and damned if they don't. It doesn't really matter one way or the other, because they're already in hell. And (as is true of humans), they are there because they chose to go there.
See, Microsoft started by creating "features" (like ActiveX on the web) that are horrible security ideas. Now they are trying to fix things. But they can't make it really secure (remove the feature), because too many web sites depend on it. So they have to try to fix the security without removing the features, and are coming up with all these layers of band-aids.
Moral to the story: Don't create "features" that are gaping security holes in the first place.
Look, if you get a "feeling of indebtedness" from him buying you a diamond ring, your relationship is in big trouble - a lot bigger trouble than just what kind of rings to get.
If you're going into a marriage with feelings of "who owes who", then don't go into it! Don't get married! If you don't have enough trust in him to trust that he won't hold over your head how much he paid, then you don't have enough trust to marry the guy.
And if you are going to feel that way, even if he never mentions it again, then you probably aren't ready for marriage. You're viewing the relationship in terms of power dynamics, and that's not how a good marriage operates.
Bottom line: If this is how you feel, don't say "I do." Cancel the engagement. (A broken engagement is much less painful than either a rotten marriage or a divorce.)
"Extortioners might become unemployed! Oh, no!" Like, that's a bad thing?
Any employees with any ethics should have seen the handwriting on the wall a long time ago, and should have gotten out by now. What's left is people who are actively or passively supporting extortion.
More admins running unsupported systems... yeah, I guess. On the other hand, they've gotten their notice a couple years ago, too - they are either going to be running unsupported systems (when SCO goes belly up), or they are going to be customers of a company that sues everyone in sight, specifically including their customers (in the remote chance that SCO wins).
In the Bible, in the book of Proverbs, it says, "The wise see trouble coming and hide themselves. The foolish proceed and pay the penalty."
The medical market isn't big. Or, rather, yes, the medical market is huge, but the medical market for CRTs is not big - not by comparison to the desktop PC market.
Yes, the medical market is probably big enough to ensure that one or two players keep making CRTs. They will become specialty items, however.
(Is there any reason that the medical market can't switch? Is there any reason that the medical market can't use CRTs?)
... find that they have less space in their lives for other people, less space for God (if religious), less space even for themselves. All they have is stuff - and emptiness.
This isn't really OT. It's the background for this issue. Do the owners want the coffeeshop to be a place for people to be isolated with their stuff? Kudos to them for making it a place where people are gently pushed to break out of their self-imposed solitary confinement.
A coffeeshop is so much more than a place that sells coffee...
I see your point. Well, not really a point... maybe a half a point... well, there's at least a tenth of a point in there.
Yes, when the citizens create the rules that allow for corporations to exist, they do so in the expectation that they will get a better society to live in. And the point is that if the existence of corporations is no longer a net good for the citizens, the citizens have the right and the power (and maybe even the responsibility) to eliminate corporations.
But saying that the corporations must increase the net welfare of society is not the same as saying that the corporations have to continue to employ deadwood. In fact, the overall welfare of society is increased by no longer wasting those individuals where they currently are, but rather making them find jobs where they can do some work that is genuinely useful.
In principle, this is bad. This is protectionism, and protectionism is a Bad Thing.
In practice, how bad this is depends on the details. Specifically, can a business get away with just having a Chinese subsidiary? And if that subsidiary can be in Hong Kong, many companies are already positioned to meet this requirement.
My mother has arthritis in her hands. She had been on stronger and stronger medicine, and finally was placed on an FDA-approved drug trial. The new medicine was really helping her...
And then one day she got a phone call: "Stop taking that medicine. Don't take the next pill. Go see your doctor immediately." One of the other patients had died from a side effect of the medication.
But for my mother, it was a real miracle drug. It has put her arthritis in remission for 10-15 years - and that is unheard of in the world of arthritis treatment.
Fen-phen comes to mind as another example. Playing games with stuff that hasn't been well studied may have great benefits, or serious consequences, or both. If the FDA hasn't done due diligence (or if you don't trust the FDA), then you'd better do your homework like your life depends on it. Don't just look for the reports of how wonderful the results can be - look for how bad the downside can be.
>>The first one, is to ask you to... to forgive Maureen O'Gara. What she did was vile; but it was out of frustration and anger.
>No, what she did was cold, calculated, and deliberate. The article wasn't a spur-of-the-moment flame on a chat site. It cost her and her backers time, money, and planning. And she's been building up to it for some time, as reflected in her "reporting".
That doesn't make what MOG did any less out of frustration and anger. It just means that the frustration and anger has been simmering for months.
The original comment was by a Buddhist. If you think of it from that perspective, the comment might make more sense to you. (I am not a Buddhist, but I think I somewhat understand the perspective.)
Um, no, UNIX is a trademark owned by The Open Group. SCO claims to own something called "UNIX", which they never quite specify what it is, but it certainly is not the trademark.
Yes and no. That fact is not established. But it is also not "in dispute", because AFAIK IBM has never made any arguments based on that in the court case - probably because IBM wants to establish that Linux is clean, regardless of who owns Unix.
So, the author doesn't even get that Linus wasn't a student of Tannenbaum. And we're supposed to believe his "keen insights" into the SCO v. IBM case? If they're anything like his keen knowledge of history, I'd take his view with enough salt to upset your doctor...
Because I have to live and work in this world. If this world consists of 99% people sending around Word documents, then it becomes harder to live (and communicate) without Word. If the Web consists of 99% sites that assume you are browsing with IE, then browsing with anything else becomes a more limited experience (because you can't access the full content of many sites).
I care about the world avoiding vendor lock-in because I have to live and work in the world that results from everybody's choices.
Well, as someone else pointed out, he's very likely to be made a full professor somewhere, very soon. That's "drafted" in an academic sense, more or less...
Yeah! Not to mention three (projected) number one draft picks this year: Alex Smith in football, Andrew Bogut in basketball, and of course Chandrashekhar Khare in mathematics! (Utah Alum, 1984)
I believe that TCP requires an acknowledgement that the other end of the link received the packet. So, using your numbers, that would be 1339 * 2 = 2678 seconds, which is 44.63 minutes (40 minutes in round figures).
But if you are sticking GPLed code in your proprietary product (contrary to the terms of the GPL), and getting caught in that situation leaves you only a few choices, and you don't like any of them... well, my heart fails to bleed for you.
Old news. That was IBM's motions for summary judgment, which were denied (though the judge had some amazingly harsh words for SCO in the process). That's not what this article is about at all.
Slashdot Mirror
and damned if they don't. It doesn't really matter one way or the other, because they're already in hell. And (as is true of humans), they are there because they chose to go there.
See, Microsoft started by creating "features" (like ActiveX on the web) that are horrible security ideas. Now they are trying to fix things. But they can't make it really secure (remove the feature), because too many web sites depend on it. So they have to try to fix the security without removing the features, and are coming up with all these layers of band-aids.
Moral to the story: Don't create "features" that are gaping security holes in the first place.
If you're going into a marriage with feelings of "who owes who", then don't go into it! Don't get married! If you don't have enough trust in him to trust that he won't hold over your head how much he paid, then you don't have enough trust to marry the guy.
And if you are going to feel that way, even if he never mentions it again, then you probably aren't ready for marriage. You're viewing the relationship in terms of power dynamics, and that's not how a good marriage operates.
Bottom line: If this is how you feel, don't say "I do." Cancel the engagement. (A broken engagement is much less painful than either a rotten marriage or a divorce.)
Any employees with any ethics should have seen the handwriting on the wall a long time ago, and should have gotten out by now. What's left is people who are actively or passively supporting extortion.
More admins running unsupported systems... yeah, I guess. On the other hand, they've gotten their notice a couple years ago, too - they are either going to be running unsupported systems (when SCO goes belly up), or they are going to be customers of a company that sues everyone in sight, specifically including their customers (in the remote chance that SCO wins).
In the Bible, in the book of Proverbs, it says, "The wise see trouble coming and hide themselves. The foolish proceed and pay the penalty."
Yes, the medical market is probably big enough to ensure that one or two players keep making CRTs. They will become specialty items, however.
(Is there any reason that the medical market can't switch? Is there any reason that the medical market can't use CRTs?)
... find that they have less space in their lives for other people, less space for God (if religious), less space even for themselves. All they have is stuff - and emptiness.
This isn't really OT. It's the background for this issue. Do the owners want the coffeeshop to be a place for people to be isolated with their stuff? Kudos to them for making it a place where people are gently pushed to break out of their self-imposed solitary confinement.
A coffeeshop is so much more than a place that sells coffee...
Did kremvax stay up?
You still need a way to get files off. Wireless would be cool (except for certain security issues), or cable (might be cheaper, too).
I see your point. Well, not really a point... maybe a half a point... well, there's at least a tenth of a point in there.
Yes, when the citizens create the rules that allow for corporations to exist, they do so in the expectation that they will get a better society to live in. And the point is that if the existence of corporations is no longer a net good for the citizens, the citizens have the right and the power (and maybe even the responsibility) to eliminate corporations.
But saying that the corporations must increase the net welfare of society is not the same as saying that the corporations have to continue to employ deadwood. In fact, the overall welfare of society is increased by no longer wasting those individuals where they currently are, but rather making them find jobs where they can do some work that is genuinely useful.
So, um, doesn't Intel lay off 5% of their employees every year? So why is it different when IBM does it?
Why? Well, an article like this usually starts a flamefest. And Firefox, just by the name, should do better in the flames...
In principle, this is bad. This is protectionism, and protectionism is a Bad Thing.
In practice, how bad this is depends on the details. Specifically, can a business get away with just having a Chinese subsidiary? And if that subsidiary can be in Hong Kong, many companies are already positioned to meet this requirement.
And then one day she got a phone call: "Stop taking that medicine. Don't take the next pill. Go see your doctor immediately." One of the other patients had died from a side effect of the medication.
But for my mother, it was a real miracle drug. It has put her arthritis in remission for 10-15 years - and that is unheard of in the world of arthritis treatment.
Fen-phen comes to mind as another example. Playing games with stuff that hasn't been well studied may have great benefits, or serious consequences, or both. If the FDA hasn't done due diligence (or if you don't trust the FDA), then you'd better do your homework like your life depends on it. Don't just look for the reports of how wonderful the results can be - look for how bad the downside can be.
I call bullshit. Care to document your assertion?
Well, he's anonymous, but from the writing style and thorough detail, I'd say that this is certainly sounds like Quatermass from Groklaw.
It occurs to me that if O'Gara really is a sock puppet for SCO, that would certainly explain the venom toward PJ and Groklaw in her articles...
>>The first one, is to ask you to... to forgive Maureen O'Gara. What she did was vile; but it was out of frustration and anger.
>No, what she did was cold, calculated, and deliberate. The article wasn't a spur-of-the-moment flame on a chat site. It cost her and her backers time, money, and planning. And she's been building up to it for some time, as reflected in her "reporting".
That doesn't make what MOG did any less out of frustration and anger. It just means that the frustration and anger has been simmering for months.
The original comment was by a Buddhist. If you think of it from that perspective, the comment might make more sense to you. (I am not a Buddhist, but I think I somewhat understand the perspective.)
Um, no, UNIX is a trademark owned by The Open Group. SCO claims to own something called "UNIX", which they never quite specify what it is, but it certainly is not the trademark.
Yes and no. That fact is not established. But it is also not "in dispute", because AFAIK IBM has never made any arguments based on that in the court case - probably because IBM wants to establish that Linux is clean, regardless of who owns Unix.
So, the author doesn't even get that Linus wasn't a student of Tannenbaum. And we're supposed to believe his "keen insights" into the SCO v. IBM case? If they're anything like his keen knowledge of history, I'd take his view with enough salt to upset your doctor...
I care about the world avoiding vendor lock-in because I have to live and work in the world that results from everybody's choices.
But if there are infinitely many possible code paths, it's going to be pretty hard to fully document functionality with comments, too...
Well, as someone else pointed out, he's very likely to be made a full professor somewhere, very soon. That's "drafted" in an academic sense, more or less...
Yeah! Not to mention three (projected) number one draft picks this year: Alex Smith in football, Andrew Bogut in basketball, and of course Chandrashekhar Khare in mathematics! (Utah Alum, 1984)
I believe that TCP requires an acknowledgement that the other end of the link received the packet. So, using your numbers, that would be 1339 * 2 = 2678 seconds, which is 44.63 minutes (40 minutes in round figures).
Then don't use the GPLed code. Simple.
But if you are sticking GPLed code in your proprietary product (contrary to the terms of the GPL), and getting caught in that situation leaves you only a few choices, and you don't like any of them... well, my heart fails to bleed for you.
Old news. That was IBM's motions for summary judgment, which were denied (though the judge had some amazingly harsh words for SCO in the process). That's not what this article is about at all.