Slightly less, maybe, but still outraged. Many times Microsoft has introduced features (especially interoperability related) on products for MacOS (IE and Word primarily) that were not included, or radically changed, in the Windows version. The vast majority of Office users are on Windows, and if support for the Pilot goes away there, that will tend to drive people away from an otherwise great product. (I'm a Pilot + Linux user myself.) Still, its a typical MSFT bullshit exclusionary move and hardly surprising. People, if you haven't learned by now, when will you? MSFT will try to screw you over and lock you in every chance it can get.
I think he should have said while the police are legally executing a warrant.
If the police find something unrelated while lawfully executing a warrant, they can nail you on it. If they have a warrant to search your office (only) and they find your goat porn there, fine. But if they then search your house without specific authorization, and they find the pound of crack there, AFAIK that can be thrown out if you have a competent lawyer. (If you don't have a competent laywer, all bets are off; they can probably convict you under 1600's witchcraft ordinances.)
Penta- is the Greek root for five. The Latin equivilent is probably quin-. Hexa- is Greek for six, so "logically" you would see the Hexium next (though I don't really think you will. )
His post wasn't legitimate. First of all, the misleading name is enough to disregard it in my opinion. Second of all, it would be slightly more tolerable if this impostor actually wrote something coherent or insightful. All he does is ramble on with his misinformed opinions on subjects he knows precious little about.
The bottom line for me (and a lot of people in our community, I suspect) is that this language is a worthless joke unless you can take the language spec and make a perfectly interoperable freely redistributable compiler/interpeter for it. In other words, I won't take it seriously at all until GNU C# is developed.
And, knowing Microsoft, they will fight that tooth and nail. They've already started with their silly.exe wrapped.doc file. I'm sure it had an egregiously bad clickthru license requiring Richard Stallman to go fuck himself, but I didn't really notice because I just used Linux unzip to extract the.doc file (which I then converted to html with mswordview.)
Looks like another transparent 'embrace, extend, and extinguish' attempt, with the victim this time being Java. Sure, it's not an answer to Java. Un-huh. Meanwhile I'll go back to my hacking under my freely-redistributable Java environment.
Trolls are real. They live under bridges. Please do not assume there are no trolls simply because some trolls have not made the choice yet to "come out from under the bridge" so to speak and openly declare their troll lifestyle.
Please be more considerate in the future. Thank you from your friends at the ULTOAD.
Not only with a court order. Doubleclick can choose to hand this information over if government bigwig says "pretty please." And its likely that they do have a very friendly relationship. After all, what business wants to get into a adversarial relationship with any government entity...
Java -- runs on many many platforms (Unix, Win32, Mac, Mainframes & Minis.) Free implementations exist (Kaffe and others) that implement the language specification though they might not be 100% Pure (TM) Sun (R) Java (C) Approved, all-rights-reserved-including-the-dot-in-dot-com.
C# -- Runs on Windows. Microsoft's idea of platform agnostic is "Look mommy, I made it run on Win95, NT, and 2000."
But don't worry, you'll probably get what you want. When Microsoft drops Java support altogether in MSIE/windows in favor of C#, the world will probably flock to such a wonderful, consumer-benefit-providing innovation.
I thought "honky" only applied to white Americans. DNA would be more properly referred to as a "limey" I think. Or as the French would say, "un roastbeef."
The entire premise of associating skin tones with pornography is flawed. It's trivial to create a work that would be widely regarded as pornographic despite not showing ANY normal skin tones at all, or even any skin at all.
This is the most relevant statement I've seen in this entire discussion.
The problem with that is that the technical operation of "blocking all.fr addresses" would put a serious burden on Yahoo, especially if you're talking only about the specific auction content, not all of *.yahoo.com. Blocking based on domain requires reverse DNS lookups which is expensive (wall time, networking and other resources) and doesn't always work (some people dont have reverse DNS set up properly.) Not to mention the possiblity that users within the juridiction of this French court ruling can access Yahoo from an ISP or other provider not in the.fr domain.
So, at best, it would be an expensive, possibly ineffective political statement. Who knows, those wacky kids at Yahoo! might try something like it.
this person doesn't know what they're talking about, OpenBSD has nothing to do with Solaris other than their (ancient) BSD heritage. It is a completely separate project not affiliated with Sun.
So is Mr. Valenti saying that if I play movies in my home, and then invite people over for a movie-watching party, that that would be illegal?
Basically, yes. The only fair thing to do is respect the corporations' human rights and do the right thing: go out and buy a copy of the film for each individual who will be present in the room while the proprietary content is being viewed on an duly licensed playback device. Anything else is un-American, smacks of Soviet Russia, and will cause Jack Valenti's children to roam the streets begging for scraps of bread.
Please think before you wantonly disregard the rights of Corporate America! Also, be kind, rewind.
Try a search on Napster or Gnutella for "Phish", "Grateful Dead", "Dave Matthews", just to name a few. You will probably come up with quite a lot of stuff, all of which is legal to trade (but not profit from.)
There is a long tradition of "finders keepers" in English common law. Basically, if someone abandons a large structure out in the ocean away from 3 km territorial waters, whoever wants to stake a claim on it can be said to own it. Normally something like this would be owned by a citizen of another country, thus the land/property would 'belong' to that country.
My point here is that the Royal Navy cannot really come in fifty years later and reclaim something that they built and abandoned out in international waters, especially if people have been living on it continuously. Of course, that says nothing about the status of the structure as a "real country" entitled to issue passports, etc. It just says that the structure really does belong to those who claim it. At least in the eyes of British law (though I'm obviously no expert) which is mostly what applies here.
But can someone explain to me why so? Why should the mainland regime be able to claim an offshore island nation with millions of people that has been de-facto independent for at least 45-50 years? (And prior to that was also separated from the mainland Chinese gov't for the majority of its history.) The simple fact is, the people living on the island don't seem to want to live under CCP brutality, and they have said as much. Now remove the intimidation factor and even more Taiwanese people would affirm independence. And why not, they've done well with it! That alone is reason enough that the mainland doesn't have a "right" to "unify" this island nation with force.
Despite your smiley, I'm not really sure if you intend this as a joke or not. Surely you know that Wordperfect, while American in origin, is owned and produced by Corel these days, a Canadian company. And while Star Office was recently bought by Sun (which is HQ'ed in America) I think the Star Division office remains in Germany...
I can maybe understand pulling software that may have been CDR'ed, but on what possibly grounds can they object to freakin microphones being sold? It's just a little device, a piece of electronics that can't be duplicated in any way (except at great expense).... How could they object to you re-selling it?
You probably want Newt. Redhat uses it to make CLI front ends. I don't have a link for it but it's packaged in Redhat and Debian, just search around on the net if you're using something else.
I've worked with it a little. It doesn't do a whole lot, but what it does do, it does pretty well, and it is quite easy to use. I haven't tried to extend it so I don't know how hard it is to add new features (should that be neccesary for you.)
I have always felt a FORMAL, non-English language should be developed for law.
On the surface it's an interesting idea but a lot of problems arise out of that. First and foremost is that you have to come to grips with the fact that very few people are going to learn a completely new and arbitrary artificial language just to read legal code. This would radically grow the already large gap between the laypersons' understanding of the law and those in legal professions.
So then of course, you would inevitably have to provide natural language translations that would try to capture the intent of the original law but would neccesarily be a bit vague (if not, then why not just write the law in the original language.) This possibly leaves the law open to interpretation or legal defenses based around the fact that nobody but highly trained experts could understand what was legal or not.
In short, the only way to achieve this goal of total precision (of language or otherwise) in the law would be to have a completely pervasive totalitarian regime. And if you've gone that far, what's the point of doing it just for sake of legal precision? The power apparatus doesn't need written laws to perpetuate itself.
You're confusing "MacOS X" and "Darwin." Yes, Darwin is a part of MacOS X, but I really don't think Apple will ever release MacOS X (a commercial PowerPC only product including Quicktime, QD3D, etc) for Intel. Darwin is really only the kernel and basic C libraries for MacOS X.
Now if you're asking "Why would I want to run Darwin on Intel when there are Linux and the BSD's?" that is a different question. Maybe you are an enthusiast who likes to run a buch of different OS's. Maybe doing so will make it easier to port a Mac app you have source for to *nix systems. (I don't know.) Maybe you just wanna be l33t.
Slashdot Mirror
But a child of say, 13 through 17 can?
Nike says they did use crypt-pw, so someone's lying here. I have no idea who.
No, but it did have Mark Hamill, which is possibly worse. Actually I thought the Matrix is far and away Reeves' best film...
Slightly less, maybe, but still outraged. Many times Microsoft has introduced features (especially interoperability related) on products for MacOS (IE and Word primarily) that were not included, or radically changed, in the Windows version. The vast majority of Office users are on Windows, and if support for the Pilot goes away there, that will tend to drive people away from an otherwise great product. (I'm a Pilot + Linux user myself.) Still, its a typical MSFT bullshit exclusionary move and hardly surprising. People, if you haven't learned by now, when will you? MSFT will try to screw you over and lock you in every chance it can get.
If the police find something unrelated while lawfully executing a warrant, they can nail you on it. If they have a warrant to search your office (only) and they find your goat porn there, fine. But if they then search your house without specific authorization, and they find the pound of crack there, AFAIK that can be thrown out if you have a competent lawyer. (If you don't have a competent laywer, all bets are off; they can probably convict you under 1600's witchcraft ordinances.)
Penta- is the Greek root for five. The Latin equivilent is probably quin-. Hexa- is Greek for six, so "logically" you would see the Hexium next (though I don't really think you will. )
Helpfully yours,
Anonymous Coed
And, knowing Microsoft, they will fight that tooth and nail. They've already started with their silly .exe wrapped .doc file. I'm sure it had an egregiously bad clickthru license requiring Richard Stallman to go fuck himself, but I didn't really notice because I just used Linux unzip to extract the .doc file (which I then converted to html with mswordview.)
Looks like another transparent 'embrace, extend, and extinguish' attempt, with the victim this time being Java. Sure, it's not an answer to Java. Un-huh. Meanwhile I'll go back to my hacking under my freely-redistributable Java environment.
Please be more considerate in the future. Thank you from your friends at the ULTOAD.
United League of Troll and Orc Anti-Defamation
Not only with a court order. Doubleclick can choose to hand this information over if government bigwig says "pretty please." And its likely that they do have a very friendly relationship. After all, what business wants to get into a adversarial relationship with any government entity...
C# -- Runs on Windows. Microsoft's idea of platform agnostic is "Look mommy, I made it run on Win95, NT, and 2000."
But don't worry, you'll probably get what you want. When Microsoft drops Java support altogether in MSIE/windows in favor of C#, the world will probably flock to such a wonderful, consumer-benefit-providing innovation.
I thought "honky" only applied to white Americans. DNA would be more properly referred to as a "limey" I think. Or as the French would say, "un roastbeef."
This is the most relevant statement I've seen in this entire discussion.
So, at best, it would be an expensive, possibly ineffective political statement. Who knows, those wacky kids at Yahoo! might try something like it.
this person doesn't know what they're talking about, OpenBSD has nothing to do with Solaris other than their (ancient) BSD heritage. It is a completely separate project not affiliated with Sun.
Basically, yes. The only fair thing to do is respect the corporations' human rights and do the right thing: go out and buy a copy of the film for each individual who will be present in the room while the proprietary content is being viewed on an duly licensed playback device. Anything else is un-American, smacks of Soviet Russia, and will cause Jack Valenti's children to roam the streets begging for scraps of bread.
Please think before you wantonly disregard the rights of Corporate America! Also, be kind, rewind.
My point here is that the Royal Navy cannot really come in fifty years later and reclaim something that they built and abandoned out in international waters, especially if people have been living on it continuously. Of course, that says nothing about the status of the structure as a "real country" entitled to issue passports, etc. It just says that the structure really does belong to those who claim it. At least in the eyes of British law (though I'm obviously no expert) which is mostly what applies here.
But can someone explain to me why so? Why should the mainland regime be able to claim an offshore island nation with millions of people that has been de-facto independent for at least 45-50 years? (And prior to that was also separated from the mainland Chinese gov't for the majority of its history.) The simple fact is, the people living on the island don't seem to want to live under CCP brutality, and they have said as much. Now remove the intimidation factor and even more Taiwanese people would affirm independence. And why not, they've done well with it! That alone is reason enough that the mainland doesn't have a "right" to "unify" this island nation with force.
Despite your smiley, I'm not really sure if you intend this as a joke or not. Surely you know that Wordperfect, while American in origin, is owned and produced by Corel these days, a Canadian company. And while Star Office was recently bought by Sun (which is HQ'ed in America) I think the Star Division office remains in Germany...
I can maybe understand pulling software that may have been CDR'ed, but on what possibly grounds can they object to freakin microphones being sold? It's just a little device, a piece of electronics that can't be duplicated in any way (except at great expense).... How could they object to you re-selling it?
I've worked with it a little. It doesn't do a whole lot, but what it does do, it does pretty well, and it is quite easy to use. I haven't tried to extend it so I don't know how hard it is to add new features (should that be neccesary for you.)
It can be used from Python, C, and Perl.
Completely deny them the right to profit as they see fit, and you can kiss production goodbye. It won't survive, except as folk art.
Given the extreme amount of runny bullshit out there in TV, music, cinema, books, art, somehow this doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
On the surface it's an interesting idea but a lot of problems arise out of that. First and foremost is that you have to come to grips with the fact that very few people are going to learn a completely new and arbitrary artificial language just to read legal code. This would radically grow the already large gap between the laypersons' understanding of the law and those in legal professions.
So then of course, you would inevitably have to provide natural language translations that would try to capture the intent of the original law but would neccesarily be a bit vague (if not, then why not just write the law in the original language.) This possibly leaves the law open to interpretation or legal defenses based around the fact that nobody but highly trained experts could understand what was legal or not.
In short, the only way to achieve this goal of total precision (of language or otherwise) in the law would be to have a completely pervasive totalitarian regime. And if you've gone that far, what's the point of doing it just for sake of legal precision? The power apparatus doesn't need written laws to perpetuate itself.
cheers, moi
Now if you're asking "Why would I want to run Darwin on Intel when there are Linux and the BSD's?" that is a different question. Maybe you are an enthusiast who likes to run a buch of different OS's. Maybe doing so will make it easier to port a Mac app you have source for to *nix systems. (I don't know.) Maybe you just wanna be l33t.