You use your social security number everywhere, and you hand your credit cards and checks to people you've never even met before (cashiers) without even thinking twice.
Maybe you do, maybe you haven't heard of this new trendy crime sweeping the nation? Identity theft. It is people like you with your head in the ground approach to the risks involved that have enabled identity thieves to thrive.
And yet you worry about a car company attacking it's own consumer-base? That'd be the absolute stupidist business decision a huge company like GM could make.
I don't see anyone besides you and your strawman claiming that GM will "attack its own" customers. Do banks steal your identity? No. But they provide part of the infrastructure that makes it trivially easy for a third party to do so.
OnStar and similar systems have signifcant and non-obvious privacy risks. Just because *you* are too dull to see them doesn't mean a clever and malicious person won't see them and won't abuse them for his own benefit.
we got distracted by all these people with pierced body parts and blue hair,
What I want to know is, what the heck were they doing paying attention to a bunch of grandmothers? Most of them can't even use a VCR, much less Solaris...
And so how does ESR referring to his own writings as something which is one sided and disregards any utily in the opposing view point and attempts to gloss over incosistencies in it's own content, make him full of himself?
What a self-absorbed asshole. He even referred to his own writings as propaganda.
Either you don't know what propaganda means, or I don't know what an asshole is. It's not like he referred to his own writings as the literal word of God.
Yeah, I know lots of companies that interview employees they never intend to hire. Happens all the time. In fact, they just waste valuable employee time running these interviews for people they never plan to hire because they have to meet fair labor practices requirements but really want to hire a dirt-cheap H1-B import labor.
I'm not sure what the penalties are supposed to be either (and fsf.org doesn't seem to say, at least not without digging), but if they go as far as saying that the company can't use GPL'd software, then that'll go over like a lead balloon.
Being a long-time observer of GNU and the GPL I'm confident in going out on a limb and predicting what such penalties would be. They would be identical to the penalities for using proprietary software - i.e. you can't use GPL'd code in a program that contains implementations of software patents nor implementations of DRM.
Actually, the current mess with patents in the US, software and other, would be greatly improved if the Patent Office would merely apply it's own rules -- that something to be patented must not be obvious to the layperson, and must not be covered by prior art.
Those are not the rules. More specifically "not be obvious to the layperson" is not a rule. In section 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, it is required that an innovation be of a ''nonobvious'' nature, that is, it must not be an improvement that would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
You could argue that something obvious to a layman would be doubly obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, but you could also argue that one with "ordinary skill" may also be wearing mental blinders because of that training, preventing them from thinking out of the box in the way that a layman might do more easily.
The more so since President Bush has said no one predicted the levees being breached.
Its just political CYA and misdirection. He, or at least someone in his cabinet (Rice?), said that no one predicted that someone would fly a jet into the wtc either. Don't believe a word of it.
I heard today, on the Rush Limbaugh show of all places (they had a guest host so that might explain the surprising level of veracity), that new orleans getting hit by a hurricane was in the top 3 "expected" disasters that FEMA publically anticipated - earthquake in San Francisco and a third which I don't remember were on the list ahead of it.
the terms of their license is what governs the terms of the license they offer me.
Don't be silly.
Blockbuster can not offer you a license that supercedes copyright law unless the copyright owner has formally given them that right.
You can get bet your bippy that the MPAA members have not given them that right. In fact, the MPAA members have no contract with blockbuster beyond the default terms of copyright. I.E. - Blockbuster bought a copy so, by right of first sale, they can lend or resell that individual copy.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. With Blockbuster's particular business model, I've already demonstrated it's actually MORE profitable for them to have me rent a movie rip it in 20 minutes and return it.
Your point is moot because blockbuster is not the copyright owner, they are just the owner of a copy.
In fact, if everyone did as you do, the effect on the potential market value would be negative. The reason is that you can rent-and-rip faster than than you can rent-and-watch. Thus the amount of inventory blockbuster must carry to meet the same level of demand would be reduced. Thus the number of copies sold to blockbuster by the copyright owner would be reduced.
Now, if blockbuster were to enforce some sort of minimum rental period that reasonably accomodated the time to rent-and-watch - say 24 hours, then point 4 might be applicable. But it is kind of an abritrary way to go about it and probably subject to some other sorts of problems that I am too lazy to dig into here.
I don't recognize about half of those anti-virus products, but I do not see my personal favorite - AVG from Grisoft. It is free for personal use and you get access to the same timely updates as the paying corporate customers. So you don't have to worry about your virus definition subscription expiring or not working because your laptop is no longer on the campus network so can't get the site-license for the updates.
You are reaching and in doing so trying to redefine the theism in atheism as refering to a supreme being rather than just a god. No one would consider the religions of the ancient Greeks and Romans or the Norse as being atheistic, yet none of the gods in their respective pantheons are supreme.
Whether Garuda is a single entity or one of a race creatures makes no difference, it is of divine origin and that's all it takes to be a god. One or multiple gods, they are still gods and recognized as such by a large enough proportion of buddhists.
Even though prayer in schools was considered to be legal (in a court of law) as not promoting one religion over the other until O'Hare said it offended her as an atheist?
If she had been a buddhist instead of an atheist would you be accusing the government of encouraging buddhism over christianity?
Then lets also add: It also means the government does not have the right to encourage aetheism over religion
Government itself must be atheist. Not atheist in the "there is no god" sense but in the sense of "matters of god are irrelevant to the operation of government." Way too many people think that refusing to get involved in the debate is actually some bias towards atheism when nothing could be farther from the truth.
These are the same people who think that government must acknowledge christianity but refuse to consider what it would mean if their government were to acknowledge something like buddhism or salafism instead - claiming that the US is a christian nation so that would never happen with blinders firmly attached.
Mark Twain (who was a lot more than the author of Tom Sawyer) was of the view that the perfect way to travel was slowly, on a boat, across the Pacific.
Mark Twain died in 1910. The Wright Brothers made their first flight in 1903.
While Twain was alive, and especially when he was actually crossing the pacific in 1866, the fastest way to cross the pacific was slowly on a boat.
Heresy or not, you are just making stuff up. One could just as easily argue that because he spent much more time in Hawaii than he did on the boats to and from Hawaii that he felt those boat trips were a painful waste of his time. Steamboating up and down the mississippi and taking a trans-pacific voyage are two very different things.
Yeah, and the likes of Boeing and Lockheed get the equivalent of subsidies from the US government. There's no outside competition in their market (defense industry), which annoys Airbus no end
Don't be silly. There are PLENTY of foreign companies that sell to the US DoD. They usually have a presence in the American commercial market, but they do not need to be American companies.
For example, see British-based Rolls Royce - the largest customer for their defense division is now the pentagon:
(PS: Doesn't the way they're describing this make it sound like it's gonna be a super-powerful RISC chip with x86 emulation?)
That's what the P4 (and the P3 and the K7 and K8) already are.
They are RISC implementations "under the covers" with a x86-to-internal-risc-ISA converter on the front. Intel calls their RISC instructions "micro-ops" and even have a dedicated micro-op cache to reduce the need to retranslate the same x86 instructions over and over again in situations where the code loops or is otherwise predictably repetitive. I'm sure AMD has something similar.
But no, you can not execute these micro-op risc instructions yourself, they only exist "inside" the cpu and only get there through translation from x86 instructions.
Slashdot Mirror
> My employer blocks access to the coral cache and to some other public proxies that can be used as anonymizers.
Then perhaps you shouldn't be reading slashdot on company time.
Then perhaps his employer should block access to slashdot.
I don't think there's any language that can be fully understood after a 2-semester course.
I disagree. Most people I know are able to completely master pig latin with just a couple of days of study and use.
You use your social security number everywhere, and you hand your credit cards and checks to people you've never even met before (cashiers) without even thinking twice.
Maybe you do, maybe you haven't heard of this new trendy crime sweeping the nation? Identity theft. It is people like you with your head in the ground approach to the risks involved that have enabled identity thieves to thrive.
And yet you worry about a car company attacking it's own consumer-base? That'd be the absolute stupidist business decision a huge company like GM could make.
I don't see anyone besides you and your strawman claiming that GM will "attack its own" customers. Do banks steal your identity? No. But they provide part of the infrastructure that makes it trivially easy for a third party to do so.
OnStar and similar systems have signifcant and non-obvious privacy risks. Just because *you* are too dull to see them doesn't mean a clever and malicious person won't see them and won't abuse them for his own benefit.
we got distracted by all these people with pierced body parts and blue hair,
What I want to know is, what the heck were they doing paying attention to a bunch of grandmothers? Most of them can't even use a VCR, much less Solaris...
And so how does ESR referring to his own writings as something which is one sided and disregards any utily in the opposing view point and attempts to gloss over incosistencies in it's own content, make him full of himself?
I'd rather work for Microsoft than have anything to do with someone who writes an e-mail like that and is proud of himself after doing so.
At least he is his own tool and not bill gates's tool.
Yeah, that's why everybody knows you and never heard of Stallman...
ESR is right, he did write most of the theory and propaganda for Open Source and if you ask Stallman, he'll have nothing to do with OS.
See: Open source movement
MS will change when people within the organization stick to their principles and show that there is another way.
Where did you get the idea that anyone within the organization holds principles that are compatible with open source?
MS will change when the market makes them, not a second sooner and probably years after they really should have.
What a self-absorbed asshole. He even referred to his own writings as propaganda.
Either you don't know what propaganda means, or I don't know what an asshole is.
It's not like he referred to his own writings as the literal word of God.
Yeah, I know lots of companies that interview employees they never intend to hire. Happens all the time. In fact, they just waste valuable employee time running these interviews for people they never plan to hire because they have to meet fair labor practices requirements but really want to hire a dirt-cheap H1-B import labor.
MS Has Windows XP home and Windows XP Professional, designed for the general required use, its easy to tell epopel to get the correct version.
First you have to find an epopel, I've never seen one myself. Is it like an ipod?
I'm not sure what the penalties are supposed to be either (and fsf.org doesn't seem to say, at least not without digging), but if they go as far as saying that the company can't use GPL'd software, then that'll go over like a lead balloon.
Being a long-time observer of GNU and the GPL I'm confident in going out on a limb and predicting what such penalties would be. They would be identical to the penalities for using proprietary software - i.e. you can't use GPL'd code in a program that contains implementations of software patents nor implementations of DRM.
Actually, the current mess with patents in the US, software and other, would be greatly improved if the Patent Office would merely apply it's own rules -- that something to be patented must not be obvious to the layperson, and must not be covered by prior art.
Those are not the rules. More specifically "not be obvious to the layperson" is not a rule. In section 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, it is required that an innovation be of a ''nonobvious'' nature, that is, it must not be an improvement that would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
You could argue that something obvious to a layman would be doubly obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, but you could also argue that one with "ordinary skill" may also be wearing mental blinders because of that training, preventing them from thinking out of the box in the way that a layman might do more easily.
The more so since President Bush has said no one predicted the levees being breached.
Its just political CYA and misdirection. He, or at least someone in his cabinet (Rice?), said that no one predicted that someone would fly a jet into the wtc either. Don't believe a word of it.
I heard today, on the Rush Limbaugh show of all places (they had a guest host so that might explain the surprising level of veracity), that new orleans getting hit by a hurricane was in the top 3 "expected" disasters that FEMA publically anticipated - earthquake in San Francisco and a third which I don't remember were on the list ahead of it.
the terms of their license is what governs the terms of the license they offer me.
Don't be silly.
Blockbuster can not offer you a license that supercedes copyright law unless the copyright owner has formally given them that right.
You can get bet your bippy that the MPAA members have not given them that right. In fact, the MPAA members have no contract with blockbuster beyond the default terms of copyright. I.E. - Blockbuster bought a copy so, by right of first sale, they can lend or resell that individual copy.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
With Blockbuster's particular business model, I've already demonstrated it's actually MORE profitable for them to have me rent a movie rip it in 20 minutes and return it.
Your point is moot because blockbuster is not the copyright owner, they are just the owner of a copy.
In fact, if everyone did as you do, the effect on the potential market value would be negative. The reason is that you can rent-and-rip faster than than you can rent-and-watch. Thus the amount of inventory blockbuster must carry to meet the same level of demand would be reduced. Thus the number of copies sold to blockbuster by the copyright owner would be reduced.
Now, if blockbuster were to enforce some sort of minimum rental period that reasonably accomodated the time to rent-and-watch - say 24 hours, then point 4 might be applicable. But it is kind of an abritrary way to go about it and probably subject to some other sorts of problems that I am too lazy to dig into here.
I don't recognize about half of those anti-virus products, but I do not see my personal favorite - AVG from Grisoft. It is free for personal use and you get access to the same timely updates as the paying corporate customers. So you don't have to worry about your virus definition subscription expiring or not working because your laptop is no longer on the campus network so can't get the site-license for the updates.
You are reaching and in doing so trying to redefine the theism in atheism as refering to a supreme being rather than just a god. No one would consider the religions of the ancient Greeks and Romans or the Norse as being atheistic, yet none of the gods in their respective pantheons are supreme.
Whether Garuda is a single entity or one of a race creatures makes no difference, it is of divine origin and that's all it takes to be a god. One or multiple gods, they are still gods and recognized as such by a large enough proportion of buddhists.
Um, Buddhists are atheists.
False.
Just because you do not believe in a supreme being does not make you an atheist.
Buddhism is full of all kinds of minor deities. Here's my favorite just because the movie was a lot of fun.
Even though prayer in schools was considered to be legal (in a court of law) as not promoting one religion over the other until O'Hare said it offended her as an atheist?
If she had been a buddhist instead of an atheist would you be accusing the government of encouraging buddhism over christianity?
Then lets also add:
It also means the government does not have the right to encourage aetheism over religion
Government itself must be atheist. Not atheist in the "there is no god" sense but in the sense of "matters of god are irrelevant to the operation of government." Way too many people think that refusing to get involved in the debate is actually some bias towards atheism when nothing could be farther from the truth.
These are the same people who think that government must acknowledge christianity but refuse to consider what it would mean if their government were to acknowledge something like buddhism or salafism instead - claiming that the US is a christian nation so that would never happen with blinders firmly attached.
Mark Twain (who was a lot more than the author of Tom Sawyer) was of the view that the perfect way to travel was slowly, on a boat, across the Pacific.
Mark Twain died in 1910.
The Wright Brothers made their first flight in 1903.
While Twain was alive, and especially when he was actually crossing the pacific in 1866, the fastest way to cross the pacific was slowly on a boat.
Heresy or not, you are just making stuff up. One could just as easily argue that because he spent much more time in Hawaii than he did on the boats to and from Hawaii that he felt those boat trips were a painful waste of his time. Steamboating up and down the mississippi and taking a trans-pacific voyage are two very different things.
Yeah, and the likes of Boeing and Lockheed get the equivalent of subsidies from the US government. There's no outside competition in their market (defense industry), which annoys Airbus no end
7 5069&CFID=59782316
Don't be silly. There are PLENTY of foreign companies that sell to the US DoD. They usually have a presence in the American commercial market, but they do not need to be American companies.
For example, see British-based Rolls Royce - the largest customer for their defense division is now the pentagon:
http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=41
Believe it or not, they are sometimes mistaken for UFOs.
Well that's no surprise since they are UFOS - Unidentified Floating Objects - in your eyeball.
I had a great pathology teacher. He would instantly fail any student who used an abbreviation or an acronym in his course.
If the sign on his door said "PhD" then he was a hypocrit.
(PS: Doesn't the way they're describing this make it sound like it's gonna be a super-powerful RISC chip with x86 emulation?)
That's what the P4 (and the P3 and the K7 and K8) already are.
They are RISC implementations "under the covers" with a x86-to-internal-risc-ISA converter on the front. Intel calls their RISC instructions "micro-ops" and even have a dedicated micro-op cache to reduce the need to retranslate the same x86 instructions over and over again in situations where the code loops or is otherwise predictably repetitive. I'm sure AMD has something similar.
But no, you can not execute these micro-op risc instructions yourself, they only exist "inside" the cpu and only get there through translation from x86 instructions.