Oracle isn't charging taxes. Moreover, if the contest included taxes paid, the portion used to pay the main taxes is still... yup... taxable. They're unavoidable.
So? Taxes are less than 100%.
Let W be the value of your winnings before tax.
Let T be the amount of taxes paid.
Let I = W + T
Let t be the tax rate
T = t*I ==> I = W + t*I
Therefore, I = W / (1 - t) is the total amount Oracle would have to give you in order to cover both the pre-tax winnings and the tax.
My guess is that the winner will be a software/crypto or business method patent, and that this will be used to fuel the push for such patents in Europe.
Welcome to reality. What the business masses need is not what anyone sane and competent is willing to develop gratis. And that's the root of the problem. That's proprietary development's superweapon. That's Free Software's kryptonite.
You seem to be assuming that free software implies volunteer work, and that paying developers demands proprietary licensing. That's unfortunate for you. The good thing is that your lack of imagination doesn't prevent companies like Red Hat and IBM from making a nice profit in the free software industry.
You buy a company you gain it's assets and it liabilities, when that companies liabilities send your company broke,
That seems absurd. Mutual fund companies that have SCO stock aren't going to be liable for anything more than the value of their stock SCO does. Sure, if you merge with another company, you take on its assets and liabilities, but I doubt very much that merely being a majority shareholder in another company is enough to pierce the corporate veil.
Compared to every other piece of hardware in your computer, the video card receives an extraordinary amount of Linux support by the manufacturer.
So? That means that they are "supported by their manufacturers", not that they're "well-supported". The Ethernet drivers written by a kernel hacker are far more well-supported in Linux than most 3D video cards (with the exception of perhaps Intel, but those aren't really "cards").
The correct way to "support" your hardware is to openly provide good interface documentation for it.
More bullet points can only be a good thing. People who are clueless enough to care about the bullet points will be more inclined to buy, and it won't make any difference for people who know better.
This definition is way too vague to account for code that doesn't carry sufficient documentation, either because it was external to it to begin with or because it was ripped out.
It's not a vague definition. It's a broad definition.
It's really quite simple: The "original kept private to those kernel devs that have signed the NDA" is the "source code" for the purposes of the GPL. If you don't distribute it according section 3 of the GPL(v2), then it's copyright infringement.
The flip-side is true too. If you wrote a program using a hex editor, then the resulting binary is also the "source code" for the program.
Okay, but availability of source code changes that how? It's not like binary blobs can't be modified, especially to make simple changes like modifying the output power.
Speaking of floppies, anyone know where a person can get reasonably high-quality 3.5" floppy disks, like they used to make in the 1980s, instead of the flimsy lasts-less-than-a-year ones you usually find in the store now?
But you have to ask the question, why the hell would they?
We were talking about legislation that makes using the rating system mandatory. None of your objections to PICS are a major problem if you're talking about legislation.
And you apparently didn't read RFC 3675 either, since you have again missed the technical problems with.xxx.
Your main point was spot-on: You can benefit from the freedom to tinker without needing to do the tinkering yourself, just like you can benefit from the ability to sue someone who rips you off without needing to actually sue everyone you do business with.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is exactly what an operating system maker is supposed to do. End users don't use an operating system, developers do.
If Microsoft finally starts giving developers priority over end users, Windows might actually become something useful someday.
So? Taxes are less than 100%.
Let W be the value of your winnings before tax.
Let T be the amount of taxes paid.
Let I = W + T
Let t be the tax rate
T = t*I ==> I = W + t*I
Therefore, I = W / (1 - t) is the total amount Oracle would have to give you in order to cover both the pre-tax winnings and the tax.
My guess is that the winner will be a software/crypto or business method patent, and that this will be used to fuel the push for such patents in Europe.
News at 11.
You seem to be assuming that free software implies volunteer work, and that paying developers demands proprietary licensing. That's unfortunate for you. The good thing is that your lack of imagination doesn't prevent companies like Red Hat and IBM from making a nice profit in the free software industry.
That seems absurd. Mutual fund companies that have SCO stock aren't going to be liable for anything more than the value of their stock SCO does. Sure, if you merge with another company, you take on its assets and liabilities, but I doubt very much that merely being a majority shareholder in another company is enough to pierce the corporate veil.
Hire an actuary.
(Though I have no idea where you'd find an actuary who would be able to answer your question.)
So? That means that they are "supported by their manufacturers", not that they're "well-supported". The Ethernet drivers written by a kernel hacker are far more well-supported in Linux than most 3D video cards (with the exception of perhaps Intel, but those aren't really "cards").
The correct way to "support" your hardware is to openly provide good interface documentation for it.
More bullet points can only be a good thing. People who are clueless enough to care about the bullet points will be more inclined to buy, and it won't make any difference for people who know better.
It's not a vague definition. It's a broad definition.
It's really quite simple: The "original kept private to those kernel devs that have signed the NDA" is the "source code" for the purposes of the GPL. If you don't distribute it according section 3 of the GPL(v2), then it's copyright infringement.
The flip-side is true too. If you wrote a program using a hex editor, then the resulting binary is also the "source code" for the program.
Idiot. How can the author distribute a modified Linux kernel without complying with the GPL? Hint: He can't.
Okay, but availability of source code changes that how? It's not like binary blobs can't be modified, especially to make simple changes like modifying the output power.
You need to adjust for drivers-that-ship-with-the-hardware-that-don't-wor k.
Be serious.
What's in it for Wal-Mart to hire Darl?
Eh? What about limited liability?
Huh? Since when does buying any number of shares in a company overturn limited liability?
But you can get emacs.vi!
Speaking of floppies, anyone know where a person can get reasonably high-quality 3.5" floppy disks, like they used to make in the 1980s, instead of the flimsy lasts-less-than-a-year ones you usually find in the store now?
We were talking about legislation that makes using the rating system mandatory. None of your objections to PICS are a major problem if you're talking about legislation.
And you apparently didn't read RFC 3675 either, since you have again missed the technical problems with .xxx.
I can live with that. :)
Your main point was spot-on: You can benefit from the freedom to tinker without needing to do the tinkering yourself, just like you can benefit from the ability to sue someone who rips you off without needing to actually sue everyone you do business with.
Ooh, let me guess. Xfce and... what?
Isn't reiserfs organized sort of like a database?
-!- saskboy was kicked from #slashdot by Schraegstrichpunkt [whoosh]
"SPAM" is food; "spam" is deliberately-generated noise on our communications systems.