I was under the impression that the rules allowed them to do that:
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/c. 8.html
"13. At any time during play, IBM may replace any or all of the computer hardware and/or software being used to play the games"
But it's still kind of dirty..
If you read his post, you'll realize that he is not defending Bush's actions. He's countering the partisan hacks who believe that their side is significantly less corrupt and abusive of power than the current administration.
Both major parties suck.
They're both corrupt. Both parties look out for their own interest above the common interest.
Just because you agree more with a certain ideology does not mean that you should believe that the political party claiming to also hold that ideology has any moral advantage over the other. To believe that is stupid and blind.
Agree more with one party, fine, but don't fool yourself into believing that they are any less corrupt than the other.
Re:Two great tastes that taste great together!
on
Encrypted Ammunition?
·
· Score: 1
People who are gun nuts because they believe it is an important safeguard of freedom will almost always support first amendment rights. They see arming themselves as a way to protect their free speech rights and would not oppose cryptography. The reverse is not always true, though.
If you're going to be hung, why do you care if you get to help select the type of rope?
Assuming of course that you won't be able to get away with picking one that won't hold your weight...
This is mostly on topic:
I don't understand why the original BSD license is incompatible with the GPL. I understand why the FSF thinks the "obnoxious advertising clause" is a problem (and somewhat agree with them), but I can not grasp why that could possibly make it GPL incompatible. I've read through the GPL, and unless my memory is fading, I'm pretty sure that there is nothing that says "derivative works may not include obnoxious advertising requirements" or anything like that or "the FSF can place arbitrary restrictions on how this software can be used for their own convenience". Indeed, if the latter case was true, people would (rightfully) avoid the GPL like the plague. What gives Richard Stallman and the FSF the power to dictate that you can not mix GPL and original-BSD code even though there is nothing in either license that suggests that?
I'm not trying to troll. I've got nothing against the GPL and I dislike the original BSD license. I'd really like to know.
By the definition in your sig, BSD licensed software is not free either, since it places the restriction that you must credit the author. By that definition, only software in the public domain is truly free.
The GPL is free in that the source code is open and can be redistributed and modified freely. The restrictions serve only to *preserve* the freedom.
And by the way, I prefer the BSD license as well. That doesn't make the GPL any less free.
Microsoft has finally been forced to innovate
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Since they crushed Netscape, Microsoft has not had to improve their browser any significant amount. It seems the threat from Firefox is forcing them to innovate and improve in a market they once took for granted.
I use Slackware, but lets not decieve ourselves. Slackware is not as up to date as Debian unstable (some would say that is a good thing, though), and uses alot of Debian patches for it's packages.
Who modded this funny? By default, anybody who laughs at their own joke is *not* funny.
Re:Linux Desktop Thoughts...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure that's a good idea. We already have X, and it works. X could be used to provide just as nice of a GUI as Aqua. X provides mechanism, not policy. All you need is a library that provides what you want *on top of* X. Of course, people have tried to do this a billion times already. We already have Motif, Qt, GTK, etc... Does the world really need another X toolkit?
Replacing X would not be a good idea, but an Aqua-style toolkit might be. I know you don't think that hanging more stuff on top of X is a good idea, but it probably would be the best way. X is portable and network transparent. You don't want to lose those things.
Slashdot Mirror
I was under the impression that the rules allowed them to do that: http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/c. 8.html
"13. At any time during play, IBM may replace any or all of the computer hardware and/or software being used to play the games"
But it's still kind of dirty..
If you read his post, you'll realize that he is not defending Bush's actions. He's countering the partisan hacks who believe that their side is significantly less corrupt and abusive of power than the current administration. Both major parties suck.
They're both corrupt. Both parties look out for their own interest above the common interest. Just because you agree more with a certain ideology does not mean that you should believe that the political party claiming to also hold that ideology has any moral advantage over the other. To believe that is stupid and blind. Agree more with one party, fine, but don't fool yourself into believing that they are any less corrupt than the other.
People who are gun nuts because they believe it is an important safeguard of freedom will almost always support first amendment rights. They see arming themselves as a way to protect their free speech rights and would not oppose cryptography. The reverse is not always true, though.
16 gigabit = 2 gigabytes.
That's not unreasonable at all (these days).
-1 no sense of humor
If you're going to be hung, why do you care if you get to help select the type of rope? Assuming of course that you won't be able to get away with picking one that won't hold your weight...
No, just BSD (Netcraft confirms it).
Where have you been? This is Slashdot, any positive comment about Linux is +5 insightful.
This is mostly on topic: I don't understand why the original BSD license is incompatible with the GPL. I understand why the FSF thinks the "obnoxious advertising clause" is a problem (and somewhat agree with them), but I can not grasp why that could possibly make it GPL incompatible. I've read through the GPL, and unless my memory is fading, I'm pretty sure that there is nothing that says "derivative works may not include obnoxious advertising requirements" or anything like that or "the FSF can place arbitrary restrictions on how this software can be used for their own convenience". Indeed, if the latter case was true, people would (rightfully) avoid the GPL like the plague. What gives Richard Stallman and the FSF the power to dictate that you can not mix GPL and original-BSD code even though there is nothing in either license that suggests that? I'm not trying to troll. I've got nothing against the GPL and I dislike the original BSD license. I'd really like to know.
By the definition in your sig, BSD licensed software is not free either, since it places the restriction that you must credit the author. By that definition, only software in the public domain is truly free. The GPL is free in that the source code is open and can be redistributed and modified freely. The restrictions serve only to *preserve* the freedom. And by the way, I prefer the BSD license as well. That doesn't make the GPL any less free.
And don't forget that theoretical physicists can kick ass with a crow bar.
Slackware?
Since they crushed Netscape, Microsoft has not had to improve their browser any significant amount. It seems the threat from Firefox is forcing them to innovate and improve in a market they once took for granted.
I use Slackware, but lets not decieve ourselves. Slackware is not as up to date as Debian unstable (some would say that is a good thing, though), and uses alot of Debian patches for it's packages.
Mod parent up funny!
For the love of God, somebody mod that up funny.
Who modded this funny? By default, anybody who laughs at their own joke is *not* funny.
I'm not sure that's a good idea. We already have X, and it works. X could be used to provide just as nice of a GUI as Aqua. X provides mechanism, not policy. All you need is a library that provides what you want *on top of* X. Of course, people have tried to do this a billion times already. We already have Motif, Qt, GTK, etc... Does the world really need another X toolkit? Replacing X would not be a good idea, but an Aqua-style toolkit might be. I know you don't think that hanging more stuff on top of X is a good idea, but it probably would be the best way. X is portable and network transparent. You don't want to lose those things.
He's a security researcher for Harvard, not some script kiddie breaking into systems to improve his botnet.
try gnu wget in recursive mode
Why can't Microsoft go the IBM route? I'd be more than happy if that happened, because that would still mean Linux is predominant OS.