No! I paid for this seat and I'm *not* moving" [even though an old woman really needs that seat]
I've yet to go on an airplane with less seats than passengers. That old woman obviously has a seat somewhere, it isn't really like she has to stand up for the duration of the flight. The issue is much more likely to arise on city transportation like buses and commuter trains.
Note that such quiet zones won't really be quiet, since (at least in my opinion) engine noise is the prevailing noise type heard on modern jets, especially aft of the engines.
A law that dictates that ODF is used for the state's documents does not exclude any vendor from the market. Microsoft is welcome to add ODF support to its office suite, but refuses to do so. In other words, they are excluding themselves from competing by not supporting ODF. Instead of adding support for ODF, they try to push states to standardize on their format instead.
These formats have absolutely nothing to do with the.DOC format..DOC was literally a memory dump of the data structures. The XML files are well structured. Style and content are highly separated. They are quite easy to read and understand.
Quite easy to read and understand?
Open XML:
<w:p> <w:r><w:t>This is a </w:t></w:r> <w:r><w:rPr><w:b/></w:rPr><w:t>very basic</w:t></w:r> <w:r><w:t> document </w:t></w:r> <w:r><w:rPr><w:i/></w:rPr><w:t>with some</w:t></w:r> <w:r><w:t> formatting, and a </w:t></w:r><w:hyperlink w:rel="rId4" w:history="1"> <w:r><w:rPr><w:rStyle w:val="Hyperlink"/></w:rPr><w:t>hyperlink</w:t></w:r> </w:hyperlink> </w:p>
What more did you want her to do other than completely respond?
Probably have her show up in person, so that McBribe et al. could hire a gang of thugs to make a drive-by on her house when she's back from the court. Remember that she caused them to lose millions, if not billions, of dollars that were rightfully theirs. At least in their eyes.:)
The initial message was reasoned, and reiterated that, while there is a problem, in no way do the developers of the GPL code want to antagonize the BSD developer.
I agree. But Theo saw this as a chance of antagonizing GPL developers, and he wholeheartedly took it. While cementing his reputation of being a real asshole, he complains that the bc43xx developers are inhumane and lack compassion and empathy. He is really the right guy to complain about that.;)
Once the BSD developer did this, he can't very easily claim to have a "clean" implementation of the copyrighted code. You can't "drop-in" a copyrighted work and expect to duplicate it somehow cleanly under a new license.
Exactly. That would be called a derivative work, probably even after the GPL code had been rewritten. The original code is covered by the GPL, and therefore each successing version of the partly rewritten code would be covered by the GPL. Thus, even when the last part of the original GPL-code is removed, the code would still be covered under the GPL, since the last version was.
Theo wants the ability to flame while keeping it private. Posting the message on a public list exposed his already well-known personality to a larger audience, and that is probably part of what Theo is so angry about.
The argument was that the guy checked in a ton of GPL'ed code and relicensed it (to his license) with the intent of changing everything to his code. He checked it in to CVS so others could help him. It was in -current (meaning it wasn't release worthy). He had made lots of checkins replacing the code -- meaning his intent was to change it -- and the other side got pissy.
Rewriting the infringing code sections would not necessarily put them in the clear, as the code might still be considered a derived work, and thus till be covered by the GPL. IANAL though.
My thoughts exactly. When I read that they intended to replace the code over time, my first thought was that the code would still be a derived work, and thus still be subject to the GPL, even if none of the original code remained.
So basically this whole "protected processes" thing is just a hack to fix their orignal poor/insecure design?
If the ability for the admin to manipulate the memory of any process is a poor/insecure design, then most operating systems I know of are poorly designed and insecure. Do you want processes on your computer that you cannot manipulate, and that only obey Microsoft?
Let's say I make a new style of light bulb that has a small but growing market share, such that GE notices that it's a lucrative market. I might not be making a big profit on it, but because GE has a more well-known name and possible economies of scales that I can't manage just because I'm small, those two factors mean that they can undercut me and put me out of the market unless I can add some other value that GE can't.
In theory, this is where a patent would help. In practice, the large companies have enough resources to starve to death any inventor launching a lawsuit for patent infringement.
I would like some of whatever it is you smoked this afternoon.
I don't understand this. I've seen comments like this many times, when someone answers stupid comments with "I don't know what you've smoked". So far, so good, I could make a similar comment myself. The part I don't get is the last part, "but I want some". Do you want to become stupid too?
I think that DRM should be abandoned as quickly as possible, and any step toward this goal should be greeted with respect.
I have a hard time respecting someone that forcefully argues that selling DRM-free music is irresponsible and naive, just to turn around next month to claim that the wanted to sell DRM-free music for quite some time.
It probably goes without saying, but this isn't some initiative on MS' part. It's riding Jobs' coattails, crying "me too!, me too!", as if MS is some kind of crusader for consumers' rights around music and DRM.
This is especially funny as MS response to Steve Jobs' open letter about selling DRM-free music was basically that doing this would be irresponsible and that Microsoft is always adamant about protecting IP. A month later, they themselves announce that they too are going to do the self-proclaimed "irresponsible" thing, that is selling music without DRM.
IF you have a spare processor and your buddy doesn't, is it efficient for him to borrow your CPU time? This is definitely a discussion that is occurring in normal computing space, let alone console gaming.
Only for tasks that are not affected by network latency. That is why compute clusters built to run parallel jobs use special (expensive) high-speed low-latency interconnects like Myrinet or Infiniband. Ethernet is far to slow for such tasks, and processors would to a large extent just be waiting for network packets from the other nodes. Thus, for the time being, lending out processor time to your friend for tasks affected by latency, such as realtime rendering, isn't really feasible at home.
DO REALIZE that the US Govt has been the 'largest' provider of money and subsides to Airbus via that RLI?
It would be a hard argument to make that the US govt has harmed Airbus more than it has helped it, especially since it would not have financially survived without support the US Govt.
I have a hard time believing that. By the way, what is an RLI?
There is hardly any consensus on the political ideology of Linux or open source. Actually, there are good indicators that it is actually apolitical, as followers of almost every ideology manages to fit it into their own ideology. Conservatives argue that F/OSS is conservative, liberals argue that it is liberal, socialists argue that it is socialist, etc.
They abandoned the lame-o patent claims long ago when it became clear they weren't winning them.
Except that, as far as I can recall, SCO never included patent infringement in any of their cases. When this tirade of lawsuits started, they didn't even have any patents. I clearly remember PJs story about how SCO had been granted a patent, their first.
The only part including patent infringement claims was IBM, in their countersuit. Those claim were later dropped.
Why is it that some people just fail to be able grasp the concept of monopolism and that it is NOT I repeat NOT compatible with free market thinking.
Because they have an interest in having Microsoft retain their current position? They could be stockholders, employees, fanboys, etc. Thus they try to redefine common concepts like monopoly, free market and socialism to fit their own and Microsoft's agenda.
IBM had a monopoly, but they were readily dethroned by an upstart with disruptive technology.
I'd say IBM dethroned themselves. DOS was never a disruptive technology, but the PC was. IBM left the specs open, which let other hardware companies make compatible systems.
Slashdot Mirror
I've yet to go on an airplane with less seats than passengers. That old woman obviously has a seat somewhere, it isn't really like she has to stand up for the duration of the flight. The issue is much more likely to arise on city transportation like buses and commuter trains.
So if the airphone is turned off, you know that you are in trouble, and that the crash is imminent.
When I read this, I thought you were going to make a joke about buying screaming babies to annoy the shit out of the rest of the passengers. :)
Note that such quiet zones won't really be quiet, since (at least in my opinion) engine noise is the prevailing noise type heard on modern jets, especially aft of the engines.
A law that dictates that ODF is used for the state's documents does not exclude any vendor from the market. Microsoft is welcome to add ODF support to its office suite, but refuses to do so. In other words, they are excluding themselves from competing by not supporting ODF. Instead of adding support for ODF, they try to push states to standardize on their format instead.
Quite easy to read and understand?
Open XML:
I wouldn't call that easy to read and understand.
Probably have her show up in person, so that McBribe et al. could hire a gang of thugs to make a drive-by on her house when she's back from the court. Remember that she caused them to lose millions, if not billions, of dollars that were rightfully theirs. At least in their eyes. :)
I agree. But Theo saw this as a chance of antagonizing GPL developers, and he wholeheartedly took it. While cementing his reputation of being a real asshole, he complains that the bc43xx developers are inhumane and lack compassion and empathy. He is really the right guy to complain about that. ;)
Exactly. That would be called a derivative work, probably even after the GPL code had been rewritten. The original code is covered by the GPL, and therefore each successing version of the partly rewritten code would be covered by the GPL. Thus, even when the last part of the original GPL-code is removed, the code would still be covered under the GPL, since the last version was.
IANAL though.
Theo wants the ability to flame while keeping it private. Posting the message on a public list exposed his already well-known personality to a larger audience, and that is probably part of what Theo is so angry about.
Rewriting the infringing code sections would not necessarily put them in the clear, as the code might still be considered a derived work, and thus till be covered by the GPL. IANAL though.
My thoughts exactly. When I read that they intended to replace the code over time, my first thought was that the code would still be a derived work, and thus still be subject to the GPL, even if none of the original code remained.
If the ability for the admin to manipulate the memory of any process is a poor/insecure design, then most operating systems I know of are poorly designed and insecure. Do you want processes on your computer that you cannot manipulate, and that only obey Microsoft?
In theory, this is where a patent would help. In practice, the large companies have enough resources to starve to death any inventor launching a lawsuit for patent infringement.
I don't think that this is an intrinsic property of the software business, but rather a sign that there isn't enough competition.
Why? It isn't really the EU begging Turkey to join the union, but rather Turkey begging the EU to become a member.
I don't understand this. I've seen comments like this many times, when someone answers stupid comments with "I don't know what you've smoked". So far, so good, I could make a similar comment myself. The part I don't get is the last part, "but I want some". Do you want to become stupid too?
I have a hard time respecting someone that forcefully argues that selling DRM-free music is irresponsible and naive, just to turn around next month to claim that the wanted to sell DRM-free music for quite some time.
This is especially funny as MS response to Steve Jobs' open letter about selling DRM-free music was basically that doing this would be irresponsible and that Microsoft is always adamant about protecting IP. A month later, they themselves announce that they too are going to do the self-proclaimed "irresponsible" thing, that is selling music without DRM.
Only for tasks that are not affected by network latency. That is why compute clusters built to run parallel jobs use special (expensive) high-speed low-latency interconnects like Myrinet or Infiniband. Ethernet is far to slow for such tasks, and processors would to a large extent just be waiting for network packets from the other nodes. Thus, for the time being, lending out processor time to your friend for tasks affected by latency, such as realtime rendering, isn't really feasible at home.
DO REALIZE that the US Govt has been the 'largest' provider of money and subsides to Airbus via that RLI?
It would be a hard argument to make that the US govt has harmed Airbus more than it has helped it, especially since it would not have financially survived without support the US Govt.
I have a hard time believing that. By the way, what is an RLI?
There is hardly any consensus on the political ideology of Linux or open source. Actually, there are good indicators that it is actually apolitical, as followers of almost every ideology manages to fit it into their own ideology. Conservatives argue that F/OSS is conservative, liberals argue that it is liberal, socialists argue that it is socialist, etc.
Except that, as far as I can recall, SCO never included patent infringement in any of their cases. When this tirade of lawsuits started, they didn't even have any patents. I clearly remember PJs story about how SCO had been granted a patent, their first.
The only part including patent infringement claims was IBM, in their countersuit. Those claim were later dropped.
Because they have an interest in having Microsoft retain their current position? They could be stockholders, employees, fanboys, etc. Thus they try to redefine common concepts like monopoly, free market and socialism to fit their own and Microsoft's agenda.
I'd say IBM dethroned themselves. DOS was never a disruptive technology, but the PC was. IBM left the specs open, which let other hardware companies make compatible systems.