It's interesting to note (*) that the current state of affairs regarding marriage in Israel is more unpopular among secular Jews who want to marry other secular Jews without the overbearing involvement of an orthodox rabbi than among people who are interested in marrying someone of a different faith. The latter seem to be better organized and have better parliamentary representation, so something might actually change on their behalf.
Where do you get that? Interfaith marriage is not illegal in Israel, and non-jews can certainly own land. There's nothing in the constitution about that. Really, the "constitution" is a set of fundamental laws with an ad hoc constitutional status - i.e. this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Human_Dignity_and_Liberty
While it's true that marriage law is a mess in Israel, it's because of a bunch of reasons having more to do with internal politics than a desire to discriminate against anyone, and the situation you're describing is basically fiction.
My advice: Nah. When I used DOS, I kept solving problems to get things done, but they were stupid, unnecessary problems that were the result of the limitations of the system. They weren't challenging problems - just busy work.
When I got my first Linux system up and running, I felt like I was finally free of all that arbitrary crap. I don't miss it.
What a waste! I'd be interested if it was "Kentucky man builds Budwiesier powered car" Now that is something we can afford to use a fuel source instead of a drink
Oh please - not the old "water powered car" hoax again...
I feel this is an oversimplification. There are certainly elements in both societies that want peace. Then there are elements who want peace in the sense of getting rid of the other side by whatever means they deem appropriate. This isn't so much a results of forces conspiring to do anything as the result of significant stupidity and lack of effective leadership on both sides.
It's actually a lot more complicated than that. My advice when people ask me about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that if you think either side is right, it's because you don't know anything. Spend any time really studying the issues and you realize that there's nothing but shades of grey in this conflict.
Yeah! Absolutely! If the drummer shows up, that is. And the singer can carry a tune. And the other guitarist doesn't get too drunk to play. And the bass player's ex-girlfriend didn't just throw all his belongings out of their 3rd floor window just before the show, and she happens to be the singer.
Oh, hell - even then, you're absolutely right. There's nothing like playing live, when you can do it. But still, I thinking of getting Rock Band 3 just so I can play the drums in pro mode, because no one in his right mind would let me play drums in their band.
The reason this is bad is that they're trying to extend the idea that you don't own the stuff you paid for from the realm of software, where as you point out this is already a pretty common practice, to physical objects that you paid for. People's expectation is that they own something they paid for, and that they can do whatever they want with it. For Intel's scheme to work it would have to be illegal for me to try and unlock the features they want me to pay for, even though I paid for the CPU.
This is all hypothetical. I won't be buying one of those. Actually, if Intel gives starts giving them away for free I might.
Besides, if your employer wasn't amused by CDC doing this, why should anyone else be amused?
You can release the source code. You just can't distribute the binary, since you can't satisfy the conditions of the GPL and of the statically linked platform libraries.
Although there is an exception in the GPL to allow linking to libraries that are part of the OS, or are normally distributed with it. Things like the standard C runtime library fall under that. Maybe this applies here.
Putting the glasses in front of the camera is actually the proper way to film a movie. It's not going to be in 3D, but since 3D is just hype, who cares, right?
I believe they also paid some of the performance-based earn-out, which if paid in full ($1.4 billion) would have made it a loss. They would have had to pay less than $300 million or so to make the recent transaction a profit, ignoring Skype's profits. I don't know how much they actually paid, but I know it wasn't the full amount.
OK, you're right - they still hold about 30% of Skype. They sold 65% at a loss, although figuring how much they lost is giving me a headache. Skype has been profitable while it was owned by eBay, making the math even more headache inducing. And eBay never paid the full purchase price of $4 billion, either.
Slashdot Mirror
I went through the same process myself. I used Ardour on Linux for years, and didn't even realize how painful it was until I got my MBP.
Just saying.
You can do that without the cheap android tablet. It's cheaper!
A cheap device you don't use is better how?
It's interesting to note (*) that the current state of affairs regarding marriage in Israel is more unpopular among secular Jews who want to marry other secular Jews without the overbearing involvement of an orthodox rabbi than among people who are interested in marrying someone of a different faith. The latter seem to be better organized and have better parliamentary representation, so something might actually change on their behalf.
(*) Interesting to me, at least...
Where do you get that? Interfaith marriage is not illegal in Israel, and non-jews can certainly own land. There's nothing in the constitution about that. Really, the "constitution" is a set of fundamental laws with an ad hoc constitutional status - i.e. this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Human_Dignity_and_Liberty
While it's true that marriage law is a mess in Israel, it's because of a bunch of reasons having more to do with internal politics than a desire to discriminate against anyone, and the situation you're describing is basically fiction.
My advice: Nah. When I used DOS, I kept solving problems to get things done, but they were stupid, unnecessary problems that were the result of the limitations of the system. They weren't challenging problems - just busy work.
When I got my first Linux system up and running, I felt like I was finally free of all that arbitrary crap. I don't miss it.
What a waste! I'd be interested if it was "Kentucky man builds Budwiesier powered car" Now that is something we can afford to use a fuel source instead of a drink
Oh please - not the old "water powered car" hoax again...
Yes, but I just had lunch so I won't describe it.
It think you got your dates wrong. The acquisition attempt was in late 1995 or early 1996.
Thanks, but I actually meant that I don't remember what she looked like or what she did in that movie. Or nearly anything else about the movie.
I can't even remember who she was, and I saw the movie last week.
No, what stuck out the most (to me, at least) was that the penis demonstrated better acting than anyone in that movie.
I feel this is an oversimplification. There are certainly elements in both societies that want peace. Then there are elements who want peace in the sense of getting rid of the other side by whatever means they deem appropriate. This isn't so much a results of forces conspiring to do anything as the result of significant stupidity and lack of effective leadership on both sides.
It's actually a lot more complicated than that. My advice when people ask me about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that if you think either side is right, it's because you don't know anything. Spend any time really studying the issues and you realize that there's nothing but shades of grey in this conflict.
The Black Adder, too.
Just goes to show that there's nothing you can't fix by sprinkling enough Hugh Laurie on it. Medical drama? Check. Meatloaf album? Check.
Yeah! Absolutely! If the drummer shows up, that is. And the singer can carry a tune. And the other guitarist doesn't get too drunk to play. And the bass player's ex-girlfriend didn't just throw all his belongings out of their 3rd floor window just before the show, and she happens to be the singer.
Oh, hell - even then, you're absolutely right. There's nothing like playing live, when you can do it. But still, I thinking of getting Rock Band 3 just so I can play the drums in pro mode, because no one in his right mind would let me play drums in their band.
Google harder: http://www.trs--80.org/world-power-systems-fraud/
Third result from the top.
You don't have to swallow to taste it.
The reason this is bad is that they're trying to extend the idea that you don't own the stuff you paid for from the realm of software, where as you point out this is already a pretty common practice, to physical objects that you paid for. People's expectation is that they own something they paid for, and that they can do whatever they want with it. For Intel's scheme to work it would have to be illegal for me to try and unlock the features they want me to pay for, even though I paid for the CPU.
This is all hypothetical. I won't be buying one of those. Actually, if Intel gives starts giving them away for free I might.
Besides, if your employer wasn't amused by CDC doing this, why should anyone else be amused?
You can release the source code. You just can't distribute the binary, since you can't satisfy the conditions of the GPL and of the statically linked platform libraries.
Although there is an exception in the GPL to allow linking to libraries that are part of the OS, or are normally distributed with it. Things like the standard C runtime library fall under that. Maybe this applies here.
Putting the glasses in front of the camera is actually the proper way to film a movie. It's not going to be in 3D, but since 3D is just hype, who cares, right?
I believe they also paid some of the performance-based earn-out, which if paid in full ($1.4 billion) would have made it a loss. They would have had to pay less than $300 million or so to make the recent transaction a profit, ignoring Skype's profits. I don't know how much they actually paid, but I know it wasn't the full amount.
OK, you're right - they still hold about 30% of Skype. They sold 65% at a loss, although figuring how much they lost is giving me a headache. Skype has been profitable while it was owned by eBay, making the math even more headache inducing. And eBay never paid the full purchase price of $4 billion, either.
At this point, I'm glad I'm not an accountant.