Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:calculated risks (Score 1) 1008

Holy crap, you really think like that?

Here's the thing: let's go with your mindset, and think that MS is just waiting to file patent claims against Mono, because they hate Linux. They're just waiting...

MS HAS A TON OF PATENTS. If they want to try to screw up Linux, they can sue over probably 50 other things. So banning Mono doesn't accomplish your goal. So quit pretending that it does.

What about Samba? Why is that fine? Let's ban that, too. What about PDF? That's an Adobe-owned format, let's get rid of that, too.

Open Office supports VB, the devil's language as you mentioned above. Now how is that any different from Mono? Should we go ahead and take that out, too?

You should be more honest and write: "I don't really understand what C# is, and I hate Microsoft. I don't want anyone using apps written in C# unless they wrote it themselves. If this were the 1970s, I would be saying the same thing about C and how everyone should continue writing apps in Fortran and Cobol, like God intended!"

How exactly is using an implementation of a published spec "repeating the mistake of using MS Windows"? That's just 100% incorrect, and if anyone in this debate was interested in talking about the truth rather than their blind ideals, I wouldn't be the only person calling you out on it. Don't lie to try to win a debate.

Comment Re:Isn't that the whole point? (Score 1) 1008

No disagreement here.

That doesn't change the fact that you can't determine if something might get a patent claim against in the future. The idea that GNU apps are 100% clear and Mono is totally at risk is just absurd.

If neither one has anyone claiming that it violates patents, then I fail to see the difference. MS's rep for patent cases is nothing compared to tiny companies that do nothing but sue, so if you ask me who I'm more afraid of, it's not MS. They actually might lose customers if they sue someone.

Comment Re:MS is smart enough not to do this (Score 1) 1008

People say things like this, and it just makes me wonder if people realize that this logic dooms EVERYTHING. Any standard, any proprietary non-patented open source app. At some point you have to write code, and with our current legal system, you are now in a state of "who knows if this violates someone's patent, when anything can be patented?"

Comment Re:OK mr grammar nazi. (Score 1) 55

I think you misunderstand me. I REALLY, TRULY can't understand your post. I have no idea what you're trying to say. It SOUNDS like you have something to say, but I can't follow AT ALL.

Something about copies of bills not being distributed? Something about copyright law and the internet?

I'm totally up for a better explanation of what you're saying - I suspect you're far more informed on these issues than I am these days.

Comment Re:This is all fine and good, but its not the righ (Score 3, Insightful) 55

Legislation related to the copyright into the committees of the judiciary and courts, the internet, and intellectual property.

I read this sentence a number of times, and I tried really hard to parse it. First, it has no verb at all. I tried concatenating it to the title of your post, and it still has no verb.

How did this get +4 Interesting? "Occasionally copies of bill go"? Your first sentence does not parse. The second sentence says, "Occassionally bills go to the committee, but approved bills go back to the committee for another pass". Again, this is not a logical statement. You're also talking about commerce and energy committee, where this story is about the Internet committee.

Third paragraph is talking about him leaving, and him being still there. The article is about him gaining a chairmanship of a commitee.

So, first sentence makes no sense. Second sentence also makes no sense and is off topic. Third sentence makes no sense.

In conclusion, please posts on the slashdot.org webpage and onto the internet, the universe, and the grand unification.

The Courts

Submission + - Record labels appeal award of attorneys' fees

Fishing Expedition writes: To no one's surprise, the RIAA has decided to appeal a judge's decision to award attorneys' fees to defendant Debbie Foster in Capitol Records v. Foster. If the award stands, the RIAA could find itself in trouble in numerous other cases, and they know it. 'This is an important issue for the RIAA and the stakes are high. Even if the RIAA changes its legal tactics and decides not to press secondary infringement claims in future lawsuits, there are still numerous lawsuits wending their way through the courts where the record labels have used the exact same tactics seen in Capitol v. Foster. The labels recognize this, noting that "defense counsel in other cases like this across the country are already citing the Court's statement, albeit out of context, in an effort to suggest that this Court has found that contributory and vicarious infringement claims in cases like this one are not viable."'

Submission + - Sex doesn't sell

An anonymous reader writes: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1060 Sex won't sell ads, say British researchers who found that sexual content in a TV show prevents viewers from remembering accompanying ads.

Submission + - Ex-judge Gets 27 Months on Evidence from Hacked PC

netbsd_fan writes: A former California judge has been sentenced to 27 months in prison for possession of illegal pornography, based entirely on evidence gathered by an anonymous vigilante script kiddie in Canada. At any given time he was monitoring over 3,000 innocent people: "I would stay up late at night to see what I could drag out of their computers, which turned out to be more than I expected. I could read all of their e-mails without them knowing. As far as they were concerned, they didn't know their e-mails had even been opened. I could see who they were chatting with and read what they were saying as they typed."

Slashdot Top Deals

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.