I should have made clear, this means that Novell would get whatever monies SCO has, up to the amount awarded in court, without having to share with the debtors lining up in bankruptcy court.
the analagy is that if you're robbed, the robber doesn't have a right to use the money they robbed from you to pay their debts.
IANAL either, but from what I've read on Groklaw, it's not really a question of SCO owing a debt to Novell, it's a question of SCO holding onto Novell's money. (yes, apparently there is a legal difference.) The deal was that SCO would collect royalties on UNIX as an agent of Novell, (except for SCO's brand that SCO was already selling) turn over the whole amount to Novell, and Novell would send back 5% as a service fee.
No.
Communism is where the workers control the means of production. It holds as an ideal: to each as they need, from each as they can.
Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. It was supposed to be a stepping stone from capitalism to communism.
Reality is when you actually get Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk running the show to the detriment of the workers.
" * No exposure to the elements . . . "
Just exposure to highly corrosive elemental oxygen, high speed solar wind particles, gammas ray, x-rays, high energy ultraviolet, and the like.
" * No land cost"
Just exorbitant costs per pound to reach orbit"
" * Cost is based on weight, not on land . . . "
except for the land-based receivers.
I thought that at first, too.
But when you put it in the context of power reaching a point on the earth, as his next question suggests, then a 24-hour (average) number does make sense.
Take a look at the relatively recent history of the "science" of climate change . . .
First, you are not quoting science, but headlines of popular newspapers and magazines that need to grab your attention to sell
In 1895, quotes from geologists describing the relatively recently (at the time) discovered geological record that suggest past cycles of ice ages and supposing that it will happen again is not in the same category as predicting climate change from models considering man-made inputs
Besdies the fact that '30s headlines stating that the earth is steadily growing warmer are correct (at least for some suitable length of time-averaging), that period in the US was known as the dustbowl for the lengthy droughts, so such headlines were understandable
Also, that major cooling was seen in the early '70s as widely inevitable should be no shock, as the cycles of ice ages IS widely seen as inevitable, in the geological sense of 100,000 year, 41,000 year, and 23,000 year cycles in the light of evidence that was just becoming understood in the '50s and '60s. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml/
Same for the sensationalist TIME headline in the middle of a cold snap.
Of course, you think that the above makes current warnings about global warming probably "just as worng", even though the "science" referred to in your quotes was NOT wrong and does not contradict current theories with "better" computer models (were any of the headlines before the last one based on theory from computer models?) and a "little better" (in the sense of "much greater") data gathering capability.
I agree somewhat with your remarks. But I disagree with your examples.
Slightly off topic: Economies of scale work both ways; at some points, bigger is more expensive. If not, there would only be one giant power generating plant in the world, and all electricity would be transmitted on lines from there to everywhere.
More to the point, utility monopolies, one of the so-called natural monopolies, are about distribution, not generation. The idea is that competing distribution lines duplicate effort, thus costing the consumer money in the short run. In the long run, only the utility with the most customers can afford to maintain and increase their distribution capacity because those costs are spread over more customers. So eventually, there is only one distributor left, and they can then charge exorbitant amounts as long as there are no alternatives. Therefore, it is in the public interest to regulate those monopolies in order to allow them a substantial, safe profit, while keeping the prices within reason.
Requiring a showing of harm to consumers is a lousy way to reign in anti-competitive practices. IIRC this emphasis on consumer harm started during the Reagan administration; they were no enemies of large corporate interests (and yes, I realize most democrats are similar in this regard). Why shouldn't the law consider the harm done to competitors? After all, shouldn't my freedoms extend to the ability to compete fairly in a free market? And why in the hell are consumer coupons for a discount on some stupid product considered just compensation when the real harm was from illegal business practices that shut others out from making money in the first place?
. . . despite the fact that it's the CONTENT I bought, NOT the DVD.
No, you bought the DVD. A single physical copy that the doctrine of first sale says you can do anything you want to with. You did not buy the legal right to copy it, though you may have that right by virtue of laws and court rulings.(YMMV) Use of the word "content" can be somewhat misleading in the context of Imaginary/Intellectual Property rights.
Most people on Slashdot don't RTFA, here's someone who WTFA.
Thanks for the good responses.
My two cents (coming from someone who's not in the IT industry):
A company needs to be willing to pay good money in order to make good money (and non-monetary issues can be just as important). They will have a better choice for refilling the sea of workers.
A company needs to be willing to lay off those that don't have high levels of performance - evaporation does not need to be the main way of losing workers
A company needs to have a good peer review system to ensure their products and services a good.
A company needs a competent review system, and keep track of the results, in order to make the above points meaningful.
A company needs good management in order to make the above points work.
Who in their right minds would turn down an opportunity to see new places, especially when your employer will foot the bill?
Well, when I used to do a lot of travel, it often went like this:
Wake up at 4:00 in the morning, leave at 4:30, spend an hour getting to the airport, (getting there the requisite hour before take-off), spend 2-1/2 to 3 hours on the plane, rent a car and drive an hour or so, spend 6 to 8 hours at the job site, usually on my feet, and often without a break (taking a break means a possibility of not finishing or missing my flight back), catching a flight back, arriving late evening, often getting home near midnight, then going in to work the next day at my regular time.
Even on longer trips where I actually got to see the place I went to, most of my "spare" time would be spent with clients, which was usually OK, often a chore, only occasionally fun.
Well of course it ran like crap with 512MB of RAM. WinXP runs like crap on that much.
I disagree about XP.
I have a 900MHz with 384?MB RAM. XP ran fine, at first, anyway. I don't use it much anymore; I'm sure it's accumulated spyware and such, as it has slowed down over the years (too lazy to reinstall).
I also have a 1.6GHz laptop with 512MB RAM, and XP runs great on it (though I'm usually booted into Fedora).
My ears are trained to like harmony, but once in a while, some significant dissonance can be just as beautiful.
Dissonance is an integral part of harmony, and is the driving force of harmonic progression. Discordance is opposed to concordance, and is not necessarily harmonic.
Sorry for being pedantic
Not exactly. Some dimmers may well be variable transformers. Some old dimmers are variable resistors. (these can get pretty warm) Some dimmers are made with clipping diodes the truncate the top of the 60 Hz sine wave.(a 60 Hz hum is apparent in those) Others can be as the GP implied, pulse width modulated, using quick switching power transistors (the high frequency gets rid of the hum)
I figured Motorla might a little unfocused when they built a big facility in
Harvard, Illinois based on tax breaks, but not based on enough people living within commuting distance to fill their parking lots.
Sounds like it parallelizes almost perfectly to me.
If the problem is to make as many babies as you can.
But if the problem is to make one baby, you can't speed it up by putting more people on the job.
(The way I heard it was: "No matter how many men you put on the job, it still takes 9 months to make a baby.")
The saying was originally coined to elucidate to tasks like writing software or constructing a building. Those sorts of projects can break down if you put too many people on them because you waste too much time coordinating efforts (you can have one crew install the water piping, another the electrical, and a third install the floor; and you can manage to coordinate them, but how many crews can work on a floor at a time without tripping on each other? You're certainly not going to have hardwood floors being finished at the same time a drywall crew is sanding.) Also, you can't speed some things up - like struggling with the city for a year until you finally get a signed-off building permit after the contract deadline for completing construction has passed. Actually, it is starting to sound like a parallel programming problem.
Anyway, in my useless opinion, almost any programming problem could be sped up by use of parallel processors, but often only if it's be cheap enough for processors to spend significant amounts of time sitting there idle, waiting for responses.
gaahh!! (preview is my friend, preview is my friend, preview is my friend . . . ) Power is power, electrical or horse. Intel core 2 duo => approx 35 watts = 0.047 HP,+/-
Slashdot Mirror
I should have made clear, this means that Novell would get whatever monies SCO has, up to the amount awarded in court, without having to share with the debtors lining up in bankruptcy court.
the analagy is that if you're robbed, the robber doesn't have a right to use the money they robbed from you to pay their debts.
IANAL either, but from what I've read on Groklaw, it's not really a question of SCO owing a debt to Novell, it's a question of SCO holding onto Novell's money. (yes, apparently there is a legal difference.) The deal was that SCO would collect royalties on UNIX as an agent of Novell, (except for SCO's brand that SCO was already selling) turn over the whole amount to Novell, and Novell would send back 5% as a service fee.
No.
Communism is where the workers control the means of production. It holds as an ideal: to each as they need, from each as they can.
Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. It was supposed to be a stepping stone from capitalism to communism.
Reality is when you actually get Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk running the show to the detriment of the workers.
Wintel peripherals != most hardware
" * No exposure to the elements . . . "
Just exposure to highly corrosive elemental oxygen, high speed solar wind particles, gammas ray, x-rays, high energy ultraviolet, and the like.
" * No land cost"
Just exorbitant costs per pound to reach orbit"
" * Cost is based on weight, not on land . . . "
except for the land-based receivers.
I thought that at first, too.
But when you put it in the context of power reaching a point on the earth, as his next question suggests, then a 24-hour (average) number does make sense.
First, you are not quoting science, but headlines of popular newspapers and magazines that need to grab your attention to sell
In 1895, quotes from geologists describing the relatively recently (at the time) discovered geological record that suggest past cycles of ice ages and supposing that it will happen again is not in the same category as predicting climate change from models considering man-made inputs
Besdies the fact that '30s headlines stating that the earth is steadily growing warmer are correct (at least for some suitable length of time-averaging), that period in the US was known as the dustbowl for the lengthy droughts, so such headlines were understandable
Also, that major cooling was seen in the early '70s as widely inevitable should be no shock, as the cycles of ice ages IS widely seen as inevitable, in the geological sense of 100,000 year, 41,000 year, and 23,000 year cycles in the light of evidence that was just becoming understood in the '50s and '60s. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml/
Same for the sensationalist TIME headline in the middle of a cold snap.
Of course, you think that the above makes current warnings about global warming probably "just as worng", even though the "science" referred to in your quotes was NOT wrong and does not contradict current theories with "better" computer models (were any of the headlines before the last one based on theory from computer models?) and a "little better" (in the sense of "much greater") data gathering capability.
TB is not a bastard virus, it's a bastard bacterium.
I agree somewhat with your remarks. But I disagree with your examples.
Slightly off topic: Economies of scale work both ways; at some points, bigger is more expensive. If not, there would only be one giant power generating plant in the world, and all electricity would be transmitted on lines from there to everywhere.
More to the point, utility monopolies, one of the so-called natural monopolies, are about distribution, not generation. The idea is that competing distribution lines duplicate effort, thus costing the consumer money in the short run. In the long run, only the utility with the most customers can afford to maintain and increase their distribution capacity because those costs are spread over more customers. So eventually, there is only one distributor left, and they can then charge exorbitant amounts as long as there are no alternatives. Therefore, it is in the public interest to regulate those monopolies in order to allow them a substantial, safe profit, while keeping the prices within reason.
he gets it.
Requiring a showing of harm to consumers is a lousy way to reign in anti-competitive practices.
IIRC this emphasis on consumer harm started during the Reagan administration; they were no enemies of large corporate interests (and yes, I realize most democrats are similar in this regard).
Why shouldn't the law consider the harm done to competitors? After all, shouldn't my freedoms extend to the ability to compete fairly in a free market?
And why in the hell are consumer coupons for a discount on some stupid product considered just compensation when the real harm was from illegal business practices that shut others out from making money in the first place?
A single physical copy that the doctrine of first sale says you can do anything you want to with.
You did not buy the legal right to copy it, though you may have that right by virtue of laws and court rulings.(YMMV)
Use of the word "content" can be somewhat misleading in the context of Imaginary/Intellectual Property rights.
Most people on Slashdot don't RTFA, here's someone who WTFA.
Thanks for the good responses.
My two cents (coming from someone who's not in the IT industry):
A company needs to be willing to pay good money in order to make good money (and non-monetary issues can be just as important). They will have a better choice for refilling the sea of workers.
A company needs to be willing to lay off those that don't have high levels of performance - evaporation does not need to be the main way of losing workers
A company needs to have a good peer review system to ensure their products and services a good.
A company needs a competent review system, and keep track of the results, in order to make the above points meaningful.
A company needs good management in order to make the above points work.
Well, when I used to do a lot of travel, it often went like this:
Wake up at 4:00 in the morning, leave at 4:30, spend an hour getting to the airport, (getting there the requisite hour before take-off), spend 2-1/2 to 3 hours on the plane, rent a car and drive an hour or so, spend 6 to 8 hours at the job site, usually on my feet, and often without a break (taking a break means a possibility of not finishing or missing my flight back), catching a flight back, arriving late evening, often getting home near midnight, then going in to work the next day at my regular time.
Even on longer trips where I actually got to see the place I went to, most of my "spare" time would be spent with clients, which was usually OK, often a chore, only occasionally fun.
I have a 900MHz with 384?MB RAM. XP ran fine, at first, anyway. I don't use it much anymore; I'm sure it's accumulated spyware and such, as it has slowed down over the years (too lazy to reinstall).
I also have a 1.6GHz laptop with 512MB RAM, and XP runs great on it (though I'm usually booted into Fedora).
"Not For Resale" was probably put there by one of their lawyers in the first place to avoid some retail tax or artist royalty.
Sorry for being pedantic
Not exactly.
Some dimmers may well be variable transformers.
Some old dimmers are variable resistors. (these can get pretty warm)
Some dimmers are made with clipping diodes the truncate the top of the 60 Hz sine wave.(a 60 Hz hum is apparent in those)
Others can be as the GP implied, pulse width modulated, using quick switching power transistors (the high frequency gets rid of the hum)
I figured Motorla might a little unfocused when they built a big facility in Harvard, Illinois based on tax breaks, but not based on enough people living within commuting distance to fill their parking lots.
If the problem is to make as many babies as you can.
But if the problem is to make one baby, you can't speed it up by putting more people on the job.
(The way I heard it was: "No matter how many men you put on the job, it still takes 9 months to make a baby.")
The saying was originally coined to elucidate to tasks like writing software or constructing a building. Those sorts of projects can break down if you put too many people on them because you waste too much time coordinating efforts (you can have one crew install the water piping, another the electrical, and a third install the floor; and you can manage to coordinate them, but how many crews can work on a floor at a time without tripping on each other? You're certainly not going to have hardwood floors being finished at the same time a drywall crew is sanding.) Also, you can't speed some things up - like struggling with the city for a year until you finally get a signed-off building permit after the contract deadline for completing construction has passed.
Actually, it is starting to sound like a parallel programming problem.
Anyway, in my useless opinion, almost any programming problem could be sped up by use of parallel processors, but often only if it's be cheap enough for processors to spend significant amounts of time sitting there idle, waiting for responses.
I never used WP 6.0, but WP 5.2, 6.1, and 8.0 were each much better than the concurrent MS Word versions, in my experience.
gaahh!!
(preview is my friend, preview is my friend, preview is my friend . . . )
Power is power, electrical or horse.
Intel core 2 duo => approx 35 watts = 0.047 HP,+/-