I think that the bigger proof is that their product sucks ass. Go try and use it. I looked for "aes zip linux" and got 0 results. 0 results? Really? You index *more* than google and you can't find ONE reference to "aes zip linux"?
When did you try it? I just did and got 1,427 results. So as of now, your statement is factually incorrect.
Well, yes. But don't make the mistake to think choice means, to be able to choose whatever you want. Just as freedom doesn't mean you're free to do anything you like. There are restrictions: e.g. I'm obviously not free to become a slave owner. Thus unrestricted freedom runs afoul of basic tenets of ethics, as for example Kant's categorical imperative.
Re:Reason: Linus is a megalomaniac
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
There are no legal reasons. 6 months after sending notices Linux can be GPL3, no problem.
I would like to second the parent. Non-availability of copyright holders poses no problem to a license change. If on the other hand copyright holders would refuse to relicense their code, this code would have to be rewritten in case of the kernel moving to gpl v3. This thread on lkml seems to be pertinent.
My friends and I were laughing about how we sometimes text and ldrive, and how we know it's dangerous and have nearly rear-ended people because of it.
Note, this is not funny. And, if you actually had RTFA, you might have understood that comments along the lines of "how hard is it to pull over", etc are still valid. She pretty much condones it btw, all she says is that she's unable to stop herself from doing it unless it is illegal.
Logically mortality is essential to our idea of life and the human condition. You would have to completely redefine those terms if immortality were attainable. Well, for now I'm glad that all this is just a thought experiment, an interesting one to be sure, but it seems to be quite complicated to imagine the consequences.
Should we all censor ourselves lest we offend someone?
Sorry, but that's over the top. It is not tantamount to selfcensorship if you refrain from stating your political opinions on your software project page. This is not a free speech issue. Anyway, I'm kind of undecided on this issue. My first reaction was, he should keep software and politics separate. On the other hand, I applaud this dude for successfully directing media attention (/. frontpage at least) to the GFW.
#
What's the difference between UME packages and regular i386 packages?
For the kernel there are a few changes to support the LPIA architecture better (TODO: check with Amit). For the user applications, they have a special rule to enable or disable resources when compiled for LPIA. We may use the hildon interface and/or disable something that we don't have/don't need. We want to improve usability for small screens and fingers.
They are coerced into behaving nicely by the huge open source community which is not that much interested in what they have to offer anymore and have a lot of influence in the market. You mean coerced into open sourcing, like IBM, Microsoft and pretty much everybody else.
Sorry, speaking of coercion seems to detract from what Sun's doing here. I, for one, am thankful.
"Open Source" and "Digital Rights/Restrictions Management" are not mutually exclusive things Yes they are. As long as Open Source means I'm allowed to inspect/modify the software, what's stopping me from changing the software to bypass the drm scheme?
This guy is a coward who isn't capable of dealing with his problems in a mature manner and so he's concocted this weird scheme to try and finance him running away from his problems. There actually are no problems to deal with. He broke up with his wife and doesn't want to be reminded of her all the time. Completely understandable. This has got nothing to do with cowardice or immaturity.
I think he is talking about JavaScript, and I think he may be right.
Doubt it, and here's why. In the eleventh paragraph, he mentions this:
JavaScript had Netscape, Sun, and Microsoft (among others).
This, of course, means that JavaScript is already a big language in his eyes, therefore, it cannot be the next big language.
What? That must have been a situation of an English speaker pronouncing the letter wrongly; probably just having read somewhere that it's close to the pronunciation of "gay". If you hear a German pronounce the letter, you will hear that it's nowhere near "gay".
You can compare this to people saying that the English "th" sounds like "s".
Not necessarily. If conversely a German speaker pronounces the English word "gay" with a slightly exaggerated German accent it would be pretty close to the letter "g" in German.
Homère est nouveau ce matin et rien n'est peut-être aussi vieux que le journal d'aujourd'hui. (Homer is fresh this morning, and nothing is perhaps as stale as today's newspaper.) -- Charles Péguy
Care to state your legal definition? I presume, it doesn't substantially differ from mine given in the above post. I'm afraid you are referring to the abuse of a monopoly or something, not just a monopoly per se, which afaict isn't legally objectionable.
To say nothing of how it is - by definition - impossible to be a monopoly in a "market" you created. What's this definition you speak of? Monopoly, from the greek root simply means sole vendor. So by definition you have a monopoly, if you create a market. You possibly meant something different, well, elaborate.
Yes, it's not surprising. But as other posters mentioned the vulnerability exists in FF2 as well. So these security "researchers" have known about this for quite a long time, it's highly improbable that they just now, after FF3 has been released, discovered the vulnerability. The right thing to do, would have been to contact Mozilla immediately, to have it fixed in time for the FF3 release, so that the millions of downloaders don't end up with vulnerable browsers. Well, unless they want to partake in the release publicity. Understandable, but it still makes them asshats.
Calling someone a "platitude-dealing pollyanna" is not an ad hominem when it's true. What?
The truth of an assertion (which in this case is subjective and derogatory, I guess [my English is lacking]) has no relevance whatsoever for a proposition being ad hominem or not. Referring to a proposition as ad hominem simply means, that it doesn't contribute to the substance of the argument at hand, but rather that it attacks, tries to discredit, whatever, the person espousing the argument. Please look it up. Thanks.
Technically speaking, it is simply not factual to call this current military activity in Iraq a war. What do they call it? What's the correct legal term for the current engagement of U.S. troops in Iraq? I honestly would like to know.
What would falsify evolution?
1. Several methods of determining phylogenies (ie: Cladistics) are capable of contradicting the existence of evolutionary trees. They could provide counter-evidence for common descent, but they don't. For example, if species taken to be closely related (e.g. chimpanzees and humans) had been shown to have radically different DNA sequences, this would have falsified evolution.
2. The genetic code (the mapping of DNA to amino acids) could conceivably be different between different groups of organisms. If this happened frequently, it would cause severe problems for the theory of common descent. Instead, only minor differences in the genetic code are found, and they tend to occur in ways that strengthen the evolutionary tree.
3. If there were no significant differences in the fauna at different times, or different geographical locations which have been separated for a very long time from other locations (e.g. Australia), this would be a clear falsification.
4. The discovery of fossils in rock from the wrong time period (e.g. the discovery of a rabbit skeleton in Cambrian shales) would falsify evolution.
5. If geology or cosmology had shown the earth to be young (i.e. the 6,000 to 15,000 year time span claimed by young earthers) this would not allow any time for evolution.
(from evowiki )
or from Wikipedia's article on falsifiability:
Richard Dawkins said that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found." Ever heard of google? It's pretty neat, you can search for stuff(eg. "falsifying evolution"). Check it out.
the word "universe" should be
How do you figure? Where upon do you base your claims? And furthermore, you fail at philology nazism. In a follow-up post of yours you state:
Universe more-or-less means "one verse" in Latin, as in "the whole thing in one verse. Straight from Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary:
universus , a, um (poet. contr., unvorsum, Lucr. 4, 262; plur. OINVORSEI, S. C. Bacch.), adj. [unus-verto, turned into one, combined into one whole] and as a substantive:
B. universum , i, n., the whole world, the universe: tum censet imagines divinitate praeditas inesse in universitate rerum: tum principia mentis, quae sunt in eodem universo, deos esse dicit, Cic. N. D. 1, 43, 120 : genitor universi, Col. 3, 10, 10.-- And, no, citing concepts of medieval philosophy(viz. universalism) doesn't lend any further credence to your claim (see above).
Universe does have a pretty entrenched meaning in science and colloquial parlance, so it's quite sensible to come up with new terms for different concepts, definitely less confusing than changing the meaning of a word like "universe" to keep up with science.
A child poster asked for the root of pedantic (pulled from a French on-line dictionary(Littré)[pedant seems to have come to the English language via French]):
ÉTYMOLOGIE
Ce mot, qui ne se trouve pas avant le XVIe siècle, vient de l'italien pedante, que Diez tire du grec, instruire, italianisé sous la forme pedare, d'où pedante.
Are you talking about OpenSolaris aka Project Indiana or SXCE/SXDE? OpenSolaris 2008.05 boots fine on my laptop (sure as heck not sun hw). Wireless and Ethernet are supported out of the box, my ethernet being a crappy realtek nic. The Screen Resolution is correctly set, sound's not working, yet. Your statement
just not suitable for x86 hardware as of today (unless the h/w happens to be Sun). in its generality is simply disingenuous.
Finally a short story for the record. In 1968, the Communications of the ACM published a text of mine under the title "The goto statement considered harmful", which in later years would be most frequently referenced, regrettably, however, often by authors who had seen no more of it than its title, which became a cornerstone of my fame by becoming a template: we would see all sorts of articles under the title "X considered harmful" for almost any X, including one titled "Dijkstra considered harmful". But what had happened? I had submitted a paper under the title "A case against the goto statement", which, in order to speed up its publication, the editor had changed into a "letter to the Editor", and in the process he had given it a new title of his own invention! The editor was Niklaus Wirth.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the bigger proof is that their product sucks ass. Go try and use it. I looked for "aes zip linux" and got 0 results. 0 results? Really? You index *more* than google and you can't find ONE reference to "aes zip linux"?
When did you try it? I just did and got 1,427 results. So as of now, your statement is factually incorrect.
It's about choice right?
Well, yes. But don't make the mistake to think choice means, to be able to choose whatever you want. Just as freedom doesn't mean you're free to do anything you like. There are restrictions: e.g. I'm obviously not free to become a slave owner. Thus unrestricted freedom runs afoul of basic tenets of ethics, as for example Kant's categorical imperative.
There are no legal reasons. 6 months after sending notices Linux can be GPL3, no problem.
I would like to second the parent. Non-availability of copyright holders poses no problem to a license change. If on the other hand copyright holders would refuse to relicense their code, this code would have to be rewritten in case of the kernel moving to gpl v3.
This thread on lkml seems to be pertinent.
"Linux is evolution, not intelligent design."
-- Linus Torvalds
(This quote seems to be genuine, I haven't been able to track down a reference though.)
My friends and I were laughing about how we sometimes text and ldrive, and how we know it's dangerous and have nearly rear-ended people because of it.
Note, this is not funny. And, if you actually had RTFA, you might have understood that comments along the lines of "how hard is it to pull over", etc are still valid. She pretty much condones it btw, all she says is that she's unable to stop herself from doing it unless it is illegal.
So, how hard is it to RTFA?
Logically mortality is essential to our idea of life and the human condition. You would have to completely redefine those terms if immortality were attainable.
Well, for now I'm glad that all this is just a thought experiment, an interesting one to be sure, but it seems to be quite complicated to imagine the consequences.
Should we all censor ourselves lest we offend someone?
Sorry, but that's over the top. It is not tantamount to selfcensorship if you refrain from stating your political opinions on your software project page. This is not a free speech issue.
Anyway, I'm kind of undecided on this issue. My first reaction was, he should keep software and politics separate. On the other hand, I applaud this dude for successfully directing media attention (/. frontpage at least) to the GFW.
Sorry, speaking of coercion seems to detract from what Sun's doing here. I, for one, am thankful.
Yes they are. As long as Open Source means I'm allowed to inspect/modify the software, what's stopping me from changing the software to bypass the drm scheme?
Sorry, parent's right. Yegge gave it away. One occasion I'm aware of is his OSCON keynote (flash video).
-- Charles Péguy
Care to state your legal definition? I presume, it doesn't substantially differ from mine given in the above post. I'm afraid you are referring to the abuse of a monopoly or something, not just a monopoly per se, which afaict isn't legally objectionable.
What's this definition you speak of? Monopoly, from the greek root simply means sole vendor. So by definition you have a monopoly, if you create a market. You possibly meant something different, well, elaborate.
Yes, it's not surprising. But as other posters mentioned the vulnerability exists in FF2 as well. So these security "researchers" have known about this for quite a long time, it's highly improbable that they just now, after FF3 has been released, discovered the vulnerability.
The right thing to do, would have been to contact Mozilla immediately, to have it fixed in time for the FF3 release, so that the millions of downloaders don't end up with vulnerable browsers. Well, unless they want to partake in the release publicity. Understandable, but it still makes them asshats.
What do they call it? What's the correct legal term for the current engagement of U.S. troops in Iraq? I honestly would like to know.
) or from Wikipedia's article on falsifiability: Richard Dawkins said that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."
Ever heard of google? It's pretty neat, you can search for stuff(eg. "falsifying evolution"). Check it out.
How do you figure? Where upon do you base your claims? And furthermore, you fail at philology nazism. In a follow-up post of yours you state: Universe more-or-less means "one verse" in Latin, as in "the whole thing in one verse. Straight from Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary: universus , a, um (poet. contr., unvorsum, Lucr. 4, 262; plur. OINVORSEI, S. C. Bacch.), adj. [unus-verto, turned into one, combined into one whole] and as a substantive: B. universum , i, n., the whole world, the universe: tum censet imagines divinitate praeditas inesse in universitate rerum: tum principia mentis, quae sunt in eodem universo, deos esse dicit, Cic. N. D. 1, 43, 120 : genitor universi, Col. 3, 10, 10
Universe does have a pretty entrenched meaning in science and colloquial parlance, so it's quite sensible to come up with new terms for different concepts, definitely less confusing than changing the meaning of a word like "universe" to keep up with science.
A child poster asked for the root of pedantic (pulled from a French on-line dictionary(Littré)[pedant seems to have come to the English language via French]): ÉTYMOLOGIE
Ce mot, qui ne se trouve pas avant le XVIe siècle, vient de l'italien pedante, que Diez tire du grec, instruire, italianisé sous la forme pedare, d'où pedante.
It's already being done by Steve Yegge. For reference John Lam and this link .
Would you please get a clue, who Greg Kroah-Hartman is? Thanks.