...you don't really know who might be operating it in a few years time.
You know, you could say the same thing about jet airliners (carrying hundreds of people) that are smashed into skyscrapers.
As for designed weapons, it would be cheaper in dollar terms to just send fleets of B-52s over problem areas and bomb them into oblivion using dumb bombs rather than the expensive precision guided munitions that were developed because of concerns about killing non-combatants (not just "innocents".) Refusing to even TRY to improve weapons guidance and control actually condemns MORE non-combatants and innocents to death and injury.
A blanket condemnation, based on moral grounds, of the efforts to make a weapons system more precise and controllable is completely invalid. It does nothing but allow those who spout the condemnations to believe they have some moral superiority to those who don't shy away from the dirtier realities of life.
It's the killing of these people that I could not be associated with.
Aaah... such nobility. It's a pity that Al Qaeda doesn't share that view. Or maybe the people who jumped to their deaths from the burning World Trade Center towers weren't as "innocent" or "noble" as some of the posters here.
I wonder if those victims had time to ponder their choice in the matter on the way down?
I think you're right. One thing that seems to be overlooked is that Microsoft includes hidden system calls and services that they don't release to anybody. By keeping these things undocumented, MS keeps other security vendors at a disadvantage. I read this on BetaNews
While Bryan would not comment directly on whether the company believed Client Protection would strain relations with others, he did say that Microsoft has "knowledge and an understanding of the capabilities of the operating system" that its partners may not have, but it would not hide this information from those companies. -- bold added
It won't hide this information? Since when? Microsoft is definitely using its monopoly position unfairly in this situation.
I know! Just like Apache copied IIS, Sendmail copied Exchange, BSD copied their old network utilities, and Mozilla copied IE. I tell you, it's amazing they ever let us have any of their new toys, since we're just going to steal them right out from under 'em.
Don't forget about Apple and Xerox. Just think where MS would be without that thieving.
Because all 4 valves are controlled by the same type of chip with no additional redundancy, all 4 valves are susceptible to the same failure simultaneously. That's if there is indeed a problem with the control chip.
And I thought there was NO WAY a forward landing gear would be controlled in such a manner as to lock itself in a sideways position. Yet it still happened.
Maybe he remembers the space shuttle Challenger disaster. Seven people died then, when an engineer followed company orders not to oppose the launch and to keep quiet.
Maybe Mangan, the former ITTech engineer, has a conscience and takes his ethical responsibilities as an engineer seriously. If he knows of a problem and knows the company has falsified test data, it is his duty to come forward. To remain quiet would make him partially responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people should a catastrophic failure occur in the Airbus pressure valves.
Also, how reliable are the systems that tell the forward landing gear to point sideways? (Remember the recent Airbus emergency landing?)
This is good news. When I heard Mass. had made its policy final, I immediately went to OpenOffice.org and downloaded OpenOffice.org 2 beta and installed it on my Debian system. I created a new text document, and when I saved it, the default format was OpenDocument! And it worked great. It's fitting that Mass. is leading the way. This is like the Boston Tea party.
You know not every tort is "stealing," and given that Microsoft is actually going to comply with the contract, there isn't even a tort here.
We'll see if MS MPICH2#® (or whatever MS may call it if they stick with their normal behavior patterns) contains the proper copyrights.
But hey, if some people here want to trust Microsoft, go ahead. We can all rest assured that next year at this time MS users will be wrestling with the latest patch, license, and *upgrade* issues, just like they are now. Once again, IT managers will have to explain why the software that was finally starting to operate reliably and become useful has to be replaced at great expense. That's a fact, and you don't need a law degree to see it. MPICH2 is just another item at an early stage in the MS lock-in pipeline.
No, no. I would say MS is currently in the process of extending it. If MS holds true to form, there will not (from their point of view) be any need to delete MPICH from any servers, as it will not work on future *improved* versions of Windows Server (version here) Complete Clusterf*ck Edition. Clusterf*ck will use MS MPICH2#®. That will be the extinguish stage.
Microsoft has done this before; why should anyone believe they aren't doing it now?
I said stealing, not stolen. And MS didn't develop the embrace, extend, extinguish tactic just for the University of Chicago. That said, the University of Chicago might want a cut of the revenue from the proprietary version of MPICH2. Do you think they'll call it MPICH2# ?
This will be the first time MS will so openly apply it's embrace, extend, extinguish method to steal open source. FTA:
Microsoft is working with Argonne National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory operated by the University of Chicago, and has taken its MPICH2 reference implementation, which most ISVs have tested their code against, and optimized it for performance and security. --bold added.
And, also FTA:
Asked by eWEEK what Microsoft will give back to the open-source community for the MPI component, which is licensed under the BSD and not the GNU General Public License (GPL), Faenov said all fixes will be given back, while "we'll probably give the changes back as well." --bold added.
Probably? This is probably just MS stealing again.
as more people feel the consequences of Microsoft's lock-in policies. It is becoming apparent to more and more people that when one uses any Microsoft system or app, Microsoft controls your information and your IT decisions.
Sure, they are obnoxious, but the truth is, so are many commercial companies we deal with every day.
That's true, there are a lot of obnoxious commercial companies, but SCO has actually surpassed just being obnoxious. Their business model actually includes getting revenue from suing or threatening to sue their customers. That's way beyond what other obnoxious companies do. I'm not saying other companies have never sued a customer, I'm saying that SCO is doing this to extort money from their customers and also from people who don't even use SCO products (like linux users.)
The SCOboys putrid conduct doesn't stop there. Just read over their press releases over the last couple of years and you'll find them so full of lies, contradiction, and deceit you will be amazed. Really. SCO is in a whole class of their own.
So, in this case, it does matter that MySQL has partnered in this manner with SCO. It says to me that MySQL might not be mowing down the rainforest, but they're willing to sell the mowers to the ones who are.
Keep in mind that our community binaries are GPL. This means that applications built on SCO that make use of these binaries must also stick within the agreement of the GPL or they have to buy licenses that in turn fund developers to work to create more GPL software. Its a win either way, we see either more GPL software being published or more GPL software being created via payment through licenses or subscriptions.
What makes you think SCO will actually pay for those licenses? It seems to me that SCO gets mileage from being supported by MySQL in return for MySQL joining the end of the line of creditors at the bankruptcy hearings. Being able to use the MySQL name in their press releases and marketing may also end up adding a few more victims to that same line. By partnering with SCO, MySQL may help SCO con more money than they otherwise would.
Slashdot Mirror
... it works like this:
Sony's pocket depth >> First4Internet pocket depth
That means Sony gets taken to court.
I don't even know why people in the US even bother to argue about guilt and innocence anymore.
As for designed weapons, it would be cheaper in dollar terms to just send fleets of B-52s over problem areas and bomb them into oblivion using dumb bombs rather than the expensive precision guided munitions that were developed because of concerns about killing non-combatants (not just "innocents".) Refusing to even TRY to improve weapons guidance and control actually condemns MORE non-combatants and innocents to death and injury.
A blanket condemnation, based on moral grounds, of the efforts to make a weapons system more precise and controllable is completely invalid. It does nothing but allow those who spout the condemnations to believe they have some moral superiority to those who don't shy away from the dirtier realities of life.
I wonder if those victims had time to ponder their choice in the matter on the way down?
Don't forget:
5. PROFIT
Leave it to the UN to screw up something that works.
I've got a life. I just can't remember what directory it's in.
Even without a webcast, it's better than this year's OU vs Texas game.
Because all 4 valves are controlled by the same type of chip with no additional redundancy, all 4 valves are susceptible to the same failure simultaneously. That's if there is indeed a problem with the control chip.
And I thought there was NO WAY a forward landing gear would be controlled in such a manner as to lock itself in a sideways position. Yet it still happened.
Maybe he remembers the space shuttle Challenger disaster. Seven people died then, when an engineer followed company orders not to oppose the launch and to keep quiet.
Maybe Mangan, the former ITTech engineer, has a conscience and takes his ethical responsibilities as an engineer seriously. If he knows of a problem and knows the company has falsified test data, it is his duty to come forward. To remain quiet would make him partially responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people should a catastrophic failure occur in the Airbus pressure valves.
Also, how reliable are the systems that tell the forward landing gear to point sideways? (Remember the recent Airbus emergency landing?)
This is good news. When I heard Mass. had made its policy final, I immediately went to OpenOffice.org and downloaded OpenOffice.org 2 beta and installed it on my Debian system. I created a new text document, and when I saved it, the default format was OpenDocument! And it worked great. It's fitting that Mass. is leading the way. This is like the Boston Tea party.
Here's to the Boston Office party!
You know not every tort is "stealing," and given that Microsoft is actually going to comply with the contract, there isn't even a tort here.
We'll see if MS MPICH2#® (or whatever MS may call it if they stick with their normal behavior patterns) contains the proper copyrights.
But hey, if some people here want to trust Microsoft, go ahead. We can all rest assured that next year at this time MS users will be wrestling with the latest patch, license, and *upgrade* issues, just like they are now. Once again, IT managers will have to explain why the software that was finally starting to operate reliably and become useful has to be replaced at great expense. That's a fact, and you don't need a law degree to see it. MPICH2 is just another item at an early stage in the MS lock-in pipeline.
The government also does not want to mistake a private test launch for a nuclear strike. Really.
No, no. I would say MS is currently in the process of extending it. If MS holds true to form, there will not (from their point of view) be any need to delete MPICH from any servers, as it will not work on future *improved* versions of Windows Server (version here) Complete Clusterf*ck Edition. Clusterf*ck will use MS MPICH2#®. That will be the extinguish stage.
Microsoft has done this before; why should anyone believe they aren't doing it now?
I said stealing, not stolen. And MS didn't develop the embrace, extend, extinguish tactic just for the University of Chicago. That said, the University of Chicago might want a cut of the revenue from the proprietary version of MPICH2. Do you think they'll call it MPICH2# ?
This will be the first time MS will so openly apply it's embrace, extend, extinguish method to steal open source. FTA:
Microsoft is working with Argonne National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory operated by the University of Chicago, and has taken its MPICH2 reference implementation, which most ISVs have tested their code against, and optimized it for performance and security. --bold added.
And, also FTA:
Asked by eWEEK what Microsoft will give back to the open-source community for the MPI component, which is licensed under the BSD and not the GNU General Public License (GPL), Faenov said all fixes will be given back, while "we'll probably give the changes back as well." --bold added.
Probably? This is probably just MS stealing again.
Microsoft Windows Vista Integrated Resource Ultimate System.
aka...Windows VIRUS
Go with an all Microsoft solution and MOST of the problems go away.
Thanks for proving my point.
as more people feel the consequences of Microsoft's lock-in policies. It is becoming apparent to more and more people that when one uses any Microsoft system or app, Microsoft controls your information and your IT decisions.
Hey, I heard SCO buys their office supplies from Staples, OfficeMax, and Office Depot. Quick, boycott Staples, OfficeMax, and Office Depot!
SCO doesn't sell stationary.
Sure, they are obnoxious, but the truth is, so are many commercial companies we deal with every day.
That's true, there are a lot of obnoxious commercial companies, but SCO has actually surpassed just being obnoxious. Their business model actually includes getting revenue from suing or threatening to sue their customers. That's way beyond what other obnoxious companies do. I'm not saying other companies have never sued a customer, I'm saying that SCO is doing this to extort money from their customers and also from people who don't even use SCO products (like linux users.)
The SCOboys putrid conduct doesn't stop there. Just read over their press releases over the last couple of years and you'll find them so full of lies, contradiction, and deceit you will be amazed. Really. SCO is in a whole class of their own.
So, in this case, it does matter that MySQL has partnered in this manner with SCO. It says to me that MySQL might not be mowing down the rainforest, but they're willing to sell the mowers to the ones who are.
Keep in mind that our community binaries are GPL. This means that applications built on SCO that make use of these binaries must also stick within the agreement of the GPL or they have to buy licenses that in turn fund developers to work to create more GPL software. Its a win either way, we see either more GPL software being published or more GPL software being created via payment through licenses or subscriptions.
What makes you think SCO will actually pay for those licenses? It seems to me that SCO gets mileage from being supported by MySQL in return for MySQL joining the end of the line of creditors at the bankruptcy hearings. Being able to use the MySQL name in their press releases and marketing may also end up adding a few more victims to that same line. By partnering with SCO, MySQL may help SCO con more money than they otherwise would.
Did you consider that?