If you're just looking for a decent looking girl to have sex with you, it goes plenty far. Prostitutes don't care about your personality. And if you're in a poor country like Belize that caters to tourism, it goes even farther.
It seems that everybody has their own definition of Christianity. I find yours to be a jumbled mess. How does not caring publicly about "sin" work with the necessity of prisons? You can't invite somebody to a potluck and church when they are locked up.
What does faith have to do with forgiveness? Are you saying Christianity allows having a spectrum of faith?
And when you saying these priests should have been "called home", is that your wish for divine intervention, or for people to enact justice with the death penalty?
And do these beliefs of yours come from an authoritative source, or do you just make up your own rules as you go along?
Funny, somebody says they find burqas obscene, and you acknowledge that oppression to women may be a valid reason, but then you immediately assume its racism. The problem is with you, not the parent post.
I find burqas dehumanizing and repulsive. The human face is one of the fundamental instruments of society, allowing both expression and identification.
IIRC, it's also about how the software is connected.
What counts is what you distribute and the nature of the distribution. If you are creating a greater work based on a GPL program, and distribute that GPL program as part of the work, then the GPL clearly applies. This is exactly what the license was written for.
If GPL'd libraries are linked, then the software that links to the library has to be GPL'd [..] However, if the GPL'd software is a separate executable, it's much less certain
This is a common myth not based on the text of the license. The GPLv2 wisely doesn't specify that linking is the only way to create something "as part of a whole".
(and many would argue that any software can make a process call to GPL'd software without breaking the license)
If you aren't distributing the GPL software as part of yours, then I would agree. It's when you combine the pieces into a single distribution that you get into trouble.
but mere bundling -- also known as aggregation -- doesn't cause the GPL to infect other software that it is bundled with.
It depends on the distinction between "mere aggregation" and "as part of a whole". Those phrases are straight from GPLv2. The former doesn't apply GPL to every part, while the latter does. If the GPL piece serves a useful function for the distribution, and the distribution can be considered as a whole work, then the GPL applies.
That said, I don't know what is GPL and what isn't in the Android SDK bundle.
I quietly said, "fuck you" to him after he called me an asshole.
I don't condone or excuse in any way a cop reacting violently to this, but you're stupid for doing this. Power corrupts. Don't escalate with the police. Don't give them any excuses.
So the investors will pull out, and MS will coast on "inertia" for a while, but then what?
Then they either succeed or fail, like any other company. They don't need investors with all the revenue they have.
What's their long-term plan for growth?
They are trying to transition into mobile. They still have a chance to convert their desktop users to mobile.
I don't see them competing effectively in any market, at least with Ballmer at the wheel.
I don't know why Ballmer gets all this bashing. Yes, he's a chair-throwing, sweaty gorilla yelling, "Developers, developers, developers!" But it's not like he's run the company into the ground, and Gates didn't have the Steve Jobs magic touch when it came to mobile or other consumer devices, either.
If you read the list, it is clear that no one is disputing the facts of what happened
Actually, the Red Hat guy supposes some of the GPL code made it's way into RTS:
"Second, you claim you hold exclusive copyright for the code. Not true. One example: on http://www.risingtidesystems.com/storage.html you claim support for FCoE. You didn't build tcm_fc, Intel did. Under the GPLv2. Furthermore, SRP support came from SCST, iirc. None of these contributors gave RTS any right to use their copyrighted code except under the conditions of the GPLv2."
Another issue is if RTS distributes a product that combines their "standalone" module with the Linux kernel. It's unclear to me just what RTS distributes and in what fashion.
It is entirely possible that some, all, or none of the proprietary drivers written are a violation of the GPL. It all depends on the courts interpretation of derivative work, and no one knows for certain (although some arguments have stronger precedent than others).
The RTS lawyer says:
"I hope that we can tone down the arguments about whether the use of Linux APIs and headers automatically turns a program into a derivative work of Linux. I think that argument has been largely debunked in the U.S. in the recent decision in Oracle v. Google, and in Europe in SAS v. World Programming. Does anyone here question whether the original work that RTS contributed to Linux (and that *is* under the GPL) is an original work of authorship of RTS despite the fact that it links to other GPL code using headers and APIs?"
"It's harder for me to commit a crime so I don't like it" is the argument here.
It depends on the nature of the "crime". What we are talking about here is trademark abuse of a generic name, one that isn't even trademarked in countries like the United States, but a worldwide ban on any hint of "infringement" is now in effect.
It's no different than if you marketed an app called "Photoshop Pro" and Adobe shit all over your party
"Photoshop" was an invented term. "Memory" is completely generic and there were already several games of its type in existence. Not only is it generic, it is descriptive. It's like selling a math teaching game and trying to trademark "arithmetic", or an operating system based on the generic "window" abstraction and calling it Windows (*cough cough*). Yeah, Microsoft got away with one.
and they use weird arguments like "You' can't just trademark a generic word!"
You can, but your use of a generic word has to be distinctive. Forbidding everybody else to use the word "memory" in their games is abusive and not what trademark is intended for.
Is that why some scientists have resisted showing all their data or explaining their methods so that they are reproducable? By all accounts, McIntyre was an honest critic who did serious work in attempting to validate the data and graphs in prominent climate papers.
When he found problems and made them public, the "hockey team" circled their wagons and made him an enemy. Jones was on record stating that he would rather delete data instead of releasing it, and explictly asked people to delete email regarding IPCC decisions.
This isn't science that has survived via transparency and criticism.
So they changed it to reasonably match what the current reality on the science was, so that they weren't misrepresenting the issues to the viewers.
So why the attempts at secrecy? Just make the basis of your decisions public. This is "science" as judged by a publicly funded news organization, isn't it?
And I'm sure you can provide a verifiable source for this, right? Or did you just pull that number out of your ass?
designed to disrupt decent people who oppose them and prolong the amount of pollution they can get away with
So you think when the BBC, a publicly funded news organization, decides "the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus", that it's harrassment to demand transparency for the basis of that decision?
Laugh all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. The population has grown to billions of people and we live in all kinds of environments. Of course it's popular to be self-loathing and cynical on Slashdot, facts be damned.
with the exception of the new user access controls
Which were half the problem. The other half being Microsoft let themselves be bullied by hardware vendors into certifying hardware that Vista was shit on. Face it, Vista was a debacle, and they fixed it with Windows 7. That it was fixable doesn't mean it wasn't a debacle.
Is anybody actually using it? I tried it when I first "upgraded" to Gnome 3, and thought it was pretty much useless since they ignored my settings and broke shit like applets that used to work. If shit was going to be broken anyways, it seemed best to either move on from Gnome or suck it up and deal with Gnome 3's new way of doing things.
On the one hand, you say it was crazy early in the race and Ron Paul was an unknown, but on the other you use poll numbers to back him up. Being the focus of negative attack ads highlights the biggest problem areas. Ron Paul never had to go through that, unlike people like Santorum and Gingrich. You admit he had some "kookier ideas", but claim his poll numbers would have risen.
Returning to an isolationist policy might have pulled in some Democrat voters, but it would lose many Republicans (he got booed at the primary debates for his foreign policy), and even most Democrats don't want to withdraw militarily from the world. Auditing the Fed would be popular, but returning to gold would be hammered as a recipe for disaster. Legalizing drugs would have captured some voters, but would have lost others.
The idea that "His base would have been voting for him no matter what if he got the nod." is untested. It's one thing to be elected to the House in a Texas district, where he is only a single vote. It's quite another to be elected President where he can actually implement many of his ideas, especially with regards to military as Commander in Chief.
You finally at the end admit it would be "certainly true" that he would have to run the gauntlet to know how it would have played out. I would have love to have seen that race too, but we didn't, and my guess is that Paul would have lost in a landslide because he was just too different from the status quo.
Slashdot Mirror
Money without personality doesn't go very far.
If you're just looking for a decent looking girl to have sex with you, it goes plenty far. Prostitutes don't care about your personality. And if you're in a poor country like Belize that caters to tourism, it goes even farther.
It seems that everybody has their own definition of Christianity. I find yours to be a jumbled mess. How does not caring publicly about "sin" work with the necessity of prisons? You can't invite somebody to a potluck and church when they are locked up.
What does faith have to do with forgiveness? Are you saying Christianity allows having a spectrum of faith?
And when you saying these priests should have been "called home", is that your wish for divine intervention, or for people to enact justice with the death penalty?
And do these beliefs of yours come from an authoritative source, or do you just make up your own rules as you go along?
Funny, somebody says they find burqas obscene, and you acknowledge that oppression to women may be a valid reason, but then you immediately assume its racism. The problem is with you, not the parent post.
I find burqas dehumanizing and repulsive. The human face is one of the fundamental instruments of society, allowing both expression and identification.
Is "liberty" only important for political statements?
She felt bad about being a lesbian, so she was automatically forgiven.
So you think she needs to be self-loathing while committing her "sin" of engaging in consensual sex with another adult?
Forgive others, you will be forgiven yourself.
And where do you draw the line at this forgiveness? Did the Catholic priests who molested children deserve to go to jail?
IIRC, it's also about how the software is connected.
What counts is what you distribute and the nature of the distribution. If you are creating a greater work based on a GPL program, and distribute that GPL program as part of the work, then the GPL clearly applies. This is exactly what the license was written for.
If GPL'd libraries are linked, then the software that links to the library has to be GPL'd [..] However, if the GPL'd software is a separate executable, it's much less certain
This is a common myth not based on the text of the license. The GPLv2 wisely doesn't specify that linking is the only way to create something "as part of a whole".
(and many would argue that any software can make a process call to GPL'd software without breaking the license)
If you aren't distributing the GPL software as part of yours, then I would agree. It's when you combine the pieces into a single distribution that you get into trouble.
but mere bundling -- also known as aggregation -- doesn't cause the GPL to infect other software that it is bundled with.
It depends on the distinction between "mere aggregation" and "as part of a whole". Those phrases are straight from GPLv2. The former doesn't apply GPL to every part, while the latter does. If the GPL piece serves a useful function for the distribution, and the distribution can be considered as a whole work, then the GPL applies.
That said, I don't know what is GPL and what isn't in the Android SDK bundle.
Neither did Steve Jobs at the time... that wouldn't happen for another 7 years.
iPod, iTunes, MacBooks, and the resurgence of the Mac in general all happened well before the iPhone and iPad.
I quietly said, "fuck you" to him after he called me an asshole.
I don't condone or excuse in any way a cop reacting violently to this, but you're stupid for doing this. Power corrupts. Don't escalate with the police. Don't give them any excuses.
cops treat everyone they run across as violent felons
I've had over half a dozen interactions with cops, and not once did they treat me as a violent felon.
So the investors will pull out, and MS will coast on "inertia" for a while, but then what?
Then they either succeed or fail, like any other company. They don't need investors with all the revenue they have.
What's their long-term plan for growth?
They are trying to transition into mobile. They still have a chance to convert their desktop users to mobile.
I don't see them competing effectively in any market, at least with Ballmer at the wheel.
I don't know why Ballmer gets all this bashing. Yes, he's a chair-throwing, sweaty gorilla yelling, "Developers, developers, developers!" But it's not like he's run the company into the ground, and Gates didn't have the Steve Jobs magic touch when it came to mobile or other consumer devices, either.
If you read the list, it is clear that no one is disputing the facts of what happened
Actually, the Red Hat guy supposes some of the GPL code made it's way into RTS:
"Second, you claim you hold exclusive copyright for the code. Not true. One example: on http://www.risingtidesystems.com/storage.html you claim support for FCoE. You didn't build tcm_fc, Intel did. Under the GPLv2. Furthermore, SRP support came from SCST, iirc. None of these contributors gave RTS any right to use their copyrighted code except under the conditions of the GPLv2."
Another issue is if RTS distributes a product that combines their "standalone" module with the Linux kernel. It's unclear to me just what RTS distributes and in what fashion.
It is entirely possible that some, all, or none of the proprietary drivers written are a violation of the GPL. It all depends on the courts interpretation of derivative work, and no one knows for certain (although some arguments have stronger precedent than others).
The RTS lawyer says:
"I hope that we can tone down the arguments about whether the use of Linux APIs and headers automatically turns a program into a derivative work of Linux. I think that argument has been largely debunked in the U.S. in the recent decision in Oracle v. Google, and in Europe in SAS v. World Programming. Does anyone here question whether the original work that RTS contributed to Linux (and that *is* under the GPL) is an original work of authorship of RTS despite the fact that it links to other GPL code using headers and APIs?"
"It's harder for me to commit a crime so I don't like it" is the argument here.
It depends on the nature of the "crime". What we are talking about here is trademark abuse of a generic name, one that isn't even trademarked in countries like the United States, but a worldwide ban on any hint of "infringement" is now in effect.
It's no different than if you marketed an app called "Photoshop Pro" and Adobe shit all over your party
"Photoshop" was an invented term. "Memory" is completely generic and there were already several games of its type in existence. Not only is it generic, it is descriptive. It's like selling a math teaching game and trying to trademark "arithmetic", or an operating system based on the generic "window" abstraction and calling it Windows (*cough cough*). Yeah, Microsoft got away with one.
and they use weird arguments like "You' can't just trademark a generic word!"
You can, but your use of a generic word has to be distinctive. Forbidding everybody else to use the word "memory" in their games is abusive and not what trademark is intended for.
willing to throw a little tantrum in public about the price
This is Mark Cuban. He'd be willing to throw a tantrum in public over just about anything, whether it risks his profits or not.
Cuban has essentially brought a million "products" to FB...
Did a million people sign up for Facebook to follow the Mavericks? Or was Cuban so hot to get on Facebook because that's where the people were?
It has withstood the light of day. Repeatedly.
Is that why some scientists have resisted showing all their data or explaining their methods so that they are reproducable? By all accounts, McIntyre was an honest critic who did serious work in attempting to validate the data and graphs in prominent climate papers.
When he found problems and made them public, the "hockey team" circled their wagons and made him an enemy. Jones was on record stating that he would rather delete data instead of releasing it, and explictly asked people to delete email regarding IPCC decisions.
This isn't science that has survived via transparency and criticism.
So they changed it to reasonably match what the current reality on the science was, so that they weren't misrepresenting the issues to the viewers.
So why the attempts at secrecy? Just make the basis of your decisions public. This is "science" as judged by a publicly funded news organization, isn't it?
It is tens upon tens of thousands of FOI requests
And I'm sure you can provide a verifiable source for this, right? Or did you just pull that number out of your ass?
designed to disrupt decent people who oppose them and prolong the amount of pollution they can get away with
So you think when the BBC, a publicly funded news organization, decides "the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus", that it's harrassment to demand transparency for the basis of that decision?
It's "secede", not "succeed".
Laugh all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. The population has grown to billions of people and we live in all kinds of environments. Of course it's popular to be self-loathing and cynical on Slashdot, facts be damned.
with the exception of the new user access controls
Which were half the problem. The other half being Microsoft let themselves be bullied by hardware vendors into certifying hardware that Vista was shit on. Face it, Vista was a debacle, and they fixed it with Windows 7. That it was fixable doesn't mean it wasn't a debacle.
We're the endangered species
Nope. Humans are too smart and adaptable.
Couldn't believe it
Is anybody actually using it? I tried it when I first "upgraded" to Gnome 3, and thought it was pretty much useless since they ignored my settings and broke shit like applets that used to work. If shit was going to be broken anyways, it seemed best to either move on from Gnome or suck it up and deal with Gnome 3's new way of doing things.
China looks very much like the ideal society of nerds.
Nerds are generally against censorship and authoritarianism.
On the one hand, you say it was crazy early in the race and Ron Paul was an unknown, but on the other you use poll numbers to back him up. Being the focus of negative attack ads highlights the biggest problem areas. Ron Paul never had to go through that, unlike people like Santorum and Gingrich. You admit he had some "kookier ideas", but claim his poll numbers would have risen.
Returning to an isolationist policy might have pulled in some Democrat voters, but it would lose many Republicans (he got booed at the primary debates for his foreign policy), and even most Democrats don't want to withdraw militarily from the world. Auditing the Fed would be popular, but returning to gold would be hammered as a recipe for disaster. Legalizing drugs would have captured some voters, but would have lost others.
The idea that "His base would have been voting for him no matter what if he got the nod." is untested. It's one thing to be elected to the House in a Texas district, where he is only a single vote. It's quite another to be elected President where he can actually implement many of his ideas, especially with regards to military as Commander in Chief.
You finally at the end admit it would be "certainly true" that he would have to run the gauntlet to know how it would have played out. I would have love to have seen that race too, but we didn't, and my guess is that Paul would have lost in a landslide because he was just too different from the status quo.