You know, Confucius continued to have "talks" with his students long after he died too, right? I mean, what better way to say you have authority to dictate a rule or tradition than to say that the teacher is the one who told it to you. Saying he told you something after he was dead makes it even harder for someone to question.
"I never heard him say such a thing!"... Well, that's because he came back from the dead and told me!
"The master says..." in pretty much everything after book 13 is after he died. Go figure?
You want an alternate view for christianity and the bible? How about his: When Jesus says "through me all are saved" he doesn't mean "those that believe I am a zombie". When John and Paul speak of how much "God loved the world" they weren't talking about how much he loved the Christians. Jesus' whole message was one of acceptance, and one of not worrying too much about it. Even things like "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" that people like to bring up as proof of damnation can just as easily mean "look inside yourself and make sure you area good person, and that you are the sort of person you would want around."
There is nothing there that cannot be read in that light, other than perhaps some of the letters of Paul, but since Paul supposedly didn't know Jesus anyway, and was sort of a jerk, I hardly think he counts. I mean, the story goes that he had to be blinded just so that he would stop harassing people?
Not that I'm a christian, mind you, I feel they are rather silly people, what with their "God had to sacrifice himself to himself to change a rule that he himself made" nonsense, but the possibility is still there in their religious texts. I mean, the fact that only two of the four gospels feel the ascention worthy of mention sort of says something about the "it has to be taken as fact" argument, doesn't it?
Actually, Encyclopaedia is medieval Latin, not English. o.O
I guess you could say that we took the word and made an actual english version out of it, rather than bitching about people who weren't using 8th century spelling in things.
Even your bloody little Cambridge (read proper Brittish English) dictionary shows the common usage "e" over "ae" first.
But really, speaking of butchering a language, have you ever heard a brittish person speak (since it is, afterall, the ENGLISH language?) Really, there is more nonsense in common use there than in L.A. Ebonics.
So, come down off your high horse, and kiss my ass.
Or should I use proper "English" and say "Stop chatting us up like wally plebs, and snog me bum you bloody wanker?"
That better?
(and while we are on the topic of sounding stupid, what the hell is this "multilanguageness" shit? Ever heard of the word "multilingual?" You know, as in "...site worldwide (with a multilingual supply of articles),...")
Don't be so condemning towards people about stupid crap like the way a full country of people chooses to spell a word.
Afterall, there many better things to be angry at us about than the way we spell things.
They didn't steal C/PM, they "bought" 86-DOS (Q-DOS) from Tim Patterson in 19*81* for $75k (overall).
It's possible they stole code to "enhance" its compatibility, but DOS itself was not a theft. Just the code that spit back the DR copyright on the IBM supplied machine in the small court battle for DR-DOS rights.
As to intellectual property laws, they didn't really enter into it. DR just didn't have the money required for a suit against a company the size of IBM.
But, all things aside, it seems to me that having enough code left over that the Digital Research copyright stayed intact really means we are running a C/PM based system today, doesn't it?
But you can very easily get around the cards at grocery stores. I myself filled in information that was more or less accurate for Abraham Lincoln. The checkout boy watched me sign my name as that, bday Feb 12 1809, Location 0000002 Wood House, Hardin KY, APPLE (as the zip), and he took it, looked at it to see that all the fields were full, handed me my card, and wished me well.
You can't do that with store returns because they usually require your drivers license or ID number, don't they?
Sorry, I seem to have skipped my entire point in all of that. My point was simply that it licenses "Technical Documents" which likely only explain the MS specific alterations, since you can already find unencumbered documentation elsewhere.
"Implementation of these Protocols......may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."
Basically, just that last little bit means "You can't use our little book on [protocol] and then write something that duplicates our [proccess] for GPL software, but are allowed to use the *described* protocol freely. If you do write your own implementation, please check with the person who holds the actual rights to it, and ask if it's ok."
Note the links under each standard telling who owns them, and what information they already provide?
I think the only people this would really have any effect on are the people working on ReactOS?
Anyway, the microsoft "network model" appears to be the same for every protocol, and more or less has an easy swap Network/Transport area (or, the protocol used).
7 Application - Windows Application
6 Presentation - Kernel mode
Executive Services
5 Session - SMB | WIN sockets
4 Transport - *see below
3 Network - *see below
2 Data Link - NDIS interface (driver)
1 Physical - Hardware
*these are filled in with anything MS offers as a drop in, wether it be IPX/SPX, APPLETALK, NETBEUI, or, in the case of my example, TCP/IP.
Now, to get all these to work "seamlessly" (yeah, right), microsoft made tie-ins so that they can all still use "NetBEUI" style names (the NetBios over TCP/IP for example).
Starting with Windows NT, microsoft began altering the normal steps for NetBIOS (you know, that \\computername thing?)resolution to "enhance" it the standard (most likely set by IBM when they came up with it), doing things they thought were more efficient.
Most likely they did this with everything else too (which explains "rights" to most of the protocols that would fill in layers 5 and up, including FTP, HTTP, SMPT, etc.), and in doing so, did something that required them to change the level 4 and 5 protocols, which alone would be enough to claim "rights" to their changes.
****I stopped reading other comments about 1 page into the 6 that are here now. Why? I'm impulsive... I did however search for the word "NetBIOS" to see if the exapmle was there, and it wasn't, so if someone already actually argued the changes they had to make in order to use NetBIOS for everything when nobody else ever does, then I'm sorry. Also, I'm lazy and didn't actually read that link, and instead relied on things I had to learn 3 years ago for the Network+. Yes, I know the OSI layer is an abstract thought more than anything technical, but it still shows the connection, and as such, maybe, in some way is slightly... on topic...even if completely unneeded in my point. I am not responsible for any injuries you may inflict upon yourself as a result of reading this. Ducks are kinda neat. They echo, though.****
Slashdot Mirror
You know, Confucius continued to have "talks" with his students long after he died too, right? I mean, what better way to say you have authority to dictate a rule or tradition than to say that the teacher is the one who told it to you. Saying he told you something after he was dead makes it even harder for someone to question.
"I never heard him say such a thing!"... Well, that's because he came back from the dead and told me!
"The master says..." in pretty much everything after book 13 is after he died. Go figure?
You want an alternate view for christianity and the bible? How about his: When Jesus says "through me all are saved" he doesn't mean "those that believe I am a zombie". When John and Paul speak of how much "God loved the world" they weren't talking about how much he loved the Christians. Jesus' whole message was one of acceptance, and one of not worrying too much about it. Even things like "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" that people like to bring up as proof of damnation can just as easily mean "look inside yourself and make sure you area good person, and that you are the sort of person you would want around."
There is nothing there that cannot be read in that light, other than perhaps some of the letters of Paul, but since Paul supposedly didn't know Jesus anyway, and was sort of a jerk, I hardly think he counts. I mean, the story goes that he had to be blinded just so that he would stop harassing people?
Not that I'm a christian, mind you, I feel they are rather silly people, what with their "God had to sacrifice himself to himself to change a rule that he himself made" nonsense, but the possibility is still there in their religious texts. I mean, the fact that only two of the four gospels feel the ascention worthy of mention sort of says something about the "it has to be taken as fact" argument, doesn't it?
I guess you could say that we took the word and made an actual english version out of it, rather than bitching about people who weren't using 8th century spelling in things.
Even your bloody little Cambridge (read proper Brittish English) dictionary shows the common usage "e" over "ae" first.
But really, speaking of butchering a language, have you ever heard a brittish person speak (since it is, afterall, the ENGLISH language?) Really, there is more nonsense in common use there than in L.A. Ebonics.
So, come down off your high horse, and kiss my ass.
Or should I use proper "English" and say "Stop chatting us up like wally plebs, and snog me bum you bloody wanker?"
That better?
(and while we are on the topic of sounding stupid, what the hell is this "multilanguageness" shit? Ever heard of the word "multilingual?" You know, as in "...site worldwide (with a multilingual supply of articles), ...")
Don't be so condemning towards people about stupid crap like the way a full country of people chooses to spell a word.
Afterall, there many better things to be angry at us about than the way we spell things.
It's possible they stole code to "enhance" its compatibility, but DOS itself was not a theft. Just the code that spit back the DR copyright on the IBM supplied machine in the small court battle for DR-DOS rights.
As to intellectual property laws, they didn't really enter into it. DR just didn't have the money required for a suit against a company the size of IBM.
But, all things aside, it seems to me that having enough code left over that the Digital Research copyright stayed intact really means we are running a C/PM based system today, doesn't it?
But you can very easily get around the cards at grocery stores. I myself filled in information that was more or less accurate for Abraham Lincoln. The checkout boy watched me sign my name as that, bday Feb 12 1809, Location 0000002 Wood House, Hardin KY, APPLE (as the zip), and he took it, looked at it to see that all the fields were full, handed me my card, and wished me well. You can't do that with store returns because they usually require your drivers license or ID number, don't they?
Sorry, I seem to have skipped my entire point in all of that. My point was simply that it licenses "Technical Documents" which likely only explain the MS specific alterations, since you can already find unencumbered documentation elsewhere. "Implementation of these Protocols... ...may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."
Basically, just that last little bit means "You can't use our little book on [protocol] and then write something that duplicates our [proccess] for GPL software, but are allowed to use the *described* protocol freely. If you do write your own implementation, please check with the person who holds the actual rights to it, and ask if it's ok."
Note the links under each standard telling who owns them, and what information they already provide?
I think the only people this would really have any effect on are the people working on ReactOS?
if you are familiar with the OSI model, it can pretty easily explain any network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model
Anyway, the microsoft "network model" appears to be the same for every protocol, and more or less has an easy swap Network/Transport area (or, the protocol used).
7 Application - Windows Application
6 Presentation - Kernel mode Executive Services
5 Session - SMB | WIN sockets
4 Transport - *see below
3 Network - *see below
2 Data Link - NDIS interface (driver)
1 Physical - Hardware
*these are filled in with anything MS offers as a drop in, wether it be IPX/SPX, APPLETALK, NETBEUI, or, in the case of my example, TCP/IP.
Now, to get all these to work "seamlessly" (yeah, right), microsoft made tie-ins so that they can all still use "NetBEUI" style names (the NetBios over TCP/IP for example).
Starting with Windows NT, microsoft began altering the normal steps for NetBIOS (you know, that \\computername thing?)resolution to "enhance" it the standard (most likely set by IBM when they came up with it), doing things they thought were more efficient.
Most likely they did this with everything else too (which explains "rights" to most of the protocols that would fill in layers 5 and up, including FTP, HTTP, SMPT, etc.), and in doing so, did something that required them to change the level 4 and 5 protocols, which alone would be enough to claim "rights" to their changes.
****I stopped reading other comments about 1 page into the 6 that are here now. Why? I'm impulsive... I did however search for the word "NetBIOS" to see if the exapmle was there, and it wasn't, so if someone already actually argued the changes they had to make in order to use NetBIOS for everything when nobody else ever does, then I'm sorry. Also, I'm lazy and didn't actually read that link, and instead relied on things I had to learn 3 years ago for the Network+. Yes, I know the OSI layer is an abstract thought more than anything technical, but it still shows the connection, and as such, maybe, in some way is slightly... on topic...even if completely unneeded in my point. I am not responsible for any injuries you may inflict upon yourself as a result of reading this. Ducks are kinda neat. They echo, though.****