion options are exausted).
This time the Parliament had had enough and was so pissed off, that it decided to stop discussion in a half-way.
That is ONLY because FFII put it up like that and only because FFII alerted MEPs about the importance of this directive in the first place.
If it weren't for FFII, this directive would be accepted two years ago. I've followed this debate from the first proposal of the Commision: if Hartmut Pilch wouldn't have been there - nobody would have even noticed or understood the implications of this directive.
FFII has proven to be more mature and professional then the professional EU lobbies, that have been doing this for decades. I am so glad to be on this team and to see this historical victory.
It was a hard job, but we made it!
"Open source lobbies beat professional lobbies 100:0" - says an MEP
I am accepted and I am too geeky to celebrate that as it should have been celebrated. Doh!
There is much inconsistency in this:
:)
* yes there are metal plates coming up
* in the shot were we see metal plates coming up, they are covering left side windows (as seen from inside when looking forward
* after landing we can only see the top section of right side covered by a metal plate
* the section that is covered by a metal plate after landing has positive sloping while the one slashed out had negative sloping
* the shot with general flying out shows all the front windows shattering
* the shot with general on the 'roof' does not show any damage or metal plating on the bridge
* the bridge spire that we see before glass shuttering is clearly a top-spire, while after landing we see everyone in front-spire (top-spire is lost with most of the ship) while ther is no sign of transition - exactly the opposite, some actions within one shot go from top-spire to front-spire related.
* we see no such front-row controller seats in the top-spire until the glass shutter scene
* we see no front-spire in fly-by scenes
Also the size of that part of the ship that they manage to land varies from shot to shot.
Of course as a veteran of 'X-Wing' and 'TIE-Fighter' games I can argue at length that corvettes of such small size as displayed in SW3 (only a few time larger then a pre-XWing) are highly impractical and general use of the shuttle design (which we do see in this movie) would be much more appropriate.
On the other hand I clearly enjoyed those per-Xwings and pre-Tie fighters
Actually the ship went in a nose-dive when the gravitation change occured. Thus the must have been no gravity on the ship at that point. Some time after the dive started the emergency boosters were engadget - that would give at least double gravity on the ship (if no artifitial gravity control was active) as these boosters slowed the fall speed faster then gravity acceleration increased it (if we see the events close to realtime).
Actually, they were there quite accidentaly.
:P
But some other things strike me in this movie:
* In the cocpit fight, the general blasts the front window of the spaceship while it is still in space, but, after the air sucks some things out into space, everything seams to get normal again and they even land trought the atmosphere with a freaking HOLE in the windshield!!!
* somehow the relative orientation of ship in space with artificial gravity inside is affecting the direction of said gravity
* ships size of corvette or bigger never land on planets, transport shuttles are used for that, but almost every time a landing is shown, we see thrusters of a 'rebel' corvette
There is lots of such stuff all trought the movie. Apparently the makers no longer know anything about their own universe
There is no story to be told if there is no consistent world to base it on.
You don't seam to be following the news - Munich choose a company that provided a Debian based solution.
Not really. AOP allows you decide in runtime if you want to change:
......);
a.setvalue( 'bar', 'foo' );
to
if (perms.check( a, 'setvalue', username, srcip))
a.setvalue( 'bar', 'foo' )
else
log.alert('Access control violation!',
or to
log.debug( "doing a.setvalue( 'bar', 'foo' )" );
a.setvalue( 'bar', 'foo' )
Imagine a running application that you load a debug aspect into in the runtime and it starts giving you heaps of debug output. Then you modify the debug aspect and reload it for some other debug info. And all of thet is possible without stopping the porgramm in question (if you use runtime crossweaving).
And even with compile time crossweawing you can easily change debug or authentification settings of the whole 200 Mb app by editing one aspect. By adding just a few lines you can add debugging to any object or function.
I am the lead developer of Amber Linux, I had to reason the name to the stakeholders so I had to base it on the fact that it is developed in Baltics and that Baltics are commonly associated with amber. :)
Valve has specifically stated that they will insure that HL2 works fully under Cedega. Valve even has several people on the team devoted to fixing glitches in Linux under Cedega.
If you wonder, where the cited phrase is in the report, see the point number 342 on 52nd page of the PDF.
That is the only place in the report where the swpatents are mentioned and the point doesn't sound good enought to be used in any intergovermental talks, sorry.
Yes all 11 architectures (+, unofficially, th amd64) are supported as of this release. Please read the article.
I tend to agree to the point of the parent. I have never seen button order of Gnome as a disadvantage.
Now i tried to see, why, and it occured to me that:
* confirmation on right side (in the end) seems more natural to me;
* anyway my reflexes react more to button icons or button texts, NOT to their order;
* confirmation dialogs are only placed in places when you should reconsider your action and thus the effort needed to recognise the button to press (which is easy anyway) gives you also the time to reconsider your choice;
* it might be also wise to make button order random for the most dangerouse choices, like, when in Debian you try to remove an 'essential' package, the apt-get tool asks you to enter "Yes, I know what I am doing" (IIRC) instead of the usual "yes" or a simple Enter.
(I couldn't adapt to spatial mode though)
Yust to join the list of invite askers, aigarius@koyanet.lv would appreciate an invite, thanks :).
Get the full Linux from a torrent here
I know that Mikrotik do that all the time with their routerboards, especially in countries like Mongolia and Iraq. Works pretty good because of minimal power consuption (like 5 wats :o).
P.S. No, I don't work for them. I just use their gear.
Wouldn't the patent have to be revealed, though?
/. for a story on that). And there is one another minor point: M$ can also say: this patent is 1000$ per user, and I hope we all understand what that means for free software compartibility.
No
Sure, you'd then have to pay Microsoft a fee, but that would probably be quite small, considering other patent fees.
AFAIK, Patent offices don't allow people to say "patent x will cost $100,000,000 per copy".
No, they do allow that.
Microsoft wouldn't go for it because it would allow greater competitor interoperability. Folks would start writing 100% compatible Open Office converters, and huge numbers of us would switch.
True that would be if you assumptions would be right. Unfortunately M$ has already filed patents on MS Office 2003 file format (Browse
He is wrong. It acctually is much more interesting.
Both USPTO and the new directive violate the TRIPS and the Berne convention which both USA and EU signed.
TRIPS article 12. says that software is to be considered a literary work.
Berne convention clearly states that literary works are not patentable.
The problem is that the European Council and the Irish Presidency claim that their proposition doesn't allow software patents, but that is such a pile of bullshit.
Software is math. Math is not patentable.
OR
Software is literature. Literature is not patentable.
To protect your ideas, a simple copyright is enough. You do not need patents in software field.
Don't be Braindead and assume that this is bad.
- 150-a4-pages) and the small company would go bancrupt due to layer fees even before the court proves their innocence. And if the small, but smart company would try to enforce a software patent on a large company, the large would countersue and take the patent in bancupcy procedure for peanuts.
Don't be braindead and assume it's good.
I am form a new European Country, from Latvia. I have studiet the effect the software patents will make on our IT industry and let me tel you - it ain't pretty.
All European small and medium IT related companies would instantly go to the state of limbo: any large company from Europe or USA or Japan could just sue them with one of 30 000 overbroad software patents (progress bar, tabbet paletes, hyperlinks, selling on web, selling on web with credit card, GIF, JPEG, any-other-trivial-idea-expressed-in-layerspeak-in
As you see, software patents in Europe are only good for large non-European enterprises.
Why should we allow them in Europe then?
BAN THE SOFTWARE PATENTS IN YOU COUNTRY TOO!
It is long not over, people.
On 17-18th of May, there will be a real vote by the Council of Ministers. If they vote against software patents - we win.
If Council of Ministers votes for software patents then the bill will return to european Parlament for a re-discussion, which will be postproned to September due to elections.
There we will have the chance to discuss this again, this time with a new European Parlament.
Note: the previose EPclearly stated AGAINST software patents.
Cann't disagree with you less
But please try the new debian-installer beta AND aptitude. It should get you up a bit in understanding AND usability.