why? because we don't even KNOW if there are such things as blackholes. evidence only remotely suggest that there are very dense bodies that has a diameter smaller than event horizon for our universe, but if they are singularities or not, that's questionable.
I thought a blackhole only meant "dense bodies that has a diameter smaller than event horizon" regardless of singularity, no?
I don't think IBM would buy SCO. Even though it would cost them less in the short term, it would be bad in the long term for them (other companies will do the same). The best strategy for them is probably to sue them into oblivion and send the message: "Attack Linux and die".
...but I would imagine treaties between the US and Germany would prevent a German court from doing anything that harms SCO's case in the US.
I'm not *that* sure. Do you think the U.S. courts would do the opposite if it would harm a case in Germany? Unlikely. Since the theaty is usually two-ways, I doubt the germans would care much.
This of course occured in 1436. Prior to that, books were hand-duplicated by religious scribes...
Actually, there's also a revolution that happened in the late 20th century. While the printing press allowed to make copies at a very low cost, the cost of publishing a work was still high. These days, anyone can get a work printed as a book at a relatively low cost. This also explains that increase in the amounted of crap that gets printed each year.
Well we at least seem to be unique in one really objective aspect. It's undeniable that we are the only specie that can do as much damage to its planet and its ecosystems.
A monopoly over the Internet is just as bad in the hands of OSS developers as it would be in the hands of Microsoft.
Where do you get the idea that no patent meant an OSS monopoly? Currently, there's not patent in HTML. Does that mean that there's no probrietary browser. On the other hand, just imagine if MS (or any other) had a key patent in HTML. Yes, *that* would be a catastropy, not only for OSS but for many other companies.
My point was that if all you're considering is company resources (as original post implies), then accessing game scores or porn (at least the legal one) is equivalent. IMO, someone wasting his day (not a couple minutes/day) on game scores (or/.) is not better than spending the same time on (non-child) porn.
If you see that only as a "company resources" issue, then you have to say that checking the news or latest NHL scores is as bad as looking at (child) porn, no?
Re:....It's the name.. that damn name!
on
Ogg Now An RFC
·
· Score: 1
I remember at first when newbies were saying MP3 and we'd tell them it's really "MPEG 1 Layer III". I guess we lost.:)
We're caught up in our own ignorant ways and we refuse to pay attention to the smart things the rest of the world is figuring out
It's not even the smart thing the rest of the world does (how smart is just advertising the real price), it's just about not doing the dumb thing (and it's that way in Canada too and most people don't know why exactly).
Actually with the GST they had exactly that problem. Before the GST, they had a 13% tax that was already included in the price. With the GST that was not included in the price, they had to change everything. If the GST had been included, it wouldn't have changed much because it was just replacing another tax. BTW if they did it for GST, they could also do it again: put everything back in the advertised price.
You must show the PST and GST on every sale in Canada.
No, you can put the price you want. However, the stores that include it in the price are rather rare (but there are some).
Re:Instead...
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In France (and probably other countries) most of the prices end in.00 and the taxes are already included (unlike Canada where I live). It's much simpler that way. If only there was a way to convince stores to do that in here...
Re:gcc 3.3 fails on glibc 2.3.2
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
There may be a (non-standard) way to get that behaviour back. However, gcc is still compliant with the standard and I'm guessing there's probably a good reason for the change.
Because MS knows it's powerful enough to get away even with those kinds of things and that people can't suddenly switch away from Windows.
Re:gcc 3.3 fails on glibc 2.3.2
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It's not necessarily someone who doesn't know the language. Sometimes "normal" mistakes happen and don't get corrected because nobody noticed (i.e. because the compiler generated code that didn't expose the bug). Alan Cox once said that if you don't have access to a big endian machine, there's no way your code will work perfectly on such machine (though you can come close, you'll always miss one). The same is true with compilers: unless you have a compiler that generated bad code for 100% of the cases where you're not following the language perfectly, you won't catch all bugs.
Most of the times, this is not obvious stuff. A while ago, gcc 2.95 (or was it 2.96?) broke the kernel because of the strict aliasing rules: gcc assumes that an (int*) and a (float*) can't point to the same area (even now, the kernel needs to be compiled with -fno-strict-aliasing). One of the reasons why gcc 3.3 breaks the kernel now is that at some places, the kernel assumes that an inline function will be inlined, otherwise it breaks. The older versions of gcc always made those functions inline, but the new version take inline merely as a hint (like "register"), which is compliant with the standard. The kernel needs to be fixed to say "inline this or die" or something like that instead.
Re:gcc 3.3 fails on glibc 2.3.2
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Typically, all gcc releases break the kernel somewhere. This is because many kernel rely (unintentionally) on some behaviour of gcc that is not guaranteed by the standard. When a new gcc release comes, they need to make sure they fix that. That's why there's always a "list of supported compilers for the kernel". There's no reason why the gcc folks should refrain from using some optimizations because it would break bad code in the kernel.
If the GPL if unenforceable, then there are many more important peoblems ahead. However, I find it very unlikely. Mostly because if the GPL is completely invalid, then it falls back to copyright law, which means you can't re-distribute *anything* without authorization of the copyright owner.
That wasn't my point. In your original statement, you said that SCO could use this tactic to be the only one allowed to distribute Linux. That can't happen because of the way the GPL is written: either everyone can distribute GPL code or nobody can. If SCO distributes Linux, it needs to be under the GPL, meaning anyone (not just them) can re-distribute it too. If they try to prevent people from re-distributing, they're in breach of the GPL (and guilty of copyright infringement).
I suggest you read the GPL before making such claims. The tactic you're describing doesn't work because do distribute the Linux you have to release the code as GPL, meaning you allow anyone to distribute it too. Failing to do so is violating the copyright of Linus and all other contributors.
Besides, I think that just the fact that SCO distributed Linux (as GPL) should mean they have granted the right to use any code it contains. This means that even if originally the Linux code had been infringing on SCO's "IP" (which I doubt), they have already granted the right to use it.
While the old bills are still legal, they become very rare after about 1 year. This means that it makes "old counterfits" more suspicious because: 1) people will watch out for old bills and 2) a sudden increase in the amount of old bills will raise suspicion.
Slashdot Mirror
why? because we don't even KNOW if there are such things as blackholes. evidence only remotely suggest that there are very dense bodies that has a diameter smaller than event horizon for our universe, but if they are singularities or not, that's questionable.
I thought a blackhole only meant "dense bodies that has a diameter smaller than event horizon" regardless of singularity, no?
I don't think IBM would buy SCO. Even though it would cost them less in the short term, it would be bad in the long term for them (other companies will do the same). The best strategy for them is probably to sue them into oblivion and send the message: "Attack Linux and die".
...but I would imagine treaties between the US and Germany would prevent a German court from doing anything that harms SCO's case in the US.
I'm not *that* sure. Do you think the U.S. courts would do the opposite if it would harm a case in Germany? Unlikely. Since the theaty is usually two-ways, I doubt the germans would care much.
This of course occured in 1436. Prior to that, books were hand-duplicated by religious scribes...
Actually, there's also a revolution that happened in the late 20th century. While the printing press allowed to make copies at a very low cost, the cost of publishing a work was still high. These days, anyone can get a work printed as a book at a relatively low cost. This also explains that increase in the amounted of crap that gets printed each year.
Well we at least seem to be unique in one really objective aspect. It's undeniable that we are the only specie that can do as much damage to its planet and its ecosystems.
A monopoly over the Internet is just as bad in the hands of OSS developers as it would be in the hands of Microsoft.
Where do you get the idea that no patent meant an OSS monopoly? Currently, there's not patent in HTML. Does that mean that there's no probrietary browser. On the other hand, just imagine if MS (or any other) had a key patent in HTML. Yes, *that* would be a catastropy, not only for OSS but for many other companies.
My point was that if all you're considering is company resources (as original post implies), then accessing game scores or porn (at least the legal one) is equivalent. IMO, someone wasting his day (not a couple minutes/day) on game scores (or /.) is not better than spending the same time on (non-child) porn.
If you see that only as a "company resources" issue, then you have to say that checking the news or latest NHL scores is as bad as looking at (child) porn, no?
I remember at first when newbies were saying MP3 and we'd tell them it's really "MPEG 1 Layer III". I guess we lost. :)
If that was the real reason, could you explain to me why the prices all end in .99 (where it's easy to just grad a penny) and not in say .34?
...it's just a plan by NASA to get Microsoft to pay for a new Shuttle program.
Must have chenged with the Euro. Last time I went there most prices were rounded to 1F.
We're caught up in our own ignorant ways and we refuse to pay attention to the smart things the rest of the world is figuring out
It's not even the smart thing the rest of the world does (how smart is just advertising the real price), it's just about not doing the dumb thing (and it's that way in Canada too and most people don't know why exactly).
Same in Quebec... and I'll tell you why they do it: otherwise people would realize that they're paying 200% tax on alcohol...
Actually with the GST they had exactly that problem. Before the GST, they had a 13% tax that was already included in the price. With the GST that was not included in the price, they had to change everything. If the GST had been included, it wouldn't have changed much because it was just replacing another tax. BTW if they did it for GST, they could also do it again: put everything back in the advertised price.
You must show the PST and GST on every sale in Canada.
No, you can put the price you want. However, the stores that include it in the price are rather rare (but there are some).
In France (and probably other countries) most of the prices end in .00 and the taxes are already included (unlike Canada where I live). It's much simpler that way. If only there was a way to convince stores to do that in here...
There may be a (non-standard) way to get that behaviour back. However, gcc is still compliant with the standard and I'm guessing there's probably a good reason for the change.
Because MS knows it's powerful enough to get away even with those kinds of things and that people can't suddenly switch away from Windows.
It's not necessarily someone who doesn't know the language. Sometimes "normal" mistakes happen and don't get corrected because nobody noticed (i.e. because the compiler generated code that didn't expose the bug). Alan Cox once said that if you don't have access to a big endian machine, there's no way your code will work perfectly on such machine (though you can come close, you'll always miss one). The same is true with compilers: unless you have a compiler that generated bad code for 100% of the cases where you're not following the language perfectly, you won't catch all bugs.
Most of the times, this is not obvious stuff. A while ago, gcc 2.95 (or was it 2.96?) broke the kernel because of the strict aliasing rules: gcc assumes that an (int*) and a (float*) can't point to the same area (even now, the kernel needs to be compiled with -fno-strict-aliasing). One of the reasons why gcc 3.3 breaks the kernel now is that at some places, the kernel assumes that an inline function will be inlined, otherwise it breaks. The older versions of gcc always made those functions inline, but the new version take inline merely as a hint (like "register"), which is compliant with the standard. The kernel needs to be fixed to say "inline this or die" or something like that instead.
Typically, all gcc releases break the kernel somewhere. This is because many kernel rely (unintentionally) on some behaviour of gcc that is not guaranteed by the standard. When a new gcc release comes, they need to make sure they fix that. That's why there's always a "list of supported compilers for the kernel". There's no reason why the gcc folks should refrain from using some optimizations because it would break bad code in the kernel.
If the GPL if unenforceable, then there are many more important peoblems ahead. However, I find it very unlikely. Mostly because if the GPL is completely invalid, then it falls back to copyright law, which means you can't re-distribute *anything* without authorization of the copyright owner.
That wasn't my point. In your original statement, you said that SCO could use this tactic to be the only one allowed to distribute Linux. That can't happen because of the way the GPL is written: either everyone can distribute GPL code or nobody can. If SCO distributes Linux, it needs to be under the GPL, meaning anyone (not just them) can re-distribute it too. If they try to prevent people from re-distributing, they're in breach of the GPL (and guilty of copyright infringement).
I suggest you read the GPL before making such claims. The tactic you're describing doesn't work because do distribute the Linux you have to release the code as GPL, meaning you allow anyone to distribute it too. Failing to do so is violating the copyright of Linus and all other contributors.
Besides, I think that just the fact that SCO distributed Linux (as GPL) should mean they have granted the right to use any code it contains. This means that even if originally the Linux code had been infringing on SCO's "IP" (which I doubt), they have already granted the right to use it.
While the old bills are still legal, they become very rare after about 1 year. This means that it makes "old counterfits" more suspicious because: 1) people will watch out for old bills and 2) a sudden increase in the amount of old bills will raise suspicion.