McBride points out that Hollywood studios, keen to protect their movies from being pirated on the Internet, have preached the need to respect copyrights. "It's hypocritical for them to be going around saying that they don't want their stuff to be given away for free, but at the same time saying, Boy, this free stuff sure is cool,'"he says.
I'm preaching to the choir by responding to this, but it's worth saying that the difference bettween the two cases is that the holder of the copyright gets to declare the terms of distribution. If Hollywood wants to sell their product, that is their choice. If Linus (& friends) want to give their product away for free, that is their choice. If Hollywood wants to simultaneously reap the technical/financial rewards of the GPL and the financial rewards of selling their movies, there is no hypocrisy -- so long as in both cases the terms of the respective copyright holders are honored.
SCO, which has retained hired gun and Microsoft nemesis David Boies, plans to target titans of financial services, transportation companies, government agencies and big retail chains
I think the "Microsoft nemesis" meme here is very interesting. Lawyers are only enemies-for-hire. Since Boies is no longer working on the DOJ-vs-MS case, it doesn't make sense to think of him as their nemesis any longer. Still, I wonder if he was specifically hired to give "plausible deniability" to any alleged MS funding of SCO's actions (knowing how most people probably don't understand how dispassionate lawyers can be if enough money is on the table.)
I've got a G4/400 with a video card that does not support Quartz Extreme, and I think the performane is much better with Panther. It seems like another leap similar to the one I got with Jaguar. Actually, I feel the same way about my G3/300 iMac too.
It was worth the price for us, but then we have 5 macs and bought the 5-pack.
I bet they implement this change in nomenclature: "these aren't 'embedded program objects', they're 'inlayed process components'...they're two totally separate things!"
That would give the lawyers something to chew on for a few more years.
I thought his answer was accurate and polite...but, then, I read it with a dispassionate tone of voice. Maybe if you read it again (without the assupmtion that the author is being snide) you would agree?
The nomenclature used by the person at the time of the interruption is not relevant to the nomenclature used during analysis. The former doesn't invalidate the latter.
Good luck ridding slashdot of jargon. You've chosen an uphill battle.
Yeah, that would be an interesting experiment...it's basically IRC in sensory-deprivation tanks. It might make a good brainstorming device, or an interesting kind of jury where no input goes into the cluster that isn't admissible ("the jury will disregard the last statement"...yeah, right).
They don't do this...to avoid 'a mutex lock', they do it because they have something else to do.
That's exactly what the term "mutex" implies. It is short for "mutually exclusive". If someone has something else to do, they cannot devote that time to the phone call because they feel that the two activities require mutually exclusive access to themselves. Sorry if the jargon lost you. I find that the concepts behind software design are very useful metaphors for how people interact. You might find the metaphors a bit silly if you're just imagining conversations among friends and family, but when you start thinking about communications in large organizations, it is vital that someone think in these terms...because the problems are exactly the same: resource contention, scheduling conflicts, interruption of essential tasks, request/response latency versus total throughput, etc...
You would be assuming so erroneously. A general purpose computer allows you to interleave emails and web-forum-postings among a myriad other useful things that you can be doing with your machine at the same time. This prevents you from making assumptions about what else someone is doing with their time. (You can't assume that no one else uses their computer time wisely simply because you do not.)
The phone, on the other hand, is a mutex lock on you...a very rude medium for low-importance/low-urgency communications.
Hypocracy(sic)? You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
Hypocrisy is insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have. An important part of this concept is that the incongruous statements must come from the same person or party.
You are comparing statements that may have not come from the same individuals. In particular, you compare the following two sentiments:
First we cry foul when companys sued and tried to regulate Internet Service Providers, into requiring them to keep the laws for their users. Then, they became something of a "common carrier."
Now, RIAA is actually going after the people *who are breaking the law* and yet you are still complaining about it?
Notice that in the first statement, you refer to the party as "we". In the second statement, you refer to the party as "you".
Illegal use of the word "hypocrisy" on the offense. 15 yards...forfeit the down.
At least some version of NT was code-named "Cairo", back in the days when NeXT was working on "Mecca" and IBM had the "Workplace OS" version of OS/2 in the works. I don't think much of the "Cairo" feature-set actually made it to market. It was supposed to have some lovely object-database filesystem or something, wasn't it?
Until they graduate, and they realize that there are better things to do than sit around and code all the fucking time.
Well, it's true that one could compose music, paint, sculpt, write a novel, make furniture, build a house, tend a garden, etc. But I wouldn't say those things are necessarily better.
I have an Ernie Ball Music Man guitar, and love it very much. It has the the best feeling neck I've ever put my left hand on...just the right thickness at each spot along its length, and the contoured joint where it mates with the guitar body feels really nice when playing up high. If you're shopping for a new axe, go out of your way to play a Music Man guitar. You won't regret it.
What if the vandal burned one of the original copies of the Constitution? Would that be punishable in your view? Just a part of some old plant with some marks on it, after all...
What happend to Autumn? Dec 21 is the first day of Winter...at least it has been for all of my life, and I tend to pay close attention to that day since it's my birthday.
Dictionaries have always described language, and never prescribed it. Words exist if and only if people use them to encode memes that can be decoded by others. Sad to say, even "aint" is a word, and the most that you can claim is that it's a "lowbrow" word, or some such elitist sentiment. The good news, though, is that you are free to invent words, and your only barrier to making them "real" is getting someone else to adopt them.
Regardless, it's not just wordnet that recognizes "ironical", so you'll have to do better even if you insist on the same rhetorical strategy.
For more coincidence, check out American Superconductor, which just recently had its stock soar with the news that its second-generation high-temp superconductor wire outperformed the predicted estimates. Nice timing for both companies, in the very least.
Just for the sake of correctness, "ironical" is a word...
From WordNet (r) 1.7.1 (July 2002) [wn]:
ironical
adj 1: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity
between what is expected and what actually is;
"madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker";
"it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed
so completely" [syn: {ironic}]
2: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic
remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an
ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish
wit" [syn: {dry}, {ironic}, {wry}]
It's true that there is the Mach kernel involved (here's a simplified cake-layer diagram), but from the context that Ritchie provides ("The way I use them, which is as a casual programmer, it doesn't matter--they are all the same...") none of that is really relevant. The APIs that he expects from a unix are there in the FreeBSD 4.4 code layer. (X11 is there too, by the way). He would have to be using the word "FreeBSD" very pedantically to mean that it's FreeBSD/PPC and not the FreeBSD 4.4 in OSX.
It doesn't sound like he's being pedantic in this interview.
Now, if only some kind researchers could get us all out of wearing pants at the office, we'd be set!
Now isn't that just like the slashdot editors...always have to put in some snarky comment to take a dig at the company that won't let you go pantless. You call this journalism!?
Good point. Fortunately, I think my use of the word "intended" was not really necessary. Since the LGPL predates Java, its use of the word "interface" cannot be a reference to that particular Java keyword. It's being used in the sense that a C programmer would use it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm preaching to the choir by responding to this, but it's worth saying that the difference bettween the two cases is that the holder of the copyright gets to declare the terms of distribution. If Hollywood wants to sell their product, that is their choice. If Linus (& friends) want to give their product away for free, that is their choice. If Hollywood wants to simultaneously reap the technical/financial rewards of the GPL and the financial rewards of selling their movies, there is no hypocrisy -- so long as in both cases the terms of the respective copyright holders are honored.
SCO, which has retained hired gun and Microsoft nemesis David Boies, plans to target titans of financial services, transportation companies, government agencies and big retail chains
I think the "Microsoft nemesis" meme here is very interesting. Lawyers are only enemies-for-hire. Since Boies is no longer working on the DOJ-vs-MS case, it doesn't make sense to think of him as their nemesis any longer. Still, I wonder if he was specifically hired to give "plausible deniability" to any alleged MS funding of SCO's actions (knowing how most people probably don't understand how dispassionate lawyers can be if enough money is on the table.)
I see a Pepsi logo in the bottom-left corner of that page, not a McDonald's logo. That was a separate previous deal.
I've got a G4/400 with a video card that does not support Quartz Extreme, and I think the performane is much better with Panther. It seems like another leap similar to the one I got with Jaguar. Actually, I feel the same way about my G3/300 iMac too.
It was worth the price for us, but then we have 5 macs and bought the 5-pack.
I bet they implement this change in nomenclature: "these aren't 'embedded program objects', they're 'inlayed process components'...they're two totally separate things!"
That would give the lawyers something to chew on for a few more years.
I thought his answer was accurate and polite...but, then, I read it with a dispassionate tone of voice. Maybe if you read it again (without the assupmtion that the author is being snide) you would agree?
The nomenclature used by the person at the time of the interruption is not relevant to the nomenclature used during analysis. The former doesn't invalidate the latter. Good luck ridding slashdot of jargon. You've chosen an uphill battle.
Yeah, that would be an interesting experiment...it's basically IRC in sensory-deprivation tanks. It might make a good brainstorming device, or an interesting kind of jury where no input goes into the cluster that isn't admissible ("the jury will disregard the last statement"...yeah, right).
That's exactly what the term "mutex" implies. It is short for "mutually exclusive". If someone has something else to do, they cannot devote that time to the phone call because they feel that the two activities require mutually exclusive access to themselves. Sorry if the jargon lost you. I find that the concepts behind software design are very useful metaphors for how people interact. You might find the metaphors a bit silly if you're just imagining conversations among friends and family, but when you start thinking about communications in large organizations, it is vital that someone think in these terms...because the problems are exactly the same: resource contention, scheduling conflicts, interruption of essential tasks, request/response latency versus total throughput, etc...
You would be assuming so erroneously. A general purpose computer allows you to interleave emails and web-forum-postings among a myriad other useful things that you can be doing with your machine at the same time. This prevents you from making assumptions about what else someone is doing with their time. (You can't assume that no one else uses their computer time wisely simply because you do not.)
The phone, on the other hand, is a mutex lock on you...a very rude medium for low-importance/low-urgency communications.
- First we cry foul when companys sued and tried to regulate Internet Service Providers, into requiring them to keep the laws for their users. Then, they became something of a "common carrier."
- Now, RIAA is actually going after the people *who are breaking the law* and yet you are still complaining about it?
Notice that in the first statement, you refer to the party as "we". In the second statement, you refer to the party as "you". Illegal use of the word "hypocrisy" on the offense. 15 yards...forfeit the down.At least some version of NT was code-named "Cairo", back in the days when NeXT was working on "Mecca" and IBM had the "Workplace OS" version of OS/2 in the works. I don't think much of the "Cairo" feature-set actually made it to market. It was supposed to have some lovely object-database filesystem or something, wasn't it?
Well, it's true that one could compose music, paint, sculpt, write a novel, make furniture, build a house, tend a garden, etc. But I wouldn't say those things are necessarily better.
What sentence would you recommend in the hypothetical case I proposed?
I have an Ernie Ball Music Man guitar, and love it very much. It has the the best feeling neck I've ever put my left hand on...just the right thickness at each spot along its length, and the contoured joint where it mates with the guitar body feels really nice when playing up high. If you're shopping for a new axe, go out of your way to play a Music Man guitar. You won't regret it.
;-)
Oh, and "hurray for linux"
What if the vandal burned one of the original copies of the Constitution? Would that be punishable in your view? Just a part of some old plant with some marks on it, after all...
What happend to Autumn? Dec 21 is the first day of Winter...at least it has been for all of my life, and I tend to pay close attention to that day since it's my birthday.
Dictionaries have always described language, and never prescribed it. Words exist if and only if people use them to encode memes that can be decoded by others. Sad to say, even "aint" is a word, and the most that you can claim is that it's a "lowbrow" word, or some such elitist sentiment. The good news, though, is that you are free to invent words, and your only barrier to making them "real" is getting someone else to adopt them.
Regardless, it's not just wordnet that recognizes "ironical", so you'll have to do better even if you insist on the same rhetorical strategy.
For more coincidence, check out American Superconductor, which just recently had its stock soar with the news that its second-generation high-temp superconductor wire outperformed the predicted estimates. Nice timing for both companies, in the very least.
From WordNet (r) 1.7.1 (July 2002) [wn]: ironical adj 1: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely" [syn: {ironic}] 2: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" [syn: {dry}, {ironic}, {wry}]
It's true that there is the Mach kernel involved (here's a simplified cake-layer diagram), but from the context that Ritchie provides ("The way I use them, which is as a casual programmer, it doesn't matter--they are all the same...") none of that is really relevant. The APIs that he expects from a unix are there in the FreeBSD 4.4 code layer. (X11 is there too, by the way). He would have to be using the word "FreeBSD" very pedantically to mean that it's FreeBSD/PPC and not the FreeBSD 4.4 in OSX. It doesn't sound like he's being pedantic in this interview.
Can't speak for Mr. Ritchie, of course, but it could be that he was refering to the FreeBSD 4.4 built into MacOS X
Now isn't that just like the slashdot editors...always have to put in some snarky comment to take a dig at the company that won't let you go pantless. You call this journalism!?
I reproduced his observation with his first link. The fourth hit was for 800flowers.com, and the summary said "welcome to our store".
Exceeding, perhaps, but it surely has the same stench, doesn't it.
Good point. Fortunately, I think my use of the word "intended" was not really necessary. Since the LGPL predates Java, its use of the word "interface" cannot be a reference to that particular Java keyword. It's being used in the sense that a C programmer would use it.