Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Juveniles, Sand, Trickery, MoBos
Tell me again why my motherboard needs it own OS? Goatbert writes: "Penguin Hardware has posted an interview with John Tsai, head of ABIT's Gentus department. He goes into ABIT's future open source plans and what they plan to do about accusations of GPL violations."
Lifestyles of the young and precocious. PerlDiver writes: "The 'Programming for Kids' thread reminded me of this, and I thought it was worth a story of its own. Former Xerox PARC researcher Ken Kahn has created an amazing tool for teaching kids how to program. Even very young children (old enough to know their letters and numbers) can be started on object-oriented programming with ToonTalk, an animated programming kit that introduces such advanced concepts as recursion, object methods, and functions in a fully visual, direct-manipulation, non-notation-based way. Kids learn by playing with an on-screen toolbox, robots (methods), birds (message passing channels), and bombs (memory deallocation :-). I saw Ken give a ToonTalk demo a few years ago and I was blown away by it. It looks great... sort of PeeWee's Playhouse meets Lego."
Mirror, mirror on the wall -- damn, where was I? Warrior writes "GameSpy was able to get some in-depth information on the closing of Looking Glass Studios by talking to LGS game designer Tim Stellmach. He gave us some good explanations of what happened and who owns what."
Oh, as long as you say it, I guess it's OK! Remember the trouble between CyberPatrol and Network Associates' 'ultra-secure' Gauntlet firewall? The ever-prolific Anonymous Coward wrote us with an interesting bit to sprinkle in that wound: "Peacefire tricked several "parental control" software vendors into revealing their double standards through an amusing gambit: they took anti-gay quotes from several large, well-funded organizations (e.g. Focus on the Family) and put them on "bait" pages on various free Web hosting systems. Then they submitted those pages to the censorware companies as objectionable hate speech which ought to be filtered, and the companies obligingly added them to the blacklists. Next, they submitted the home pages from which they got the quotes. But apparently it's not hate speech if it's on the home page of a political organization with a large legal department ..."
The wheels of government creak ever slowly. teddyfu writes "I found this link regarding the EU's decision to oepn up crypto exports. It seems that decision has only been *postponed*; hopefully the decision will still be made, just at a later date."
Who dares provide House Atriedes with ADSL? Craig E. Engler writes "The first trailer for the SciFi Channel's upcoming miniseries Frank Herbert's Dune has been posted online. ... The site also has the latest news about the miniseries (which has wrapped principal photography and is now in post-production) as well as photos, notes from the director's assistant, and more."
My question is, if:
Beta testing of ToonTalk began in January 1995 at the Encinal School in Menlo Park, California
why isn't this software in general circulation yet. We studied logo when I was in elementary school, if we would have had this stuff, there'd be more programmers out there today.
tcd004
Here's my Microsoft Parody, where's yours?
When I was a kid, all we had was LOGO and BASIC... I learned some of my worst habits in Apple BASIC.
Could be worse though; my father started working on computers in the late 60's, so he can get away with the "When I was your age, we coded in 1's and 0's and sometimes didn't even have 1's..." Punch tape; ick.
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
IANAL, however if they release code that was under the GPL, under a different violation, they should be taken to court about it and told to release the code. I understand that only the code creator can take the case to court and sue Abit, but perhaps we could set up a fund to finance actions against companies that violate the GPL, either wilfully or not.
Even after being told they have a violation, they refuse to release the code (Abit and nVidia) and then proceed to praise the open source movement for it's work, well get do what you preach companies, you are quite happy to use open source code, however when it comes to releasing a few thousand lines of code back to the community, then you should do.
Give something back to the community, open YOUR code
The CyberPatrol and Network Associates' troll was one of the best laid out trolls to hit the net in years. It took everyone in for days. Some are still fuming that YHBT HAND. I believe there are still a few lawsuits pending. Maybe Peacefire aught to hire streetlawyer as counsel.
GPL authors: if your code gets released in binary form only, you (and only you) have the right to demand that the source code be released. Everyone else can ask, but if it is not released that means the license to copy is revoked. But only the copyright owner can enforce the copyright.
If we wish to encourage the opening of source, why aren't these violations used as the wedge to say, "open, or be sued!"? It seems to me that GPLed software is being used as a fast-time-to-market convenience. It would do a lot to raise awareness of the GPL if it were enforced. These companies would never (or would they?) think of stealing other copyrighted software. Why should they think they can steal GPLed? Let me say it again: if you start with someone elses source code, you know you need a license. IMHO, these violations are not accidental, and should not be treated that way.
----
Looks like it was worth publicising Abit's breach, and pressuring them to do something about it...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com
The makers of web filtering software are addressing a particular market. We may not agree with them; though there is a double standard, one must realize that many people will accept it, and those are likely the same people who want to buy the software. I respect the rights of parents to control what sort of information their children may access. I would guess that many (not all or even most) parents have no problem with the information presented by Focus On The Family even though it condemns homosexuality. As long as the software meets the needs of the parents, it will sell.
On the other hand, if the software is being used by public entities, then there is a need to provide fair-handedness along with responsibility to the people paying for the public entity.
What would be interesting is to see software the provides filters for various religious affiliations. That would be quite a circus.
end of line
Something just occurred to me. If a company uses part of GPL code in their product, what is to stop them from obfuscating all the non-GPL code, and releasing that? That way they are technically allowing downloads of "GPL code", while still keeping it closed source. This is, of course, assuming that a majority or important minority of the code is original.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Reading over the Peacefire page, I notice something odd about the correspondence they've got posted. They show the complete chain of email used to get their "bait" sites blocked, but nothing about their follow-up requests to block the sources of the bait quotes.
That strikes me as odd. Anybody know the reason? I'm inclined to think that after a company took the bait, they got email from the main Peacefire account saying "Ha ha! Fooled you! Gonna block Dr. Laura now?" IMHO, it'd have been better to send in the request to block the powerful sites from the same fake Hotmail accounts.
OTOH, this is still a very satisfying bit of news. Yay, Peacefire.
Based on the obvious double standard shown in the Peacefire bait and switch experiment - how can someone determine if their own websites have been blocked by these products, without using the products?
I know PopeAlien.com has been placed on a List of potentially offensive webcomics based on the domain name.. (funny 'cause it's so innoffensive) How can I tell if filters are blocking any of my sites? -especially with 'closed list' filters like Mattels?
-
air and light and time and space
Is it just me or are the eyes wrong? I may be wrong but wasn't the spice melange addiction supposed to turn the eyes entirely blue? Whites as well as iris? One thing's certain in my mind - they didn't glow like that!
Also check out http://www.scifi.com/dune/gallery/dd3.jpg for a pic captioned "Costume designer Theodor Pistek supervises Alec Newman (Paul) trying on his Stillsuit."
Short(ish) list of things I noticed:
- Did this bloke read Dune? I'm fairly sure that stillsuits were described as being slick. That is anything but slick.
- There is no sign of anything that can tighten across the chest.
- Those boots are not desert boots that can be "fitted slip-fashion at the ankles".
- The thing is too loosely fitting. I don't remember exactly but it seems to me that something that collects and filters expended moisture should be like a second skin. It shouldn't be so loose, especially at the wrists and collar where moisture could escape.
- Shouldn't stillsuits have some kind of integrated hood? I seem to remember Liet-Kynes or Paul adjusting a strap across the forehead "tightly, so as to prevent chafing". http://www.scifi.com/dune/gallery/d46.jpg shows a pic of Stilgar but WTF is that thing on his head? It's not what Herbert describes. IIRC he describes stillsuits as having a flap that can be fastened across the mouth, and nose-plugs. Chani is described as having a callous alongside(?) her nose from the tube from the nose-plugs. Nothing is mentioned about that thing on his head that covers his mouth and nose. His clothing is wrong too. Wasn't fremen desert garb described as flowing robes?
There are probably other things wrong but I can't be bothered looking.It's a shame they've finished shooting or some things could've been corrected if they were willing. Oh well, hopefully I'll like it better than the movie when/if it is shown in Australia.
Of course, what I'd really like to see is a one-to-one adaptation. There'd have to be some adaptation/alteration as far as purely internal dialogue is concerned but I can live with that. Production would probably be difficult. Can you imagine filming the entire book using current methods? Maybe it could be digitally rendered once the tech reaches the point where it's indistinguishable from meat actors.
I even know a great pulicity stunt: Instead of rendering it all on one server farm do something like distributed.net or SETI@home and enlist the world in rendering part or all of the movie. Upstream bandwidth definitely, and processor power would have to be better than today's average but maybe do just a few frames as a work unit and it might be workable.
Copyright could be handled by encrypting input and output but it could be a nice incentive to have a random frame saved to the users hdd with a watermark. The programmers/animators could provide designators as to what frames could be saved so that scenes could be kept secret if needed/wanted.
I think I'll stop here. My apologies for waffling on but I've been awake for almost 40 hours and my mind is starting to wander and to produce weird thoughts.
I'm done! Thank the gods for that preview button.
The text entry area is too damn small though. I think it'd be better if it was 5 or 6 lines taller and maybe 50% wider. It could be made a user option: Big post entry box or small?
---
"When I was a kid computers were giant walk-in wardrobes served by a priesthood with punch cards."
Why not just demand that they open up their source? The mistake is made, so why not crowbar their asses?
Well, I like to think that the GPL has a live and let live attitude to things. A lot of people are going to disagree with me on that. The reason tha the provision is placed there is not so we can crowbar the source code out of an author who made a simple mistake, but to prevent GPL'd source from being included in those programs. I usually tend to agree with the FSF that software probably shouldn't be owned, but until things are changed, I'd rather convince people that it's better to free their source than to take it from them forcibly by using a GPL provision. Note that I'm saying this assuming that they did it on purpose. The GPL violations we've seen thus far I really think were mistakes. Not to say that they couldn't have been WAY more careful, but I don't think they did it with malicious intent.
Also, suing costs a holy shitload of money, even if you win there's a large initial capital outlay unless you know a lawyer who will do it pro bono. (If you do, then share that name, please)
But for me, it comes down to this: I'd rather that my software simply not be incorporated. As a GPL source author, I don't really want to pry the source away from an author that made a mistake, I just want them to know what the rules are and make sure that they play by them. Suing should always be the last option IMHO since for the most part humans can be reasonable and come to an agreement if they try. It shouldn't be ruled out, it's just that I don't think it should be the first thing we jump to.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
erm, the only "Director's Cut" of DUNE was the theatrical release.
Lynch has disavowed the TV extended version to the point that it says "an Alan Smithee film" in reference to the Director's Guild pseudonym that is used when a film is abused by the studio w/o the director's consent.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
You can't force someone else to release their code. You can only force them to stop distributing yours. So if they stop, that's the end of it, unless you can prove damages. How do you prove damages on a program you charge nothing for?
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Ok - I converted it.
You can grab MPEG versions from http://house.ofdoom.com/~hungerf3/video/dune/
--
Parents may innocently think they're protecting their children with a censorware package, but they don't realize how the content is being filtered by these censorware vendors, and how their children are being manipulated. Censorware vendors don't disclose the list of sites they block, claiming it's a "trade secret". Thus, they can block anything they want, and all the customer sees is a "site blocked" page. It's more cost-effective for them to block a thousand innocent sites that their users will never know are innocent, than to let one page about AIDS slip through, and bring the wrath of a parent down upon them. Thus, some popular censorware products have something like a 75% false positive rate.
This is all well-documented. I think peacefire.org has a lot of links.