I'm willing to wait as long as it takes for my friends to be granted access.
That's where I'm at too. On FB I only friend people I've met in real life, unless they're relatives I haven't met yet (due to the fact that my immediate family moved from Europe to New Zealand when I was 5).
Lot's of them are not techies, so I'm not sure if they'll ever move to G+. I will be giving them every encouragement though.
Yuri
[Google +] lacks a "killer feature" though that would make anyone use it over FB. Unless it gets something that will make people use it over using FB, it will probably languish, then die like Wave, Google Health, etc.
* Hangouts (up to 10 people in a video chat room)
* Circles (a method for fine-tuning whose posts appear in your stream and who can see your posts)
* Absence of FarmVille etc.
Those are killer features for me.
"ok, so what now"
Try hanging out with webcams. Much better set-up than the Facebook/Skype hybrid.
Woosh.
pre-made pigtail and fusion splicer? The ones we have at work line up the strands automagically before fusing. I'm getting under 0.02dB loss on my splices.
As I always said,
Do not underestimate the bandwidth of a pack mule loaded with DAT tapes.
Or an African swallow carrying an SD card.
Or two African swallows carrying a 2TB portable drive between them (assuming a 2TB portable drive is about as heavy as a coconut).
> KDE has improved *greatly* since its 4.4.x days. It is a lot snappier, less buggy and doesn't clutter up your desktop like it used to.
[snip]
So, from the 4.0 days that made me curse it after how nice 3.5 was, I have to say, they have me hooked again.
4.0 is what made me ditch KDE. Now running gnome-based LinuxMint and loving it. I might try KDE again in a few years, but I was badly burnt by moving from 3.5.x to 4.0 so there will have to be a compelling reason to go back.
"Gender" is a grammatical term. "Sex" is a biological term. So yes, he did mean sex.
That about sums it up. I wish I had mod points.
The letter isn't the issue - the issue is at the device should be at the absolute root of the file system. I don't care if you call the pen-drive G:, pendrive or bubblegumpopannoyingnamesomething, but don't put it somewhere that isn't *immediately* visible...
The only place where it is *immediately* visible is if it appears as an icon on the desktop or opens in a new file manager window as soon as you insert the storage medium. Both Windows and Linux (gnome/KDE) can be set up to do this.
In Windows, to find the drive letters I have to go to "My Computer" or something like that. In Linux, KDE and gnome both have an equivalent to "My Computer" that shows all mounted storage media.
Both are equally visible.
Aw, c'mon. Any user who has only used Linux systems will call the Windows method weird. At least the Linux FIlesystem Heirarchy is logical.
Bullshit. My computer file systems are based on the storage devices they're hosted on - the storage devices ARE the root of the system. How is making an imaginary / root directory and then putting the storage media in some folder more logical than directly showing the drives?
How is some random letter more logical than
I am opposed because it moves the burden of policing software licence compliance to businesses who may have little or no control over their overseas suppliers and who are not in the business of law enforcement.
It doesn't affect me personally. I live in New Zealand. In addition to my full time job (linesman for the local phone company) I also have a small organic market garden. Our accounts are done in OpenOffice running on Linux, so no compliance issues for us. In any case, we supply local supermarkets and do not export to the USA.
Purchasing products made by a company that is out of compliance with their software licences is not the same as purchasing stolen goods.
I think there are similarities, namely the ones that I highlighted
This is where I have to disagree.
Scenario 1: I buy bolts from a manufacture that has stolen the raw materials (eg steel) in order to make the bolts.
Scenario 2: I buy bolts from a manufacture that uses stolen software to track their stock.
You are lumping these two scenarios together. In reality they are totally different.
Yes I agree I should return bolts made from stolen materials, but the second scenario is nothing at all like that. If you are the legal owner of said stock tracking software and you come to me demanding redress for the actions of the manufacturer, with whom my only relationship is buying bolts to use in my product, I think you can guess where I'd tell you to go. Any law that lets you go after me in the second scenario is lacking in common sense.
And if the non-US supplier provides fake software audit certs, that should let the US company off the hook, because the US company has then acted in good faith.
It would probably afford some possibilities for suing / reneging on payments to those foreign suppliers. If I purchase stolen goods, I still have to give them back when the police show up, but I can seek redress from the person that sold me those goods. If I were knowingly receiving stolen goods, then I am liable myself however.
Purchasing products made by a company that is out of compliance with their software licences is not the same as purchasing stolen goods.
And of course the law should apply to all licence violations, including GPL violations. If Microsoft is doing this for the right reasons, surely they would extend the same protection to software vendors who choose to use Open Source licencing models. No? Ah, I see, Microsoft give their true motives away.
You seem to be suggesting that MS should go out and sue companies that violate GPL licences. What has that got to do with them? Do you go across town and sue people for actions they commit against people you don't even know and have nothing to do with you?
I'm not sure if your lack of comprehension is deliberate, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I'm saying that if Microsoft is going to sponsor a law protecting copyright holders, then there should not be exceptions in that law for certain classes of copyright holders.
I am not saying that Microsoft should sue GPL violators. I am saying that a Microsoft sponsored law change should not exclude GPL vendors from suing under the same circumstances that Microsoft can sue.
"I think Michael is like litmus paper - he's always trying to learn." -- Elizabeth Taylor, absurd non-sequitir about Michael Jackson
