they are supposed to be free, so it's probably government funded. Still, the conecpet is right, how many people will be taking these from the children?
actually, a few insightfuls would be good mods to your post:
and hence, before Linus's "heroic deeds" could even have started, we had: In the OS corner: -- Hurd: 1990 -- Net/1 (BSD): 1989 In the applications corner: -- Stallmans GNU tools: 1983
I"m not saying I completely trust this either, but:
At several points in the video, he strums by flicking his wrist instead of moving his whole arm. That's pretty standard for guitarists but doesn't explain how the shirt (with sensor fibres in the elbow) would recognize the motion. Also, near the end, the guitar that I assume he is playing strums multiple times without him doing anything.
Grab your right elbow with your left hand, flick your left wrist. There is movement there, and it is different than when you movce your whole arm. It's possible to differentiate between the two I suspect, maybe not easy, but possible.
You are so correct. I would much rather the government just took my money at gunpoint, delivered a PS3 to my home whenever they got around to it, and called that a service.
I never said socialism was better, I was just stating that this is a good example of one of the flaws of capitolism.
'Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material...'
Really? That guy is a dipshit (pardon my language, but nothing "softer" is better at describing this)
WTF./NONE/ of the music on my portable mustic player is or has ever been stolen. I know plenty of people in the same boat. Admittedly none of them are Zune, but that that doesn't make the asshat's claim any less false.
The article called something FUD, and that part of the article was in and of itself FUD>
So, lets get this straight, the quotes, paraphrased: (1) Novell admits no infringement on IP or patented code (2) Novell is paying MS to keep itself and it's customers from being sued for using MS IP in it's products.
So...
The article is saying (2) suggests that (1) is a lie. Now, IANAL, but it seems to me, if you are paying a royalty for copyrighted/patented/IP stuff, then there is no infringement, so in that matter, (2) actually gurantees that (1) is correct with respect to MS, correct?
So, to keep Linux safe, just make sure that the rest of Linux takes no code from SUSE from this point forward.
It's a tricky business, as the other reply stated, other companies can go after BSD if they find their software in ther, or software that violates their IP.
That being said, the three main BSDs (Free/Open/Net), unlike many Linux distros, will not include closed source or commercial packages in their distros (although it does not actually violate their license, unlike Linux's)
I would say SUSE would probably be your lowest risk, but I doubt the BSD risk would be much higher, as the core isn't really taken much from Linux. I can't say as much about the packages though.
If all the at-risk stuff is closed source, than BSD is pretty safe, BSD will not auto-retrieve any closed source packages, at all. You will be warned by it asking you to manually download parts of the package yourself.
No, I never said it isn't my fault. Admitting I can't spell, and saying that it's not my fault are two separate things.
I try my best to learn, and I am getting better, slowly, however, there are more important things to worry about, and on anything important, I use a spellchecker.
As for the poor grammar, again, this is just a casual place of conversation; a relaxed mode of speach (or in this case, typing) is not necessarily a bad thing.
as in "no-choice-it-must-be-evote-or-novote-and-novote-i snt-an-option", how would you set it up? I.E. would there be encryption, would there be ways for individuals (but not others) to track their own votes, etc?
given that it is trying to state reasons why the average user can't use Linux, and the problems are thigns that can be more easily changed in Linux (and I believe, will be changed; allthough not all the way there, Ubuntu is a good example of the cutting edge of the trend).
So, shouldn't it be "Why Linux is not yet read for the world"? The way it's progressed, I give Linux 5 to 10 years, unless people decide to migrate to BSD (yeah right)
and why shouldn't people use closed source drivers?
I am of the mentality that I could care less of the open/closed source nature of my software - it just has to work, and work properly, that includes the drivers.
I've found killer closed source drivers, and crap closed source drivers. Right now, if I could get the closed source windows sound driver working on my notebook over the open source driver, I'd use it - why? Because I don't want something that crashes my machine when certain thigns are done by the sound processing unit.
Open Source doesn't mean better, Open Source simply means that it's worked on by the comunity and it's content can be verified by an individual outside of those that prdouced it. I've no intention of looking at the code of my drivers, so why do I care if they are open or closed source?
it's not a matter of weather or not they can, it's a matter of weather or not they want to, and most people do not see the learning curve as "worth it", and you cannot change most of their minds on the matter.
I've actually had better luck with emerge than with apt-get, which I find to be odd. Maybe I've had a higher error rate with Emerge, but the system is one I foudn easier to fix problems in, so I spent as much "fixing" time with 10 emerge errors as I would with one apt-get error. That's an important factor too...
Slashdot Mirror
The OLPC people aren't dumb, but you can expect the theives won't be either.
they are supposed to be free, so it's probably government funded. Still, the conecpet is right, how many people will be taking these from the children?
actually, a few insightfuls would be good mods to your post:
and hence, before Linus's "heroic deeds" could even have started, we had:
In the OS corner:
-- Hurd: 1990
-- Net/1 (BSD): 1989
In the applications corner:
-- Stallmans GNU tools: 1983
I shoudln't laugh like that at work, my co-workers are probably thinking me strange.
I meant flick your right wrist... Nice reply.
so, basically, the standard capitolism mantra: "Screw the consumer"
WTF.
The article called something FUD, and that part of the article was in and of itself FUD>
So, lets get this straight, the quotes, paraphrased:
(1) Novell admits no infringement on IP or patented code
(2) Novell is paying MS to keep itself and it's customers from being sued for using MS IP in it's products.
So...
The article is saying (2) suggests that (1) is a lie. Now, IANAL, but it seems to me, if you are paying a royalty for copyrighted/patented/IP stuff, then there is no infringement, so in that matter, (2) actually gurantees that (1) is correct with respect to MS, correct?
So, to keep Linux safe, just make sure that the rest of Linux takes no code from SUSE from this point forward.
Please take the +1 informative from my last post and add it to the poster above me. That is much more informative.
It's a tricky business, as the other reply stated, other companies can go after BSD if they find their software in ther, or software that violates their IP.
That being said, the three main BSDs (Free/Open/Net), unlike many Linux distros, will not include closed source or commercial packages in their distros (although it does not actually violate their license, unlike Linux's)
I would say SUSE would probably be your lowest risk, but I doubt the BSD risk would be much higher, as the core isn't really taken much from Linux. I can't say as much about the packages though.
If all the at-risk stuff is closed source, than BSD is pretty safe, BSD will not auto-retrieve any closed source packages, at all. You will be warned by it asking you to manually download parts of the package yourself.
really! I can think of two companies I want to add to that list...
Because the disabled are too small a minority to perform a significant market push.
I tried that once, but a bunch of angry Catholics sent me mean letters about the evils of birth control.
upmod previous /insightful/ or /funny/
true, but most spellcheckers have grammar checkers which do catch these issues.
ahhm, ok. and thank you for the info on "i.e.", I hadn't realized the former, and I am so used to putting acronyms is all-caps.
I meant that in the slightly older terminology: "In Essence", and not "Internet Explorer"
It's better than ignorantly judging people without knowing the facts.
No, I never said it isn't my fault. Admitting I can't spell, and saying that it's not my fault are two separate things.
I try my best to learn, and I am getting better, slowly, however, there are more important things to worry about, and on anything important, I use a spellchecker.
As for the poor grammar, again, this is just a casual place of conversation; a relaxed mode of speach (or in this case, typing) is not necessarily a bad thing.
as in "no-choice-it-must-be-evote-or-novote-and-novote-i snt-an-option", how would you set it up? I.E. would there be encryption, would there be ways for individuals (but not others) to track their own votes, etc?
given that it is trying to state reasons why the average user can't use Linux, and the problems are thigns that can be more easily changed in Linux (and I believe, will be changed; allthough not all the way there, Ubuntu is a good example of the cutting edge of the trend). So, shouldn't it be "Why Linux is not yet read for the world"? The way it's progressed, I give Linux 5 to 10 years, unless people decide to migrate to BSD (yeah right)
and why shouldn't people use closed source drivers?
I am of the mentality that I could care less of the open/closed source nature of my software - it just has to work, and work properly, that includes the drivers.
I've found killer closed source drivers, and crap closed source drivers. Right now, if I could get the closed source windows sound driver working on my notebook over the open source driver, I'd use it - why? Because I don't want something that crashes my machine when certain thigns are done by the sound processing unit.
Open Source doesn't mean better, Open Source simply means that it's worked on by the comunity and it's content can be verified by an individual outside of those that prdouced it. I've no intention of looking at the code of my drivers, so why do I care if they are open or closed source?
it's not a matter of weather or not they can, it's a matter of weather or not they want to, and most people do not see the learning curve as "worth it", and you cannot change most of their minds on the matter.
I've actually had better luck with emerge than with apt-get, which I find to be odd. Maybe I've had a higher error rate with Emerge, but the system is one I foudn easier to fix problems in, so I spent as much "fixing" time with 10 emerge errors as I would with one apt-get error. That's an important factor too...