Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: IEEE, Liquid, Swings
IEEE v. DMCA. Reacting to the IEEE's changing publication rules, Boone^ writes: "The IEEE has backed away from their stance that all papers submitted must comply with the DMCA. Their reason? 'The IEEE, publisher of nearly one-third of all computer science journals, said it is removing the requirement because it turned out to be more contentious than expected.' Personally I'd have preferred their reason to be based on the law instead of popular backlash, but maybe that's a step in the right direction to eventually bring about new legislation."
Many readers also pointed out this New Scientist story on the reversal.
Free as in Blender? tinus writes: "Ton Roosendaal, creator of Blender, submitted an update to Elysiun.com about finding solutions for continueing activities of the Blender projects. He describes the way Blender has been split up into smaller projects to make it both profitable as public domain software. Also, he gives us a preview of his setup for his new community plan, which even mentions 'Blender sources will be opened for members.'
Seems like there is a very promising future for Blender after all. Read the full story here."
Water meets your processor. Foss writes "You may remember this story about the dodgy-yet-extremely-cheap DIY water cooling block. Well, thanks to all your emails, Rob's getting better. It's still extremely cheap (under £10), but it's now pretty stable too, running a P3 933@1.1GHz for a few hours at a very stable 28 degrees. No dental floss this time round either!"
But don't worry, all the other patents issued were A-OK. Worried about getting slapped with a lawsuit for swinging different? f00zbll writes: "Cnet is running an follow up article on the patent posted earlier in the week. Apparently, the kid doesn't plan on suing anyone over swinging side ways."
We're here to save you money, Ma'am. Now, where do you keep it? guttentag writes "The NYTimes (reg req'd) is reporting on a MS and Mexico plan to develop digital community centers as part of a broader 'eMexico' initiative meant to bring the entire nation online by 2006. Microsoft will license its Windows, Office and Encarta software on the same terms that colleges and universities use. Some background: Microsoft's licensing deal with the University System of Maryland resulted in a mandatory $14 Microsoft tax imposed on all 130,000 students. Apparently, if you want to attend one of MD's taxpayer-funded university, you must pay MS. Is eMexico Microsoft's plan to tax Mexican citizens?" Hope they keep their licenses up -- Virginia Beach's taxpayers got to foot a city-size bill. The tab in Texas wasn't low either. What would it look like for all of Mexico?
The subject is what the fish gave me for
"Blue Screen of Death" in Spanish.
I run a P3-800 at 1066Mhz by bumping the bus speed up to 133Mhz. It barely gets warm with the stock retail-boxed Intel heatsink/fan. Watercooling and overclocking a 966Mhz processor to this speed doesn't show anything.
See my earlier post
Why should students be forced to pay a $14 fee for a mandatory software license if they:
1) don't use computers in their class,
2) only use Unix or Apples computers with not one bit of Microsoft software on them, or
3) only use their own computers, purchased outside of the university, with independently and fully licensed software on them.
Remember that last item - many incoming students will arrive with computers their parents bought them before they learned about educational discounts (you think Best Buy will tell parents of college-bound students about the competition?), and many non-traditional students will already have computers because of their job.
This sounds a lot like a tax (second definition) - everybody pays regardless of whether they need it or not, and regardless of whether they've already paid for the product or service elsewhere.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
The issue isn't whether students WHO WANT MICROSOFT PRODUCTS AND HAVEN'T ALREADY PURCHASED THEM are getting a great deal.
It's whether it's fair to force students to pay for software that they don't want, don't need, and possibly can't even use.
As a trivial example, I took one grad CS course a semester for about 7 years during the 1990s. 14 semesters. Had the University of Colorado had this mandatory plan, I would have paid close to $200 to Microsoft. For absolutely nothing of value in return.
Could I run any Microsoft application on my computers? No - I was already using Linux almost exclusively on my own equipment.
Did I need any Microsoft application for my graduate CS course work? No. It was either agnostic (e.g., email), or needed to be done on Unix systems.
Could I have saved money on my rare Microsoft purchase? No - my laptop already included a mandatory copy of Windows and applications. What possible value would there have been in replacing a copy of Office 95 with another copy of Office 95?
Maybe you're rich and can afford to give people $200 for absolutely nothing in return, but most of us aren't and we resent being forced to do so.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken