The "original framers of the consititution" made
the Senate appointed by each state legislature.
It wasn't until ratification of the 17th
amendment in 1912 that Senators were directly
elected by the people.
For this discussion, I also find it strangely
ironic that the only state to have rejected this
amendment (and never subsequently ratify it) is
none other than... you guessed it... Utah.
Little spats like that have been happening since the beginning; I remember some real doozies back around '92, '93. I wouldn't worry about it.
In fact, stuff like this happens no matter what, whenever you bring a number of people together... some people are going to argue. Just with OSS, they end up doing it in public... for all the world to see.
You should accept it, expect it, hell... even enjoy it... but still realize that nothing has changed.
The term "Good Thing(tm)" implies a social and moral good (something that is good for society as a whole (or a subset thereof)) rather than something that is simply good for the person making the statement.
As an example... if the city fixes the pothole in front of my driveway, that's a good thing. But... if they fix the pothole in the middle of the busy intersection down the street, then that's a Good Thing(tm).
At least that's how I have always interpreted (and used) this term.
So... if KDE and Gnome decide to use a common component architecture (enabling their respective applications to interoperate more effectively) then that is good for the entire Linux (ney, Free Software) comunity and is indeed a Good Thing(tm).
But... there's special law on the books which specificly allows direct hearing by the Supreme Court in anti-trust cases. It's there because the defendants in anti-trust cases are always large mega corporations with virtually unlimited resources that can (without this law) tie up a case in appeals for many many years (witness IBM's case in the 70s and 80s).
It is the "Anti-Trust Expediting Act" which gives special circumstance to this case and allows the Supreme Court direct access.
Given that MS were to win in the court of appeals, the president can simply tell the DOJ to stop. There's nothing that says an appeal must go all the way to the SC. One of the opposing parties must request the case be heard. If MS wins in the lower appeals court... the DOJ would then have to file the appeal to the SC. If the President tell them not to... then the story's over... and MS wins.
This is exactly why MS wants the case heard at the lower level first. They have a history of winning it that court and it delays things enough to keep the case from ever reaching the SC (given they win this appeal)
I fear that MS's chances of winning the appeal at the lower level are pretty good (and that scares me). Our only real hope is that either a) the DOJ's pending request to expedite the case to the SC is granted and the court agrees to hear the case... or b) the new President has enough balls to stay the course and allows the DOJ to actually appeal to the SC (after MS wins this round).
Of course... there's always the chance the MS loses this round too... then they will, of course, file yet another appeal to the SC. If that happens, then the High Court still has the option to accept or reject the case.
Regardless... I feel more comfortable about the case being heard by the SC since I have this sneaky suspicion that they're more inclined to agree with Judge Jackson than the gang of 10 (or is it now 7) in the middle tier.
Solve a problem you're having. As you do... you'll learn about the system. For each thing you learn... you discover many more things that you didn't know you don't know. Investigate those which interest you. Repeat.
Eventually, you'll find youself along a path that is only apparent in hindsight.
Microsoft's first Xenix was released in 1980. SCO didn't release their Xenix until '83.
With that said... I once ran a box (Altos 400 (an 80186 box at that)) with a very early version of MS-Xenix; it had to be one of the weirdest OSs I've ever seen. Hardly Unix like... but it was multi-user/multi-tasking.
ESR claimed, in one of his thesis, that the gift economy that is the Open Source Community evolved (and can only thrive) in the absence of scarce resources.
This being the case... could we not say that the abuse of the patent system is merely an effort by established (old school) business to impose artificial scarcity where, in reality, there is none?
They realize that the best way to make money is by profiting from the scarcity of resources... and due to this... the Internet must be divied up and made scarce, or no one will be able to maximize profit.
Too bad their old school ways of doing things just don't quite fit in too well with the reality of the present; these actions must be stopped.
And what's wrong with the OS doing these things for you? Would you rather have the filesystem do this auto symlinking automatically or a perl script your hacker administrator wrote up?
You, sir, are the embodyment of what I have (for years) called the Magical Vendor Syndrome. It appears that you are making the unquestionable assumption that MS (of all people), or any vendor, is somehow magically smarter, more clever, more knowledgable... than anyone you could ever work with on a daily basis. What is the foundation of this assumption?
Unfortunately, you are not alone. I have run across too many of your kind in my 10 years of systems management consultancy (oh, I'm sorry, you called us "hacker administrators") that it makes my blood boil.
The problem with most sufferers of Magical Vendor Syndrome is that they tend to believe too much of what a vendor's PR people say, instead of accepting the fact that most vendors are filled with more yahoos than anyone would ever beg to realize.
Ohh... and, I would trust a Perl script written by any competent, professional systems manager (who intimately knows my local network and my company's business needs) long before I submit to some snot-nosed fortune teller in Redmond.
I say it's time for a general boycott against any company affiliated with the MPAA. They've gone too far this time. If they think deCSS or Livid will cost them money... let's see what they say when they find out how much they've lost because they've alienated an entire segment of their revenue base.
Let's hit them where it really hurts!
I no longer rent/buy/attend any movies until the MPAA has learned the error of their ways. I encourage you to do the same. Plus, we should make sure we let them know that we're no longer giving them any of our money and why!
"...and I kind of like having the code and the HTML in the same file."
Then you should check out the HTML::Mason module running under mod_perl. Even though I'm a hard-core Perl advocate, I was a big fan of PHP for web development (until I found Mason).
Slashdot Mirror
when I was in college:
lim EE = BA
gpa -> 0
--
The "original framers of the consititution" made the Senate appointed by each state legislature. It wasn't until ratification of the 17th amendment in 1912 that Senators were directly elected by the people.
For this discussion, I also find it strangely ironic that the only state to have rejected this amendment (and never subsequently ratify it) is none other than... you guessed it... Utah.
Coincidence? We'll never know...
See: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html for the gory details.
--
Tecumseh's Curse (named for the Shawnee Chief defeated by Harrison) is described in detail here.
--
Those open sockets are from ORBIT which understands the '/etc/hosts.{allow,deny}' files.
If you've configured TCP-Wrappers correctly, then you're good to go.
--
>
>
Yes... you can.
--
Here's how I see it coming together:
- There will be a "simple" runtime on the client side that acts as the VM for C# and knows how to talk HTTP and SOAP
- The runtime will hit a (malformed) URL and download all the C# objects that act as the GUI interface language
- All C# Objects will be cached on the client side alla HTML caching in browsers
- The versioning is used to make sure that object version dependencies are adheared to for any given application
- The C# application will use SOAP to talk to some server somewhere to do its data access and any real crunching that it may need to do
- Microsoft will do everything they can to lock in customers to their way of doing things (especially using their servers)
Now... I don't see why we can't do something similar with XML-RPC & Perl or Python (as well as mod_perl or Zope on the server side) using Gtk+.In fact... I think we should!
--
In fact, stuff like this happens no matter what, whenever you bring a number of people together... some people are going to argue. Just with OSS, they end up doing it in public... for all the world to see.
You should accept it, expect it, hell... even enjoy it... but still realize that nothing has changed.
--
> it doesn't MEAN anything
Actually, it does.
The term "Good Thing(tm)" implies a social and moral good (something that is good for society as a whole (or a subset thereof)) rather than something that is simply good for the person making the statement.
As an example... if the city fixes the pothole in front of my driveway, that's a good thing. But... if they fix the pothole in the middle of the busy intersection down the street, then that's a Good Thing(tm).
At least that's how I have always interpreted (and used) this term.
So... if KDE and Gnome decide to use a common component architecture (enabling their respective applications to interoperate more effectively) then that is good for the entire Linux (ney, Free Software) comunity and is indeed a Good Thing(tm).
--
--
perl -e 'while (1) {next}'
There... 0% idle.
--
--
But... there's special law on the books which specificly allows direct hearing by the Supreme Court in anti-trust cases. It's there because the defendants in anti-trust cases are always large mega corporations with virtually unlimited resources that can (without this law) tie up a case in appeals for many many years (witness IBM's case in the 70s and 80s).
It is the "Anti-Trust Expediting Act" which gives special circumstance to this case and allows the Supreme Court direct access.
--
James Brown is the Godfather of Soul!
But... if it was up to me... I say we leave it up to Clinton to decide (that's George Clinton)
--
--
No... but what Bush (or Gore) can do is this...
Given that MS were to win in the court of appeals, the president can simply tell the DOJ to stop. There's nothing that says an appeal must go all the way to the SC. One of the opposing parties must request the case be heard. If MS wins in the lower appeals court... the DOJ would then have to file the appeal to the SC. If the President tell them not to... then the story's over... and MS wins.
This is exactly why MS wants the case heard at the lower level first. They have a history of winning it that court and it delays things enough to keep the case from ever reaching the SC (given they win this appeal)
I fear that MS's chances of winning the appeal at the lower level are pretty good (and that scares me). Our only real hope is that either a) the DOJ's pending request to expedite the case to the SC is granted and the court agrees to hear the case... or b) the new President has enough balls to stay the course and allows the DOJ to actually appeal to the SC (after MS wins this round).
Of course... there's always the chance the MS loses this round too... then they will, of course, file yet another appeal to the SC. If that happens, then the High Court still has the option to accept or reject the case.
Regardless... I feel more comfortable about the case being heard by the SC since I have this sneaky suspicion that they're more inclined to agree with Judge Jackson than the gang of 10 (or is it now 7) in the middle tier.
--
>What happened to DR-DOS?
>
Microsoft killed it when they bundled Window 4.0 into DOS 7.0 and begat Windows-95.
I think they should have been hung from the yard arm for that one too.
--
--
I noticed in the Guardian article (referenced above) that Prince Roy's wife... Princess Joan... is the "former Joan Collins of Essex".
Is this the same Joan Collins that used to play on Dynasty?
If so, then... sheeessh...
--
Solve a problem you're having. As you do... you'll learn about the system. For each thing you learn... you discover many more things that you didn't know you don't know. Investigate those which interest you. Repeat.
Eventually, you'll find youself along a path that is only apparent in hindsight.
--
Thomas Edison invents electric light bulb... Candlemaker's Guild cries foul.
--
Ummmm...
Microsoft's first Xenix was released in 1980. SCO didn't release their Xenix until '83.
With that said... I once ran a box (Altos 400 (an 80186 box at that)) with a very early version of MS-Xenix; it had to be one of the weirdest OSs I've ever seen. Hardly Unix like... but it was multi-user/multi-tasking.
--
This being the case... could we not say that the abuse of the patent system is merely an effort by established (old school) business to impose artificial scarcity where, in reality, there is none?
They realize that the best way to make money is by profiting from the scarcity of resources... and due to this... the Internet must be divied up and made scarce, or no one will be able to maximize profit.
Too bad their old school ways of doing things just don't quite fit in too well with the reality of the present; these actions must be stopped.
--
You, sir, are the embodyment of what I have (for years) called the Magical Vendor Syndrome. It appears that you are making the unquestionable assumption that MS (of all people), or any vendor, is somehow magically smarter, more clever, more knowledgable... than anyone you could ever work with on a daily basis. What is the foundation of this assumption?
Unfortunately, you are not alone. I have run across too many of your kind in my 10 years of systems management consultancy (oh, I'm sorry, you called us "hacker administrators") that it makes my blood boil.
The problem with most sufferers of Magical Vendor Syndrome is that they tend to believe too much of what a vendor's PR people say, instead of accepting the fact that most vendors are filled with more yahoos than anyone would ever beg to realize.
Ohh... and, I would trust a Perl script written by any competent, professional systems manager (who intimately knows my local network and my company's business needs) long before I submit to some snot-nosed fortune teller in Redmond.
--
Boycott Hollywood!
'nuff said.
--
I say it's time for a general boycott against any company affiliated with the MPAA. They've gone too far this time. If they think deCSS or Livid will cost them money... let's see what they say when they find out how much they've lost because they've alienated an entire segment of their revenue base.
Let's hit them where it really hurts!
I no longer rent/buy/attend any movies until the MPAA has learned the error of their ways. I encourage you to do the same. Plus, we should make sure we let them know that we're no longer giving them any of our money and why!
This strong arm bullying has to stop!
--
> It's kinda hard to audit code that's not released...(i.e. RSAREF)
Hmmm... that's funny. I have the source to RSAREF right here in front of me. I'm sure millions of other people do too.--
Take a look at the bottom of this page. This is one of the original papers from the "Gartner" people.
The disclaimer at the bottom reads:
So... in reality... this is bought and paid for FUD from M$.
No denying that...
Then you should check out the HTML::Mason module running under mod_perl. Even though I'm a hard-core Perl advocate, I was a big fan of PHP for web development (until I found Mason).
Very cool stuff...
--
I thought that was:
--