There is a simple solution to this whole SCO situation.
Why doesn't SCO just sue itself for unspecified damages for distributing its own code under the GPL in violation of its own licensing terms. Then settle out of court for undisclosed sum.
Seems like everybody wins under this scenario. Well, except maybe SCO.
The ending in the film was too Hollywood. Too pat. "Oh, he shot himself in the face and now everything is great. We haven't really discussed a sense of love between "Jack" and Marla, but they're the male and female leads, so just have them hold hands."
As I remember it the movie gives even less attention to what happens to the space monkeys than the book.
what happened to the bomb in the building where the narrator is sitting?
He says repeatedly that paraffin never worked for him. The building didn't blow up.
He ends up in an institution. That's why he gets letters from Marla, and God has diplomas on the wall.
As far as the space monkeys go, it is hard to be sure, since the story is told by someone who is hopelessly delusional, but it seems likely that either they continue without him (as implied by the winks from the orderlies) or that they were all delusions in the first place. Depends on how much faith you put in the narrator's account and just how delusional you take him to be.
The book seems unfinished - bits of it don't make a whole lot of sense.
I think that the fact that the story is narrated by someone who is gravely mentally ill has something to do with this.
Again, I like the movie more, as movies go, than I do the book, as books go. If that makes any sense. But I think that the book is quite good.
The movie has more to say. At least more that I find interesting and relevant to my own life. This is probably the crux of why I like the movie better. And the main reason that the opposite is usually true.
As it happens, I just finished reading "Fight Club" today.
Very good book. It may be the only book I've ever read that isn't as good as the movie, but it is my all-time favorite movie. That's a lot to live up to.
I don't really get your sig though. But I might change mine to "HIDEOUSLY WRINKLED (stop) PLEASE HELP ME! (end)"
First, there are approximately nine million proper nouns in there. They refer to about five million people and places. All of the "most important" people and places have three names.
Unless you are accustomed to reading books with a notebook and pen handy, or get clued in early and get a copy of The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth (and don't have a major issue with cutting over to a reference work once or twice per page) it makes the first read pretty tough. Second was no joy ride for me on that count either.
The movies may have lowered this barrier to entry, since people can go into the book with a face for each (set of) name(s).
The other is that uncommon language is used throughout the books, both in terms of vocabulary and phraseology. For example, on my first reading I had no idea what a "brace of coney" were. In Colorado coney means marmot, not rabbit. I say couple or pair, never brace.
It is taxing on the mind to deal with uncommon language for more than a couple of minutes.
Please note that neither of these points are criticisms. Both, IMO, enhance the work.
Clearly this is some use of the word "universal" that I haven't seen before.
Let's assume the speed of light is a constant.
The other unit in your equation is the second. The second (traditionally*) is 1/31,557,600 of a rather inaccurate measure of the period of the orbit of an unremarkable (unless the presence intelligent life is remarkable in the universe) planet around its star.
This is hardly universal. It isn't really even planetary, since it is an arbitrary fraction.
-Peter
* Modern definitions of the second are not based on Earth's orbital period, but are intended to conveniently and consistently approximate that period.
Just my point, I think that Pater thinks that "Pater" is his surname. I don't think that it is.
Thanks for keeping up.
-Peter
PS: To the guy that was griping that not everybody is Christian, I'm not Christian. It doesn't seem like trying to pretend away one of, if not the, major influences on Western society is very productive to me.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say in your first point.
On the "Whoops" issue: Tough. They are, at least trying to, make money on GPL software. That's fine. Perfectly fine. In fact it is encouraged.
But, this is not just a free-for-all. To turn your argument on its ear, they can't just say "Whoops, we didn't mean to put that under the GPL. Give us money now."
First of all, a tern is a bird, or something consisting of three parts.
Second of all, my argument is completely technically correct, if totally impractical.
Your argument is nonsense. It's like "I didn't break the window, officer, the hammer did." The hammer was impelled by your muscles and guided by your thoughts. You did the act.
Or maybe even more to the point, the fact that a postal carrier delivered the mail bomb doesn't negate the fact that you sent it.
You would have come off looking a lot smarter if you had pointed out that I have multiple machines with open TCP connections at any given time, and that, in practice, I have multiple machines connected simultaneously via a multiplexed serial line. Smarter, but humor impaired.
Woah, there. Ethernet is serial, I have an Ethernet connection from my NAT box to my cable modem. Therefore I only have one PC communicating with (AKA "hooked up to") the ISP at at time.
Why don't you ask Steve "Developers, Developers, Developers" Ballmer?
I say this, not to be snide (well, okay, a little bit), but to point out that the ostensible strengths of proprietary software are mostly illusory.
Next up, "My boss wouldn't let me run Linux, 'cause there was no one to sue if things went wrong. We subsequently got burned by some MS software, but the license agreement says we can't sue them. How did we come out ahead on this?"
Of course, all those systems need different binaries. Even with DVD distro media that a crapload of files.
You could build from source on install, but that would be almost as bad in terms of all the little freaky patchlevels you'd need to get everything to work.
You're dead right about the FSF though. Why not become a member?
Slashdot Mirror
It was someone like you that came up with the Farad.
Damned uselessly large units.
-Peter
There is a simple solution to this whole SCO situation.
Why doesn't SCO just sue itself for unspecified damages for distributing its own code under the GPL in violation of its own licensing terms. Then settle out of court for undisclosed sum.
Seems like everybody wins under this scenario. Well, except maybe SCO.
-Peter
This thing is tiny. And it is mostly battery. If it runs off of the phone's battery its size and power consumption would both be negligable.
LEDs generally have an itty bitty mirror built in. Look at a clear one that is off some time, it is pretty easy to spot.
-Peter
Since I have no relpy I'll just quote a Haiku from the book (that didn't make it to the movie):
-Peter
I thought the ending in the book made more sense.
The ending in the film was too Hollywood. Too pat. "Oh, he shot himself in the face and now everything is great. We haven't really discussed a sense of love between "Jack" and Marla, but they're the male and female leads, so just have them hold hands."
As I remember it the movie gives even less attention to what happens to the space monkeys than the book.
He says repeatedly that paraffin never worked for him. The building didn't blow up.
He ends up in an institution. That's why he gets letters from Marla, and God has diplomas on the wall.
As far as the space monkeys go, it is hard to be sure, since the story is told by someone who is hopelessly delusional, but it seems likely that either they continue without him (as implied by the winks from the orderlies) or that they were all delusions in the first place. Depends on how much faith you put in the narrator's account and just how delusional you take him to be.
I think that the fact that the story is narrated by someone who is gravely mentally ill has something to do with this.
Again, I like the movie more, as movies go, than I do the book, as books go. If that makes any sense. But I think that the book is quite good.
The movie has more to say. At least more that I find interesting and relevant to my own life. This is probably the crux of why I like the movie better. And the main reason that the opposite is usually true.
-Peter
Between the email link you alluded to in the subject and the red title bar I take it that Michael is (finally) on some sort of editor probation. ;-)
-Peter
Yeah, you're right. It was late, and I hadn't thought about it in a while.
I really like it. But it can be exausting.
-Peter
As it happens, I just finished reading "Fight Club" today.
Very good book. It may be the only book I've ever read that isn't as good as the movie, but it is my all-time favorite movie. That's a lot to live up to.
I don't really get your sig though. But I might change mine to "HIDEOUSLY WRINKLED (stop) PLEASE HELP ME! (end)"
-Peter
LoTR is one (six?) of my favorite books.
IMO it is a "tough read" for two key reasons.
First, there are approximately nine million proper nouns in there. They refer to about five million people and places. All of the "most important" people and places have three names.
Unless you are accustomed to reading books with a notebook and pen handy, or get clued in early and get a copy of The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth (and don't have a major issue with cutting over to a reference work once or twice per page) it makes the first read pretty tough. Second was no joy ride for me on that count either.
The movies may have lowered this barrier to entry, since people can go into the book with a face for each (set of) name(s).
The other is that uncommon language is used throughout the books, both in terms of vocabulary and phraseology. For example, on my first reading I had no idea what a "brace of coney" were. In Colorado coney means marmot, not rabbit. I say couple or pair, never brace.
It is taxing on the mind to deal with uncommon language for more than a couple of minutes.
Please note that neither of these points are criticisms. Both, IMO, enhance the work.
-Peter
I've heard that the first Earth Day was to raise awareness of the menace of "Global Cooling."
The Earth Day people won't return my emails (which I sort of take as a tacit admission).
Can you confirm this?
-Peter
I don't understand the problem.
Do you contend that strong typing is inherently wrong? Or that Cs default casting should be better at guessing what you mean? Or what?
-Peter
Clearly this is some use of the word "universal" that I haven't seen before.
Let's assume the speed of light is a constant.
The other unit in your equation is the second. The second (traditionally*) is 1/31,557,600 of a rather inaccurate measure of the period of the orbit of an unremarkable (unless the presence intelligent life is remarkable in the universe) planet around its star.
This is hardly universal. It isn't really even planetary, since it is an arbitrary fraction.
-Peter
* Modern definitions of the second are not based on Earth's orbital period, but are intended to conveniently and consistently approximate that period.
Uh, could it have something to do with it being (partially) made of iridium?
-Peter
Three words: Bible. Foxy boxing.
I want my points.
-Peter
Just my point, I think that Pater thinks that "Pater" is his surname. I don't think that it is.
Thanks for keeping up.
-Peter
PS: To the guy that was griping that not everybody is Christian, I'm not Christian. It doesn't seem like trying to pretend away one of, if not the, major influences on Western society is very productive to me.
-P
I have no idea what his surname is, but his mail would be rejected due to his given or christian name, Pater.
-Peter
I don't really understand what you are trying to say in your first point.
On the "Whoops" issue: Tough. They are, at least trying to, make money on GPL software. That's fine. Perfectly fine. In fact it is encouraged.
But, this is not just a free-for-all. To turn your argument on its ear, they can't just say "Whoops, we didn't mean to put that under the GPL. Give us money now."
-Peter
If you have a genuine concern you should raise it. (As always, if it isn't in writing, it never happened.)
Then let it go. If you want to be extra-double sure, get your own lawyer.
You, however, are not their lawyer. It is not your job to advise them on legalities.
-Peter
What is with all the "pc" this and "pc" that? I assume it means percent (aka "%").
Is the Euro symbol shift-5 on European keyboards or what?
-Peter
First of all, a tern is a bird, or something consisting of three parts.
Second of all, my argument is completely technically correct, if totally impractical.
Your argument is nonsense. It's like "I didn't break the window, officer, the hammer did." The hammer was impelled by your muscles and guided by your thoughts. You did the act.
Or maybe even more to the point, the fact that a postal carrier delivered the mail bomb doesn't negate the fact that you sent it.
You would have come off looking a lot smarter if you had pointed out that I have multiple machines with open TCP connections at any given time, and that, in practice, I have multiple machines connected simultaneously via a multiplexed serial line. Smarter, but humor impaired.
Nice try anyway.
-Peter
Woah, there. Ethernet is serial, I have an Ethernet connection from my NAT box to my cable modem. Therefore I only have one PC communicating with (AKA "hooked up to") the ISP at at time.
HA!
-Peter
Caught, Can I Get a Witness?
Please note that "Can I Get a Witness?" is the name of a Marvin Gaye song, so most of the title is a "sample."
"What do you mean we're stealing beats? Ya'll can't copyright no beats!" -Flavor Flav
-Peter
Extrapolating my rate of progress it should be done in about three hundred years.
Check out the FCP. The project is really at a stand still right now, but interest breeds progress.
-Peter
Why don't you ask Steve "Developers, Developers, Developers" Ballmer?
I say this, not to be snide (well, okay, a little bit), but to point out that the ostensible strengths of proprietary software are mostly illusory.
Next up, "My boss wouldn't let me run Linux, 'cause there was no one to sue if things went wrong. We subsequently got burned by some MS software, but the license agreement says we can't sue them. How did we come out ahead on this?"
-Peter
Of course, all those systems need different binaries. Even with DVD distro media that a crapload of files.
You could build from source on install, but that would be almost as bad in terms of all the little freaky patchlevels you'd need to get everything to work.
You're dead right about the FSF though. Why not become a member?
-Peter