It's curious they're having money problems since as I understand it they provide CPUs to both the XBOX One and the PS4. So that combined with the PC market is still not enough, huh?
If you seek to address the influence of money on our political process via a constitutional amendment, is your SuperPAC up for the task of influencing not just federal legislators but state legislators and governors as well?
What kind of a solutions are you seeking from politicians that your SuperPAC will support: A law similar to McCan-Feingold or something more resilient like a constitutional amendment?
So if patents provide a shield against big companies, how come the patent you mentioned did not protect Woz and Apple from IBM (IIRC IBM-PC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM-PC came out 1981, only 4 years after said patent was granted). Or were patent lifetimes that much shorter then?
I have no problem believing that the patent examiners at the USPTO are swamped with work. But if the only room for growth the administrative folks afford is for about 6-7 patent examiners in an area pertinent to this case (I read through the positions in your first link)... how can they make a significant difference on 2-3 years of backlog? They're probably severely understaffed, but talk to the budget and HR folks and they'll probably say the "human capital" situation is not bad.
I don't think your parent post was attempting to state Jesus didn't exist. Considering lore from three distinct (and contentious) religions acknowledge his existence, it is somewhat safe to assume he did exist just over 2000 years ago. Now, was he the "son of God"? Is there a "God" in the first place that would begot a son? That's where the other individual and you diverge. He chooses not to believe Jesus is the "son of god" because no verifiable scientific proof of that exists. You, however, choose to believe that Jesus was the "son of God" and thus the origin of the Christian faith.
The only evidence you offer is the record of the Apostle Luke. I do not discredit its historical value, but its accuracy can quite easly be called into question.
You can only call the faith of the gospel writers (and those who believe them) blind if you also consider historians in general to be possessing of blind faith, by virtue of their profession.
I disagree with this assessment because historical record is independently verified before it is considered accurate and true (Plato wrote of Atlantis as fact, but without verification it is just lore). You, however, choose to believe the presence of "God" and Jesus as the "Son of God" based on the historical account alone, without independent verification of the recorded accounts.
The lack of verification qualifies your faith as "blind," or "child-like" if the former term seems objectionable.
You will have to refine what you mean by "computer savvy"... incomprehensible gobbledygook tells me that you may be comfortable using computers, but don't know that much about them or about software.
Sorry.. but the truth hurts. I'm not against them I'm just pointing out fact. To me, if your organization pushes for a specific goal, whether it is maximizing profit or imposing an ideology, you bear the obvious traits of a business. You're seeking gratification either way.
Shouldn't he be 'free' to use the software that works best for him/her? Why should he/she submit to somebody else's standards? (not a retorical question.. we'll get back to that... but first...)
You are not welcome in our community.
And a system that restricts its audience is considered 'free'?
Ok. Here's the scoop. The GPL, as put forth by the FSF, is just another business model. This model is no better/no worse than any others currently in existence. The business model is simply different. It is easy to get caught up in the ideal that giving things away elevates those contributing to an 'exhalted'/'enlightened' state. After all, they're contributing to society expecting no material compensation in return. However, there's the flip-side to the GPL, as there is with all other business models: restrictions. Including restrictions in my opinion invalidates the use of the 'truly free' qualifier. The software and products you work on and contribute to are 'open', not 'truly free'. If you really wanted to produce something that was truly 'free,' it would be put under the public domain, with no restrictions on it what so ever.
The reason the earlier poster would be bound to the standards of the FSF is because he/she agreed to the restrictions set forth by the GPL. The FSF is not promoting a futuristic Utopia where there are no lawyers and everybody's happy. They're simply promoting a way to do business. They're simply imposing policy on their licensed products. Like it or not, it is no different from Microsoft/Apple/Adobe imposing policy with their EULAs.
Now, I'm not trying to lambast the GPL. In fact, I think the license attempts to strike a difficult balance. My impression of the license: Businesses are free to profit from the use of GPL software in its 'as-distributed' form. They're just not allowed to directly profit from the software products themselves without contributing their work to the community that facilitated their profit ability. I define direct profit as grabbing software products from the open source community, modifying them, and selling the modifications without contributing them back. Other forms of 'profit from GPL works' include cost savings from using cheaper/free alternatives to other proprietary software to conduct their business activities (for example: using OpenOffice instead of MS Office). To me the issue in this article is whether the video card manufacturers directly profit from keeping their device drivers proprietary while other parties bundle them in Linux distributions. I don't see how they directly profit, but we're getting caught up on the strict legal language of the license.
Dude, you serious?? Are Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds killing each other in Iraq and Iran because they are all inclusive and consider themselves true to their faith? I don't know maybe there's more of a political agenda in this seemingly religious "civil war", but it has so far eluded me.
This violence may show them that this attitude won't work for much longer, and the Islamists won't rest until they replace the Napoleonic Code with Sharia.
I think you hit my biggest fear about these extremists right on the head: They won't be satisfied until our code of laws is replaced by the Kuran. Israel and the Jews are just the "gateway" to their ultimate goal.
Is anybody else here sick and tired of the razor-thin line we have to walk for these fundamentalists? Maybe being raised Catholic I just don't understand it, but when revelations finally surfaced that priests were molesting kids left and right I didn't feel the sudden urge to bomb or burn down a building.. not that it wasn't well known before but the black eye the catholic church received didn't spur anything like this (not 100% on that but am pretty sure). Can you imagine if a journalist did a full-blown expose on how these fundamentalists brainwash kids to blow themselves up and serve as human shields? Salman Rushdie's ordeal comes to mind..
Slashdot Mirror
It's curious they're having money problems since as I understand it they provide CPUs to both the XBOX One and the PS4. So that combined with the PC market is still not enough, huh?
If you seek to address the influence of money on our political process via a constitutional amendment, is your SuperPAC up for the task of influencing not just federal legislators but state legislators and governors as well?
What kind of a solutions are you seeking from politicians that your SuperPAC will support: A law similar to McCan-Feingold or something more resilient like a constitutional amendment?
So if patents provide a shield against big companies, how come the patent you mentioned did not protect Woz and Apple from IBM (IIRC IBM-PC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM-PC came out 1981, only 4 years after said patent was granted). Or were patent lifetimes that much shorter then?
I have no problem believing that the patent examiners at the USPTO are swamped with work. But if the only room for growth the administrative folks afford is for about 6-7 patent examiners in an area pertinent to this case (I read through the positions in your first link)... how can they make a significant difference on 2-3 years of backlog? They're probably severely understaffed, but talk to the budget and HR folks and they'll probably say the "human capital" situation is not bad.
You will have to refine what you mean by "computer savvy" ... incomprehensible gobbledygook tells me that you may be comfortable using computers, but don't know that much about them or about software.
Sorry .. but the truth hurts. I'm not against them I'm just pointing out fact. To me, if your organization pushes for a specific goal, whether it is maximizing profit or imposing an ideology, you bear the obvious traits of a business. You're seeking gratification either way.
Ok. Here's the scoop. The GPL, as put forth by the FSF, is just another business model. This model is no better/no worse than any others currently in existence. The business model is simply different. It is easy to get caught up in the ideal that giving things away elevates those contributing to an 'exhalted'/'enlightened' state. After all, they're contributing to society expecting no material compensation in return. However, there's the flip-side to the GPL, as there is with all other business models: restrictions. Including restrictions in my opinion invalidates the use of the 'truly free' qualifier. The software and products you work on and contribute to are 'open', not 'truly free'. If you really wanted to produce something that was truly 'free,' it would be put under the public domain, with no restrictions on it what so ever.
The reason the earlier poster would be bound to the standards of the FSF is because he/she agreed to the restrictions set forth by the GPL. The FSF is not promoting a futuristic Utopia where there are no lawyers and everybody's happy. They're simply promoting a way to do business. They're simply imposing policy on their licensed products. Like it or not, it is no different from Microsoft/Apple/Adobe imposing policy with their EULAs.
Now, I'm not trying to lambast the GPL. In fact, I think the license attempts to strike a difficult balance. My impression of the license: Businesses are free to profit from the use of GPL software in its 'as-distributed' form. They're just not allowed to directly profit from the software products themselves without contributing their work to the community that facilitated their profit ability. I define direct profit as grabbing software products from the open source community, modifying them, and selling the modifications without contributing them back. Other forms of 'profit from GPL works' include cost savings from using cheaper/free alternatives to other proprietary software to conduct their business activities (for example: using OpenOffice instead of MS Office). To me the issue in this article is whether the video card manufacturers directly profit from keeping their device drivers proprietary while other parties bundle them in Linux distributions. I don't see how they directly profit, but we're getting caught up on the strict legal language of the license.
Dude, you serious?? Are Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds killing each other in Iraq and Iran because they are all inclusive and consider themselves true to their faith? I don't know maybe there's more of a political agenda in this seemingly religious "civil war", but it has so far eluded me.
Is anybody else here sick and tired of the razor-thin line we have to walk for these fundamentalists? Maybe being raised Catholic I just don't understand it, but when revelations finally surfaced that priests were molesting kids left and right I didn't feel the sudden urge to bomb or burn down a building .. not that it wasn't well known before but the black eye the catholic church received didn't spur anything like this (not 100% on that but am pretty sure). Can you imagine if a journalist did a full-blown expose on how these fundamentalists brainwash kids to blow themselves up and serve as human shields? Salman Rushdie's ordeal comes to mind ..