mean, the universe, not long after the Big Bang, was a pretty high-entropy environment.
I disagree; it was low entropy. Entropy has been increasing ever since. Low entropy means the energy is concentrated in one place; high entropy means it is randomly distributed.
And then you can get self-replicating systems that tend towards complexity as well.
That's my definition of "living": any system which disobeys the second law of thermodynamics.
The only way around this would be to issue IP blocks to physical locations on the earth, so no matter where you are you have all the IP addresses reservered for that square meter of dirt...
Well, wouldn't that make mobile computing a pain... "uh oh, by car has moved twenty feet, better change my IP address!" as you're going down the freeway.
Exactly which part of the Laws of Thermodynamics did you not understand... that energy could be neither created nor destroyed, or that all systems tend towards maximum entropy?
I would call the SEC, but I have to assume that IBM's astute legal force, with much better contacts in government, has already thought of this. They're probably just waiting for an oppurtune time to announce the investication.
That's why SCO is suing under contract law, not patent, trademark, or copyright law. Most of their BS blustering appears to have nothing to do with the actual case.
No, no there isn't. The difference between application level software and operating system software is completely arbitrary, and many people disagree about what the difference is.
Umm, no. OS software runs in kernel address space (Ring 0 on X86). Applications run in user address space (Ring 3 on X86). Seems pretty black and white to me.
Not quite. SCO is claiming that the same code IBM added to Unix cannot also be added to Linux; not that IBM copied SCO code. This interpretation defies common sense. Legally, one must take an extremely broad interpretation of the phrase "derivative work" to reach SCO's non-obvious conclusion.
On its website, SCO quotes a suggestion that computer "[s]ystem administrators must be admonished to submit open-source code to inspection for potential violation of patents."
Uh, anybody in the world can download the code and examine it -- that's the definition of "open source". SCOites are definitely on the wrong kind of drugs!
Well, no. The other night, I tryed to watch the "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" DVD with my 2 year old. It's starts off with about 5 minutes of some 4 year old repeating the "F" word over and over again. Not exactly what I wan't my daughter watching, and it added NOTHING to the movie. On the other hand, if I could have skipped over parts like that, she could have watched to whole movie.
Parents would use this technologies to remove the parts of the movie they don't want their kids seeing, while still fulfilling the kids desire to see the movie so they don't feel left out. Obviously, you don't have kids, or you would have thought of this.
Based on my experience with accidents, I don't have a problem with hitting the person in front of me... I have a problem with all the SOBs around me hitting me! This is only useful for people that don't pay attention to their driving!
A simple run of all files through one of the myriad C-beautifiers (prettyprinters) before doing the MD5 checksums would render indentation differences irrelevant. However, I still think they need to checksum every line, not every 5 lines.
Seems to violate the first rule of writing: to use words that the majority of your readers can understand. I don't know who his target audience is, but I for one have absolutely no idea what he means when he uses the term "crunchies"; nor is it obvious from context.
We're not exactly innocent bystanders in a clash of Titans. OSS was going to get shit on by M$ regardless; it is costing them revenue. Having an experience megacorporation like IBM with complementary goals is a good thing! IBM for years gave away software (e.g. MVS) to leverage hardware sales. Then Linux came along, I they figured out they could do the same with Linux for a lot less! As long as Linux has a positive impact on their bottom line, you can beleive that IBM is firmly on our side.
Actually, I don't see any way that the machine would know which team is batting. Unlike a real Umpire, it's going to call 'em equally wrong for both sides.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree; it was low entropy. Entropy has been increasing ever since. Low entropy means the energy is concentrated in one place; high entropy means it is randomly distributed.
And then you can get self-replicating systems that tend towards complexity as well.
That's my definition of "living": any system which disobeys the second law of thermodynamics.
Well, wouldn't that make mobile computing a pain... "uh oh, by car has moved twenty feet, better change my IP address!" as you're going down the freeway.
Exactly which part of the Laws of Thermodynamics did you not understand... that energy could be neither created nor destroyed, or that all systems tend towards maximum entropy?
I would call the SEC, but I have to assume that IBM's astute legal force, with much better contacts in government, has already thought of this. They're probably just waiting for an oppurtune time to announce the investication.
That's why SCO is suing under contract law, not patent, trademark, or copyright law. Most of their BS blustering appears to have nothing to do with the actual case.
Umm, no. OS software runs in kernel address space (Ring 0 on X86). Applications run in user address space (Ring 3 on X86). Seems pretty black and white to me.
Not quite. SCO is claiming that the same code IBM added to Unix cannot also be added to Linux; not that IBM copied SCO code. This interpretation defies common sense. Legally, one must take an extremely broad interpretation of the phrase "derivative work" to reach SCO's non-obvious conclusion.
Uh, anybody in the world can download the code and examine it -- that's the definition of "open source". SCOites are definitely on the wrong kind of drugs!
How is this any different from your local store being able to identify you by your face if you go in there enough times?
How then do you explain the success of Windows?
So, by your definition, Internet Explorer has a market share of 0%? Wait 'till M$ hears this!
We could tell you -- but then we'd have to kill you.
"The Blackdown project is based entirely on Java product source bases that have been licensed from Sun Microsystems.
Hey, pay me $250,000 a year and I might pretend to agree with those positions too!
Well, no. The other night, I tryed to watch the "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" DVD with my 2 year old. It's starts off with about 5 minutes of some 4 year old repeating the "F" word over and over again. Not exactly what I wan't my daughter watching, and it added NOTHING to the movie. On the other hand, if I could have skipped over parts like that, she could have watched to whole movie.
Why does this require implicit copying? Why not just set up indexes of which frames to skip?
Parents would use this technologies to remove the parts of the movie they don't want their kids seeing, while still fulfilling the kids desire to see the movie so they don't feel left out. Obviously, you don't have kids, or you would have thought of this.
Based on my experience with accidents, I don't have a problem with hitting the person in front of me... I have a problem with all the SOBs around me hitting me! This is only useful for people that don't pay attention to their driving!
A simple run of all files through one of the myriad C-beautifiers (prettyprinters) before doing the MD5 checksums would render indentation differences irrelevant. However, I still think they need to checksum every line, not every 5 lines.
Seems to violate the first rule of writing: to use words that the majority of your readers can understand. I don't know who his target audience is, but I for one have absolutely no idea what he means when he uses the term "crunchies"; nor is it obvious from context.
Shouldn't the name "TrollTech" have been a clue? ;-)
We're not exactly innocent bystanders in a clash of Titans. OSS was going to get shit on by M$ regardless; it is costing them revenue. Having an experience megacorporation like IBM with complementary goals is a good thing! IBM for years gave away software (e.g. MVS) to leverage hardware sales. Then Linux came along, I they figured out they could do the same with Linux for a lot less! As long as Linux has a positive impact on their bottom line, you can beleive that IBM is firmly on our side.
Actually, I don't see any way that the machine would know which team is batting. Unlike a real Umpire, it's going to call 'em equally wrong for both sides.
I don't know, but what are the chances that IBM has some friends in the SEC? Surely this same idea must have occured to some blue suits by now...
This research will be absolutely essential when we set about to create our own universes!