With that said, it seems that you have a few misconceptions about the mindset of many people who adhere to the pro-life (or as you put it, anti-choice) view. Pro-lifers don't necessarily want to force their view on other people. They don't think, "Hey, I want to make these other people believe exactly what I do."....or at least, you don't have to think that to adhere to the pro-life view.
While I would certainly agree with the statement (that pro-lifers don't necessarily want to force their views) on a literal level, the vast majority of the vocal and organized movements that call themselves pro-life actively try to encourage lawmakers and judges to make the medical procedure of induced abortion either illegal or almost inaccessible. I would call this wanting to force their views. No, they aren't looking to force people to share their beliefs, but they are looking to force everyone to act in accordance with their belief system. I consider this worse from an ethical standpoint, since it will prevent others from acting according to their own belief system.
People who uphold the pro-life view believe... that abortion essentially amounts to murder. Thus, pro-lifers believe that since abortion is murder, and murder is wrong, they have a moral obligation to do what they can to stop it.
That is fine, but they need to accept that many people do not consider it murder, and that it is not legally murder, and that if they succeed in preventing abortion by force of law, they would perpetuate many wrongs. They would prevent others from legally acting according to their own concience. They would bring back the back alley black market abortionists that caused so much pain and suffering in the US before Roe v Wade.
On the other hand, there are many things a pro-life person can do to "do what they can to stop it.": * They can help teach sexual responsibility to our youth. For those that they feel are too young to discuss sexual matters with, they can just teach general emotional and personal responsibility. * They can help support effective contraceptive products, or even stop picketing the places that, in many communities, are the only places that supply such products. * They can actively support adoption centers, and make it clear that there is an alternative to abortion. Most organizations calling themselves "pro-life" seem to actually fight against education and contraception. This makes me think that they really are in it for the power trip. I do realize that the organizations do not speak for all the people who call themselves "pro-life", however.
I would have a lot more respect for the pro-life movement if it were to: * Actively denounce the people performing violence in their name; and * Distance themselves from the political organizations, such as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition. Politics and ethics don't often mix, and if they want their ethical stand to be heard, they shouldn't hang around so many politicians.
The Greatful Dead have a very large and popular body of work. By adding their work to the legal MP3 community, they are increasing the [metaphorical] mass of the community, and therefore the inertia of the community.
The larger and more popular the body of legally distributable MP3s are, the harder it is for the RIAA and other organizations to fight the movement. I would call this inertia.
Since when has there EVER been a standard desktop on UNIX?
Since May 20, 1998. That was the day the Unix98 standard was relesed. In the workstation portion of the standard, it identifies CDE, running on Motif and the X Window System as the standard Unix desktop.
Personally, I refuse to accept CDE as my desktop, and I would like to see healthy Free alternatives (such as GNOME, GNUStep and KDE) both competing and collaborating as a choice of desktop environments. None of them can be the standard, because the Open Group sets the standard, and they will never accept any of them.
It isn't Big in the sense that General Electric is Big. It is Big in the sense that: * They are well known in the Open Source/Free Software community * They are not likely to disappear anytime soon * They have a vested interest in supporting the movement * They have a vested interest in avoiding the scandals that would appear if they misused the money
The above make them an ideal candidate in my mind even though I strongly disagree with them on some of their positions. The Free Software Foundation would be just as good, but there are people who strongly disagree with them on some issues.
We're never going to find an organization that is completely perfect politically, but we don't have to. For me to allow someone to handle my money doesn't require me to agree with them, it requires me to trust them. Those are two completely independant things. (Now if they were keeping a cut, then I'd have to agree with them to a point)
How is having a secure passphrase a "superficial and shallow solution?"
It's superficial and shallow because once they have your file it is subject to brute force attacks. A well funded cracker (say, the NSA) could break through fairly quickly, particularly if you use an easy to guess passphrase.
What do you suggest that NAI do about this? Is there even any theoretical way to prevent against this type of attack (other than a passphrase on the private key)?
Yes, there are two ways. The first is to never use a default location or filename to store your secure key. That way a trojan can't pick out your file blind, but would have to analyze your system to locate the secure key.
The second is to modify your system so that only root can read the secure key, and run PGP (or GPG) as setuid root. That way they need a root exploit to even look at your keyfile. This obviously won't work on a Windows system, since Winows is its own root exploit. Combining the two methods can greatly enhance the security of the encryption system.
But would there be *anyway* possible that this sort of thing could happen on Linux...(pardon my ignorance)!
The way PGP and GPG are currently set up, yes. You could run a trojan horse that transmits the file, or a hole in the browser's security could be used.
However, since we're in the wonderful world of Open Source, I can think of two ways of fixing your system so you aren't vulnerable. One way would be to edit the source so that the default directory and filename for your secure key are different (both from the source and from anyone else, this won't help if we all put our rings in.foo/bar). That way, there is no easy way for a Trojan to locate the file to transfer it.
The other way is to modify PGP or GPG to read the secure ring as root (assuming it's setuid root). You then make your secure ring owned by root:root. Then you can't read your own ring, except through PGP or GPG.
It seems that many people here seem to think that the right to free speech ends when the speech can in any way be interpreted as encouraging something illegal.
Nope, we are saying what the Supreme Court has been saying for two centuries, that your right to freedom of speech stops when it interferes with the rights of others. These sites have been put up for the express purpose of interfering with the rights of law-abiding doctors and clinics. Therefore they can be, should be, and are, illegal.
While I agree that it is sad that a sight like this exists, i can't support it's closure. The sight made no direct threats. and the creators didn't go out and kill themselves. they simply provided information.
Let's leave the internet for a moment. Imagine a town, let's call it Fooville. In this town is a John Smith, who has done something legal, but that 20% of the town really really despises him for. Mike Brown, owner of a local radio station, finds out that some people want to kill John Smith, a move he approves of and wants to support, but Mike doesn't want to get his hands dirty by actually being involved. He decides to broadcast the hourly John Smith Report, giving updates to the location and health of John Smith.
Mike Brown is doing more than "just providing information", he is actively being an accessory to the murder of John Smith. He's just doing it in a way that doesn't get him personally involved with the criminals.
if someone used that information to kill then they are at fault not the information providers. otherwise we will have to begin to ban phone-books, newspapers search engines etc...
The intent of the person distributing information is a major factor here. A phone book's intent is to inform, these sites intend to assist in doing harm.
Would most been so quick to demand the removal of the page if it was a pro medical marijuana page. or a page promoting the exporting of strong encryption, both of which are illegal.
These examples pit the rights of one person against the law. Time and time again, the right to Free Speech has been upheld in such a context.
The case we're discussing pits the rights of one person to Free Speech against the rights of other people to life and liberty. The right to Free Speech has always lost out when it interferes with the rights of others. If you yell "Bomb!" in a crowd you are breaking the law, even though you made no direct threat.
You can't just support free speech when it agrees with your beliefs. if free speech is to mean anything then even unpleasant speech must be allowed.
Yes, unpleasant speech must be allowed, damaging speech need not be. Let's say a neo-nazi extremist is making a broadcast on his public access program, and look at some things he might say, and whether or not they are protected: [Disclaimer, I agree with none of the below statements, by "fine" I mean "this statement is protected free speech"] * "The Aryan Race is supreme", fine * "All whites must join my movement", fine * "President Smith is a traitor", fine * "The Jews own the media", fine (it's not libel since it's doesn't target an individual) * "Rabbi Goldsmith is evil", probably fine, but not in some contexts * "Rabbi Goldsmith kills children", not fine, almost certainly libel * "Rabbi Goldsmith should pay for his crimes", only fine if he has been convicted of crimes, and possibly not even then * "We can't tolerate Rabbi Goldsmith, he must go", not fine, since there is a threat implicit in "must go". * "Rabbi Goldsmith lives at 123 West Street, apartment 3B", not fine in this context. * "We should wipe the Jewish disease from the face of the earth", questionable, I consider it immoral, it is currently illegal, but I don't know if it's been tested Plenty of this speech is quite unpleasant, and should be protected no matter how distasteful it is. It loses its protection when rights start to conflict with each other.
She was more than just the patron of Charles Babbage, she wrote both the first computer program and the first programming-HOWTO. While Chuck was mucking about with designing the Analytical Engine, she wrote a monogram on how to use such a machine to do things. The example program was to calculte Bernoulli numbers, and made use of loops and conditionals. Some credit her with "inventing" such structures, but the Jacuard (sp?) looms also used them.
PS: She wasn't the daughter of Percy Shelley (the poet) or Mary Wollstonecraft. She was the daughter of Lord Byron (the poet), and Annabella Milbanke.
Sometimes 1GB just isn't enough. There's at least one program we use here (FormZ, unfortunately running on Windows, but I'm sure it would be almost as bad were it ported to Linux), that routinely exceeds 1.5GB in memory usage. I don't find it too hard to imagine someone using such software in a way that uses more. Now, if you take a 2GB memory motherboard, and a 1.5GB rushmore as swap space, you're set for fast swap up to 3.5GB of total memory usage. That can come in handy when you're doing serious 3D rendering.
Bill Gates stepped down as president months ago, and passed it on to Ballmer (Microsoft employee #3, if I recall)
Bill Gates is still solidly and actively the Chief Executive Officer, but by passing on the role of president he is less involved with day-to-day operations of the behemoth.
I agree. The more software included the better whether it's free or proprietry.
I almost agree. The more software, the better, but it needs to be easy for the consumer to tell what is Free and what is merely costless (or hidden cost, like xv). Freedom is important to many people, particularly in the Linux world. I'm not saying that every distribution should beat people over the head with the concept, but it should be easy to find out how much Freedom you get with your Linux distro.
I just went to the page with my trusty browser (Lynx), saw a pleasant "Welcome to Luddite Industries" header, and nothing else. No distracting layers, no distressing content. It was a quite pleasant experience, actually.
The right not vote is just as important as the right to vote. Sometimes you can send just as strong of a message by NOT voting for someone as you can by voting for his/her opponent. Look at how often voter turn-out rates are used as to indicate "support" or a "voter mandate" for some politician or policy.
Unfortunately, not voting is interpreted as "voter apathy". Voter apathy doesn't send the message "we hate all of you", it sends the message "we don't care what you do". If you want to make it clear that you dislike everyone, get your butt out of bed, go to the voting booth, flip a token lever for some judge or minor official, and register the ballot.
Actively voting for nobody is a far stronger message than passively not voting.
Unfortunatley, people didn't want OS/2 and it was hard to convince software companies to develop applications for OS/2. At least not enough to make it apealling to use resources (people and money) to continue to develop and market an OS.
People didn't want OS/2 Version 1. OS/2 Version 2 raised a few eyebrows. People tried flocking to OS/2 Version 3 (Warp), but the developers wouldn't bite.
You know, with Intel backpeddling from their serial number issue, Sun just became the biggest target of the Arizona No Serial Number bill. Sun does the same thing with their UltraSparc that Intel was talking about doing with Pentium III.
Also, Intel is a significant player in Arizona, they have plants and a lot of investments there. Now that they've switched positions, they might just want to push for the bill to pass, give Sun something to squirm over.:-)
Disclaimer: I dislike both Intel and Sun. I consider both of them bloated soulless corporate entities. But it can be fun to watch such corporations squabble:-).
Are you insane? You think running something like mozilla.org can be done without expending resources? That they can through their source to the wind and reap the returns for free?
They obviously don't have to put as much work into it as Netscapes Mozilla effort. In fact they don't have to put any work into it for me to be happy. Just a simple GPL or public domain release of the current source tree as it stands. They don't even have to distribute it, someone else I'm sure gladly will. Eudora is a good program that would be even better as Open Source (and far worse as dumped in the history bin)
Of course, if they want to put as much effort into it as Netscape does Mozilla, that would be excellent too.
Now his place in history is secure, following in Andrew Johnson's footsteps.
Yeah, there are lots of parallels. Andrew Johnson was impeached also from a political witchhunt. In Clinton's case, the rules of due process were unconstitutionally suspended in the hopes that something resembling a crime would appear. In Johnson's case, the Democrats passed an unconstitutional law to make Johnson's firing of a cabinet member illegal.
Both impeachment trials were embarrasing farces. In both cases the President's behavior was just as embarassing as the behavior of those trying to "get" the President. However, at least Clinton was sober when he gave his inaugural speach:-).
Why are you flaming the nice person who corrected the article?!? When someone sends in a bug report on a program you use, do you wait until it gets fixed, and flame the person who made the report?
Depends. As long as they are using TCP/IP, and don't require NT Domain Authentication, you can usually connect to those by using a combination of PPP and DHCP. Microsoft's DHCP output is close enough to standard for Linux to use just fine.
I don't think they are likely to use IPX, and I don't think RAS works with NetBEUI.
Disclaimer: I haven't tried this in a while, and I may be forgetting something. Your mileage may vary.
damn, we've got this incredible pile of trade-rag garbage in the office, and that's probably the only publication on earth with either "info" or "world" in the name that we don't have . . .:(
If you don't mind filling out a long form, and killing lots of trees (it's a large format weekly magazine), you can subscribe for free. Here!
Corel has backed out of having to pay attention to a hardware platform that was outside of their core competency. They are still connected with that platform, but they don't have to think about it anymore.
Corel has had a serious commitment to Unix since they purchased WordPerfect (which has had a Unix version since at least version 4) from Novell. Their commitment has gotten stronger with their announcement last year promising Linux support for all of their software lines.
Corel has already followed through on their first two promises, producing an excellent version of WordPerfect 8 (and pricing it lower than originally promised), and starting their contributions to the Wine project. I think Corel Office and Corel Draw under winelib will come soon (under budget but behind schedule). I see no indication that they are slacking on any of their promises, much less backing out.
Slashdot Mirror
Troy wrote:
... that abortion essentially amounts to murder. Thus, pro-lifers believe that since abortion is murder, and murder is wrong, they have a moral obligation to do what they can to stop it.
With that said, it seems that you have a few misconceptions about the mindset of many people who adhere to the pro-life (or as you put it, anti-choice) view. Pro-lifers don't necessarily want to force their view on other people. They don't think, "Hey, I want to make these other people believe exactly what I do."....or at least, you don't have to think that to adhere to the pro-life view.
While I would certainly agree with the statement (that pro-lifers don't necessarily want to force their views) on a literal level, the vast majority of the vocal and organized movements that call themselves pro-life actively try to encourage lawmakers and judges to make the medical procedure of induced abortion either illegal or almost inaccessible. I would call this wanting to force their views. No, they aren't looking to force people to share their beliefs, but they are looking to force everyone to act in accordance with their belief system. I consider this worse from an ethical standpoint, since it will prevent others from acting according to their own belief system.
People who uphold the pro-life view believe
That is fine, but they need to accept that many people do not consider it murder, and that it is not legally murder, and that if they succeed in preventing abortion by force of law, they would perpetuate many wrongs. They would prevent others from legally acting according to their own concience. They would bring back the back alley black market abortionists that caused so much pain and suffering in the US before Roe v Wade.
On the other hand, there are many things a pro-life person can do to "do what they can to stop it.":
* They can help teach sexual responsibility to our youth. For those that they feel are too young to discuss sexual matters with, they can just teach general emotional and personal responsibility.
* They can help support effective contraceptive products, or even stop picketing the places that, in many communities, are the only places that supply such products.
* They can actively support adoption centers, and make it clear that there is an alternative to abortion.
Most organizations calling themselves "pro-life" seem to actually fight against education and contraception. This makes me think that they really are in it for the power trip. I do realize that the organizations do not speak for all the people who call themselves "pro-life", however.
I would have a lot more respect for the pro-life movement if it were to:
* Actively denounce the people performing violence in their name; and
* Distance themselves from the political organizations, such as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition. Politics and ethics don't often mix, and if they want their ethical stand to be heard, they shouldn't hang around so many politicians.
The Greatful Dead have a very large and popular body of work. By adding their work to the legal MP3 community, they are increasing the [metaphorical] mass of the community, and therefore the inertia of the community.
The larger and more popular the body of legally distributable MP3s are, the harder it is for the RIAA and other organizations to fight the movement. I would call this inertia.
Anonymous Coward asked:
Since when has there EVER been a standard desktop on UNIX?
Since May 20, 1998. That was the day the Unix98 standard was relesed. In the workstation portion of the standard, it identifies CDE, running on Motif and the X Window System as the standard Unix desktop.
Personally, I refuse to accept CDE as my desktop, and I would like to see healthy Free alternatives (such as GNOME, GNUStep and KDE) both competing and collaborating as a choice of desktop environments. None of them can be the standard, because the Open Group sets the standard, and they will never accept any of them.
It isn't Big in the sense that General Electric is Big. It is Big in the sense that:
* They are well known in the Open Source/Free Software community
* They are not likely to disappear anytime soon
* They have a vested interest in supporting the movement
* They have a vested interest in avoiding the scandals that would appear if they misused the money
The above make them an ideal candidate in my mind even though I strongly disagree with them on some of their positions. The Free Software Foundation would be just as good, but there are people who strongly disagree with them on some issues.
We're never going to find an organization that is completely perfect politically, but we don't have to. For me to allow someone to handle my money doesn't require me to agree with them, it requires me to trust them. Those are two completely independant things. (Now if they were keeping a cut, then I'd have to agree with them to a point)
I've tried a Compaq Prolinea 4/50 with Tseng video onboard, worked fine.
Tim Moore wrote:
How is having a secure passphrase a "superficial and shallow solution?"
It's superficial and shallow because once they have your file it is subject to brute force attacks. A well funded cracker (say, the NSA) could break through fairly quickly, particularly if you use an easy to guess passphrase.
What do you suggest that NAI do about this? Is there even any theoretical way to prevent against this type of attack (other than a passphrase on the private key)?
Yes, there are two ways. The first is to never use a default location or filename to store your secure key. That way a trojan can't pick out your file blind, but would have to analyze your system to locate the secure key.
The second is to modify your system so that only root can read the secure key, and run PGP (or GPG) as setuid root. That way they need a root exploit to even look at your keyfile. This obviously won't work on a Windows system, since Winows is its own root exploit. Combining the two methods can greatly enhance the security of the encryption system.
Anonymous Coward asked:
.foo/bar). That way, there is no easy way for a Trojan to locate the file to transfer it.
But would there be *anyway* possible that this sort of thing could happen on Linux...(pardon my ignorance)!
The way PGP and GPG are currently set up, yes. You could run a trojan horse that transmits the file, or a hole in the browser's security could be used.
However, since we're in the wonderful world of Open Source, I can think of two ways of fixing your system so you aren't vulnerable. One way would be to edit the source so that the default directory and filename for your secure key are different (both from the source and from anyone else, this won't help if we all put our rings in
The other way is to modify PGP or GPG to read the secure ring as root (assuming it's setuid root). You then make your secure ring owned by root:root. Then you can't read your own ring, except through PGP or GPG.
The Master shepherd wrote:
It seems that many people here seem to think that the right to free speech ends when the speech can in any way be interpreted as encouraging something illegal.
Nope, we are saying what the Supreme Court has been saying for two centuries, that your right to freedom of speech stops when it interferes with the rights of others. These sites have been put up for the express purpose of interfering with the rights of law-abiding doctors and clinics. Therefore they can be, should be, and are, illegal.
While I agree that it is sad that a sight like this exists, i can't support it's closure. The sight made no direct threats. and the creators didn't go out and kill themselves. they simply provided information.
Let's leave the internet for a moment. Imagine a town, let's call it Fooville. In this town is a John Smith, who has done something legal, but that 20% of the town really really despises him for. Mike Brown, owner of a local radio station, finds out that some people want to kill John Smith, a move he approves of and wants to support, but Mike doesn't want to get his hands dirty by actually being involved. He decides to broadcast the hourly John Smith Report, giving updates to the location and health of John Smith.
Mike Brown is doing more than "just providing information", he is actively being an accessory to the murder of John Smith. He's just doing it in a way that doesn't get him personally involved with the criminals.
if someone used that information to kill then they are at fault not the information providers. otherwise we will have to begin to ban phone-books, newspapers search engines etc...
The intent of the person distributing information is a major factor here. A phone book's intent is to inform, these sites intend to assist in doing harm.
Would most been so quick to demand the removal of the page if it was a pro medical marijuana page. or a page promoting the exporting of strong encryption, both of which are illegal.
These examples pit the rights of one person against the law. Time and time again, the right to Free Speech has been upheld in such a context.
The case we're discussing pits the rights of one person to Free Speech against the rights of other people to life and liberty. The right to Free Speech has always lost out when it interferes with the rights of others. If you yell "Bomb!" in a crowd you are breaking the law, even though you made no direct threat.
You can't just support free speech when it agrees with your beliefs. if free speech is to mean anything then even unpleasant speech must be allowed.
Yes, unpleasant speech must be allowed, damaging speech need not be. Let's say a neo-nazi extremist is making a broadcast on his public access program, and look at some things he might say, and whether or not they are protected: [Disclaimer, I agree with none of the below statements, by "fine" I mean "this statement is protected free speech"]
* "The Aryan Race is supreme", fine
* "All whites must join my movement", fine
* "President Smith is a traitor", fine
* "The Jews own the media", fine (it's not libel since it's doesn't target an individual)
* "Rabbi Goldsmith is evil", probably fine, but not in some contexts
* "Rabbi Goldsmith kills children", not fine, almost certainly libel
* "Rabbi Goldsmith should pay for his crimes", only fine if he has been convicted of crimes, and possibly not even then
* "We can't tolerate Rabbi Goldsmith, he must go", not fine, since there is a threat implicit in "must go".
* "Rabbi Goldsmith lives at 123 West Street, apartment 3B", not fine in this context.
* "We should wipe the Jewish disease from the face of the earth", questionable, I consider it immoral, it is currently illegal, but I don't know if it's been tested
Plenty of this speech is quite unpleasant, and should be protected no matter how distasteful it is. It loses its protection when rights start to conflict with each other.
She was more than just the patron of Charles Babbage, she wrote both the first computer program and the first programming-HOWTO. While Chuck was mucking about with designing the Analytical Engine, she wrote a monogram on how to use such a machine to do things. The example program was to calculte Bernoulli numbers, and made use of loops and conditionals. Some credit her with "inventing" such structures, but the Jacuard (sp?) looms also used them.
PS: She wasn't the daughter of Percy Shelley (the poet) or Mary Wollstonecraft. She was the daughter of Lord Byron (the poet), and Annabella Milbanke.
Sometimes 1GB just isn't enough. There's at least one program we use here (FormZ, unfortunately running on Windows, but I'm sure it would be almost as bad were it ported to Linux), that routinely exceeds 1.5GB in memory usage. I don't find it too hard to imagine someone using such software in a way that uses more. Now, if you take a 2GB memory motherboard, and a 1.5GB rushmore as swap space, you're set for fast swap up to 3.5GB of total memory usage. That can come in handy when you're doing serious 3D rendering.
Bill Gates stepped down as president months ago, and passed it on to Ballmer (Microsoft employee #3, if I recall)
Bill Gates is still solidly and actively the Chief Executive Officer, but by passing on the role of president he is less involved with day-to-day operations of the behemoth.
linuxci wrote:
I agree. The more software included the better whether it's free or proprietry.
I almost agree. The more software, the better, but it needs to be easy for the consumer to tell what is Free and what is merely costless (or hidden cost, like xv). Freedom is important to many people, particularly in the Linux world. I'm not saying that every distribution should beat people over the head with the concept, but it should be easy to find out how much Freedom you get with your Linux distro.
I just went to the page with my trusty browser (Lynx), saw a pleasant "Welcome to Luddite Industries" header, and nothing else. No distracting layers, no distressing content. It was a quite pleasant experience, actually.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
The right not vote is just as important as the right to vote. Sometimes you can send just as strong of a message by NOT voting for someone as you can by voting for his/her opponent. Look at how often voter turn-out rates are used as to indicate "support" or a "voter mandate" for some politician or policy.
Unfortunately, not voting is interpreted as "voter apathy". Voter apathy doesn't send the message "we hate all of you", it sends the message "we don't care what you do". If you want to make it clear that you dislike everyone, get your butt out of bed, go to the voting booth, flip a token lever for some judge or minor official, and register the ballot.
Actively voting for nobody is a far stronger message than passively not voting.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
Unfortunatley, people didn't want OS/2 and it was hard to convince software companies to develop applications for OS/2. At least not enough to make it apealling to use resources (people and money) to continue to develop and market an OS.
People didn't want OS/2 Version 1. OS/2 Version 2 raised a few eyebrows. People tried flocking to OS/2 Version 3 (Warp), but the developers wouldn't bite.
You know, with Intel backpeddling from their serial number issue, Sun just became the biggest target of the Arizona No Serial Number bill. Sun does the same thing with their UltraSparc that Intel was talking about doing with Pentium III.
:-)
:-).
Also, Intel is a significant player in Arizona, they have plants and a lot of investments there. Now that they've switched positions, they might just want to push for the bill to pass, give Sun something to squirm over.
Disclaimer: I dislike both Intel and Sun. I consider both of them bloated soulless corporate entities. But it can be fun to watch such corporations squabble
SEGV wrote:
Are you insane? You think running something like mozilla.org can be done without expending resources? That they can through their source to the wind and reap the returns for free?
They obviously don't have to put as much work into it as Netscapes Mozilla effort. In fact they don't have to put any work into it for me to be happy. Just a simple GPL or public domain release of the current source tree as it stands. They don't even have to distribute it, someone else I'm sure gladly will. Eudora is a good program that would be even better as Open Source (and far worse as dumped in the history bin)
Of course, if they want to put as much effort into it as Netscape does Mozilla, that would be excellent too.
JamesKPolk wrote:
:-).
Now his place in history is secure, following in Andrew Johnson's footsteps.
Yeah, there are lots of parallels. Andrew Johnson was impeached also from a political witchhunt. In Clinton's case, the rules of due process were unconstitutionally suspended in the hopes that something resembling a crime would appear. In Johnson's case, the Democrats passed an unconstitutional law to make Johnson's firing of a cabinet member illegal.
Both impeachment trials were embarrasing farces. In both cases the President's behavior was just as embarassing as the behavior of those trying to "get" the President. However, at least Clinton was sober when he gave his inaugural speach
It doesn't cover laptops, but most of this could be adapted with a little work (taking a laptop apart is more difficult).
Dagmar's Painting the Computer -- a quick & dirty mini-HOWTO
It doesn't have enough deskspace. I also don't like how far the deskspace is from the keyboard.
Why are you flaming the nice person who corrected the article?!? When someone sends in a bug report on a program you use, do you wait until it gets fixed, and flame the person who made the report?
dm wrote:
Mind you, my computer started up and it presented me with a Microsoft license agreement, which ended with two buttons:
[I accept this agreement] [Shut down computer]
Fortunately, I had a FreeBSD boot floppy handy. That gave me *lots* of choices! All of which I liked better than the two choices Microsoft offered.
Don't forget Febuary 15th, Windows Refund Day.
Depends. As long as they are using TCP/IP, and don't require NT Domain Authentication, you can usually connect to those by using a combination of PPP and DHCP. Microsoft's DHCP output is close enough to standard for Linux to use just fine.
I don't think they are likely to use IPX, and I don't think RAS works with NetBEUI.
Disclaimer: I haven't tried this in a while, and I may be forgetting something. Your mileage may vary.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
:(
damn, we've got this incredible pile of trade-rag garbage in the office, and that's probably the only publication on earth with either "info" or "world" in the name that we don't have . . .
If you don't mind filling out a long form, and killing lots of trees (it's a large format weekly magazine), you can subscribe for free. Here!
Corel has backed out of having to pay attention to a hardware platform that was outside of their core competency. They are still connected with that platform, but they don't have to think about it anymore.
Corel has had a serious commitment to Unix since they purchased WordPerfect (which has had a Unix version since at least version 4) from Novell. Their commitment has gotten stronger with their announcement last year promising Linux support for all of their software lines.
Corel has already followed through on their first two promises, producing an excellent version of WordPerfect 8 (and pricing it lower than originally promised), and starting their contributions to the Wine project. I think Corel Office and Corel Draw under winelib will come soon (under budget but behind schedule). I see no indication that they are slacking on any of their promises, much less backing out.