That to me is the biggest reason to assume that the failure was related to the maintenance it received. If any new or "fixed" parts are going to break, it'll be right off the bat.
Yeah, we all know how sneaky terrorist are, like flying planes into buildings. It was not a terrorist because if it was it would be obvious. That is their goal, that is what puts the "terror" into terrorism. People don't go thourgh life being afraid of freakaccidentism.
When I release GPL code, I don't care who does what with it so long as it remains available to everyone.
The GPL doesn't guarantee this. It may seem like it does, but in reality all it says is that the source must be made available to whoever you gave/sold a binary version too. For instance, if I take your GPL code, and add something stupendous, and sell it to one person for a shit load of money, there's nothing you can do to get those changes. You could ask that one person for the source, they might give it to you, but they also might tell you to fuck off.
This example is probably more recognizable if I recast it as a big company that perhaps uses GPL modified source to do some wacky data manipulation, perhaps a video effect company. Lets say that they take your precious GPL source, make some changes, use it to make millions doing video effects for some movie. They don't have to give anyone that source code. Not even you. Almost becomes like the BSD license doesn't it?
That is why so much software from.edu's contains the clause that commerical use requires paying bucks to license the use of the software.
I once had a chance encounter with a woman who turned out to be an employee of flexlm. I asked her if it had ever been cracked and she said "oh yes, several times." She said that the company always takes legal action and has successfully silenced all cracks. Her statement is undoubtedly true since flexlm is and has always been a crappy product, largely unchanged for years, to think that they stumbled upon the perfect copy protection scheme is ridiculous.
I was responding to the allegation that having nukes alone elevates a country
to the same status that Russia had during the cold war. That is not true in
the least. Iraq or North Korea having nukes may scare the shit out of their
neigbors, but not "the homeland" since they lack long range delivery methods.
If they were ever to try to blackmail the US with nukes, then that would require
an immediate pre-emptive strike that would obliterate them. It would be over before
the kooks could organize a protest. Also, you seem to think that it is easy to
target a long range missile, it is not. Launching a nuke at the US that may not
even come close to hitting the target AND detonating is a huge risk for any country.
Not to mention that the US also has the advantage of sheer size, it takes a hell of
a lot more power to wipe out the US than it would to decimate Iraq and North Korea
combined.
I am puzzled by your comment about them having a lot of planes. Exactly how
far do you think they would make it before being gunned down?
Also, if you'll recall, the last North Korea missile test I remember was a
complete failure. I'm thinking of the missile that went shooting over Japan and
into the ocean.
From your response, I get the impression that you have assumed that I am
anti-war or something. Quite the contrary, I think we should nuke the shit out
of both those countries. (and the Palenstinians since the children have been
programmed to kill their "evil oppressors".)
But I do think that most of the arguments for war that have been given are
inadequate and even counter-productive to that goal since they are so clearly
false.
Uh no. Having a nuke and being able to deliever that nuke are two entirely different problems. The nukes that were dropped on Japan were literally dropped. A plane flew overhead and dropped them. North Korea does not and will not have the ability to deliver a nuke to the US.
If it is ever proven that North Korea has nuclear bombs, then that will hasten their demise. Probably at the request of Japan and South Korea since they are realistically the only countries close enough to be in danger.
The simple answer is that the design of their body does not scale. Applies to humans too, so sorry, no 50ft babes for you. The way to answer your question of what would happen, is to look in the depths of the ocean. The creatures there are living in nearly weightless conditions and subsequently you do get monster sized squids.
Side rant, I hate those Discovery episodes that say, "If you were as strong as an ant, you could carry a tank!" It's ridiculous, the materials that an ant are constructed of aren't terribly strong in human terms. If you were as strong as ant, you'd rip your arms out of their sockets.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? The purpose of the long line breaking is to stop lines from being e.g., thousands of characters long. Not to stop the need for horizontal scrolling. Once again, I challenge you to show me an instance when you would need to post text that is "too long". And the definition of "too long" is whatever length/. breaks long lines at.
And created a new problem in its place: the "phantom space" bug, that breaks urls.
That's not a bug, that's a feature. Like those phones which give you an electric shock when you start yelling into your cell phone. Urls only get broken if they are not posted as a link. Now wasn't that easy? I challenge you to show me an instance when you would need to post text that is "too long".
I've always thought that if you could get to the center of the earth, you would feel weightless (aside from the crushing pressure!). This would be because all of the mass of the earth would cancel out.
Uh no. They use the word "reflex" which typically means an involuntary response that originates in the nervous system and not in the brain. They are foolish to use that term for something which is obviously in your brain.
The assumptions are indeed correct here in the real world. It's not often you walk into a room with fake shadows drawn everywhere.
And the idea that the brain fixes what the eyes see is nothing new. There is an easy to do experiment where you wear lenses that invert the image your eyes see. After a week or so you'll wake up one day and realize that the world is right-side-up again.
And once again, an illusion is only an illusion if it is really an illusion and not falsified.
Uhh I did look closely, and the fact is that the squares in question are not a single color at all, but rather a gradient. And yes it is jpeg compressed. And yes jpeg is lossy. Your point? The article is full of shit. If they wanted to they could have made a proper image. And btw, the square does not appear lighter to me, instead it appears to be a different color. And guess what, it is. No illusion there. And if there is no illusion, then that does affect their theory.
Some of their other examples are also flawed which I won't get into because I've got better things to do.
Save yourself some time, go to the MIT site and read something worthwhile.
If you examine figure 4, the rubix cube, with gimp, then the so called brown squares are NOT the same color.
Compare this to an illusion that actualy passes this test: checkershadow
The question is why make a bogus illusion when a good ones exist? NIH? (Or perhaps they don't want to support MIT?) Is all their "research" of this quality?
The reason why the brain confuses colors and such is because it quite sensibly corrects for shadows. It very sophisticatedly determines the light source, and compensates for it. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Re:Duke Magazine need a course in perception
on
Vision is a 'Reflex'
·
· Score: 1
Peeking at the html, the idiot is "Web Development by KitchenMedia" for future reference.
Assumptions are dangerous and don't make great quotes. Bad writing causing a false quote is even worse. It's irrelevant what we think he thinks. We need to make him understand continually until we get a verifiable great quote.
Your logic is flawed. Take any piece of software that allows plugins, xmms, gkrellm, etc... And then make a proprietary plugin for it (lets assume that license issues are not a factor). The original plug-in capable software is still open.
Quicktime is indeed open, the fact that a huge majority of quicktime encapsulated videos use proprietary codecs does not change that fact. There are Ogg plugins for QT. Thus you can play QT encapsulated Ogg files on any platform.
Uhh... where have you been? The most recent financials from MS state that they have exactly two money making products, Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows. EVERYTHING else loses money. That is a fact.
But your statement is true in a way, they are making money on this scheme by furthering their Microsoft Windows monopoly.
If you examine the prices of products over time you find that everything decreases. MS by keeping their prices high is equivalent to raising their prices.
That's an interesting analogy. It's much easier for people to understand that their software only becomes GPL'd if they marry/breed(?) the two software products and produce a direct descendant blood offspring. And obviously not if they just share a room (i.e., run on the same computer).
Don't take this as racist, but it sounds the same as the "one drop rule" that blacks use. If one parent is white and the other parent is black, then you are black.
There is actually a stegnography program to hide information within a text message. I wouldn't be suprised if the mispelled "Become" and other errors pinpoint a soon to be ex-employee.
Also, I don't see why everyone is so suprised that memos are/could be getting leaked. Would it suprise anyone to find out that some employee with access would leak stuff for as little as e.g. 20 bucks a memo?
I personally would love a gcc flag that disabled precedence rules altogether and instead required parenthesis. You on the other hand are saying that a right-left precendence is better than the mathematical rules.
The secondary benefit of requiring parenthesis is that it gets ugly fast, forcing one to break the math up. This helps debugging weirdities like underflow/overflow which are not as obvious as division errors.
I myself wrote a micro micro kernel for a PPC system. I believe that people should use my operating system instead of Microsoft Windows. I am therefore in competition with Microsoft and thus Microsoft is not a monopoly in anything. What an idiotic argument.
Furthermore, even if not for Apple, there is Linux, which in and of itself is proof positive that there is no MS monopoly.
And here it is, without a shadow of a doubt, this statement proves that you have no grasp of the legal definition of a monopoly.
However, for this argument, you claimed it was proof that MS is a monopoly.
I did no such thing. If I did please feel free to shove it in my face.
I will continue to exclude Apple in all discussions so long as the discussion is still Microsoft as a monopoly on x86 systems.
And once again, you can offer as much proof as you like for the existence of competition, but that does not help your argument that MS is not a monopoly on x86 systems. You first need to learn what the legal definition is before you can try to prove otherwise.
(and btw, after that the settlement is over with MS and they are back to unrestricted status).
Now you really are confused. To think that the entire penalty phase would only hold until the next version of Microsoft Windows. That's laughable. "Today Bill Gates announced it's newest version of Windows, Windows Get Out of Jail Free!" Meanwhile back in reality, the penalty will hold for the amount of time that the court said it will regardless of how many version MS releases.
1. The meaning of the statement is obvious. Or do you not understand the C programming language?
if MS ships a broken version of C with its OS's, it does not reflect badly on GCC.
2. When did I say server? But irregardless the distinction between server and desktop is irrelevant, MS shares much of their resources, give me an example of when something existed on a server version that never appeared on a desktop version.
3. Translation:.NET * would be on desktop systems today if not for the court case.
Besides, your desire to make a bet pretty clearly implies that you think they will never include it. Furthermore I do not care what.NET is. It was only brought into this conversation since your argument hinged on the assumption that it would never be pushed into a future Microsoft Windows version.
4. Haven't responded? There is nothing to respond to. It would be like trying to prove why Palm is not a competitor to Microsoft Windows on x86. The argument is solely about Microsoft Windows being a monopoly on x86 systems. End of discussion w.r.t Apple. To clear it up for you, this is what your statement should read as:
You still haven't responded in any meaningful way as to how Linux and Apple fit into your closed view as MS a monopoly on x86 platforms.
The question of whether Linux will threaten that monopoly is somewhat valid. But during the time of the court case, there were very few systems shipping with Linux, thus the percentage of Linux x86 systems was very small and insignificant when compared to Microsoft's dominance.
I think it's funny that you are cross-posting to different threads slandering and attempting to embarrass.
What's really funny is your apparent inability to grasp reality and your further attempts to spread disinformation in order to try to change reality to match your perception of it.
Slashdot Mirror
That to me is the biggest reason to assume that the failure was related to the maintenance it received. If any new or "fixed" parts are going to break, it'll be right off the bat.
Yeah, we all know how sneaky terrorist are, like flying planes into buildings. It was not a terrorist because if it was it would be obvious. That is their goal, that is what puts the "terror" into terrorism. People don't go thourgh life being afraid of freakaccidentism.
This example is probably more recognizable if I recast it as a big company that perhaps uses GPL modified source to do some wacky data manipulation, perhaps a video effect company. Lets say that they take your precious GPL source, make some changes, use it to make millions doing video effects for some movie. They don't have to give anyone that source code. Not even you. Almost becomes like the BSD license doesn't it?
That is why so much software from .edu's contains the clause that commerical use requires paying bucks to license the use of the software.
I once had a chance encounter with a woman who turned out to be an employee of flexlm. I asked her if it had ever been cracked and she said "oh yes, several times." She said that the company always takes legal action and has successfully silenced all cracks. Her statement is undoubtedly true since flexlm is and has always been a crappy product, largely unchanged for years, to think that they stumbled upon the perfect copy protection scheme is ridiculous.
If they were ever to try to blackmail the US with nukes, then that would require an immediate pre-emptive strike that would obliterate them. It would be over before the kooks could organize a protest. Also, you seem to think that it is easy to target a long range missile, it is not. Launching a nuke at the US that may not even come close to hitting the target AND detonating is a huge risk for any country. Not to mention that the US also has the advantage of sheer size, it takes a hell of a lot more power to wipe out the US than it would to decimate Iraq and North Korea combined.
I am puzzled by your comment about them having a lot of planes. Exactly how far do you think they would make it before being gunned down?
Also, if you'll recall, the last North Korea missile test I remember was a complete failure. I'm thinking of the missile that went shooting over Japan and into the ocean.
From your response, I get the impression that you have assumed that I am anti-war or something. Quite the contrary, I think we should nuke the shit out of both those countries. (and the Palenstinians since the children have been programmed to kill their "evil oppressors".) But I do think that most of the arguments for war that have been given are inadequate and even counter-productive to that goal since they are so clearly false.
If it is ever proven that North Korea has nuclear bombs, then that will hasten their demise. Probably at the request of Japan and South Korea since they are realistically the only countries close enough to be in danger.
Side rant, I hate those Discovery episodes that say, "If you were as strong as an ant, you could carry a tank!" It's ridiculous, the materials that an ant are constructed of aren't terribly strong in human terms. If you were as strong as ant, you'd rip your arms out of their sockets.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? The purpose of the long line breaking is to stop lines from being e.g., thousands of characters long. Not to stop the need for horizontal scrolling. Once again, I challenge you to show me an instance when you would need to post text that is "too long". And the definition of "too long" is whatever length /. breaks long lines at.
I've always thought that if you could get to the center of the earth, you would feel weightless (aside from the crushing pressure!). This would be because all of the mass of the earth would cancel out.
The assumptions are indeed correct here in the real world. It's not often you walk into a room with fake shadows drawn everywhere.
And the idea that the brain fixes what the eyes see is nothing new. There is an easy to do experiment where you wear lenses that invert the image your eyes see. After a week or so you'll wake up one day and realize that the world is right-side-up again.
And once again, an illusion is only an illusion if it is really an illusion and not falsified.
Some of their other examples are also flawed which I won't get into because I've got better things to do.
Save yourself some time, go to the MIT site and read something worthwhile.
RISC maybe? It would be useful to see how big the Linux PPC version is. I am assuming that you were quoting Linux x86 numbers.
Compare this to an illusion that actualy passes this test: checkershadow
The question is why make a bogus illusion when a good ones exist? NIH? (Or perhaps they don't want to support MIT?) Is all their "research" of this quality?
The reason why the brain confuses colors and such is because it quite sensibly corrects for shadows. It very sophisticatedly determines the light source, and compensates for it. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Peeking at the html, the idiot is "Web Development by KitchenMedia" for future reference.
Assumptions are dangerous and don't make great quotes. Bad writing causing a false quote is even worse. It's irrelevant what we think he thinks. We need to make him understand continually until we get a verifiable great quote.
Quicktime is indeed open, the fact that a huge majority of quicktime encapsulated videos use proprietary codecs does not change that fact. There are Ogg plugins for QT. Thus you can play QT encapsulated Ogg files on any platform.
But your statement is true in a way, they are making money on this scheme by furthering their Microsoft Windows monopoly.
If you examine the prices of products over time you find that everything decreases. MS by keeping their prices high is equivalent to raising their prices.
Don't take this as racist, but it sounds the same as the "one drop rule" that blacks use. If one parent is white and the other parent is black, then you are black.
Also, I don't see why everyone is so suprised that memos are/could be getting leaked. Would it suprise anyone to find out that some employee with access would leak stuff for as little as e.g. 20 bucks a memo?
The secondary benefit of requiring parenthesis is that it gets ugly fast, forcing one to break the math up. This helps debugging weirdities like underflow/overflow which are not as obvious as division errors.
I will continue to exclude Apple in all discussions so long as the discussion is still Microsoft as a monopoly on x86 systems.
And once again, you can offer as much proof as you like for the existence of competition, but that does not help your argument that MS is not a monopoly on x86 systems. You first need to learn what the legal definition is before you can try to prove otherwise.
Now you really are confused. To think that the entire penalty phase would only hold until the next version of Microsoft Windows. That's laughable. "Today Bill Gates announced it's newest version of Windows, Windows Get Out of Jail Free!" Meanwhile back in reality, the penalty will hold for the amount of time that the court said it will regardless of how many version MS releases.2. When did I say server? But irregardless the distinction between server and desktop is irrelevant, MS shares much of their resources, give me an example of when something existed on a server version that never appeared on a desktop version.
3. Translation: .NET * would be on desktop systems today if not for the court case. .NET is. It was only brought into this conversation since your argument hinged on the assumption that it would never be pushed into a future Microsoft Windows version.
Besides, your desire to make a bet pretty clearly implies that you think they will never include it. Furthermore I do not care what
4. Haven't responded? There is nothing to respond to. It would be like trying to prove why Palm is not a competitor to Microsoft Windows on x86. The argument is solely about Microsoft Windows being a monopoly on x86 systems. End of discussion w.r.t Apple. To clear it up for you, this is what your statement should read as:
The question of whether Linux will threaten that monopoly is somewhat valid. But during the time of the court case, there were very few systems shipping with Linux, thus the percentage of Linux x86 systems was very small and insignificant when compared to Microsoft's dominance. What's really funny is your apparent inability to grasp reality and your further attempts to spread disinformation in order to try to change reality to match your perception of it.