It might well be that they learn (slowly, like the slowest of your "friends" in 1st grade), the lessons of open source.
But then, they will not pay. They _claim_ to care about "intellectual property". But only when a _laywer_ that can _sue_ them, they will _respect_ the lessons to be something of value.
So I will be glad when they are destroyed, once for all, and everybody else trying to _exploit_ others' work will have something to fear for.
I mean, Microsoft _invented_ the notion that you should be paid for the _same_ work over and over and over and over again. Only they profited from that. And if you are not a Microsoft shill, you will _have_ to agree that this was unethical.
Now they "learn" from Open Source? Well, even if they do, do they compensate those who taught them something?
I guess not. So this planet will be better off if Microsoft dies a _violent_ death, discouraging all those parasites out there, trying to behave like Microsoft, too.
These days, a good attorney is a good defense, not the truth. You can have all the truth on your side, but if you cannot afford a good lawyer, proper procedures will not be followed (because you do not know them), and the judge will think you are wrong.
In our times, it is money, not the truth, that shall set you free.
He _says_ that it has a funny feel to it, being watched. And he sees that the agency _does_ look at his blog.
Also, in another comment on this thread, there are other good arguments, like that you _need_ privacy when the president becomes to powerful _and_ misuses his powers.
So, plenty of good arguments. If you don't want to acknowledge them, that's your problem. Not mine.
It's not anything like a religion. Many people seem to be unable, much like you, to see that you _need_ privacy to live a happy life. Much like you need clean air to live a happy life.
Yes, you can survive without both, clean air and privacy. Yet, is this a life you want to have?
Go watch "Life of others". It is really depressing to live in a surveillance society.
Maybe those countries who did _not_ experience Gestapo-like distrust, arbitrariness, and the mental consequences this brings to your personal life, _have_ to go through a phase like that, to be able to value what the founding fathers tried to establish by the right of anonymous speech and the pursuit of happiness.
However, this would be only the second-best solution: I personally know people who lived in East Germany, and even if some of them experienced this kind of soul-destroying constant pressure only in their childhood, they are spoiled for life. When they talk to me on the phone and hear a click, their _first_ thought (if they want or not) is that somebody is listening in.
"Can you please define what you meant by morals now, in your worldview?"
I thought it was evident: it is a common standard between people. In the ideal it is a promise not to do something to others that you don't want them to do to you. By that, lawsuits and killing other people could be avoided (raising your fitness for survival).
"Morality is a fluid concept. Economics isn't."
Right on the first account, wrong on the second (just look around in the world, not just the "Western" part).
There is no way that SCO believes that still, if it ever has. But to admit that now would mean losing their collective face, _and_ facing charges on bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
That's exactly what makes people burn your flag, and eventually fly your planes. If you do not know what I am talking about, then think very long and hard about why people do have morals at all.
If you do not recognize the problem, it just might be that you
a) do not experience it -> cannot help. b) do not hear it -> cannot help. c) notice it, but do not want to help!
In every case, it might have been a good idea to wait and see if more intelligent and/or helpful people chime in, and might provide an answer to the riddle. And until that time, just shut up. You probably will just look foolish if you try otherwise .
I actually *understand* the physics behind that phenomenon, and alas, there is no better solution than what was provided in another response: put your cell phone at least one foot away from the speakers. The problem is Maxwell: in order to send a signal successfully to the next station (remember: this is most likely indoors, as speakers are less usefull outside, and thus, there is probably a wall, which has to be penetrated by electromagnetic waves) the cell phone has to "pump up the volume".
The energy is degrading with the second power of the distance to the cell phone, so: putting it at double distance to the speaker (or the next station, for that matter) will lower the received energy by 75%. Same is true for the station, but that is farther away to begin with.
I actually looked at the specification. The long name is stored in directory entries which old DOS ignores, but they *reference* a single directory entry with the short name. So, the whole information about the file *except* the long name must be in another entry, together with the short name.
Hi,
if I had read that story (even as a youth), I would have been angry: it is
in no way realistic. Suppose there was somebody having had warp drive, and
being able to prove that c is smaller in hyperdimension: WTF should he be
keeping it secret?
you may have the impression that video card drivers live in kernel space in Linux. But they don't. Only a very small part does. The rest is done in user space. Don't confuse kernel space with "root"...
If somebody *expects* me to steal, when I did not merit that expectancy in the first place, then yes, you might say, they criminalize me. And that just p*sses me off.
I don't go and shout "you are a murderer" to Sony's boss, just because he might get a gun someday and actually shoot somebody.
This is good news? The letter did not say what you state. Instead, it says: In order to abuse the system, you have to make a lawyer rich. It does not, repeat, _not_ say that you cannot register such trademarks.
Maybe, just maybe, 90% of the market isn't completely wrong.
You are next to correct. But it is not 90% of the market. That would be the case, if they all actually had gone to the shop and purchased a copy of Microsoft Office.
I am sure that 90% of your 90% would not have bought the product if they actually had seen the price tag (and were not forced to pay for it anyway).
Like the first post about the Cell on Slashdot analyzed, it is not just a hardware concept, but a software concept, too. So, in theory, my Thompson TV and my Sony PlayStation3 and my IBM Cell-Blades could be combined with the power of my Cell-equipped toaster to crach the next PGP challenge!
If only Sony would not repeat the half-hearted approach they took with PS2 Linux, which was a real shame.
Of course, you playing kiddies have no clue what I am talking about, do you?
Slashdot Mirror
It might well be that they learn (slowly, like the slowest of your "friends" in 1st grade), the lessons of open source.
But then, they will not pay. They _claim_ to care about "intellectual property". But only when a _laywer_ that can _sue_ them, they will _respect_ the lessons to be something of value.
So I will be glad when they are destroyed, once for all, and everybody else trying to _exploit_ others' work will have something to fear for.
I mean, Microsoft _invented_ the notion that you should be paid for the _same_ work over and over and over and over again. Only they profited from that. And if you are not a Microsoft shill, you will _have_ to agree that this was unethical.
Now they "learn" from Open Source? Well, even if they do, do they compensate those who taught them something?
I guess not. So this planet will be better off if Microsoft dies a _violent_ death, discouraging all those parasites out there, trying to behave like Microsoft, too.
These days, a good attorney is a good defense, not the truth. You can have all the truth on your side, but if you cannot afford a good lawyer, proper procedures will not be followed (because you do not know them), and the judge will think you are wrong.
In our times, it is money, not the truth, that shall set you free.
There was a law which made some things illegal. Face it, it was the current law.
Stupid law followers who do not question the laws are the reason for most of the bad things that happened during the last century.
You haven't read the article, have you?
He _says_ that it has a funny feel to it, being watched. And he sees that the agency _does_ look at his blog.
Also, in another comment on this thread, there are other good arguments, like that you _need_ privacy when the president becomes to powerful _and_ misuses his powers.
So, plenty of good arguments. If you don't want to acknowledge them, that's your problem. Not mine.
It's not anything like a religion. Many people seem to be unable, much like you, to see that you _need_ privacy to live a happy life. Much like you need clean air to live a happy life.
Yes, you can survive without both, clean air and privacy. Yet, is this a life you want to have?
Go watch "Life of others". It is really depressing to live in a surveillance society.
Maybe those countries who did _not_ experience Gestapo-like distrust, arbitrariness, and the mental consequences this brings to your personal life, _have_ to go through a phase like that, to be able to value what the founding fathers tried to establish by the right of anonymous speech and the pursuit of happiness.
However, this would be only the second-best solution: I personally know people who lived in East Germany, and even if some of them experienced this kind of soul-destroying constant pressure only in their childhood, they are spoiled for life. When they talk to me on the phone and hear a click, their _first_ thought (if they want or not) is that somebody is listening in.
This is absolute terror.
"Can you please define what you meant by morals now, in your worldview?"
I thought it was evident: it is a common standard between people. In the ideal it is a promise not to do something to others that you don't want them to do to you. By that, lawsuits and killing other people could be avoided (raising your fitness for survival).
"Morality is a fluid concept. Economics isn't."
Right on the first account, wrong on the second (just look around in the world, not just the "Western" part).
There is no way that SCO believes that still, if it ever has. But to admit that now would mean losing their collective face, _and_ facing charges on bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
"Morals have no business in the workplace."
That's exactly what makes people burn your flag, and eventually fly your planes. If you do not know what I am talking about, then think very long and hard about why people do have morals at all.
Slashdot comments at its best. Useless.
If you do not recognize the problem, it just might be that you
a) do not experience it -> cannot help.
b) do not hear it -> cannot help.
c) notice it, but do not want to help!
In every case, it might have been a good idea to wait and see if more
intelligent and/or helpful people chime in, and might provide an answer to
the riddle. And until that time, just shut up. You probably will just look
foolish if you try otherwise .
I actually *understand* the physics behind that phenomenon, and alas, there
is no better solution than what was provided in another response: put your
cell phone at least one foot away from the speakers. The problem is Maxwell:
in order to send a signal successfully to the next station (remember: this
is most likely indoors, as speakers are less usefull outside, and thus, there
is probably a wall, which has to be penetrated by electromagnetic waves) the
cell phone has to "pump up the volume".
The energy is degrading with the second power of the distance to the cell
phone, so: putting it at double distance to the speaker (or the next
station, for that matter) will lower the received energy by 75%. Same is true
for the station, but that is farther away to begin with.
educating people every day,
Dscho
I actually looked at the specification. The long name is stored in directory entries which old DOS ignores, but they *reference* a single directory entry with the short name. So, the whole information about the file *except* the long name must be in another entry, together with the short name.
Hth,
Dscho
Hi, if I had read that story (even as a youth), I would have been angry: it is in no way realistic. Suppose there was somebody having had warp drive, and being able to prove that c is smaller in hyperdimension: WTF should he be keeping it secret?
... which means that if P != NP, it is not NP-complete.
Hth,
Dscho
Hi!
you may have the impression that video card drivers live in kernel space in
Linux. But they don't. Only a very small part does. The rest is done in user
space. Don't confuse kernel space with "root"...
Hth,
Dscho
If somebody *expects* me to steal, when I did not merit that expectancy in the first place, then yes, you might say, they criminalize me. And that just p*sses me off.
I don't go and shout "you are a murderer" to Sony's boss, just because he might get a gun someday and actually shoot somebody.
a monat is 30 or 31 days, once in a year only 28 or (almost every 4 years) 29 days.
Title says it all
... why we should get rid of Windows. So everybody has a choice.
This is good news? The letter did not say what you state. Instead, it says: In order to abuse the system, you have to make a lawyer rich. It does not, repeat, _not_ say that you cannot register such trademarks.
Not parse this sentence does.
pi-bar
Let epsilon<0
Tech is not necessarily geek. One has two e in it. That amounts to about 5.43656365691809...
Future past future!
Like the first post about the Cell on Slashdot analyzed, it is not just a hardware concept, but a software concept, too. So, in theory, my Thompson TV and my Sony PlayStation3 and my IBM Cell-Blades could be combined with the power of my Cell-equipped toaster to crach the next PGP challenge!
If only Sony would not repeat the half-hearted approach they took with PS2 Linux, which was a real shame.
Of course, you playing kiddies have no clue what I am talking about, do you?