What about "innocent until proven guilty"? What about when the law comes after you for simply disclosing a bug in some piece of software. Do you understand what a witch hunt is? You should be more careful about who you condemn. They may be coming for *you* some day...
The converse of an if... then is not necessarily true, even if the original statement is true.
An example:
If a polygon is a square, then it is also a rectangle. True.
Now the converse: If a polygon is a rectangle, then it is also a square. Not always true, therefore false.
If one person called up a spammer's toll-free number and sang them the Monty Python Spam Song or Weird Al Yankovic's Spam song, they might think it was a bit odd, but if a whole bunch of people started calling up, singing them a spam song, and hanging up, they might start to think it was a _movement_.
Maybe we should play Alice's Restaurant by Arlo Gunthree.
So what are YOU doing about the hungry and AIDs cases? Just Boo-hooing, or just trying to shift the blame to people that complain about "executives and companies worth millions of dollars"? Or are you actually pulling money out of your OWN pocket to buy food and drugs for these people? If the Whinners of the world put THEIR money where their mouths are, instead of bitching about other people that are also bitching then a lot of these problems would be lessened if not solved. Of course that assumes that the hungry and sick are a real concern, and not just an excuse to attack people that attack those who have more money.
So what am I doing about the hungry and AIDS cases and etc? Well, admittedly no too damn much. But at least I'm honest about it, and I don't waste a bunch of time attacking people that are attacking other people. Oh wait I just did. Oh well. Nevermind.
Bottom Line:
Given our current economic situation, right now, IMHO, it's too damn expensive to be sending out manned missions to Mars. Think about it. You should be lucky the conservatives haven't killed the space program altogether. I'm sure they've been trying.
Wait 'till if/when the economy is booming again. Then turn on the "oh-you-cowards!let's-go-kill-people-in-the-name-o f-exploration" speech. It will work better then.
I'm sure that was intended as a joke, but now that I think about it, it's possible that some of the people on slashdot are actually chat bots. That would explain a lot of their weird behaviors.
I think the only real function for this "desk" is to advertise the Macintosh on it. In other words, it'd be great to draw attention to the Macintosh for in-store demos or something but that's about it.
It's worth mentioning that, for the C64/128 at least, you could actually have variable names longer than two characters but only the first two characters would be recognized. All the rest were ignored. By way of example, here's a made up code sample. Since my C128 is currently in the closet, I can't guarentee this example's accuracy. Some other pedant may wish to.
Example 10 LET FROGS = 16
20 LET FRAGGLE = 12
30 LET FRANCE = FROLLIC * FROBNITZ
40 PRINT FROGS
Yes, but it's precisely because it isn't intuitive that training is required. In theory, tips along the lines of "don't-put-MSWord-documents-on-the-web" would be covered in the security thingie.
But whenever you throw out a new, radical idea, there's a process. The first part is the "ooh, wow! gee whiz" phase. After that, you have to start working out if the idea really makes sense. You can either do this in a kindly, friendly manner or a more abrasive, vitriolic one, but either way you have to scrutinize the idea fairly skeptically. Otherwise, you might find yourself in the city council discussing whether or not to build a landing strip for the aliens. [There's an episode of Investigative Reports which says that a certain town in Mexico was considering doing that at one point. I'm not sure if they eventually built it or not.]
"Wild speculation" isn't such a bad thing, in and of itself, but the question is: what comes next? We needs must have some careful, detailed analysis next. If the idea manages to survive that, then maybe it's worth pursuing further.
Of course, many people (myself included) are too busy or lazy to carry thorugh into that next phase, so they just end it after the first phase. The slashdot editors also often seem a little lazy since typos and misleading, sensationalist, or just plain wrong headlines often appear on this "news" site.
This is why I, and others, frequently make fun of slashdot, and I suspect that I and they will continue to do so. In my case, it doesn't necessarily mean I actually hate slashdot. It can be a lot of fun. Occasionally, I learn something too. It's just, there's no way I can trust it a whole lot or consider it a truly reliable source of information.
You could say that slashdot's greatest strength (environment where anyone can express any random view w/o fear of recrimination, etc) is also it's greatest weakness (total lack of accountability). Of course, neither of these claims is completely true. Firstly, there is recrimination on slashdot--people that don't agree with you can mod you down--not nice but it can happen. Secondly, there's not quite a total lack of accountability. It's only almost totally lacking.
Yes, well, I'm really not sure I like the idea of copyright extending 70 years after death anyway... or at least I don't like the unconditional nature of it.
Okay, now I'm not saying I'm necessarily so altruistic, but suppose a person existed that was. Also, nevermind the way things may or may not actually work for a moment, and walk with me into the idealistic land of shoulda-beens and oughta-bes. Shouldn't a person be able to relinquish all authority on something if they really want to? I mean, even if they had to jump through a few hoops, shouldn't they be able to do it?
Let's look at it another way. I can give things to people if I want. I can also sign over my copyright to someone if I want. Why can't I sign over my copyright to the general public?
Although I agree that it's something that almost no one would ever want to do, why should they not be allowed to do it? (remember we're in the make-believe ideal-land for now)
It could be that way. But if you'll allow me to play Devil's Advocate/Anti-virus Advocate (they're so similar) for a moment; it's possible that they happended to notice the modified version out there on the 'net first, then checked their most recent virus defs and determined that their software was able to detect both versions. At this part, the infomration was gleefully experssed to the marketing dept. and the "news brief" was made. Or perhaps it's all just a SNAFU. Does anybody have a copy of this AV software and the new virus version so we can verify the company's claim?
On a related subject, let me take this opportunity to mention that Vmyths exists and it's cool.
Alright, maybe there isn't an actual legal method by which you can forcefully make something that you create to be placed into the public domain immediately after creation, but if I were to state, "I herby relinquish all rights to [such-and-such] work to the general public" then wouldn't that pretty much be it? I mean maybe my copyright on that thing would still be in place for X-number of years, but who cares? I just released all my rights (the polar opposite of the standard "All rights reserved").
But, according to the article, even if SCO's right, they still have a problem: the released their own version of Linux for a while under the GPL. How are they gonna explain that one away?
Why can't we focus more energies towards improving the quality of human life? Why do they insist on spending so much time and money finding new ways to kill people?
It's a good Q and A, but I'm concerned that busy execs will only rapidly skim it (if they ever even see it) and only hit the parts where it says:
the jury, in its wisdom after hearing all the evidence, concludes that there are a few of SCO's trade secrets that ended up in Linux
Ask your own attorney to read these Qs and As and form your own judgment based on his or her advice
IBM improperly copied or modified some portion of SCO's trade secret copyrightable work and contributed it to be part of Linux.
Assume the very worst: Assume SCO wins its case against IBM and IBM writes a big check for damages. Assume SCO proves that some portion of Linux is a copy or derivative work of its trade secret software. Assume SCO gets an injunction to prevent anyone from using any version of Linux containing infringing code
Taken out of context, these quotes look horrible--even though they're mostly intended as hypotheticals and worst case scenerios demonstrating how not bad things will be for Linux users no matter what.
As anyone who saw the first episode of James Burke's original series Connections or the comedy movie Canadian Bacon would know, this is not first time New York has been involved in a major blackout. "While the [power] grid, which remains intact today, has proven to be highly effective, the night of November 9, 1965 serves as a reminder..." (Scroll down to the paragraph that starts with "At 5:27 p.m., November 9,")
If someone else has better links, please post them. This is just the first one I found.
I don't recognize the Russian chick, but anime model #1 sounds like the original All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku with a little bit of Skuld mixed in. Anime model #2 sounds like Demon Hunter Yohko.
I agree. This whole article is a troll or flamebait. I'm a true Microsoft hater (have been since Win3.11) and I still think this article headline is over the top. As some have pointed out, it's simplistic to assume that if 50% of crashes are from 3rd party, the other 50% are from MS software. The original article is so vague, it's possible that hardware problems could be responsible for a certain percentage of crashes as well.
This is actually the real problem. The article linked to by slashdot is so weak on detail, all discusion based on it is moot. I realized that after reading comments on this page for a while. It finally dawned on me: kernel space or user space... yes of course this difference matters, but there seems to be no way to tell which one the original article is really referring to. It's true that it shouldn't be possible for a user-space process to crash the kernel. But it's my understanding that it's often considered permissable to grant a user-space process direct access to the input and output devices (usually for games). If you do that, and that program then gets "wedeged", but doesn't actually crash, you can be in a situation where you're stuck unless you can telnet/ssh into the computer from another computer.
Previously, I had moderated one of the comments and I'm now intentionally undoing that moderation with this post. (Sort of a "moderation recall".) I don't think that post needs that "+1 Funny" all that badly. I think this entire article and all the comments in it are a waste of time. Including this one.
Slashdot Mirror
What about "innocent until proven guilty"? What about when the law comes after you for simply disclosing a bug in some piece of software. Do you understand what a witch hunt is? You should be more careful about who you condemn. They may be coming for *you* some day...
The converse of an if ... then is not necessarily true, even if the original statement is true.
An example:
If a polygon is a square, then it is also a rectangle. True.
Now the converse: If a polygon is a rectangle, then it is also a square. Not always true, therefore false.
Maybe we should play Alice's Restaurant by Arlo Gunthree.
Could you please provide proof for this assertion? What's your evidence?
Because that's not how the saying goes. Hanlon's Razor says "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
So what are YOU doing about the hungry and AIDs cases? Just Boo-hooing, or just trying to shift the blame to people that complain about "executives and companies worth millions of dollars"? Or are you actually pulling money out of your OWN pocket to buy food and drugs for these people? If the Whinners of the world put THEIR money where their mouths are, instead of bitching about other people that are also bitching then a lot of these problems would be lessened if not solved. Of course that assumes that the hungry and sick are a real concern, and not just an excuse to attack people that attack those who have more money.
So what am I doing about the hungry and AIDS cases and etc? Well, admittedly no too damn much. But at least I'm honest about it, and I don't waste a bunch of time attacking people that are attacking other people. Oh wait I just did. Oh well. Nevermind.
Let he who is not guilty cast the first stone.
Bottom Line:
Given our current economic situation, right now, IMHO, it's too damn expensive to be sending out manned missions to Mars. Think about it. You should be lucky the conservatives haven't killed the space program altogether. I'm sure they've been trying.
Wait 'till if/when the economy is booming again. Then turn on the "oh-you-cowards!let's-go-kill-people-in-the-name-o f-exploration" speech. It will work better then.
Yes, he was talking about the magic smoke inside all ICs.
I'm sure that was intended as a joke, but now that I think about it, it's possible that some of the people on slashdot are actually chat bots. That would explain a lot of their weird behaviors.
I think the only real function for this "desk" is to advertise the Macintosh on it. In other words, it'd be great to draw attention to the Macintosh for in-store demos or something but that's about it.
It's worth mentioning that, for the C64/128 at least, you could actually have variable names longer than two characters but only the first two characters would be recognized. All the rest were ignored. By way of example, here's a made up code sample. Since my C128 is currently in the closet, I can't guarentee this example's accuracy. Some other pedant may wish to.
Example
10 LET FROGS = 16
20 LET FRAGGLE = 12
30 LET FRANCE = FROLLIC * FROBNITZ
40 PRINT FROGS
Output: 144
Yes, but it's precisely because it isn't intuitive that training is required. In theory, tips along the lines of "don't-put-MSWord-documents-on-the-web" would be covered in the security thingie.
Robert X. Cringely reminds me of Jon Katz. A lot. Perhaps one is a clone of the other?
But whenever you throw out a new, radical idea, there's a process. The first part is the "ooh, wow! gee whiz" phase. After that, you have to start working out if the idea really makes sense. You can either do this in a kindly, friendly manner or a more abrasive, vitriolic one, but either way you have to scrutinize the idea fairly skeptically. Otherwise, you might find yourself in the city council discussing whether or not to build a landing strip for the aliens. [There's an episode of Investigative Reports which says that a certain town in Mexico was considering doing that at one point. I'm not sure if they eventually built it or not.]
"Wild speculation" isn't such a bad thing, in and of itself, but the question is: what comes next? We needs must have some careful, detailed analysis next. If the idea manages to survive that, then maybe it's worth pursuing further.
Of course, many people (myself included) are too busy or lazy to carry thorugh into that next phase, so they just end it after the first phase. The slashdot editors also often seem a little lazy since typos and misleading, sensationalist, or just plain wrong headlines often appear on this "news" site.
This is why I, and others, frequently make fun of slashdot, and I suspect that I and they will continue to do so. In my case, it doesn't necessarily mean I actually hate slashdot. It can be a lot of fun. Occasionally, I learn something too. It's just, there's no way I can trust it a whole lot or consider it a truly reliable source of information.
You could say that slashdot's greatest strength (environment where anyone can express any random view w/o fear of recrimination, etc) is also it's greatest weakness (total lack of accountability). Of course, neither of these claims is completely true. Firstly, there is recrimination on slashdot--people that don't agree with you can mod you down--not nice but it can happen. Secondly, there's not quite a total lack of accountability. It's only almost totally lacking.
Yes, well, I'm really not sure I like the idea of copyright extending 70 years after death anyway... or at least I don't like the unconditional nature of it.
Okay, now I'm not saying I'm necessarily so altruistic, but suppose a person existed that was. Also, nevermind the way things may or may not actually work for a moment, and walk with me into the idealistic land of shoulda-beens and oughta-bes. Shouldn't a person be able to relinquish all authority on something if they really want to? I mean, even if they had to jump through a few hoops, shouldn't they be able to do it?
Let's look at it another way. I can give things to people if I want. I can also sign over my copyright to someone if I want. Why can't I sign over my copyright to the general public?
Although I agree that it's something that almost no one would ever want to do, why should they not be allowed to do it? (remember we're in the make-believe ideal-land for now)
It could be that way. But if you'll allow me to play Devil's Advocate/Anti-virus Advocate (they're so similar) for a moment; it's possible that they happended to notice the modified version out there on the 'net first, then checked their most recent virus defs and determined that their software was able to detect both versions. At this part, the infomration was gleefully experssed to the marketing dept. and the "news brief" was made. Or perhaps it's all just a SNAFU. Does anybody have a copy of this AV software and the new virus version so we can verify the company's claim?
On a related subject, let me take this opportunity to mention that Vmyths exists and it's cool.
That would be an excellent slogan for slashdot.
Alright, maybe there isn't an actual legal method by which you can forcefully make something that you create to be placed into the public domain immediately after creation, but if I were to state, "I herby relinquish all rights to [such-and-such] work to the general public" then wouldn't that pretty much be it? I mean maybe my copyright on that thing would still be in place for X-number of years, but who cares? I just released all my rights (the polar opposite of the standard "All rights reserved").
Your thoughts?
But, according to the article, even if SCO's right, they still have a problem: the released their own version of Linux for a while under the GPL. How are they gonna explain that one away?
Copyleft can also be interpreted as "the RIGHT to copy this code has not been removed... it has been LEFT in. Share and enjoy."
Why can't we focus more energies towards improving the quality of human life? Why do they insist on spending so much time and money finding new ways to kill people?
It's a good Q and A, but I'm concerned that busy execs will only rapidly skim it (if they ever even see it) and only hit the parts where it says:
Taken out of context, these quotes look horrible--even though they're mostly intended as hypotheticals and worst case scenerios demonstrating how not bad things will be for Linux users no matter what.
As anyone who saw the first episode of James Burke's original series Connections or the comedy movie Canadian Bacon would know, this is not first time New York has been involved in a major blackout. "While the [power] grid, which remains intact today, has proven to be highly effective, the night of November 9, 1965 serves as a reminder..." (Scroll down to the paragraph that starts with "At 5:27 p.m., November 9,")
If someone else has better links, please post them. This is just the first one I found.
I don't recognize the Russian chick, but anime model #1 sounds like the original All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku with a little bit of Skuld mixed in. Anime model #2 sounds like Demon Hunter Yohko.
Do I win anything?
I agree. This whole article is a troll or flamebait. I'm a true Microsoft hater (have been since Win3.11) and I still think this article headline is over the top. As some have pointed out, it's simplistic to assume that if 50% of crashes are from 3rd party, the other 50% are from MS software. The original article is so vague, it's possible that hardware problems could be responsible for a certain percentage of crashes as well.
This is actually the real problem. The article linked to by slashdot is so weak on detail, all discusion based on it is moot. I realized that after reading comments on this page for a while. It finally dawned on me: kernel space or user space... yes of course this difference matters, but there seems to be no way to tell which one the original article is really referring to. It's true that it shouldn't be possible for a user-space process to crash the kernel. But it's my understanding that it's often considered permissable to grant a user-space process direct access to the input and output devices (usually for games). If you do that, and that program then gets "wedeged", but doesn't actually crash, you can be in a situation where you're stuck unless you can telnet/ssh into the computer from another computer.
Previously, I had moderated one of the comments and I'm now intentionally undoing that moderation with this post. (Sort of a "moderation recall".) I don't think that post needs that "+1 Funny" all that badly. I think this entire article and all the comments in it are a waste of time. Including this one.