The law continually gets more and more unreasonable and is pretty much abuse-by-default at this point. Mickey Mouse Preservation Act anyone? But you are right. Getting angry at the law is stupid but getting VERY angry at the tools that were greased into passing laws written for them by some lobbyist isn't.
Thank you! What you are talking about is called "statesmanship". Neither Kerry or Bush has it IMHO. And I've got doubts about the sort of wieners we're apt to get this time around too.
It's "divisive" because the Politically Correct idea of "cultural respect" is suiciding your own culture in order that an immigrant never feel uncomfortable or offended.
For that manner, ATI has been pretty much banned from my workplace as well. And these are Windows machines too. ATI has pain aplenty for almost everyone but Mac users. But I believe Apple writes the drivers for any ATI chips they use.
If you wanted to run that ancient copy of StarOffice that badly then you could chuck the files from an ancient distro in a chroot. For that particular example, no one is going to want to. OpenOffice is directly descended from it, has a superset of it's features, and is just a yum or apt-get away. The same argument applies to almost anything else ancient you'd want to run. For the rare cases where it doesn't, a chroot or virtual machine is more appropriate.
Now my wife's copy of Baldies has proven to be a real bitch to get working in the copy of Win2000 I have laying around.........
The problem, as you say, is that as soon as we can code an algorithm to solve a task, that task is no longer considered to require intelligence.
If that is the case, it seems to me that the Holy Grail would be an automated way to find practical algorithms for arbitrary tasks. Humans can eventually investigate and fumble their way towards the solution to a given problem. The more humans looking at the problem the more likely it is that an individual or team will find the solution. When we can make a machine that can do that over a broad range of tasks then we'll have a strong AI to talk about.
Pressed DVDs can have information written to them in a special location that any DVD burner can read but that no DVD burner can write. In this way, discs that can't exactly be duplicated are created. Since the information in question is the CSS key and CSS has been thoroughly cracked, it isn't a problem in practice.
There is a huge difference between reverse engineering and reimplementing. To reverse engineer a thing, it has to be possible to study it in detail. Seeing a cool demo and making something that works like it isn't reverse engineering, that is re-implementing. Also, neither reverse engineering or reimplentation isn't automatically stealing either. Apple would be in a pretty piss poor spot if they themselves could not re-implement. It surely isn't as though only Apple has the right to make accessible technology and that anybody else who does so is some sort of thief.
All that can be as it may be. IMHO I don't think re-implementation is what is going on here. File versioning is a very very old idea and this filesystem is just another take on it.
It's what Apple does more or less. The root user isn't actually involved but the first account created can assert administrator level privileges when appropriate by password.
Thing is, if this thing has been well tested and qualified with Ubuntu then getting other distros to work isn't all that hard. I'm just happy that have at least one consumer line of machines that will play well with Linux.
Seriously, it seems to me that the core of the issue here is one of belief and personal belief, not of science or investigative logic. It is entirely possible to layout all the necessary proof and interconnected evidence in as grand a scheme as you desire towards proving a thing, but in the end when this discussion is broached you are no longer talking about ideas. A comment that is made against a belief is inevitably a vicous strike against the very essense of the person. In effect a personal attack... no mater what you say!
My real answer is not a satisfying one I'm afraid. In truth I prefer not to engage anyone who wants to combatively challenge me in 'belief match' contest. I certainly respect others beliefs, no matter how incorrect I think them to be, and hope they would respect mine, but in the end it is not a battle to be won. The battle, to the extent it is a battle anyway, is in education and getting people to ask questions, wonder why, wonder how, wonder who, and what.
Thank you! That is exactly the way I feel about this. Now if only someone could explain this to that ass Dawkins as he and his ilk do far more harm than good for science and rationalism.
No it's because the price and specs of the thing have apparently been jacked 75% so that it can run Windows. Look at what OPLC is supposed to be for? 75$ extra? In places where a family would be lucky to see $300 a year?
Yeah but you still have to force your sister onto the Sidewinder. If I'm going to pay good money for Windows then I simply must have better automation than that!
I've changed my fstab to use UUIDs rather than device names. Once I had everything correctly labeled for a kernel my machine would boot up correctly but updating the kernel could break things. UUIDs stay the same even though disk device labeling is shifting sand at this point.
If we stop breathing entirely then we'll die but if we breathe all we want then we'll use up all the oxygen. The secret is to only breathe in moderation.
If the likes of MS or Adobe are the ones doing the reverse engineering, the answer is "not much". A patent only gives you the ability to sue others for using your invention. It doesn't mean you are going to prevail when the large corporate drags things out for years. Don Lancaster has a different take on being anti-patent than the typical slashdotter. He basically maintains that for most inventions it isn't worth it. Because of the legal costs of defending it even a "million dollar idea" isn't worth patenting. A 50 million dollar idea MIGHT be worth patenting.
Since you style yourself a "Windows user", then why Slackware for Pete's sake? I won't argue the user friendliness of Slackware but it is definitely picky who it is friends with. On other distros, those capabilities you were recompiling for are only an apt-get or a yum away. If you don't like the Linux GUIs, some of these other distros even have super-commented config files that lead you by the hand a bit.
I use GTK apps in KDE all the time. It just doesn't seem that heavy. I've also noticed that many so-callled "GNOME apps" really just need GTK. I use a similar GTK theme so that everything doesn't look all cruddy when I fire one up. Back when I played with GNOME, I noticed the reverse isn't as true. While there ARE apps just need QT, they tend to be a handful of commercial apps. Firing up KWord or Konqueror does indeed start up a large chunk of KDE. It isn't entirely fair but running a slew of GTK apps in KDE is neither jarring to eye and hand nor terribly expensive in terms of system resources. I'd feel really annoyed by this except that I happen to like the KDE Desktop better (no flames - it's just a preference. GNOME is perfectly good for those that like it. yadda yadda......)
Now, there are GNOME apps that will indeed cause a slew of GNOME related things to start up (Nautilus say) but then they all have decent KDE equivalents. I don't encounter them in practice. Again this doesn't seem entirely fair but........
As of their latest driver, the rt2500 still does its own thing. I beat my own head against it last weekend. It was waaaaaaaaay harder than it had to be to figure out how to configure and bring up my connection. On the positive side, it has been rock solid so far.
You seem to be suggesting that since this enemy is so unconventional in its strategy, tactics, and form, that (despite flouting all rules of war) it should get special treatment. This makes no sense. We reward, rather than punish, those who betray all rules of war?
Slashdot Mirror
The law continually gets more and more unreasonable and is pretty much abuse-by-default at this point. Mickey Mouse Preservation Act anyone? But you are right. Getting angry at the law is stupid but getting VERY angry at the tools that were greased into passing laws written for them by some lobbyist isn't.
Thank you! What you are talking about is called "statesmanship". Neither Kerry or Bush has it IMHO. And I've got doubts about the sort of wieners we're apt to get this time around too.
It's "divisive" because the Politically Correct idea of "cultural respect" is suiciding your own culture in order that an immigrant never feel uncomfortable or offended.
For that manner, ATI has been pretty much banned from my workplace as well. And these are Windows machines too. ATI has pain aplenty for almost everyone but Mac users. But I believe Apple writes the drivers for any ATI chips they use.
If you wanted to run that ancient copy of StarOffice that badly then you could chuck the files from an ancient distro in a chroot. For that particular example, no one is going to want to. OpenOffice is directly descended from it, has a superset of it's features, and is just a yum or apt-get away. The same argument applies to almost anything else ancient you'd want to run. For the rare cases where it doesn't, a chroot or virtual machine is more appropriate.
Now my wife's copy of Baldies has proven to be a real bitch to get working in the copy of Win2000 I have laying around.........
The problem, as you say, is that as soon as we can code an algorithm to solve a task, that task is no longer considered to require intelligence.
If that is the case, it seems to me that the Holy Grail would be an automated way to find practical algorithms for arbitrary tasks. Humans can eventually investigate and fumble their way towards the solution to a given problem. The more humans looking at the problem the more likely it is that an individual or team will find the solution. When we can make a machine that can do that over a broad range of tasks then we'll have a strong AI to talk about.How about I buy a physical artifact and do whatever the hell I want with it in the privacy of my own home?
Pressed DVDs can have information written to them in a special location that any DVD burner can read but that no DVD burner can write. In this way, discs that can't exactly be duplicated are created. Since the information in question is the CSS key and CSS has been thoroughly cracked, it isn't a problem in practice.
There is a huge difference between reverse engineering and reimplementing. To reverse engineer a thing, it has to be possible to study it in detail. Seeing a cool demo and making something that works like it isn't reverse engineering, that is re-implementing. Also, neither reverse engineering or reimplentation isn't automatically stealing either. Apple would be in a pretty piss poor spot if they themselves could not re-implement. It surely isn't as though only Apple has the right to make accessible technology and that anybody else who does so is some sort of thief.
All that can be as it may be. IMHO I don't think re-implementation is what is going on here. File versioning is a very very old idea and this filesystem is just another take on it.
It's what Apple does more or less. The root user isn't actually involved but the first account created can assert administrator level privileges when appropriate by password.
Thing is, if this thing has been well tested and qualified with Ubuntu then getting other distros to work isn't all that hard. I'm just happy that have at least one consumer line of machines that will play well with Linux.
It kicked the daughter and impregnated the dog........
The capital 'A' is telling. Not all atheists are Atheists.........
Seriously, it seems to me that the core of the issue here is one of belief and personal belief, not of science or investigative logic. It is entirely possible to layout all the necessary proof and interconnected evidence in as grand a scheme as you desire towards proving a thing, but in the end when this discussion is broached you are no longer talking about ideas. A comment that is made against a belief is inevitably a vicous strike against the very essense of the person. In effect a personal attack... no mater what you say!
My real answer is not a satisfying one I'm afraid. In truth I prefer not to engage anyone who wants to combatively challenge me in 'belief match' contest. I certainly respect others beliefs, no matter how incorrect I think them to be, and hope they would respect mine, but in the end it is not a battle to be won. The battle, to the extent it is a battle anyway, is in education and getting people to ask questions, wonder why, wonder how, wonder who, and what.
Thank you! That is exactly the way I feel about this. Now if only someone could explain this to that ass Dawkins as he and his ilk do far more harm than good for science and rationalism.
No it's because the price and specs of the thing have apparently been jacked 75% so that it can run Windows. Look at what OPLC is supposed to be for? 75$ extra? In places where a family would be lucky to see $300 a year?
Actually, I think he was more of a Turd Sandwich.
Yeah but you still have to force your sister onto the Sidewinder. If I'm going to pay good money for Windows then I simply must have better automation than that!
I've changed my fstab to use UUIDs rather than device names. Once I had everything correctly labeled for a kernel my machine would boot up correctly but updating the kernel could break things. UUIDs stay the same even though disk device labeling is shifting sand at this point.
If we stop breathing entirely then we'll die but if we breathe all we want then we'll use up all the oxygen. The secret is to only breathe in moderation.
"Make love to me Frogstar!"
If the likes of MS or Adobe are the ones doing the reverse engineering, the answer is "not much". A patent only gives you the ability to sue others for using your invention. It doesn't mean you are going to prevail when the large corporate drags things out for years. Don Lancaster has a different take on being anti-patent than the typical slashdotter. He basically maintains that for most inventions it isn't worth it. Because of the legal costs of defending it even a "million dollar idea" isn't worth patenting. A 50 million dollar idea MIGHT be worth patenting.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
Since you style yourself a "Windows user", then why Slackware for Pete's sake? I won't argue the user friendliness of Slackware but it is definitely picky who it is friends with. On other distros, those capabilities you were recompiling for are only an apt-get or a yum away. If you don't like the Linux GUIs, some of these other distros even have super-commented config files that lead you by the hand a bit.
I use GTK apps in KDE all the time. It just doesn't seem that heavy. I've also noticed that many so-callled "GNOME apps" really just need GTK. I use a similar GTK theme so that everything doesn't look all cruddy when I fire one up. Back when I played with GNOME, I noticed the reverse isn't as true. While there ARE apps just need QT, they tend to be a handful of commercial apps. Firing up KWord or Konqueror does indeed start up a large chunk of KDE. It isn't entirely fair but running a slew of GTK apps in KDE is neither jarring to eye and hand nor terribly expensive in terms of system resources. I'd feel really annoyed by this except that I happen to like the KDE Desktop better (no flames - it's just a preference. GNOME is perfectly good for those that like it. yadda yadda......)
Now, there are GNOME apps that will indeed cause a slew of GNOME related things to start up (Nautilus say) but then they all have decent KDE equivalents. I don't encounter them in practice. Again this doesn't seem entirely fair but........
Knees would be exploding left and right!
Only if they're made from what used to be Mr. Garrison.As of their latest driver, the rt2500 still does its own thing. I beat my own head against it last weekend. It was waaaaaaaaay harder than it had to be to figure out how to configure and bring up my connection. On the positive side, it has been rock solid so far.
You seem to be suggesting that since this enemy is so unconventional in its strategy, tactics, and form, that (despite flouting all rules of war) it should get special treatment. This makes no sense. We reward, rather than punish, those who betray all rules of war?
Ah, so there ARE rules then?