Re: apt-get joke
On Sunday 25 May 2008, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 01:49:18PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 04:57:39PM +1000, Rich Healey wrote:
> > > Owen Townend wrote:
> > > > On 25/05/2008, Sjoerd Hiemstra <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, 25 May 2008 03:11:05 +1000 Owen Townen wrote:
> > > >> > On 24/05/2008, Chris Bannister
> > > >> > <mockingbird@earthlight.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > apt-get -b source wife
> >
> > is nice because you're not getting the binary... whatever that
> > means, but instead the source code required which can be easily
> > modified. THen you can build, test, modify to your heart's
> > desire. Though what you do with the builds that you don't want is a
> > problem. I'm sure glad my mk1mod0 wife doesn't read this
> > list... Though I'd not trade her for any flashy features that may
> > come in newer versions...
>
> Actually, since apparently one in five human genes is patented in the
> US, you may be breaking copyright if you use apt-get to get the
> source. To get around the patents, you'd have to go back in time and
> get two people to make your (to them, future) wife the old-fashioned
> pre-patent way. Of course, they'd have to brain-wash her so that by
> the time the present comes along, she will forgo all others and wait
> for (anticipate) and settle for you.
>
> :)
>
> Some of us believe that this happens already on our behalf and we get
> a better half upon which we can't apt-get update or upgrade.
Is that anything like if you know the ultimate answer to life, the
universe, and everything as well as the ultimate question, they'll
cancel each other out and it'll be replaced by something even stranger
and that this has likely already happened a number of times?
Hal
Reply to: