Actually, I think he's referring to a line whose origin I can't recall, which states something like that you will understand life much better when the only meaning of "fair/fare" you know is something you pay to ride a bus.
Dang, your plan sounds fantastic! Too bad Rogers wasn't an option for me: $6 bucks for caller ID as well, $6 for voice mail, $0.25 per SMS, $0.20 per MMS + outrageous data transfer fees, $7 or something monthly "system access fee," $1 monthly 911 access fee... and it goes on and on
Oh come on people, I don't know if the OP was meant as a troll or not, but it is the first post I have seen in a long time that made me (actually) laugh out loud. Fine if you disagree, but that's a +5 Funny in my book.
As a side note, I run Ubuntu on two machines here, and love it - but only thanks to the fantastic Debian legacy: the packaging system.
Incidentally, one of the boxes ran Debian before, and will soon run freeBSD. But for my personal (laptop) use, Ubuntu it is.
Maybe this is a "whoosh..." moment, but I'm fairly certain that the monitors need to be, you know, on and connected to the computer and displaying the interesting things. The more I type the more I suspect that was the point of tour post, and that I'm a humourless bastard.
The issue is that the "future version" clause means that you can use the code under one version OR another, not that the newer versions supersede the old. In other words, if GPLv2 says doing X is okay but Y is not, and GPLv3 says X is bad, but Y is good, then you can use code licensed in that manner by doing X or Y (or both, or neither).
The effect of this is that if a project is GPLv3 licensed (like Samba), you can't use it to do X just because GPLv2 says you can. What this means for the project is that they can't build in GPLv2 code, because it allows things that GPLv3 forbids - they would have to break the terms of the 3 version to properly support version 2.
The article is obviously aimed at a less experienced audience That was exactly my thought when I read the summary. This junk sounds like something even Digg would find a bit childish... "HOW 2 HAX0R UR NEIGBORS WIRELES CAM FOR SWEET OWNZAGE." I think when/. ran that 4chan story, all the retarded 13 year olds heard about the site for the first time, and started signing up. I honestly believe this - the stories have always been a little hit or miss, but the number of completely childish comments has just gone through the roof.
I take Google at its word for now but worry that small developers could be increasingly squeezed out of the mashup space if this were to become a trend. That sentence is like some sort of a highly refined concentrate of dumb. The Google trusting isn't really that bad (although I don't think they deserve it) but "squeezed out of the mashup space" ?? Remember, web 2.0 is only... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/11/web_two_point_naught_answers/
I agree completely, but I think you missed one huge point:
How is it different from some guy with a telephoto on a hill? Well, does this guy have petabytes of storage available to keep track of everything he ever sees? Does he stay on the hill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365.25 days a year? Does his field of vision from the top of the hill extend across the whole country, at ultra-high resolution? Does he have massive computational and personnel resources available in order to actually analyse all (or all the parts he chooses) of what he sees? Does he have the power to access information that you would normally consider safe from those you choose not to divulge it to (e.g. criminal records, passport/immigration/travel records, financial details, etc)?
Depending on the answers to those questions, there may be no difference at all. But there may also be an enormous and life-altering difference, depending on who this guy is, and with whom he shares what he sees. Every time you give something, you lose something; the question is whether it is a justifiable and acceptable loss. Any time you give anyone power over information about you, you lose a little privacy, a little anonymity, and a little liberty. It's hard to get it back.
P.S. i refuse to call it Open Office XML, the proper name should be Microsoft Office XML Actually, its proper name is "Office Open XML," which I agree should be called "Microsoft Office Open XML."
Definitely a weird move... While this is obviously not a representative sample of the whole population of Canada, I know of at least two people who were holding off on much-needed laptop purchases in the hopes of Canada making that list. Guess Dell won't be getting their business yet.
It would be? It was! C.f. http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/24/ 1432245, and if you search on lkml.org you can find the actual email where ck submits his last contribution and asks not to be "contacted regarding this or any other kernel development" issues. Really rather disappointing. And by the way, the interview linked from the article is very much worth reading.
I currently run XP pro inside a VM that only has 256 megs of RAM allocated to it. I obviously don't use it as my regular-use system (it's used for running strange games that wine sometimes can't handle properly). And it's not the greatest system around, but with effects turned down, you can actually use it quite decently... Firefox, for instance, works just fine.
If someone else's code is licensed only under the GPL3...tough, it's not your code. Don't use it. While I agree with you in principle, what I think Linus has a problem with is the adoption of that attitude in conjunction with claims of the code being "free as in speech." The hypocrisy doesn't arise from holding a certain position, it arises from creating licensing fears regarding software that supposedly exists to eliminate restrictive licensing. "Free as in speech" is being misapplied with GPLv3. Free speech means free speech, not the freedom to say whatever you want as long as it agrees with my/RMS's moral precepts.
In short, there's nothing inherently wrong with the GPLv3, but there are many things wrong with claiming that it is really and truly free. It is a license just like any other, only the restrictions are different - but they are still there.
An interesting side note: I was recently able to attend a talk by RMS (it wasn't on the subject of Free Software directly, but it came up), and one of the things he said in response to a question really surprised me. He said (this is an approximate quotation from memory, but entirely faithful to the spirit of his wording) "I quit MIT because I was afraid that the administration would have a say in my intellectual property. I was afraid they would release my GNU code under too permissive of a license." What? The chief ideologue of "free" software, worrying about his code being too free?
You're probably right, but I'm not sure if you're saying that this will happen because of the quality of the article, or the quality of slashdot posters. In either case, the summary/article itself doesn't really help, given the nonsensical statements like
Questionnaires are not a solution here and neither are statistics, which are usually derived from the wrong data. Ah yes, damned statistics; always getting in the way when I'm trying to gather reliable... statistics. And don't get me started on asking questions, that's clearly the worst way to get answers to things I want to know.
Really now, what are they trying to say? They can't actually mean "statistics are useless when trying to gather statistics," can they? And how can there be "wrong data" in a situation like this? Either someone does or does not use Linux. I'm not really a Linux evangelist, but the article sounds like nonsense to me.
I'm not sure if I'm being taken for a troll-ride here, but I'll bite...
From The Fine Article, and indeed The Fine Summary, it is pretty obvious the guy wasn't just trolling for copyrightable names, and hoping that one day, four years into the future, a large corporation would adopt one of his brands as a name for a flagship product. Not to mention that the "G" probably refers to his name (Girsch-Mail any less catchy?), but also Google clearly thought it was a unique enough name that they would be able to successfully use and legally defend it when they were picking a name for their new email service.
I agree, it sounds to me like the issue is completely in Mr. Giersch's favour. Apparently the courts thought so too:
"As far as the Hanseatic Higher Court is concerned, the legal situation is unambiguous to the extent that it has not allowed an appeal to the Federal Court of Justice"
What bothers me about this issue, though is the following:
Google has filed lawsuits against Giersch in Spain, Portugal and Switzerland.
"Google has announced, at least in writing, to 'fight' my client abroad for as long as it takes before he drops the legal claims lodged in Germany," Eble confirmed. In other words, the case seems completely in the German fellow's favour, both from a common-sense point of view (G-Mail versus GMail, started using it four years earlier), and from a legal point of view (see the court decision quoted above), yet Google is still fighting the issue. As much as I love the GMail service, I have got to say that to me, this reeks of big money betting they can wear this guy down. He can't afford to retain a lawyer for ever, and I'm sure they know that. Hardly not evil, Google.
Pfffft. Real slashdotters only need a headline. Some of us only need a category Oh come on, who needs categories? We all know what to say anyway:
Does it run linux?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
In Soviet Russia, aeroplane wings break you!
etc, etc, etc.
any chance we could get a notebook with a WSXGA+ display?
I don't know what their current offerings are, but my laptop (purchased one year ago) has a 17" widescreen monitor running 1920x1200 as its native resolution. Eclipse looks lovely.
Now, this was an upgrade given as one of the "special offers" that seem to run permanently, so I'm not sure about whether you can typically get it.
funny how I can see color banding when you look at photographs
I'm sorry, I'll shield my vision circuits a bit more to prevent that kind of interference in the future. The FCC now mandates tinfoil hats for all!
An "unfair dismissal" suit wouldn't hold much water, given that he quit. However, constructive dismissal is what happens when an employee resigns as a result of the actions of his or her employer, which is what happened here.
In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge, is where an employee resigns due to their employer's behaviour. The employee must prove that the behaviour was unfair -- that the employer's actions amounted to a fundamental breach of contract or the law.
The employee may resign over a single serious incident or over a pattern of incidents. Generally, the employee must have resigned soon after the incident.
Well, to me it looks like an all or nothing situation, in that if all states did it, everyone would again be on an equal footing. It's only when one or a few states have term limits that you end up with a situation like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think he's referring to a line whose origin I can't recall, which states something like that you will understand life much better when the only meaning of "fair/fare" you know is something you pay to ride a bus.
Dang, your plan sounds fantastic! Too bad Rogers wasn't an option for me: $6 bucks for caller ID as well, $6 for voice mail, $0.25 per SMS, $0.20 per MMS + outrageous data transfer fees, $7 or something monthly "system access fee," $1 monthly 911 access fee... and it goes on and on
Oh come on people, I don't know if the OP was meant as a troll or not, but it is the first post I have seen in a long time that made me (actually) laugh out loud. Fine if you disagree, but that's a +5 Funny in my book.
As a side note, I run Ubuntu on two machines here, and love it - but only thanks to the fantastic Debian legacy: the packaging system.
Incidentally, one of the boxes ran Debian before, and will soon run freeBSD. But for my personal (laptop) use, Ubuntu it is.
Maybe this is a "whoosh..." moment, but I'm fairly certain that the monitors need to be, you know, on and connected to the computer and displaying the interesting things. The more I type the more I suspect that was the point of tour post, and that I'm a humourless bastard.
Who doesn't know that Bruce Schneier is in fact a very reputable, actual expert.
It takes all of two seconds if you do it right:
#define DEBUG
#ifdef DEBUG
logInsaneAmountsOfData();
#endif
And then when you go to production, remove the first line. Voila!
The issue is that the "future version" clause means that you can use the code under one version OR another, not that the newer versions supersede the old. In other words, if GPLv2 says doing X is okay but Y is not, and GPLv3 says X is bad, but Y is good, then you can use code licensed in that manner by doing X or Y (or both, or neither).
The effect of this is that if a project is GPLv3 licensed (like Samba), you can't use it to do X just because GPLv2 says you can. What this means for the project is that they can't build in GPLv2 code, because it allows things that GPLv3 forbids - they would have to break the terms of the 3 version to properly support version 2.
Neither do we. Well, they say we do, but you try waiting 8 months for even basic surgery (and something serious, well just go and die).
I agree completely, but I think you missed one huge point:
How is it different from some guy with a telephoto on a hill? Well, does this guy have petabytes of storage available to keep track of everything he ever sees? Does he stay on the hill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365.25 days a year? Does his field of vision from the top of the hill extend across the whole country, at ultra-high resolution? Does he have massive computational and personnel resources available in order to actually analyse all (or all the parts he chooses) of what he sees? Does he have the power to access information that you would normally consider safe from those you choose not to divulge it to (e.g. criminal records, passport/immigration/travel records, financial details, etc)?
Depending on the answers to those questions, there may be no difference at all. But there may also be an enormous and life-altering difference, depending on who this guy is, and with whom he shares what he sees. Every time you give something, you lose something; the question is whether it is a justifiable and acceptable loss. Any time you give anyone power over information about you, you lose a little privacy, a little anonymity, and a little liberty. It's hard to get it back.
Definitely a weird move... While this is obviously not a representative sample of the whole population of Canada, I know of at least two people who were holding off on much-needed laptop purchases in the hopes of Canada making that list. Guess Dell won't be getting their business yet.
It would be? It was! C.f. http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/24/ 1432245, and if you search on lkml.org you can find the actual email where ck submits his last contribution and asks not to be "contacted regarding this or any other kernel development" issues. Really rather disappointing. And by the way, the interview linked from the article is very much worth reading.
I currently run XP pro inside a VM that only has 256 megs of RAM allocated to it. I obviously don't use it as my regular-use system (it's used for running strange games that wine sometimes can't handle properly). And it's not the greatest system around, but with effects turned down, you can actually use it quite decently... Firefox, for instance, works just fine.
In short, there's nothing inherently wrong with the GPLv3, but there are many things wrong with claiming that it is really and truly free. It is a license just like any other, only the restrictions are different - but they are still there.
An interesting side note: I was recently able to attend a talk by RMS (it wasn't on the subject of Free Software directly, but it came up), and one of the things he said in response to a question really surprised me. He said (this is an approximate quotation from memory, but entirely faithful to the spirit of his wording) "I quit MIT because I was afraid that the administration would have a say in my intellectual property. I was afraid they would release my GNU code under too permissive of a license." What? The chief ideologue of "free" software, worrying about his code being too free?
Really now, what are they trying to say? They can't actually mean "statistics are useless when trying to gather statistics," can they? And how can there be "wrong data" in a situation like this? Either someone does or does not use Linux. I'm not really a Linux evangelist, but the article sounds like nonsense to me.
I'm not sure if I'm being taken for a troll-ride here, but I'll bite...
From The Fine Article, and indeed The Fine Summary, it is pretty obvious the guy wasn't just trolling for copyrightable names, and hoping that one day, four years into the future, a large corporation would adopt one of his brands as a name for a flagship product. Not to mention that the "G" probably refers to his name (Girsch-Mail any less catchy?), but also Google clearly thought it was a unique enough name that they would be able to successfully use and legally defend it when they were picking a name for their new email service.
What bothers me about this issue, though is the following: Google has filed lawsuits against Giersch in Spain, Portugal and Switzerland.
"Google has announced, at least in writing, to 'fight' my client abroad for as long as it takes before he drops the legal claims lodged in Germany," Eble confirmed. In other words, the case seems completely in the German fellow's favour, both from a common-sense point of view (G-Mail versus GMail, started using it four years earlier), and from a legal point of view (see the court decision quoted above), yet Google is still fighting the issue. As much as I love the GMail service, I have got to say that to me, this reeks of big money betting they can wear this guy down. He can't afford to retain a lawyer for ever, and I'm sure they know that. Hardly not evil, Google.
Does it run linux?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
In Soviet Russia, aeroplane wings break you!
etc, etc, etc.
Clearly, you must be new here.
I don't know what their current offerings are, but my laptop (purchased one year ago) has a 17" widescreen monitor running 1920x1200 as its native resolution. Eclipse looks lovely.
Now, this was an upgrade given as one of the "special offers" that seem to run permanently, so I'm not sure about whether you can typically get it.
As a side note, it is an Inspiron 9400.
I'm sorry, I'll shield my vision circuits a bit more to prevent that kind of interference in the future. The FCC now mandates tinfoil hats for all!
From Wikipedia:
Well, to me it looks like an all or nothing situation, in that if all states did it, everyone would again be on an equal footing. It's only when one or a few states have term limits that you end up with a situation like that.