nevemind that; does it finally have an editor?
nevemind that; does it finally have an editor?
Strawberry? I don't even want to know . . .
Years ago. even pre-google iirc, I was putting graphs into an article with LaTeX.
It wasn't wrapping the text around the way I was used to in Word 5.1, so I went looking (probably with ALtaVista) for an extension.
I searched for "LaTeX wrap figure"
Oh, dear . . .
Hawkins' Second Law: There is no lower bound to human inteligence.
Let's face it, there weren't all that many heroines in WWI, or even WWII for that matter. Yes, there were the WACS, but women were kept away form combat.
None the less, many were heroic on the home front, and married the returning doughboys, some of whom were addicted to morphine. Many returning soldiers were indeed addicted to their heroines, and pampered them the rest of their joint lives.
Some of these doughboys were addicted to various forms of opium pain killers taken from their injury, including heroin . . .
I've never blocked anything just for being an ad.
I do block anything that blinks or moves, including those carousals on news sites, and those bouncy-floating sidebars.
The consequence is that I see so few ads that I' surprised when one happens.
On the rare occasion I need a website on my phone, I use ghostly. I'm just plain not a product, and do not want to be tracked.
Also, while I'm at it, to the extent that some invited, while others tolerated, aside from introducing different licenses with the problem that that creates, leads to the issue of "estoppel"--a situation in which one cannot assert a position, even if legally entitled to do so, do to his prior actions and/or the reliance of another upon those actions. (and for those who care, estoppel is an equitable principle, not a legal principle, having come from the Chancery Courts of England).
All in all, anyone who thinks that they would like the results of the litigation is deluding himself . . .
It's definitely a mess, but so is just about anything where the GPL has been around.
As for authority and jurisdiction: the Common Law of England goes back to the twelfth century, and has been passed on to substantially all English speaking countries (I forget the exceptions). The principles of construction predate this country, and are pretty much the same through the english speaking world.
Frankly, if someone wanted to litigate this, it would be an utter mess. The unwritten changes that *did* become part of the license would be binding upon all later contributions, and attach to them. It is quite possible that different parts have different licenses--and that the whole body of the kernel couldn't be distributed together. *noone* wants to open *that* can of worms . .
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you want legal advice, pay my retainer.
There is a *really* big hole in the analysis.
Linux is *not* quite GPL; it, like many others, is better understood as "quasi-GPL", or QGPL.
Since pretty much the beginning, the Linux developers approved, condoned, and encouraged binary, non-GPL modules. Standard legal analysis means that this trumps the boilerplate of the license/contract.
The second serious error is arguing about the FSF position on linking. Under the rules of legal analysis, the author of a document's opinion is weighted at pretty much nothing: the author had his chance, and later comments are irrelevant. That is, there are about 7 billion people whose opinions on interpreting it come first.
Now whether distributing Linux with that module violates Sun's CDL could be an entirely different issue; I've never looked at it.
For most settings, a hemisphere is fine . . . basements are rare around here . . .
Not "kW/hr", but "kW*hr" . . . . more than a little different
History isn' the only thing. Stories alone could be problematic . . .
Suppose it read an unabridged Grimm? (not the disney stuff).
50 Shades of Smut?
I have no mouth and I must scream? (or, for that matter, wide swaths of dystopian literature)
For that matter, the Adventurs of Don Quixote itself could lead to "odd" behavior . . .
I believe that the preferred spelling is "Kardashabimbo" . . .
It happened over time . . .
OPEC has been surprisingly stable compared to historic cartels, largely due to the Saudi dominance and willingness to bear the brunt when the inevitable cheating occurred.
They're playing a different game now, though: that shale isn't going away, and the price of producing it is a ceiling on the cartel price.
*All* cartels eventually end by cheating; some just get there faster than others . . .
(And the *real* key to the Debars cartel was somehow convincing people that the least desirable gemstone, the plain white wine, was the most desirable and only thing to put in an engagement ring . . . before that, diamonds were *less* valuable than rubies, sapphires, etc. . .
But you see, it isn't even "oversupply."
Rather, it's "decreasing but not eliminating the artificial supply constraint."
Even today's prices are higher than they would be without the cartel.
That said, the world changed with the Saudi policy of letting prices go below our production cost.
Oh, dear, they'll sell us their oil for less than it costs to produce our own. I'm terrified.
And don't throw me in the briar patch, either . . .
fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.