Actually, as exception, it is very hard to 'overdose' on vitamine C. You'd rather want a lot too much than a little bit not enough of it. Unfortunately, most of our Western society do not know or act upon this. To achieve this, there are some little advices. From my head: eat fruit (but be careful w/combining), don't cook your vegetables too long (and again i suggest look into combining nutrients) and use the juice from cooked/warmed vegetables as water or sauce. It'll be both healthy (it contains vitamine C) and tasteful.
except that chocolate, like coffee, is consumed with enough sugar and dairyNot necessarily. Some drink coffee black, and have diary-free chocolate. I am lactose intollerant so i have little choice. But, there are several pure brands on the market which are diary-free. I only buy the brand of my local supermarket, pure version (not the milk one obviously) because it is cheap and 100% diary-free. It tastes okay and costs 1,19 EUR for 200g.
Also, coffee healthy? I'm actually researching it and have sleeping problems. Not waking up during sleep i actually sleep deep, but getting into sleep status. Coffee has a pH of 5, is acidic, and i think that together with cigarette which contains several toxics, it lowers your pH level to a state where it can actually hurt you. This is extra bad if you have ulcers like i have. So for some it really is not wise to drink coffee and therefore i'm stopping consuming it including other caffeine drinks. My substitute: destilated water...
What a hate against the French. But, a few days ago (i think it was friday) a friend told me she heard on the radio Armstrong actually was tested positive. Thats not the French media saying it, who said it so many times (esp certain newspapers). I have not seen the actual source but it makes one wonder. Perhaps mr. Armstrong commented on it as well, defending himself. I don't know.
PS: I'm not French nor do i hate Americans so keep that BS before you. Thanks.
You can feel in your core a disgust of violence, yet if you completely reject the use of force only the pricks and sociopaths will win in the end because they will always happily resort to violence.
...except the theory applied doesn't work well in practice: We really need law X and war Y. Its necessary! Its again commu^H^H^H^H^Hterrorism! One can always say: I really did my best, but we have to do Z. And the people eat it for breakfast. Because the secret service has some evidence about alie^H^H^H^Hterrorists they are not allowed to disclose. But its real! Trust us! Its similar for national laws...
Although not entirely related i just got reminded to a very good movie: Paths of Glory, by Stanley Kubrick. It deals with the selfishness/self-interest of people, who'd use that to act lying, having enormous consequences when these people are to decide over (e.g. the lives of) others. And the others acting in good faith, not knowing the story behind it, or getting threatened by force to do A or B.
I wrote the Enemy Territory 2.60 Release for Id/Activision under contract with them.
Thanks a lot for that. I really loved that game! Same with RTCW, but ET was more teamplay. I actually have a question: What are your findings of performance on ET versus ETF? I found out ETF runs better on my machine (AMD Athlon 1000 MHz with Radeon 9800 Pro 128 @ Linux). However especially custom maps on ET seemed to be problematic.
Yes, but who says the whole system needs to be BSD licensed? Or GPL licensed? If you use BusyBox what does it matter wether thats GPL or BSD licensed when you have not made any modifications? Same for uClibc.
uClibc may work with FreeBSD. The Debian GNU/KFreeBSD guys have the FreeBSD kernel working with a non-BSD userland space. This would mean one could use (parts) of the BSD licensed kernel, write modifications, and license them under whatever although i'm not sure uClibc also works.
The real reason why companies are a little afraid of the GPL is that there is always the potential for lawsuits.
Granted, it's a remote possibility, but a possibility all the same
And this is where FreeBSD can give people a choice.
First of all: why are those 'remote', legal possibilities not existant in FreeBSD? SCO? There's almost nobody who believes they have a case anymore and they also said some things about *BSD. So... what else? We're discussing drivers. If i write a driver for the Linux kernel and i release that sourcecode under the GPL then why would that make me somehow more vulnerable to a lawsuit than a BSD licensed driver for FreeBSD? Or if i write a proprietary driver? Nah, the significant advantage is the option to write a proprietary driver for FreeBSD. However that is also possible for the Linux kernel and the Linux kernel is more popular (esp for embedded purposes i think -- i have no statistics or ath just observation from linuxembedded.com whereas not seen much FreeBSD-based embedded hardware).
most companies would rather not be bothered with the GPL if given a choice.
Debatable. Given there are many corporations which deal with the GPL. The hazard is also debatable.
And what happens when the slashdot community burns a company for forgetting to post something, or posting modifications that are difficult to utilize. Remember Apple and Konqueror?
I guessApple prefers the BSD license though, yeah. One example doesn't make it a yes/no though and then again Apple doesn't contribute much open source software either. Its not in their interest (therefore i argue: Why would i care that Apple gets free goodies? They are being egoistic. Why should i be altruistic to them then?). But, different corporations have different interests. RedHat, for example, has a different view and i know various corporations which support the Linux kernel via a GPLed driver. ATI and NVidia do support a driver for Linux (and NVidia FreeBSD as well) but its not under the GPL. Its not in their interest to do so. But did they ever state they dislike the GPL or dealing with it? Did NVidia state they prefer to deal with the BSD license? Or FreeBSD? Over GPL or the Linux kernel?
And assuming it's just as good as Linux, it's a better choice due to legal issues.
The former is debatable. Regarding the latter: What legal issues does Linux have which FreeBSD doesn't have? The only one currectly known -excluding SCO- is the BSD license itself which means in this case that the corporation would not have to give their sourcecode changes back even when they'd distribute the binary. Wether thats a good or a bad thing -- debatable.
IOW, to end my post: I agree w/you on choice, i agree that there are circumstances where you're right if not only for the fact that there are so many corporative possiblities in this world. But to say the BSD license is always in advantage on a legal point of view while ignoring its protective powers, is too non-pragmatic to me.
Are the above posts really representative of the opions of most of us? It seems to me I've seldom seen so many confused people...
Assuming you mean with 'most of us' 'most of us slashdot users' please consider that 1) This is a very diverse group of people! I really find it sad there are sometimes blatant generalisations on this group every now and then (not only here on/.) even though i understand why it happens. 2) Most of the/. users have not and/or will not post in this thread or the previous related one. 3) Many if not most/. users will not have read this news or will not have read it extensively (ie. read only 1 of the 2 posts, did not read the article, or did not read at all, or heard from heresay). 4) Many/. readers do not post or post anonymously. Obviously, many do not post in this thread either. 5) Finally, popularity does not result in quality. This is a flaw in the moderation system and AFAIK there is no solution for it. It is unfortunate misinformation was spread, especially apparent in the previous thread. I give you that one and therefore thanks for claryfying!
I rather wonder what the hell they expected? People are dying for an alternative for Microsoft Windows. Not merely a little number of pirates. Millions! Now, they give a non-DRM developer edition away. Why would they NOT have expected this puppy would run in the wild? It happens all the time with Microsoft Longhorn betas! They better pray no pirate will make some user-friendly way to install the x86 version...
I would expect a similar reaction if there appears some highly publisized websites teaching and offering videos on tax evading practices, of course the IRS (or the equivalent organization on whatever country that happens) would eventually chase them.
The IRS has no jurisdiction in the USA. Unless you signed a W-4 contract somewhere in your life. They are no part of the US government or some tax collector; they are a fraud.
Exactly what i was thinking and exactly the reason why i won't use GMail and why i use Scroogle.
However if you have a computer running on the Internet with a moderate-big pipe (say sth near a T1) and use something like IPsec, VPN, or SSH + OTP you are all set. They may catch all the data but it won't be very useful to them. Have fun with it Google! Unless one of those ex-NSA guys who works for Google now knows how to deal with it *wink*.
Last year, around the time of the server seizure, the Italian government had an ISP shut down a server so they could steal the private key used for https encryption. They could then mount a man-in-the-middle attack reading all "encrypted" content, including webmail. The Italian govt got away with this attack for a year before it was discovered. The server was used by many indymedia and activist folks (the server was run by autistici--"the autistics" in italian).
Errr isn't that the server also used by ASCII crew and such? Is there any info on this action by the Italian government? I never heard about this one.
So did IBM, right? (I'm not so sure on this but we at least know IBM was a monopolist too.)
Suppressed or destroyed competition in the app space.
One could also argue OSS, saturated market, dotcom crash, et al did this. One could also argue Java/Mono make this a more diverse (again) and there are examples of large corporations such as Adobe who bought out Macromedia and killed (or gonna kill) off projects too (ie. Fireworks in this example). Is the latter Microsoft's fault?
Dictated an artificial (e.g. unnecessarily expensive) software replacement cycle.
So did "UNIX" (e.g. SGI).
Empowered unscrupulous businesses to spy on your every web surfing move.
Their biggest competitor on the 'search engine market', also known as Google, does the very same.
And what about GM? Corporations just want power. The bigger they get, the more unsure they are to maintain their power hence they protect themselves with more power. This power is used to create money for their survival and somehow used to make both customer and shareholder happy -- at the expense of smaller corporations who do have innovative ideas, could develop a living with it normally, but either hardly can, have to adapt a lot at their expense, or cannot -- simply because of one or more Behemoths. Last but not least: isn't it also the responsibility of the customer and shareholder?
Can't agree there. There's public, obscure information that wouldn't occur to anyone to search for, and then there's nicely packaged, published information. Prior to publication, few people knew, and after, many did.
Yes it's security through obscurity - but since it's absolutely impossible to get actual identity security, that's all we have these days.
It is possible! If you don't want being subject to data mining or getting in the picture make sure you don't get a big name, make sure you don't get private information widespread, keep work seperated from pleasure, etcetera. One can protect private information with real measures (e.g. encryption); once such is breached unlawfully without the author's consent i agree with you however the problem is such (almost) cannot be drawed back. Generally, once its out, its out.
Also note that the slashdot crowd went nuts when O'Gara did this to Pamela Jones.
..and the Slashdot crowd loves Google. Those are both (over-)generalisations.
Also, Google's not suing - they're punishing cNet for playing dirty. If CNet expected a different response from the article, they're retarded. If they don't want to talk to someone since they did something that wasn't nice, that's their right.
The GP never stated Google is suing, nor did the GP stated Google is not within their rights to "punish" (if thats how you want to call it) CNet. As a corporation, by nature and default, Google have the rights to decide to (not) talk to whatever other corporation they want to -- GP never argued otherwise. So this is besides the point.
Mind you, 'dirty playing' and 'being reasonable' is a matter of ethics and yours are obviously different than GPs or my ethics on this aspect.
Its more hilarious to me that the corporation in question provided the tool for CNet, demonstrating how powerful their own tool is to gather public albeit sensitive data with it when an effort it made to combine such data. Think about the numerous possibilies with such a tool!
My opinion on the matter is very simple: Google got beaten by their own tool and instead of getting the punch and accepting this, they feel its justified to punch back.
Good question. I thought the very same, but i'd like to add that it seems to me that: 1) When it matters, there is info lacking why it mattered. 2) When it doesn't matter, why was it mentioned?
You see, every once in a while there's information in a newspaper or something and it includes details which do not seem to make any sense.
I'm wondering if i should end my post stating what my religion is. Not that i have any...;-)
To access a news group you have to connecet to a server that hosts the group.
NNTP allows servers to request only the parts of the USENET hierarchy that they wish to carry.
Hence the content of a news article is stored on the server you connect to.
The content of a web page is not stored on the ISP's servers, caching asside, and as such the ISP is only acting as a carrier not as a host.
Every aspect you mention here is already the case. Usenet servers only cache already (that some do this longer than others is irrelevant). Admins already chose groups they wish to (not) carry (even via regexps). A web page on a HTTP server is not automagically deleted after X time and is therefore not considered 'cache'.
That said, on a newsserver they aren't only passing on the data, but also actively storing it (from what I've read it can only be considered caching if it's retained for no more than 48 hours).
In the Netherlands there's jurisprudence on this one and what matters is that the data is automagically deleted after X time instead of manually in order to be considered a cache. The amount of X does not matter in that regard. Unfortunately i can't find the relevant link...
besides i had never even heard of this AV company before, and I suspect>/i> their *nix AV products were not exactly selling like hot cakes. So from a business POV this makes perfect sense.
1) The fact you never even heard of the company does not say everything about the quality of the software we discuss (the AV for *NIX). 2) You suspect, but don't tell why, don't give hard numbers. 3) Then you continue to say it makes 'perfect sense'. May be, may be not. I don't see how you've proven that.
Let us not forgot this is the second AV corporation bought out, and the second one which had a *NIX version (IIRC Linux only). The first one was that Romanian one, which if i may add, had a pretty and user-friendly interface. I admit i'm not sure this product was doing well on their *NIX versions.
IRV has many problems. Also see this example. There was/is a compare between several election methods on the same website but i cannot find it right now.
Illegally? Where? Last time i checked, the world is more than US only. US patents don't apply everywhere (yet?) so please also add the possibility for non-US residents; they may perfeclty use the patented code (source, binary, module, yada). So this is in the disadvantage of those who fall under US jurisdiction. In this case, sad for these poor souls, but that doesn't mean the patent and hence this problem applies globally for whole Earth's humanity.
Just wondering -- is an Aspie able to learn to socially interact with people, or to learn how to detect emotions in e.g. body language when socially interacting? I know it is a disorder, but that doesn't exclude the earlier mentioned possibility at whole. Btw my 2nd question is: does Aspergers also include animals or is it merely about humans?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, as exception, it is very hard to 'overdose' on vitamine C. You'd rather want a lot too much than a little bit not enough of it. Unfortunately, most of our Western society do not know or act upon this. To achieve this, there are some little advices. From my head: eat fruit (but be careful w/combining), don't cook your vegetables too long (and again i suggest look into combining nutrients) and use the juice from cooked/warmed vegetables as water or sauce. It'll be both healthy (it contains vitamine C) and tasteful.
except that chocolate, like coffee, is consumed with enough sugar and dairyNot necessarily. Some drink coffee black, and have diary-free chocolate. I am lactose intollerant so i have little choice. But, there are several pure brands on the market which are diary-free. I only buy the brand of my local supermarket, pure version (not the milk one obviously) because it is cheap and 100% diary-free. It tastes okay and costs 1,19 EUR for 200g.
Also, coffee healthy? I'm actually researching it and have sleeping problems. Not waking up during sleep i actually sleep deep, but getting into sleep status. Coffee has a pH of 5, is acidic, and i think that together with cigarette which contains several toxics, it lowers your pH level to a state where it can actually hurt you. This is extra bad if you have ulcers like i have. So for some it really is not wise to drink coffee and therefore i'm stopping consuming it including other caffeine drinks. My substitute: destilated water...
What a hate against the French. But, a few days ago (i think it was friday) a friend told me she heard on the radio Armstrong actually was tested positive. Thats not the French media saying it, who said it so many times (esp certain newspapers). I have not seen the actual source but it makes one wonder. Perhaps mr. Armstrong commented on it as well, defending himself. I don't know.
PS: I'm not French nor do i hate Americans so keep that BS before you. Thanks.
Although not entirely related i just got reminded to a very good movie: Paths of Glory, by Stanley Kubrick. It deals with the selfishness/self-interest of people, who'd use that to act lying, having enormous consequences when these people are to decide over (e.g. the lives of) others. And the others acting in good faith, not knowing the story behind it, or getting threatened by force to do A or B.
Well 1.17beta runs on IRIX. It would be nice to have an update to it. It ran quite smooth on my Octane with V8 btw.
Yes, but who says the whole system needs to be BSD licensed? Or GPL licensed? If you use BusyBox what does it matter wether thats GPL or BSD licensed when you have not made any modifications? Same for uClibc.
uClibc may work with FreeBSD. The Debian GNU/KFreeBSD guys have the FreeBSD kernel working with a non-BSD userland space. This would mean one could use (parts) of the BSD licensed kernel, write modifications, and license them under whatever although i'm not sure uClibc also works.
Debatable. Given there are many corporations which deal with the GPL. The hazard is also debatable.
I guess Apple prefers the BSD license though, yeah. One example doesn't make it a yes/no though and then again Apple doesn't contribute much open source software either. Its not in their interest (therefore i argue: Why would i care that Apple gets free goodies? They are being egoistic. Why should i be altruistic to them then?). But, different corporations have different interests. RedHat, for example, has a different view and i know various corporations which support the Linux kernel via a GPLed driver. ATI and NVidia do support a driver for Linux (and NVidia FreeBSD as well) but its not under the GPL. Its not in their interest to do so. But did they ever state they dislike the GPL or dealing with it? Did NVidia state they prefer to deal with the BSD license? Or FreeBSD? Over GPL or the Linux kernel?
The former is debatable. Regarding the latter: What legal issues does Linux have which FreeBSD doesn't have? The only one currectly known -excluding SCO- is the BSD license itself which means in this case that the corporation would not have to give their sourcecode changes back even when they'd distribute the binary. Wether thats a good or a bad thing -- debatable.
IOW, to end my post: I agree w/you on choice, i agree that there are circumstances where you're right if not only for the fact that there are so many corporative possiblities in this world. But to say the BSD license is always in advantage on a legal point of view while ignoring its protective powers, is too non-pragmatic to me.
1) This is a very diverse group of people! I really find it sad there are sometimes blatant generalisations on this group every now and then (not only here on
2) Most of the
3) Many if not most
4) Many
5) Finally, popularity does not result in quality. This is a flaw in the moderation system and AFAIK there is no solution for it. It is unfortunate misinformation was spread, especially apparent in the previous thread. I give you that one and therefore thanks for claryfying!
The IRS has no jurisdiction in the USA. Unless you signed a W-4 contract somewhere in your life. They are no part of the US government or some tax collector; they are a fraud.
Exactly what i was thinking and exactly the reason why i won't use GMail and why i use Scroogle.
However if you have a computer running on the Internet with a moderate-big pipe (say sth near a T1) and use something like IPsec, VPN, or SSH + OTP you are all set. They may catch all the data but it won't be very useful to them. Have fun with it Google! Unless one of those ex-NSA guys who works for Google now knows how to deal with it *wink*.
One could also argue OSS, saturated market, dotcom crash, et al did this. One could also argue Java/Mono make this a more diverse (again) and there are examples of large corporations such as Adobe who bought out Macromedia and killed (or gonna kill) off projects too (ie. Fireworks in this example). Is the latter Microsoft's fault?
So did "UNIX" (e.g. SGI).
Their biggest competitor on the 'search engine market', also known as Google, does the very same.
And what about GM? Corporations just want power. The bigger they get, the more unsure they are to maintain their power hence they protect themselves with more power. This power is used to create money for their survival and somehow used to make both customer and shareholder happy -- at the expense of smaller corporations who do have innovative ideas, could develop a living with it normally, but either hardly can, have to adapt a lot at their expense, or cannot -- simply because of one or more Behemoths. Last but not least: isn't it also the responsibility of the customer and shareholder?
..and the Slashdot crowd loves Google. Those are both (over-)generalisations.
The GP never stated Google is suing, nor did the GP stated Google is not within their rights to "punish" (if thats how you want to call it) CNet. As a corporation, by nature and default, Google have the rights to decide to (not) talk to whatever other corporation they want to -- GP never argued otherwise. So this is besides the point.
Mind you, 'dirty playing' and 'being reasonable' is a matter of ethics and yours are obviously different than GPs or my ethics on this aspect.
Its more hilarious to me that the corporation in question provided the tool for CNet, demonstrating how powerful their own tool is to gather public albeit sensitive data with it when an effort it made to combine such data. Think about the numerous possibilies with such a tool!
My opinion on the matter is very simple: Google got beaten by their own tool and instead of getting the punch and accepting this, they feel its justified to punch back.
Good question. I thought the very same, but i'd like to add that it seems to me that:
;-)
1) When it matters, there is info lacking why it mattered.
2) When it doesn't matter, why was it mentioned?
You see, every once in a while there's information in a newspaper or something and it includes details which do not seem to make any sense.
I'm wondering if i should end my post stating what my religion is. Not that i have any...
Every aspect you mention here is already the case. Usenet servers only cache already (that some do this longer than others is irrelevant). Admins already chose groups they wish to (not) carry (even via regexps). A web page on a HTTP server is not automagically deleted after X time and is therefore not considered 'cache'.
In soccer we used to say: Deutschland, Deutschland alles ist vorbei! Alles ist vorbei! Alles ist vorbei! 1988 :-) and that is in NL.
1) The fact you never even heard of the company does not say everything about the quality of the software we discuss (the AV for *NIX).
2) You suspect, but don't tell why, don't give hard numbers.
3) Then you continue to say it makes 'perfect sense'. May be, may be not. I don't see how you've proven that.
Let us not forgot this is the second AV corporation bought out, and the second one which had a *NIX version (IIRC Linux only). The first one was that Romanian one, which if i may add, had a pretty and user-friendly interface. I admit i'm not sure this product was doing well on their *NIX versions.
IRV has many problems. Also see this example. There was/is a compare between several election methods on the same website but i cannot find it right now.
Illegally? Where? Last time i checked, the world is more than US only. US patents don't apply everywhere (yet?) so please also add the possibility for non-US residents; they may perfeclty use the patented code (source, binary, module, yada). So this is in the disadvantage of those who fall under US jurisdiction. In this case, sad for these poor souls, but that doesn't mean the patent and hence this problem applies globally for whole Earth's humanity.
Just wondering -- is an Aspie able to learn to socially interact with people, or to learn how to detect emotions in e.g. body language when socially interacting? I know it is a disorder, but that doesn't exclude the earlier mentioned possibility at whole. Btw my 2nd question is: does Aspergers also include animals or is it merely about humans?