BSD and GPL licensed software rarely have your credit card number, nor do they generally have the ability to push down 'updates' from a central location that break or cripple your system with no way to backdate.
Which might actually hold in this case since it sounds like they are not only copying the table of contents but the structure of the entire book, which, as anyone who has worked on a full book can tell you, is a lot of work right there. A lot of time and effort goes in to deciding things like what order to present information in, how much space to give to any particular topic, and other general structural decisions.
Pretty much. They were doing a check to see if you were running their version of DOS and if not put up what were essentially fake error messages. It was one of the bits of evidence in the anti-trust trial years ago.
It really comes down to what the product actually is. Dual licensing can work really well, esp when the product is used as a piece of larger code bases then customers who do not want to open up can pay to integrate it into their closed application. Plenty of better options then the earlier suggested intentional crippling.
Yeah, he learned how horse trading worked and that if he tried to actually do any of those things it would be a political disaster. He made promises that he didn't realize he couldn't keep.. or at minimal people who believed him didn't realize he couldn't keep. He was either dishonest in his promises, or idealistic in what being POTUS would be like.... either is plausible.
People like being associated with the new shiney, since all the core work was done for X11 years ago. It is the same phenomena with politicians writing laws that cover things that are already illegal.. attach your name to a gripe as having come up (or being part of) the solution. Though I suspect part of it is over the years the flavor of the month programming has changed enough that a lot of people look at older code and go 'hey, this does not look like the twue programming we did in school! it must be wrongz!', so the fact X11 was written before the current fads is enough that some people will want to rewrite it for that alone.
I disagree. Not with the specific examples since you are correct, the US military (or even LEO) are easily capable of taking out anything citizens can fortify and defend, so in open conflict guns are not much of a threat. However, as an insurgent tool, they are an important token to keep in mind and you better believe they factor in. Guns are everywhere. When people are pissed off gun violence tends to become more common. It doesn't have to be POTUS people go after, but LEO are more likely to get shot at, or judges, or city officials, a very bottom up problem. They are not worried about a family or two in a bunker, they are worried about the countless guns hiding in every corner that can turn any city block into a hostile environment any time the public gets annoyed... this worries local governments, and what worries local governments filters up since state governments worry about about local ones, and the fed worries about state governments. It creates a real 'death by a thousand cuts' situation.
And yet insurgents with light weaponry can hold off the might of first the Russian then the US militaries for decades. When you don't have parity under one set of rules, you change the rules.
Generally no. The Constitution is secondary to precedent, so using it as a defense only works if other people have successfully used it like that in the past.
'useful' assault rifles are easy to get even in CA.. the rules regarding what counts as an 'assault rifle' are so arbitrary and aesthetic that they are easy to bypass and still have a weapon just as effective.
Rats, out of mod points. But yes, this. Even if the general soldiers could be convinced to turn their guns on fellow americans (not too implausible given how easy it is to build rhetoric around 'traitors'.. soldiers tend to be pretty authority oriented), convincing the generals to go along with it would be pretty hard. Generals tend to be war-adverse at the best of times (they love toys and simulations and wargames, but traditionally are not keen on actually sending people into a war zone), but if you started ordering them to attack their own soil you would probably have to replace a bunch of them quickly.. meaning promoting up a new group, which will not be very effective at their jobs.
While yeah. LEO (and the national guard) have, over the years, demonstrated that they can be turned on citizens very easily. Many LEO already see non-LEO as 'the enemy' already and are easily swept up in the 'it is important to maintain authority, any questioning of authority puts everyone at risk' meme... thus anything that makes them look bad or less powerful is justification for taking it out.
Scary part is, probably the only group that actually could challenge the US government with any degree of organized effort would be the drug cartels. Though I could also see another civil war type situation where groups of states decide that the general direction of the country is not in their best interest and take parts of the military with them. Neither situation is all that likely though.... as much as people complain about how the US is going to 'hell in a handbasket' and people are on the verge of revolt.. realistically we have it pretty damn sweet here, in fact we are spoiled rotten.. it would take things getting much, much, MUCH worse to actually cause real action as opposed to talk/rallies.
Because it makes a useful example of the same basic problem. It isn't really bringing in religion (and more then talking about the MPAA is bringing up movies), but instead a specific example of a quasi-state institution that receives preferential legal treatment that weaker groups could only dream of, including getting away with behavior that, if another group tried it, they would be locked up. Both are examples of the privilege that comes with private power.
Actually, I hear the same complaint from unattractive lesbians too. There is an additional subtext of 'but you are ugly, you should be grateful I want to share my manly dickatude with you!'.
The reason it tends to be worse then simply having a boyfriend is that many males do not see lesbian relationships as 'real' (you see this in OPP too) and thus having a boyfriend registers as a less hurtful rejection since at least the person looses to another male.. but to a female.. many see it as 'you would rather have a fake relationship then me?'. So yeah, it gets pretty nasty.
Less precedent then you might think. There is a meme, of course, that lesbians are ok while gay men are not, but this quickly evaporates when someone actually _is_ a lesbian rather then just playing lipstick lesbian... those girls end up getting quite a bit of hate spewed at them for the crime of being 'hot but unavailable'... partly because it threatens people's masculinity (one of the dangers of the lipstick thing, it has really reenforced the myth that someone manly enough can 'turn' a lesbian... so girls who do not magically become strait for the right man are a direct threat to his self image)....
I will, however, be forced to start a letter writing campaign unless they include a 'duck' option damn it!
Though realistically, switches will not work. Their entire point is that they don't want people to have options or make moral choices. If you listen to their rhetoric they are pretty direct in their belief that media should only provide simple black and white ethical situations with no possibility for the player choosing 'incorrectly'. Choice is confusing, and they don't want children getting confused by having options or hearing other view points. That is for college where they can blame liberal professors for corrupting their darlings instead of admitting that once they have options and meet people unlike them (and *gasp* see them as people) they might not follow the path that was laid out for them.
I always preferred 'The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less'. Still EA is a huge organization, and it is possible to deride them for some things while giving them props for others.
*shrug* not everything comes with source or has source available, and not all vendors are happy (or willing) to keep providing new binaires over the years, esp if you are not paying them for it.
Which gets back to the issue with OSS in this specific domain. OSX and Windows do a pretty good job of maintaining backward binary compatibility. You install an app, that app will probably keep working across many updates. OSS tends to assume that you have the ability to rebuild form source or your app is being maintained through the packaging system of that distribution. For most people this is indeed the case, but when it is not such systems can become a real headache and it is not always possible (or at least not always easy) to isolate large parts of the system in order for the app to use some system libraries while everything else uses another. It gets even worse when you are talking about things that need kernel modules.
It kinda come back to 'to each their strengths and weaknesses', and this is a weakness of OSS when it comes to deploying exotic 3rd party applications.
Not all apps go through package management, and sometimes they depend on libraries that other system components also depend on.
Unfortunately 'sandboxing' sometimes requires so much of the system that the only solution is to set up a VM, which puts you right back in the 'old distribution' category'
Not a very useful list. All of those are issues of degree, and are present in most governments/groups to some extent. It comes down to if the amount is sufficient.
I would say, not by a long shot. The US has problems yes, but it is no where NEAR as bad as an actual fascist country, not by a long shot.
The piece said 50% of infected machines were in the US, not 50% of US machines were infected.
And actually I do see linux boxes with old vulnerabilities pretty often. One of the problems with OSS is that updating often breaks libraries... which if you have compiled 3rd party software installed can be a real barrier to updating. We have one machine that has not been updated with any patches for 2-3 years now because they will break installed apps.
Slashdot Mirror
BSD and GPL licensed software rarely have your credit card number, nor do they generally have the ability to push down 'updates' from a central location that break or cripple your system with no way to backdate.
Good catch. I was not aware that it didn't make it into the final release.
Which will be what the case has to dig into.... does what they copied 'count' as something?
Which might actually hold in this case since it sounds like they are not only copying the table of contents but the structure of the entire book, which, as anyone who has worked on a full book can tell you, is a lot of work right there. A lot of time and effort goes in to deciding things like what order to present information in, how much space to give to any particular topic, and other general structural decisions.
Pretty much. They were doing a check to see if you were running their version of DOS and if not put up what were essentially fake error messages. It was one of the bits of evidence in the anti-trust trial years ago.
I still spin up new machines and VMs with XP rather then Vista or 7. Does the job quite well.
Good summary of options ^_^
It really comes down to what the product actually is. Dual licensing can work really well, esp when the product is used as a piece of larger code bases then customers who do not want to open up can pay to integrate it into their closed application. Plenty of better options then the earlier suggested intentional crippling.
Yeah, he learned how horse trading worked and that if he tried to actually do any of those things it would be a political disaster. He made promises that he didn't realize he couldn't keep.. or at minimal people who believed him didn't realize he couldn't keep. He was either dishonest in his promises, or idealistic in what being POTUS would be like.... either is plausible.
People like being associated with the new shiney, since all the core work was done for X11 years ago. It is the same phenomena with politicians writing laws that cover things that are already illegal.. attach your name to a gripe as having come up (or being part of) the solution. Though I suspect part of it is over the years the flavor of the month programming has changed enough that a lot of people look at older code and go 'hey, this does not look like the twue programming we did in school! it must be wrongz!', so the fact X11 was written before the current fads is enough that some people will want to rewrite it for that alone.
I disagree. Not with the specific examples since you are correct, the US military (or even LEO) are easily capable of taking out anything citizens can fortify and defend, so in open conflict guns are not much of a threat. However, as an insurgent tool, they are an important token to keep in mind and you better believe they factor in. Guns are everywhere. When people are pissed off gun violence tends to become more common. It doesn't have to be POTUS people go after, but LEO are more likely to get shot at, or judges, or city officials, a very bottom up problem. They are not worried about a family or two in a bunker, they are worried about the countless guns hiding in every corner that can turn any city block into a hostile environment any time the public gets annoyed... this worries local governments, and what worries local governments filters up since state governments worry about about local ones, and the fed worries about state governments. It creates a real 'death by a thousand cuts' situation.
And yet insurgents with light weaponry can hold off the might of first the Russian then the US militaries for decades. When you don't have parity under one set of rules, you change the rules.
Generally no. The Constitution is secondary to precedent, so using it as a defense only works if other people have successfully used it like that in the past.
'useful' assault rifles are easy to get even in CA.. the rules regarding what counts as an 'assault rifle' are so arbitrary and aesthetic that they are easy to bypass and still have a weapon just as effective.
Rats, out of mod points. But yes, this. Even if the general soldiers could be convinced to turn their guns on fellow americans (not too implausible given how easy it is to build rhetoric around 'traitors'.. soldiers tend to be pretty authority oriented), convincing the generals to go along with it would be pretty hard. Generals tend to be war-adverse at the best of times (they love toys and simulations and wargames, but traditionally are not keen on actually sending people into a war zone), but if you started ordering them to attack their own soil you would probably have to replace a bunch of them quickly.. meaning promoting up a new group, which will not be very effective at their jobs.
While yeah. LEO (and the national guard) have, over the years, demonstrated that they can be turned on citizens very easily. Many LEO already see non-LEO as 'the enemy' already and are easily swept up in the 'it is important to maintain authority, any questioning of authority puts everyone at risk' meme... thus anything that makes them look bad or less powerful is justification for taking it out.
Scary part is, probably the only group that actually could challenge the US government with any degree of organized effort would be the drug cartels. Though I could also see another civil war type situation where groups of states decide that the general direction of the country is not in their best interest and take parts of the military with them. Neither situation is all that likely though.... as much as people complain about how the US is going to 'hell in a handbasket' and people are on the verge of revolt.. realistically we have it pretty damn sweet here, in fact we are spoiled rotten.. it would take things getting much, much, MUCH worse to actually cause real action as opposed to talk/rallies.
Because it makes a useful example of the same basic problem. It isn't really bringing in religion (and more then talking about the MPAA is bringing up movies), but instead a specific example of a quasi-state institution that receives preferential legal treatment that weaker groups could only dream of, including getting away with behavior that, if another group tried it, they would be locked up. Both are examples of the privilege that comes with private power.
Actually, I hear the same complaint from unattractive lesbians too. There is an additional subtext of 'but you are ugly, you should be grateful I want to share my manly dickatude with you!'.
The reason it tends to be worse then simply having a boyfriend is that many males do not see lesbian relationships as 'real' (you see this in OPP too) and thus having a boyfriend registers as a less hurtful rejection since at least the person looses to another male.. but to a female.. many see it as 'you would rather have a fake relationship then me?'. So yeah, it gets pretty nasty.
Less precedent then you might think. There is a meme, of course, that lesbians are ok while gay men are not, but this quickly evaporates when someone actually _is_ a lesbian rather then just playing lipstick lesbian... those girls end up getting quite a bit of hate spewed at them for the crime of being 'hot but unavailable'... partly because it threatens people's masculinity (one of the dangers of the lipstick thing, it has really reenforced the myth that someone manly enough can 'turn' a lesbian... so girls who do not magically become strait for the right man are a direct threat to his self image)....
Anyway....
I will, however, be forced to start a letter writing campaign unless they include a 'duck' option damn it!
Though realistically, switches will not work. Their entire point is that they don't want people to have options or make moral choices. If you listen to their rhetoric they are pretty direct in their belief that media should only provide simple black and white ethical situations with no possibility for the player choosing 'incorrectly'. Choice is confusing, and they don't want children getting confused by having options or hearing other view points. That is for college where they can blame liberal professors for corrupting their darlings instead of admitting that once they have options and meet people unlike them (and *gasp* see them as people) they might not follow the path that was laid out for them.
I recall years ago hearing a good summary of the Gay Agenda....
(1) Not get killed
(2) Have a nice lunch
There person rounded it off by pointing out that 'our demands are simple'
I always preferred 'The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less'. Still EA is a huge organization, and it is possible to deride them for some things while giving them props for others.
*shrug* not everything comes with source or has source available, and not all vendors are happy (or willing) to keep providing new binaires over the years, esp if you are not paying them for it.
Which gets back to the issue with OSS in this specific domain. OSX and Windows do a pretty good job of maintaining backward binary compatibility. You install an app, that app will probably keep working across many updates. OSS tends to assume that you have the ability to rebuild form source or your app is being maintained through the packaging system of that distribution. For most people this is indeed the case, but when it is not such systems can become a real headache and it is not always possible (or at least not always easy) to isolate large parts of the system in order for the app to use some system libraries while everything else uses another. It gets even worse when you are talking about things that need kernel modules.
It kinda come back to 'to each their strengths and weaknesses', and this is a weakness of OSS when it comes to deploying exotic 3rd party applications.
Not all apps go through package management, and sometimes they depend on libraries that other system components also depend on.
Unfortunately 'sandboxing' sometimes requires so much of the system that the only solution is to set up a VM, which puts you right back in the 'old distribution' category'
Not a very useful list. All of those are issues of degree, and are present in most governments/groups to some extent. It comes down to if the amount is sufficient.
I would say, not by a long shot. The US has problems yes, but it is no where NEAR as bad as an actual fascist country, not by a long shot.
The piece said 50% of infected machines were in the US, not 50% of US machines were infected.
And actually I do see linux boxes with old vulnerabilities pretty often. One of the problems with OSS is that updating often breaks libraries... which if you have compiled 3rd party software installed can be a real barrier to updating. We have one machine that has not been updated with any patches for 2-3 years now because they will break installed apps.