Lowell is not leading them in RBI's in the playoffs, and Lowell wouldn't be leading anyone in RBI's if guys like Ortiz and Manny weren't getting on base in front of him.
Ortiz is batting.387 in the playoffs, and he is one of the greatest clutch playoff hitters of all time.
It is insanity to bench him. Lugo is terrible, and you want to start Lugo while benching Ortiz?
Without Ortiz, we get swept in 2004. He is one of the single largest reasons these guys have a ring right now.
I suggested benching Lugo, not Lowell or Youkilis. Lugo is batting.229, and made a senseless error in Game 7 to boot. I can't count the number of times Lugo has killed rallies, stranded runners, or went hitless this year.
Ortiz is only one of the most clutch hitters in the playoffs, and even after "slumping" in the past three games, his playoff average for this year dropped to.387
You're honestly suggesting benching a guy hitting.387 (and 3 HRs) in the playoffs, especially with his history? Pitchers are still terrified of Ortiz, and for a good reason.
Lowell and Youk are both great defensive players. Youk could move to third, and Lowell could play SS. It sure beats benching either one of those guys while you start Lugo.
Even though the Rockies are hot, I think we may sweep again.
And I don't know why the media is debating what to do with Ortiz in the NL parks. Put him at 1st, put Yook at either 3rd or SS, and then bench Lugo. Lugo just stinks, and I can't imagine why we should start him in the infield while benching Yook.
I'm a lifetime BoSox fan that grew up in the Midwest. I've waited my whole life to see a BoSox World Series game in person. In '86 I was just a little kid. In '04, I was on my honeymoon cruise, which my wife was not going to let me bail on.
Denver is only 6-7 hours away by car, and I was really excited about buying tickets, and then the site wouldn't work. Not only was the site completely overloaded (despite the site claiming it was invulnerable to such overloading by only letting in so much traffic at once), that even when I could get a page to load, it kept insisting I had cookies off. I have cookies on, and they work on every other site on the planet.
I hope the site works tomorrow morning, however I am fearful the cookies problem will persist.
I initially tried Firefox in Linux, rebooted into Windows and tried both IE and Firefox on Windows with no joy.
I hate to pester a guy offering you a favor (for free, no less) but I was wondering you were still willing to give out those extra Half Life 2 codes. Did you end up getting the Orange Box?
Google probably won't compete directly with the iPhone, because it won't have massive storage, nor a touch screen. However, I wouldn't be shocked it it basic multimedia capabilities like most free phones, and the ability to add storage with a MicroSD card. Many rumors have suggested eventually Google wants to add a free, ad-based phone service, so no doubt they're going to try and keep the cost of the phone down.
But if I can get something to browse the web, add third-party-webs, listen to music, read emails, etc. and it is cheap and/or free, as opposed to $600, and supports 3G bandwidth, etc. then it will utterly trounce the iPhone.
I'm bad in that I use my Gmail address to register for forums and such, but Gmail still filters the vast majority of the spam. I might get 100 spam messages every few days, and 1 or 2 might reach my inbox. I don't consider it a massive hassle. The filters are pretty decent.
I love tagging, archiving, search, GTalk, etc. If it had drag-and-drop like Yahoo's beta, I'd be very happy indeed.
"Under the patent agreement, both companies will make up-front payments in exchange for a release from any potential liability for use of each others patented intellectual property, with a net balancing payment from Microsoft to Novell reflecting the larger applicable volume of Microsoft's product shipments. Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products."
Novell is paying for being liable for using Microsoft patents, and will also make running royalty payments. If no one violated these patents, then why pay for protection?
It sets a legal precedent that apparently you weren't aware of. Google can help you out with that. So stop the personal attacks and shouting, and please read up on the issue.
If they didn't think they had violated Microsoft patents, then why pay to license them? Why sign a deal that includes a "no-sue" clause?
I don't see what the GPLv3 has to do with the current discussion, and I'm not pushing GPLv3. I'm saying that Novell set a legal precedent that could really hurt the Linux community, and if nothing else they enabled FUD. Microsoft can go to major corporations and say "Novell licensed our patents, and if you use Linux, you could be sued, unless you use SUSE Linux, and buy it from us."
Novell effectively admitted fault that the entire Linux community had infringed on patents, and if you hadn't signed a deal, you could be in trouble. I'd argue that severely hurt Linux and the F/OSS community.
However one action does not fully define a company. Novell has done a great deal to support Linux, but there is no taking away the patent fiasco.
Often IT jobs involve little normal busy work. I've equated many of my IT positions to being a fire fighter. There is plenty of down time, but when there is a fire, somebody has to go put it out. There was a Slashdot article just a few days ago asking about a metric to measure productivity in an IT department. I wouldn't focus on the amount of work done, or the hours slept, but rather whether or not services are ever disrupted.
If IT is there to keep the business running, and it runs, then IT is doing their job.
Chris Avellone who was the lead designer/developer on Planescape: Torment was a member of the NWN:2 team, as well as the upcomming expansion. He wasn't the lead developer, though he was the lead developer on KOTOR:2. It is a shame that KOTOR:2 was rushed, and treated so poorly by LucasArts. That was ALMOST a truly great game.
With most FOSS projects, each person maintains copyright on their contributions.
Regardless, I've been looking around, and from everything I'm finding, even original copyright holders relinquish portions of their rights by releasing their code under an open license, which they are now bound by. A license is a contract that binds both parties, which is why the GPL stipulates the no warranty clause.
The bulk of your argument is that if you code a project, you're not bound by the license you release your code under since you ultimately own it. I don't claim to know 100%, but from what I can tell, I'm not sure that is the case. I'd like to see a proper clarification on this.
If you are bound by the license, then it would seem the GPL are in fact violating their own license, though in practice they aren't going to go after themselves. However, it does add a layer of hypocrisy to projects shifting from GPlv2 to GPLv3, and it casts a legal doubt of whether or not they should be able to switch.
Yep, and Samba (as an example) wasn't coded by one individual. The Samba page lists 47 people, though I'm not sure that counts all contributions from all coders in the history of the project.
When it was discussed on the LKML about relicensing the kernel under GPLv2, Linux keeps bringing up a major reason it likely won't ever happen. Linus can relicense his code, but he can't relicense the contributions of other people.
Did every single contributer to Samba over the years each stipulate that they have signed off on relicensing their work?
Regardless, I'm not sure even the original copyright holder can remove rights granted by the GPL, given that software licenses are contracts.
From the GPL:
"This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language."
Later versions or forks, are derivative work under copyright law, even if they are developed by largely the same team. The license stipulates that certain rights are granted, and may not be removed. Where does the license stipulate an exception that the original author can suddenly revoke rights for derivative works?
To clarify, and I should have put this in my first response, there is no commercial restriction in the GPL, so yes, you can have a commercial release at any time. The GPL doesn't say you can't make money off software, but even commercial GPL products must release source code for free, and follow the GPL completely.
If you take GPL code and then reuse it, it must remain GPL protected, and rights can't be removed.
So let's take Samba. Earlier versions were GPLv2, and when they made later versions of Samba, they included GPLv2 code, thusly it must retain all rights and freedoms of the previous license.
Everyone is so quick to point out the freedoms it protects, but it does so by placing restrictions. The new restrictions, such as the Tivo/Hypervisor clause effectively remove rights from the previous version.
Given that the GPL says you can't remove any rights already granted, isn't this a contradiction?
I can't take GPL code and then relicense it under a closed-source license. The entire purpose of the GPL, is that once you write code under the GPL, every right is forever protected, and can never be taken away.
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
With BSD licensed software, you can relicense it largely, since BSD offers very little in the way of protection.
On principle I agree we should deter people from violating licenses, but which is more detrimental in the long run?
Will this scare pointy-haired-bosses away from OSS if they think touching the GPL may involve a law-suit? For many people, they don't understand the intricacies of software licenses. If Monsoon showed malice, and very much knowingly were trying to screw people, then yes, punish them. However, many people have been slow to release their changes to source code, and instead of scaring everyone off the GPL, I'm generally content to see people continue to use OSS and comply with the license.
I'm honestly not trying to troll here, but ask a serious, and simple question.
Doesn't the GPL state that once rights are granted, you may never take away rights? Isn't the GPLv3 more restrictive than GPLv2? Aren't projects that switch from GPLv2 to v3 like Samba now removing rights previously granted under the old license, and thusly violating that license?
This issue always comes up, and it seems the vast majority of the people in this thread are bashing Firefox/Mozilla, but they are ignoring three very crucial points.
1 - The code already has been tested with garbage collectors, Valgrind and the like. Most memory leaks hopefully have already been caught, but they are recommitting themselves to this task. 2 - Mozilla is not responsible for the poor javascript and such prevalent in various extensions written by third parties. 3 - This is the most important part, the massive memory and CPU usage is a feature, not a bug, and can quickly be disabled. Firefox 2 and 3 cache fully rendered versions of pages, so that it is "quicker" when you hit the back button. It doesn't have to rerender the page. Personally, I don't care for this feature, and so I tell Firefox to use less memory.
Slashdot Mirror
Lowell is not leading them in RBI's in the playoffs, and Lowell wouldn't be leading anyone in RBI's if guys like Ortiz and Manny weren't getting on base in front of him.
.387 in the playoffs, and he is one of the greatest clutch playoff hitters of all time.
Ortiz is batting
It is insanity to bench him. Lugo is terrible, and you want to start Lugo while benching Ortiz?
Without Ortiz, we get swept in 2004. He is one of the single largest reasons these guys have a ring right now.
I suggested benching Lugo, not Lowell or Youkilis. Lugo is batting .229, and made a senseless error in Game 7 to boot. I can't count the number of times Lugo has killed rallies, stranded runners, or went hitless this year.
.387
.387 (and 3 HRs) in the playoffs, especially with his history? Pitchers are still terrified of Ortiz, and for a good reason.
Ortiz is only one of the most clutch hitters in the playoffs, and even after "slumping" in the past three games, his playoff average for this year dropped to
You're honestly suggesting benching a guy hitting
Lowell and Youk are both great defensive players. Youk could move to third, and Lowell could play SS. It sure beats benching either one of those guys while you start Lugo.
Even though the Rockies are hot, I think we may sweep again.
And I don't know why the media is debating what to do with Ortiz in the NL parks. Put him at 1st, put Yook at either 3rd or SS, and then bench Lugo. Lugo just stinks, and I can't imagine why we should start him in the infield while benching Yook.
I'm a lifetime BoSox fan that grew up in the Midwest. I've waited my whole life to see a BoSox World Series game in person. In '86 I was just a little kid. In '04, I was on my honeymoon cruise, which my wife was not going to let me bail on.
Denver is only 6-7 hours away by car, and I was really excited about buying tickets, and then the site wouldn't work. Not only was the site completely overloaded (despite the site claiming it was invulnerable to such overloading by only letting in so much traffic at once), that even when I could get a page to load, it kept insisting I had cookies off. I have cookies on, and they work on every other site on the planet.
I hope the site works tomorrow morning, however I am fearful the cookies problem will persist.
I initially tried Firefox in Linux, rebooted into Windows and tried both IE and Firefox on Windows with no joy.
Great website all around.
Thanks. You're a good man, Charlie Brown.
I hate to pester a guy offering you a favor (for free, no less) but I was wondering you were still willing to give out those extra Half Life 2 codes. Did you end up getting the Orange Box?
Google probably won't compete directly with the iPhone, because it won't have massive storage, nor a touch screen. However, I wouldn't be shocked it it basic multimedia capabilities like most free phones, and the ability to add storage with a MicroSD card. Many rumors have suggested eventually Google wants to add a free, ad-based phone service, so no doubt they're going to try and keep the cost of the phone down.
But if I can get something to browse the web, add third-party-webs, listen to music, read emails, etc. and it is cheap and/or free, as opposed to $600, and supports 3G bandwidth, etc. then it will utterly trounce the iPhone.
I'm bad in that I use my Gmail address to register for forums and such, but Gmail still filters the vast majority of the spam. I might get 100 spam messages every few days, and 1 or 2 might reach my inbox. I don't consider it a massive hassle. The filters are pretty decent.
I love tagging, archiving, search, GTalk, etc. If it had drag-and-drop like Yahoo's beta, I'd be very happy indeed.
I haven't filled my inbox, but I use GMail to the Maxx!!!
StarOffice is still free for students and schools.
Didn't Microsoft DEMAND that all games must meet 720p to qualify as a 360 title?
Didn't they guarantee that they were ushering in the HD era?
I guess that didn't apply to their own internal titles.
Bioshock looks better all around, has far more detail, oh, and runs natively at 720p without any problems. Why can't Halo 3? I don't get it.
Some people talk about civil liberties while others risk their lives for them.
Commendable, and I wish them well.
Stop trolling, and educate yourself.
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq.html
"Under the patent agreement, both companies will make up-front payments in exchange for a release from any potential liability for use of each others patented intellectual property, with a net balancing payment from Microsoft to Novell reflecting the larger applicable volume of Microsoft's product shipments. Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products."
Novell is paying for being liable for using Microsoft patents, and will also make running royalty payments. If no one violated these patents, then why pay for protection?
It sets a legal precedent that apparently you weren't aware of. Google can help you out with that. So stop the personal attacks and shouting, and please read up on the issue.
What bullshit?
If they didn't think they had violated Microsoft patents, then why pay to license them? Why sign a deal that includes a "no-sue" clause?
I don't see what the GPLv3 has to do with the current discussion, and I'm not pushing GPLv3. I'm saying that Novell set a legal precedent that could really hurt the Linux community, and if nothing else they enabled FUD. Microsoft can go to major corporations and say "Novell licensed our patents, and if you use Linux, you could be sued, unless you use SUSE Linux, and buy it from us."
Novell effectively admitted fault that the entire Linux community had infringed on patents, and if you hadn't signed a deal, you could be in trouble. I'd argue that severely hurt Linux and the F/OSS community.
However one action does not fully define a company. Novell has done a great deal to support Linux, but there is no taking away the patent fiasco.
Often IT jobs involve little normal busy work. I've equated many of my IT positions to being a fire fighter. There is plenty of down time, but when there is a fire, somebody has to go put it out. There was a Slashdot article just a few days ago asking about a metric to measure productivity in an IT department. I wouldn't focus on the amount of work done, or the hours slept, but rather whether or not services are ever disrupted.
If IT is there to keep the business running, and it runs, then IT is doing their job.
Chris Avellone who was the lead designer/developer on Planescape: Torment was a member of the NWN:2 team, as well as the upcomming expansion. He wasn't the lead developer, though he was the lead developer on KOTOR:2. It is a shame that KOTOR:2 was rushed, and treated so poorly by LucasArts. That was ALMOST a truly great game.
Honestly, I think this is the crux of the question, and I would like to see some legal clarification.
Is the original author bound by the terms of the license under which they release software?
I see license as a two-way binding contract, however it is possible I don't understand the legality here.
"Right, and who's the copyright holder?"
With most FOSS projects, each person maintains copyright on their contributions.
Regardless, I've been looking around, and from everything I'm finding, even original copyright holders relinquish portions of their rights by releasing their code under an open license, which they are now bound by. A license is a contract that binds both parties, which is why the GPL stipulates the no warranty clause.
The bulk of your argument is that if you code a project, you're not bound by the license you release your code under since you ultimately own it. I don't claim to know 100%, but from what I can tell, I'm not sure that is the case. I'd like to see a proper clarification on this.
If you are bound by the license, then it would seem the GPL are in fact violating their own license, though in practice they aren't going to go after themselves. However, it does add a layer of hypocrisy to projects shifting from GPlv2 to GPLv3, and it casts a legal doubt of whether or not they should be able to switch.
Yep, and Samba (as an example) wasn't coded by one individual. The Samba page lists 47 people, though I'm not sure that counts all contributions from all coders in the history of the project.
When it was discussed on the LKML about relicensing the kernel under GPLv2, Linux keeps bringing up a major reason it likely won't ever happen. Linus can relicense his code, but he can't relicense the contributions of other people.
Did every single contributer to Samba over the years each stipulate that they have signed off on relicensing their work?
Regardless, I'm not sure even the original copyright holder can remove rights granted by the GPL, given that software licenses are contracts.
From the GPL:
"This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language."
Later versions or forks, are derivative work under copyright law, even if they are developed by largely the same team. The license stipulates that certain rights are granted, and may not be removed. Where does the license stipulate an exception that the original author can suddenly revoke rights for derivative works?
To clarify, and I should have put this in my first response, there is no commercial restriction in the GPL, so yes, you can have a commercial release at any time. The GPL doesn't say you can't make money off software, but even commercial GPL products must release source code for free, and follow the GPL completely.
If you take GPL code and then reuse it, it must remain GPL protected, and rights can't be removed.
So let's take Samba. Earlier versions were GPLv2, and when they made later versions of Samba, they included GPLv2 code, thusly it must retain all rights and freedoms of the previous license.
Everyone is so quick to point out the freedoms it protects, but it does so by placing restrictions. The new restrictions, such as the Tivo/Hypervisor clause effectively remove rights from the previous version.
Given that the GPL says you can't remove any rights already granted, isn't this a contradiction?
That simply is not true.
I can't take GPL code and then relicense it under a closed-source license. The entire purpose of the GPL, is that once you write code under the GPL, every right is forever protected, and can never be taken away.
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
With BSD licensed software, you can relicense it largely, since BSD offers very little in the way of protection.
On principle I agree we should deter people from violating licenses, but which is more detrimental in the long run?
Will this scare pointy-haired-bosses away from OSS if they think touching the GPL may involve a law-suit? For many people, they don't understand the intricacies of software licenses. If Monsoon showed malice, and very much knowingly were trying to screw people, then yes, punish them. However, many people have been slow to release their changes to source code, and instead of scaring everyone off the GPL, I'm generally content to see people continue to use OSS and comply with the license.
I'm honestly not trying to troll here, but ask a serious, and simple question.
Doesn't the GPL state that once rights are granted, you may never take away rights? Isn't the GPLv3 more restrictive than GPLv2? Aren't projects that switch from GPLv2 to v3 like Samba now removing rights previously granted under the old license, and thusly violating that license?
This issue always comes up, and it seems the vast majority of the people in this thread are bashing Firefox/Mozilla, but they are ignoring three very crucial points.
1 - The code already has been tested with garbage collectors, Valgrind and the like. Most memory leaks hopefully have already been caught, but they are recommitting themselves to this task.
2 - Mozilla is not responsible for the poor javascript and such prevalent in various extensions written by third parties.
3 - This is the most important part, the massive memory and CPU usage is a feature, not a bug, and can quickly be disabled. Firefox 2 and 3 cache fully rendered versions of pages, so that it is "quicker" when you hit the back button. It doesn't have to rerender the page. Personally, I don't care for this feature, and so I tell Firefox to use less memory.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Memory_Leak
Google is a powerful tool. Slashdot readers should familiarize themselves with it before crucifying Mozilla.