Ever tried killing a zombied process in linux? Or a process that died trying while trying to read from a file over died network mounted FS? 2.6.17 seems to have improved on the latter, but that's pretty recent. And, if the UI hung on a Mac you were in just as much trouble, their processes didn't even have private address spaces, but just one flat unprotected address space.
Point is, all OSs have had their flaws... you spend more time looking for the flaws on one particular OS, and you're gonna find more than on any other. Which ever OS it is.
Tellin me! "The Thing" that MS did that got me using it was to get their OS somewhere where I saw it and used it, and compared to everything else I had used at the time, it was a clear winner. "They just had to show up" covers it pretty well I think.
I also like the articles comparisons between MS and Apple, clearly ignores things like the fact that Apple didn't make up the GUI - they sent guys over to Xerox to study and build from theirs... and then put patents on things like "overlapping windows", leaving MS with only being able to split screen until a license agreement was formed between the two.
This is clearly a case of "I don't like MS, everyone else is good(tm), MS is bad, now let me rationalise it".
Is cuz the night before he watched that episode of 24 where Jack has to rescue the drive from MI6 before the bomb went off, which got his wife quite excited. He set fire to his office and rescued the server, so he could have sex with her without having to let her call him Jack anymore.
You can distribute a disc that has GPL software along with non-GPL software on it. As long as you include the source for all the GPL software you're not necessarily breaking any GPL rules.
Because, people start bringing up all sorts of genocide charges against you, claims that being a criple or of a different colour or sexuality doesn't make you an idiot, and of cause there's the extremely attractive female idiots who definitely shouldn't be allowed to drive, but we like to keep 'em around because the pillow talk's less demanding, and scaring them to keep them inline is much easier than a less gullible but less attractive female.
But other than that, I don't really have any objections to the idea:-D
Yes, which is why you wouldn't use "I believe" in the formation or explanation of scientific consensus. However, using it the context that it WAS used in (which is, to recognise a number of events as being a scientific consensus) it perfectly valid, as deciding what level of agreement equates to a consensus is in fact, somewhat subjective.
Just as you speed up when you pull your arms and legs in while spinning on the office chair, the earth also spins faster as the thousands of trees a day get chopped down. The only thing that can effectively combat this is in fact by moving the moon closer to the earth. The effects of doing this is the increase to the height of tidal waves, increasing the tidal drag on the earth, and slowing it back down again, solving the problem forever.
"First you say you own all copies, now you say I can copy to any medium I want"
No, I said I own the work, and you copying it doesn't change the fact that it's my work. Secondly I have said that the purchase of work should grant you rights, including format shifting and backing up, because you have paid for the work, and should be able to store the work however you see fit, in a way you can use and future protect it. There is no lacking of consistency here at all.
"This post from yesterday may explain it to you"
Leaving aside the false assertions in that post, what it discusses is the rights your government will grant and enforce. What the law grants you is protection, not ownership. Ownership is something that can only be given away/passed on/shared, by the creator/current owner (eg, as a gift or part of a trade). You cannot grant ownership of something that you do not own, which is/why/ the government cannot grant ownership of something you created, only enforce it. In return for this protection, you pay a sort of tax - you give your work to the greater society after the period of protection is up.
"Your work is also built on the work of thousands of other people and centuries of inovation..."
So is the technology that goes into physical construction. That argument would mean you can't own something physical that exists due to the work of the people who invented the tools you used to make it, that it must belong to the public.
"Maybe if you were paying me a couple hundred dollars an hour you'd be quicker to understand"
If I was stupid enough to pay you a couple hundred dollars an hour for coming up with arguments with zero weight such as that last one, I doubt I'd even have any ability to understand my own name.
"they may say "Here's your book" even though we both know I didn't write the book. Catch that? Think that's plagarism?"
This argument is more ignorant than weightless. What I've already said, was that the book may be yours, but the story in the book isn't. So saying "this is my book" would be correct, but saying "this is my story" would be plagiarism. "Catch that"???
"Do you think the exemptions on copyright for parody are theft?"
I think it's theft in the same way that income tax is. (note to anyone who misunderstands, I'm not asserting that income tax is theft, I'm purely drawing a parallel between the two).
"Do you think it's theft for copyrights to expire?"
Again, in the same way I believe income tax is theft. I believe you're giving something to society in return for something. If you don't wish for something to enter public domain, then you opt out of government protection over your creation, and have to enforce protection yourself, ie, keep it under lock and key. If you want to release it into the wild, and have government enforce protection, then the cost of that protection is releasing it to the society that has formed the government/police that have protected it over the years.
Your last paragraph is also flawed, again, due to the fact that you seem to say that something physical can be your property (eg, when you buy a car) but something nonphysical can't, because the nonphysical thing could only be built on years of previous work, inventions, ideas etc. You think this is not true of a car? The people who make a car make it entirely on their own, with all their own tools, which they invented themselves, with electicity that they generate using methods they invented themselves, designed on computers that they designed, built, invented themselves, etc etc etc?
Or are you saying that a car cannot belong to someone because it also took a whole society to make, and therefore must be public domain?
"If you own all copies, and I buy one copy then format shift and backup, I now have three copies. Why do you not think that's stealing two copies if copying is theft?"
Because buying something gives you rights to the work, as I keep repeating, the purchase is me giving you permission to take my work, for you to store on whatever medium you want.
"If I create a copy of something, I don't need your permission to take it, you didn't make it so it's not yours"
As I keep repeating, I'm not the one who hit the buttons to save my work onto your disc, no, but it is still my work, legislation or not, you saving my program onto your disc does not make it your program, I'm still the one who wrote it, you may have saved it onto your own disc, but it's still my creation, that wouldn't exist unless I had created it.
If somebody travelled the world researching something, and you saw their papers and wrote down on your own paper what you read, that wouldn't make what you wrote down *your* research, to say it is is plagiarism. So if it's not your research, it must still be the researchers research. Your paper. Your ink. Your handwriting. That's it.
It's plain english, I don't know how I can simplify it any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever tried killing a zombied process in linux? Or a process that died trying while trying to read from a file over died network mounted FS? 2.6.17 seems to have improved on the latter, but that's pretty recent. And, if the UI hung on a Mac you were in just as much trouble, their processes didn't even have private address spaces, but just one flat unprotected address space.
Point is, all OSs have had their flaws... you spend more time looking for the flaws on one particular OS, and you're gonna find more than on any other. Which ever OS it is.
Tellin me! "The Thing" that MS did that got me using it was to get their OS somewhere where I saw it and used it, and compared to everything else I had used at the time, it was a clear winner. "They just had to show up" covers it pretty well I think.
I also like the articles comparisons between MS and Apple, clearly ignores things like the fact that Apple didn't make up the GUI - they sent guys over to Xerox to study and build from theirs... and then put patents on things like "overlapping windows", leaving MS with only being able to split screen until a license agreement was formed between the two.
This is clearly a case of "I don't like MS, everyone else is good(tm), MS is bad, now let me rationalise it".
Is cuz the night before he watched that episode of 24 where Jack has to rescue the drive from MI6 before the bomb went off, which got his wife quite excited. He set fire to his office and rescued the server, so he could have sex with her without having to let her call him Jack anymore.
(or something)
or even GMILFs, sicko nominee of the year
You can distribute a disc that has GPL software along with non-GPL software on it. As long as you include the source for all the GPL software you're not necessarily breaking any GPL rules.
woohoo!!!
Because, people start bringing up all sorts of genocide charges against you, claims that being a criple or of a different colour or sexuality doesn't make you an idiot, and of cause there's the extremely attractive female idiots who definitely shouldn't be allowed to drive, but we like to keep 'em around because the pillow talk's less demanding, and scaring them to keep them inline is much easier than a less gullible but less attractive female.
:-D
But other than that, I don't really have any objections to the idea
Yes, which is why you wouldn't use "I believe" in the formation or explanation of scientific consensus. However, using it the context that it WAS used in (which is, to recognise a number of events as being a scientific consensus) it perfectly valid, as deciding what level of agreement equates to a consensus is in fact, somewhat subjective.
Nah we'll just get the BBC to investigate any bias in claims that global warming and lunar meteor strikes aren't linked.
Just as you speed up when you pull your arms and legs in while spinning on the office chair, the earth also spins faster as the thousands of trees a day get chopped down. The only thing that can effectively combat this is in fact by moving the moon closer to the earth. The effects of doing this is the increase to the height of tidal waves, increasing the tidal drag on the earth, and slowing it back down again, solving the problem forever.
but, what about...
I SAID FOREVER!!!
no, that's what's meteoleft
*cough*
Invent a new previously unused word for it? Quickly, installed the latest version of Office so we can use its spellchecker!
oops, BAN all cars, not 'bad' them... however you do that :-p
So if we also bad all cars that cost at least $20,000, then there'll be NO idiots on the road! ;-)
It has access to memory, but doesn't mean it has access to the page tables.
.net has ring0 access, I'm asking which ring0 API calls are accessible from .net.
So forget "assuming", with a claim that
"What a fucking moron. Don't you clowns ever wonder why you are the laughingstock of the software engineering world?"
Good argument, well put, now I understand both sides to the debate.
You didn't press 'preview' tho
"where major parts of the GUI subsystem run in ring 0"
.net virtual machines?
Out of interest, which of these subsystems are accessible from
"However, don't compare paying to much for your OS with being murdered or tortured"
:-D
I think he was comparing using the OS with being murdered or tortured
"Well, last time I checked, there was no building in child making"
Well how long ago was it you checked? Cuz things have come along quite a way recently
They were modded funny, not informative, or insightful, or OMG I'm amazed I can reproduce. Seriously, dude.
"First you say you own all copies, now you say I can copy to any medium I want"
/why/ the government cannot grant ownership of something you created, only enforce it. In return for this protection, you pay a sort of tax - you give your work to the greater society after the period of protection is up.
No, I said I own the work, and you copying it doesn't change the fact that it's my work. Secondly I have said that the purchase of work should grant you rights, including format shifting and backing up, because you have paid for the work, and should be able to store the work however you see fit, in a way you can use and future protect it. There is no lacking of consistency here at all.
"This post from yesterday may explain it to you"
Leaving aside the false assertions in that post, what it discusses is the rights your government will grant and enforce. What the law grants you is protection, not ownership. Ownership is something that can only be given away/passed on/shared, by the creator/current owner (eg, as a gift or part of a trade). You cannot grant ownership of something that you do not own, which is
"Your work is also built on the work of thousands of other people and centuries of inovation..."
So is the technology that goes into physical construction. That argument would mean you can't own something physical that exists due to the work of the people who invented the tools you used to make it, that it must belong to the public.
"Maybe if you were paying me a couple hundred dollars an hour you'd be quicker to understand"
If I was stupid enough to pay you a couple hundred dollars an hour for coming up with arguments with zero weight such as that last one, I doubt I'd even have any ability to understand my own name.
"they may say "Here's your book" even though we both know I didn't write the book. Catch that? Think that's plagarism?"
This argument is more ignorant than weightless. What I've already said, was that the book may be yours, but the story in the book isn't. So saying "this is my book" would be correct, but saying "this is my story" would be plagiarism. "Catch that"???
"Do you think the exemptions on copyright for parody are theft?"
I think it's theft in the same way that income tax is. (note to anyone who misunderstands, I'm not asserting that income tax is theft, I'm purely drawing a parallel between the two).
"Do you think it's theft for copyrights to expire?"
Again, in the same way I believe income tax is theft. I believe you're giving something to society in return for something. If you don't wish for something to enter public domain, then you opt out of government protection over your creation, and have to enforce protection yourself, ie, keep it under lock and key. If you want to release it into the wild, and have government enforce protection, then the cost of that protection is releasing it to the society that has formed the government/police that have protected it over the years.
Your last paragraph is also flawed, again, due to the fact that you seem to say that something physical can be your property (eg, when you buy a car) but something nonphysical can't, because the nonphysical thing could only be built on years of previous work, inventions, ideas etc. You think this is not true of a car? The people who make a car make it entirely on their own, with all their own tools, which they invented themselves, with electicity that they generate using methods they invented themselves, designed on computers that they designed, built, invented themselves, etc etc etc?
Or are you saying that a car cannot belong to someone because it also took a whole society to make, and therefore must be public domain?
"If you own all copies, and I buy one copy then format shift and backup, I now have three copies. Why do you not think that's stealing two copies if copying is theft?"
Because buying something gives you rights to the work, as I keep repeating, the purchase is me giving you permission to take my work, for you to store on whatever medium you want.
"If I create a copy of something, I don't need your permission to take it, you didn't make it so it's not yours"
As I keep repeating, I'm not the one who hit the buttons to save my work onto your disc, no, but it is still my work, legislation or not, you saving my program onto your disc does not make it your program, I'm still the one who wrote it, you may have saved it onto your own disc, but it's still my creation, that wouldn't exist unless I had created it.
If somebody travelled the world researching something, and you saw their papers and wrote down on your own paper what you read, that wouldn't make what you wrote down *your* research, to say it is is plagiarism. So if it's not your research, it must still be the researchers research. Your paper. Your ink. Your handwriting. That's it.
It's plain english, I don't know how I can simplify it any more.
*woosh*
"If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers.
Which conveys more information: ASCII character "9" or a pixel?"
Let's ask the Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel
vs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCIIcharacter9
I think it's clear who the winner is.