Re:Waiting for apps isn't annoying, focus stealing
on
GNOME 2.12 Released
·
· Score: 1
Gnome apps have in general been doing this since I think 2.10. Firefox unfortunately doesn't yet seem to implement the necessary hooks, and Evolution sometimes does, but more often does not work in this regard (this on Ubuntu Breezy for me)
The theorem clearly states that there are systems (those that allow you to define the natural numbers as a set, etc.) for which there are certain limits to what can be known about them. You said everything can be known. Ergo, what you say contradicts the theorem.
P.S.: I overlooked the fact that you said in an earlier post in this thread, "the scientist with the limited imagination who came up with such an idiotic conclusion should be shot". Are you mad?
But in general we have no idea whether or not a theory is consistent and consequently no way of "seeing" whether the corresponding Gödel sentence is true or false
You:
Everything is predictable scientifically. It's just that there's too many variables to do it practically
And if you say "why would an intelligent designer make it so that the birth channel leads through the only non-expandable bone ring in our body, which is barely wide enough to allow birth at all, a catholic might say, "well, as punishment for original sin, duh."
I didn't try to say you appropriated his philosophy. I said that what you think to be the case has thought by others 200 years ago, and has been soundly disproven for a hundred years. It doesn't help if you simply insist it isn't so, you need to show that Goedel's theorem is wrong, or something of this magnitude. Until then, I'll stick to current hypotheses.
because I don't know the life story of Pierre de Laplace I obviously know nothing of physics
No, the other way round. If you knew about physics, you couldn't help knowing about Laplace.
I'm arguing my opinion NOT his.
Uh, no, you are arguing his. You said,
Everything is predictable scientifically. It's just that there's too many variables to do it practically
He said,
An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it (...) for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes
"Everything is predictable scientifically" == "nothing could be uncertain"
Laplace was a great thinker of the 18th and 19th centuries and, with major contributions to the integral calculus, mathematical astronomy, the theory of probability, etc., I think it makes more sense that we call this hypothetical intellect "Laplace's demon", and not "badmammajamma's demon".
And this "demon"'s theoretical ability to exist has vanished, see the links given in the other post. And while one should never quote Wikipedia, this one has an interesting angle,
There has recently been proposed a limit on the computational power of the universe, ie the ability of Laplace's Demon to process an infinite amount of information. The limit is based on the maximum entropy of the universe, the speed of light, and the minimum amount of time taken to move information across the Planck length, and the figure turns out to be 2130 bits. Accordingly, anything that requires more than this amount of data cannot be computed in the amount of time that has lapsed so far in the universe.
Just to chip in: I am certainly no scholar of Chinese history, but this guy makes a pretty good argument that China became a huge state long before transportation, communications, or mathematics could support it, largely because the regular huge floods made it a necessity to be able to help large areas by gathering stuff from an even larger one.
I am watching from Europe and frankly, everybody here is just baffled and can't comprehend what's up with the US.
Well, leaving God aside, Rupert Riedl has worked quite a bit about something similar to "preferred mutations". Not in the sense of an intelligent designer preferring them, but in the sense that a complex system seems to encourage certain developments.
Riedl developed his "systems theory" of evolution, which emphasizes the role of functional and developmental integration in limiting and enabling adaptive evolution by natural selection. The main objective of this theory is to account for the observed patterns of morphological evolution, such as the conservation of body plans. In contrast to other "alternative" theories of evolution, Riedl never denied the importance of natural selection as the driving force of evolution, but thought it necessary to contextualize natural selection with the organismal boundary conditions of adaptation. In Riedl's view development is the most important factor besides natural selection in shaping the pattern and processes of morphological evolution
there could easily be a huge amount of work going on but nobody outside of X developers knows about it). I get the impression that the modularization project, should it ever succeed, may go a long way towards improving that
AFAICT X is now modularized, e.g., Ubuntu Breezy has it. I think that people do underappreciate what a huge amount of unglamorous work this must have been.
Just wanted to add that the woman originally only sued to get back medical costs. However the McDonalds lawyers in their wisdom argued that they should not be required to pay the reconstruction costs for the 3rd degree burns, because the woman was in her 70ies (IIRC) already, and reconstruction would be practically wasted.
Which enraged the jury so much that it ordered a multi-million fine, which was later significantly reduced by the judge.
it does little to protect the Linux mark from damage. Which is the supposed reason for all this. BadCompany could still license the Linux mark, fuck up the kernel badly, and release thier new "linux product".
I think we have a different view on what it means, to "protect the linux mark". As I see it, the whole trademarking as such already protects the name by making sure that ownership remains with those with the moral right. Furthermore, it protects against someone naming something "XYZ Linux" if in fact it is not linux-based. This clause -is- there.
Nothing LMI could do would stop this after the fact. There's no termination clause for such actions.
As for not being able to retract the use for a difference of opinion on quality et al., I would think I applaud that, as I already said elsewhere. However I am not totally convinced yet that this ability isn't buried somewhere in the legalese, IANAL.
Once other major software projects realize they can scam money this way, we'll see lots more jumping on the bandwagon. Better make some room for a few hundred trademark acknowledgements, and keep a lot of extra money in the budget, once all the software projects demand money for the use of their name.
What are you talking about? I think you misunderstand. There is no requirement to license anything because you include it with you product. You just have to license if you company or your product is called "XYZ Linux" (and you want protection yourself). How many distros or magazines do you know that are called "The Gimp Inkscape Ubuntu Gnome KDE Apache Linux" or some such? I thought that much was clear. I think I'll call it a day after this post.
"But", I can hear you saying, "if you just use the project name to refer to the project itself, it's within trademark to use it that way without restriction". That's true. But what the distros distribute is rarely the original product. They are in fact distributing something different, something that isn't quite "The Gimp" anymore.
You still haven't explained why the question whether you distribute pristine upstream sources or patched ones should even matter. I have specifically shown you the language of the actual agreement that specifically allows derived works. You just come up with the same things over and over without even trying to refute my arguments.
It wouldn't be a hard case for say The Gimp, to argue that what Red Hat is distributing isn't really "The Gimp" but in fact is a derived version that is apt to cause consumer confusion about what "The Gimp" really is. Thus Red Hat can't use the Gimp name under that provision, and must license the mark to use it with their product.
Quoting again from the license agreement because so seem to think you can ignore it. This time relevant parts bolded by me:
"AUTHORIZED GOODS/SERVICES" means Linux-based goods/services. Linux-based goods are computer systems and software using the Linux kernel either directly from www.kernel.org or with modifications, or packages bundling the Linux kernel with tools, utilities, hardware, or layered software. Linux-based services are services that deploy, document, facilitate the use of, or enhance Linux-based goods. (...)
has to license the mark. You are not making sense.
I can only reiterate that they are still free to use the software as they want, and redistribute as per the GPL. They can still name themselves "XYZ, based on Linux (R)". They just can't name themselves "XYZ Linux" without the fee when they want protection themselves.
I can see how that may suck if you happen to be named "XYZ Linux", but I still fail to see the big problem. Unless they reasonably show the opposite, I believe that it works for the few people that are affected (can you even name 5 companies?), and if not, that it will be possible to reach an agreement with LMI over particular cases.
Uh, I don't quite get what you are telling me:) Sure, you are right in what you say. However the parent I was replying to had said "BSOD is an OS problem, not an application problem" in response to GP who had said "OOo on NT4 will consistently blue screen (...)". Context is important. I didn't claim that a crashing OS can't crash an app, and neither that -all- app crashes are caused by the app. However, "if the OS crashes in the middle of your call" then it's entirely MS's fault anyway (1), and a rather moot point in the discussion at hand:)
(1) Technically the video driver's, but in the end MS's for creating a model with unsafe code in the kernel
Slashdot Mirror
Gnome apps have in general been doing this since I think 2.10. Firefox unfortunately doesn't yet seem to implement the necessary hooks, and Evolution sometimes does, but more often does not work in this regard (this on Ubuntu Breezy for me)
Who's stupid idea started all that type of email response anyway
Who do you think it was? Hint: the answer is really easy.
I'm not the OP, but check out Grand Prix by John Frankenheimer, 1966
Befits your ignorance in other matters
The theorem does not apply.
Apply to what?
The theorem clearly states that there are systems (those that allow you to define the natural numbers as a set, etc.) for which there are certain limits to what can be known about them.
You said everything can be known.
Ergo, what you say contradicts the theorem.
P.S.: I overlooked the fact that you said in an earlier post in this thread, "the scientist with the limited imagination who came up with such an idiotic conclusion should be shot". Are you mad?
I would say, we are here cos we were better suited than them to survive in the wild
Maybe we are Cain, and the whole story is a distant, dunno, memory embedded in our, dunno, genes
And if you say "why would an intelligent designer make it so that the birth channel leads through the only non-expandable bone ring in our body, which is barely wide enough to allow birth at all, a catholic might say, "well, as punishment for original sin, duh."
I didn't try to say you appropriated his philosophy. I said that what you think to be the case has thought by others 200 years ago, and has been soundly disproven for a hundred years. It doesn't help if you simply insist it isn't so, you need to show that Goedel's theorem is wrong, or something of this magnitude. Until then, I'll stick to current hypotheses.
No, the other way round. If you knew about physics, you couldn't help knowing about Laplace.
I'm arguing my opinion NOT his.
Uh, no, you are arguing his. You said,
He said,
"Everything is predictable scientifically" == "nothing could be uncertain"
Laplace was a great thinker of the 18th and 19th centuries and, with major contributions to the integral calculus, mathematical astronomy, the theory of probability, etc., I think it makes more sense that we call this hypothetical intellect "Laplace's demon", and not "badmammajamma's demon".
And this "demon"'s theoretical ability to exist has vanished, see the links given in the other post. And while one should never quote Wikipedia, this one has an interesting angle,
We get our state to help us out in need.
Just to chip in: I am certainly no scholar of Chinese history, but this guy makes a pretty good argument that China became a huge state long before transportation, communications, or mathematics could support it, largely because the regular huge floods made it a necessity to be able to help large areas by gathering stuff from an even larger one.
I am watching from Europe and frankly, everybody here is just baffled and can't comprehend what's up with the US.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/047
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/047
However I have only read "Die Strategie der Genesis" (The Strategy of Genesis), so can't comment on those. But "Strategie" was very interesting.
Sounds a -lot- like where I work.
Do you use Lotus Notes, and you have only one threaded mail view, which contains -all- messages, while filtered folders are restricted to flat views?
I won't comment on the dude from 1792 because I don't know anything about him other than the quote from the link you posted.
You should ask yourself if you might want to learn -some- physics
Everything is predictable scientifically. It's just that there's too many variables to do it practically.
What is this, 1792?
I think this isn't true anymore
that article had to be a joke.
:)
Probably, cuz it says "This is satire" right there in the footer
there could easily be a huge amount of work going on but nobody outside of X developers knows about it). I get the impression that the modularization project, should it ever succeed, may go a long way towards improving that
AFAICT X is now modularized, e.g., Ubuntu Breezy has it. I think that people do underappreciate what a huge amount of unglamorous work this must have been.
Just wanted to add that the woman originally only sued to get back medical costs. However the McDonalds lawyers in their wisdom argued that they should not be required to pay the reconstruction costs for the 3rd degree burns, because the woman was in her 70ies (IIRC) already, and reconstruction would be practically wasted.
Which enraged the jury so much that it ordered a multi-million fine, which was later significantly reduced by the judge.
Thanks. The Atlantic article linked to in this story was great, unfortunately now subscribers-only
I think we have a different view on what it means, to "protect the linux mark". As I see it, the whole trademarking as such already protects the name by making sure that ownership remains with those with the moral right.
Furthermore, it protects against someone naming something "XYZ Linux" if in fact it is not linux-based. This clause -is- there.
Nothing LMI could do would stop this after the fact. There's no termination clause for such actions.
As for not being able to retract the use for a difference of opinion on quality et al., I would think I applaud that, as I already said elsewhere. However I am not totally convinced yet that this ability isn't buried somewhere in the legalese, IANAL.
Once other major software projects realize they can scam money this way, we'll see lots more jumping on the bandwagon. Better make some room for a few hundred trademark acknowledgements, and keep a lot of extra money in the budget, once all the software projects demand money for the use of their name.
What are you talking about? I think you misunderstand. There is no requirement to license anything because you include it with you product. You just have to license if you company or your product is called "XYZ Linux" (and you want protection yourself). How many distros or magazines do you know that are called "The Gimp Inkscape Ubuntu Gnome KDE Apache Linux" or some such?
I thought that much was clear. I think I'll call it a day after this post.
"But", I can hear you saying, "if you just use the project name to refer to the project itself, it's within trademark to use it that way without restriction". That's true. But what the distros distribute is rarely the original product. They are in fact distributing something different, something that isn't quite "The Gimp" anymore.
You still haven't explained why the question whether you distribute pristine upstream sources or patched ones should even matter. I have specifically shown you the language of the actual agreement that specifically allows derived works. You just come up with the same things over and over without even trying to refute my arguments.
It wouldn't be a hard case for say The Gimp, to argue that what Red Hat is distributing isn't really "The Gimp" but in fact is a derived version that is apt to cause consumer confusion about what "The Gimp" really is. Thus Red Hat can't use the Gimp name under that provision, and must license the mark to use it with their product.
Quoting again from the license agreement because so seem to think you can ignore it. This time relevant parts bolded by me:has to license the mark. You are not making sense.
Yeah, as I see it, these people were wrong. I strongly hope so, but IANAL of course
I can only reiterate that they are still free to use the software as they want, and redistribute as per the GPL. They can still name themselves "XYZ, based on Linux (R)". They just can't name themselves "XYZ Linux" without the fee when they want protection themselves.
I can see how that may suck if you happen to be named "XYZ Linux", but I still fail to see the big problem. Unless they reasonably show the opposite, I believe that it works for the few people that are affected (can you even name 5 companies?), and if not, that it will be possible to reach an agreement with LMI over particular cases.
Uh, I don't quite get what you are telling me :) :)
Sure, you are right in what you say. However the parent I was replying to had said "BSOD is an OS problem, not an application problem" in response to GP who had said "OOo on NT4 will consistently blue screen (...)".
Context is important. I didn't claim that a crashing OS can't crash an app, and neither that -all- app crashes are caused by the app. However, "if the OS crashes in the middle of your call" then it's entirely MS's fault anyway (1), and a rather moot point in the discussion at hand
(1) Technically the video driver's, but in the end MS's for creating a model with unsafe code in the kernel
I'd say it's OO.org's problem that it crashes, but entirely MS's problem that it can take the OS with it.
It was called Open Office before, then there were trademark issues, now it has to be called *.org: http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/summary.html