Students (and everybody else) should be taught that its NOT a crime to borrow from your betters if you give attribution ('provenance' for software and/or other intellectual property.)
In those cases where you're supposed to do original work, like doctoral theses and the like, you're definitly NOT allowed to borrow.
But for the rest of us, who don't have any interest in being original in the first place anyway, we should be encouraged to provide attribution. Like paid for however much we saved our employer in original research money by not having to do/know it all ourselves, instead being able to cite examples. The total cost of a research project should/must be provided with any paper.
There's something very satisfying about hearing the crunch as I swat a fly that's landed on somebody's head. (Ah the smell of blood and the crunch of cartilage as I land one on somebody's nose just after the fly landed.:-)
jerking off is murder as is every period a woman has before menopause.
If EVERY opportunity to make life was taken seriouly, we'd be as populous as clams. (If every clam bred to adulthood, in a few generations we'd be up to our butts in clams. Seriously.)
Behind every religious ideology is somebody who just didn't understand the issue.
Why would an absolute dictator surrender his systems to a blue or red screen of death? Why would he put up with the viri and other stuff?
In a battle between Kim and Gates, Kim would win because lawyer aren't bullet proof.
Besides, North Korea is friggin' broke. They can't afford Windows. They CAN afford Linux. (That would force them to open their society a bit. Eventualy, maybe the GPL can get some traction in there.)
They never asked who the heck would want this. Then they could refine things like costs and opportunities.
This was an idea which was not required. The cheapest thing in the world is a CPU cycle. Unless you're doing things that demand far more that a Beowolf clauter can deliver, like SETI, and that aren't proprietary, like no commercial products I know of, you don't actually WANT this service.
Can you say 'copright violation/patent infringement law suit' AGAINST Unix command shell.
Microsoft is doing NOTHING that is new here. NOTHING that they haven't done before, that they couldn't do before and that anyone else couldn't do, better in some cases.
Why are they even mentionning this?
Look to the law...
What do they wish to lever this against? The Unix command shell. Is bash copyrighted? Is it patented? Watch for assaults on technicalities...
If the law is against you, argue the evidence. If the evidence is against you, argue the law. If the law and the evidence are against you, give the opposing counsel hell.
They have TIME to do the tests and have made a conscious decision on what constitutes acceptable failure tolerances.
NOBODY expects a car tire to perform acceptably under the load of a 747 suddenly going down on it so it suddenly accelerates to 120 miles per hour.
No industry is subjected to performing perfectly each and every time with untested configurations of their components. Testing COSTS.
Basically, its the attitude that permitted the rise of Microsoft that is at fault here, and this attitude came from the same people who demand 99.9999% up time, and a recovery plan, from their mainframes.
Get real people.
PCs and anything hooked up to them, are NOT designed to deal with the loads they are often subjected to. We design systems to fail gracefully under known tolerances.
That would mean project managers, team leaders and assorted what-nots admitting that they DON'T know it all allready.
Heaven forbid that they actually admit that they don't know what's happening, what they're doing or how the users are going to react.
They'd never get the contract that way.
That's NOT what they signed up for. Their contract said nothing about trying things out or throwing things out when it becomes obvious that they don't work.
Prototypes are absolutely essential in project management and something management can not fathom as it is anathema to the concept of a manager. The only time its ever tried and applied is during the execution of a war.
done by people who came out of Xerox (as did the GUI, as did the LAN, as did Smalltalk adn object-oriented programming.)
Apple created the field of desktop publishing because everything was in place to do it. But Apple DID create desktop publishing.
And they're a major force behind desktop video publishing, music publishing (iPod and iTunes,) and they're going to go into personal video making with the iPod big time.)
STOP THINGING OF THEM AS A COMPUTER MAKER! Apple isn't a computer maker. Dell is a computer maker. The thousands of mom-n-pop shops putting Windows boxes together are computer makers.
Apple are computer USERS and make stuff for computer USERS because computers are capable of doing it.
Microsoft KNEW is couldn't compete on quality against DR-DOS, (and later against Xerox and Apple,) so it locked the OEMs into some illegal, unfair, anti-competitive deals.
Since the OEMs, mom-n-pop operations by this time, didn't want to assume responsability for anything other that slapping together some boards in a mass produced chassis and sliding the resulting mess into a beige case, they were unconcerned about YOUR rights as consumers.
M$ users (NOT their customers, who are the hundreds of mom-n-pop box stuffers and a fistfull of Michael Dells,) have been getting it in the shorts for over twenty five years.
I still remember Bill Gates whiny little letter in Byte magazine. He's the richest man in the world by far and Microsoft is the least innovative, most reactive corporation on the planet.
That's an opportunity to spread blogs to home-grown audio (I'm listening to Otaku Generation as I write this) to video (I wish I could remember the URL) to media in general.
The RIAA has sued EVERY maker of ANY new technology. And they've kept up the senseless, relentless assault until one of their existing or future clients figures out a way to make money doing it. They don't care about who's progress is being retarded or even how many people get hurt.
Thee **AAs are in, exactly in, and ONLY in, the business of stopping progress. They have nothing else to sell. And they are selling it... If they weren't getting paid, they wouldn't be doing it.
The **AAs have nothing else to sell. Not creativity, not talent, not artistry. Just the bloody-mindedness that lower life forms bring to the pursuit of food. The **AAs just hire lawyers, people who are moral relativists and only see things in terms of conflicts that make them money.
Go after the **AAs customers. Write to the heads of all the companies and tell THEM to stop treating you like criminals or you'll stop buying. And then STOP BUYING!
Then and only then will you be rid of DRM and zones and restrictions.
The apples were existentially bad because they were from the tree of forbidden knowledge.
That is a fucked up basis for anything.
But what can you expect from religion? They're selling certainty, even if its wrong. All rational people can offer is: 'It sorta works like this, we think, maybe...'
The **AAs SHOULD win. It would be the absolute end of them.
As the greed of the **AAs and their clients reduces content by 'dumbing it down', as has happened with television reality shows which are cheaper to produce than anything else, and by making their media into infomercials, Q.E.D. Q.V.C. etc., in a relentless pursuit of profitability, they are happily slitting their own throats.
We will ultimately win as more and more independent producers create more and more shows on more and more capable PCs and release more and more content on the net because they can't get, or need, financial backing or because they just don't want to compromise their quality of their product, (like Firefly and now Serenity which are successful in spite of the show having been killed by the network executives in their pursuit of greater profitability.)
I say let the **AAs win themselves into oblivion with their zones, flags and other restrictions. Can you imagine a shorter, expurgated version of Richard III with ads, product placement and a different ending, in different regions, because some soulless idiot thought that it could make more money? **AA clients are actually paying for this.
Unaffiliated producers can then make the shows and movies that they need to make and reap the benefits of radio, TV, CDs and DVDs that are in no shape to compete because the **AAs have made it systemically and systematically impossible.
Just because your have requin coding and broadcast flags dosn't mean you have to use them and just because you can make more dough making a "Fear Factor" doesn't mean that you want to. Eventually, content producers will be pretty much forced to opt out if they want to produce content.
Brest Bleu? Camember? Port Salut? Danish Bimbo cheese? Japanese Sage Darby? Or ever chedar, though there's not much call for it 'round here. -Mr. Wenslydale
We're stuck in the dilemma that it costs just as much to make one copy as to make/transmit X thousand copies. (That's why upload speeds stink. They don't trust us and, so far, they're right.)
When the media "products" are properly enabled to protect themselves by being state full, we'll be done with this foolishness. Until then, we're in an adversarial situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Students (and everybody else) should be taught that its NOT a crime to borrow from your betters if you give attribution ('provenance' for software and/or other intellectual property.)
In those cases where you're supposed to do original work, like doctoral theses and the like, you're definitly NOT allowed to borrow.
But for the rest of us, who don't have any interest in being original in the first place anyway, we should be encouraged to provide attribution. Like paid for however much we saved our employer in original research money by not having to do/know it all ourselves, instead being able to cite examples. The total cost of a research project should/must be provided with any paper.
There's something very satisfying about hearing the crunch as I swat a fly that's landed on somebody's head. (Ah the smell of blood and the crunch of cartilage as I land one on somebody's nose just after the fly landed. :-)
jerking off is murder as is every period a woman has before menopause.
If EVERY opportunity to make life was taken seriouly, we'd be as populous as clams. (If every clam bred to adulthood, in a few generations we'd be up to our butts in clams. Seriously.)
Behind every religious ideology is somebody who just didn't understand the issue.
in UFOs, can't tell the difference between fact and fiction, and the president believes his own lies, what can you expect?
Rationalism, the philosophy of Voltaire's bastards, is as dead in this country as my job hopes.
I don't think so. Microsoft's not into that kind of hardware.
Why would an absolute dictator surrender his systems to a blue or red screen of death? Why would he put up with the viri and other stuff?
In a battle between Kim and Gates, Kim would win because lawyer aren't bullet proof.
Besides, North Korea is friggin' broke. They can't afford Windows. They CAN afford Linux. (That would force them to open their society a bit. Eventualy, maybe the GPL can get some traction in there.)
They never asked who the heck would want this. Then they could refine things like costs and opportunities.
This was an idea which was not required. The cheapest thing in the world is a CPU cycle. Unless you're doing things that demand far more that a Beowolf clauter can deliver, like SETI, and that aren't proprietary, like no commercial products I know of, you don't actually WANT this service.
What where they thinking?
Its no good to me.
It works too. It was used by the Nazis to produce hydrazine for a rocket propelled plane.
That counts as irony.
Can you say 'copright violation/patent infringement law suit' AGAINST Unix command shell.
Microsoft is doing NOTHING that is new here. NOTHING that they haven't done before, that they couldn't do before and that anyone else couldn't do, better in some cases.
Why are they even mentionning this?
Look to the law...
What do they wish to lever this against? The Unix command shell. Is bash copyrighted? Is it patented? Watch for assaults on technicalities...
If the law is against you, argue the evidence.
If the evidence is against you, argue the law.
If the law and the evidence are against you, give the opposing counsel hell.
Microsoft bears close watching.
They have TIME to do the tests and have made a conscious decision on what constitutes acceptable failure tolerances.
NOBODY expects a car tire to perform acceptably under the load of a 747 suddenly going down on it so it suddenly accelerates to 120 miles per hour.
No industry is subjected to performing perfectly each and every time with untested configurations of their components. Testing COSTS.
Basically, its the attitude that permitted the rise of Microsoft that is at fault here, and this attitude came from the same people who demand 99.9999% up time, and a recovery plan, from their mainframes.
Get real people.
PCs and anything hooked up to them, are NOT designed to deal with the loads they are often subjected to. We design systems to fail gracefully under known tolerances.
That would mean project managers, team leaders and assorted what-nots admitting that they DON'T know it all allready.
Heaven forbid that they actually admit that they don't know what's happening, what they're doing or how the users are going to react.
They'd never get the contract that way.
That's NOT what they signed up for. Their contract said nothing about trying things out or throwing things out when it becomes obvious that they don't work.
Prototypes are absolutely essential in project management and something management can not fathom as it is anathema to the concept of a manager. The only time its ever tried and applied is during the execution of a war.
done by people who came out of Xerox (as did the GUI, as did the LAN, as did Smalltalk adn object-oriented programming.)
Apple created the field of desktop publishing because everything was in place to do it. But Apple DID create desktop publishing.
And they're a major force behind desktop video publishing, music publishing (iPod and iTunes,) and they're going to go into personal video making with the iPod big time.)
STOP THINGING OF THEM AS A COMPUTER MAKER! Apple isn't a computer maker. Dell is a computer maker. The thousands of mom-n-pop shops putting Windows boxes together are computer makers.
Apple are computer USERS and make stuff for computer USERS because computers are capable of doing it.
Microsoft KNEW is couldn't compete on quality against DR-DOS, (and later against Xerox and Apple,) so it locked the OEMs into some illegal, unfair, anti-competitive deals.
Since the OEMs, mom-n-pop operations by this time, didn't want to assume responsability for anything other that slapping together some boards in a mass produced chassis and sliding the resulting mess into a beige case, they were unconcerned about YOUR rights as consumers.
M$ users (NOT their customers, who are the hundreds of mom-n-pop box stuffers and a fistfull of Michael Dells,) have been getting it in the shorts for over twenty five years.
I would NOT describe Windows as open.
I still remember Bill Gates whiny little letter in Byte magazine. He's the richest man in the world by far and Microsoft is the least innovative, most reactive corporation on the planet.
lazy, poorly dressed, have no social graces or even a passing acquaintance with personal hygene.
You can put the scalpel down. Its not necessary.
I mean, why not? (When enough people think that way and get some iTMS-like [or even the iTMS] to put them out, the **AAs are DEAD!)
Except for Apple ads of course.
That's an opportunity to spread blogs to home-grown audio (I'm listening to Otaku Generation as I write this) to video (I wish I could remember the URL) to media in general.
Screw Rupert Murdoch, the **AAs and the labels.
The RIAA has sued EVERY maker of ANY new technology. And they've kept up the senseless, relentless assault until one of their existing or future clients figures out a way to make money doing it. They don't care about who's progress is being retarded or even how many people get hurt.
Thee **AAs are in, exactly in, and ONLY in, the business of stopping progress. They have nothing else to sell. And they are selling it... If they weren't getting paid, they wouldn't be doing it.
The **AAs have nothing else to sell. Not creativity, not talent, not artistry. Just the bloody-mindedness that lower life forms bring to the pursuit of food. The **AAs just hire lawyers, people who are moral relativists and only see things in terms of conflicts that make them money.
Go after the **AAs customers. Write to the heads of all the companies and tell THEM to stop treating you like criminals or you'll stop buying. And then STOP BUYING!
Then and only then will you be rid of DRM and zones and restrictions.
As long as content is used as filler for advertising, I see no compelling reason to buy in.
I'd hate to think that all that expensive infrastructure is being used to pimp "2000 Flushes".
Broadcast as a business model is dying.
The apples were existentially bad because they were from the tree of forbidden knowledge.
That is a fucked up basis for anything.
But what can you expect from religion? They're selling certainty, even if its wrong. All rational people can offer is: 'It sorta works like this, we think, maybe...'
The **AAs SHOULD win. It would be the absolute end of them.
As the greed of the **AAs and their clients reduces content by 'dumbing it down', as has happened with television reality shows which are cheaper to produce than anything else, and by making their media into infomercials, Q.E.D. Q.V.C. etc., in a relentless pursuit of profitability, they are happily slitting their own throats.
We will ultimately win as more and more independent producers create more and more shows on more and more capable PCs and release more and more content on the net because they can't get, or need, financial backing or because they just don't want to compromise their quality of their product, (like Firefly and now Serenity which are successful in spite of the show having been killed by the network executives in their pursuit of greater profitability.)
I say let the **AAs win themselves into oblivion with their zones, flags and other restrictions. Can you imagine a shorter, expurgated version of Richard III with ads, product placement and a different ending, in different regions, because some soulless idiot thought that it could make more money? **AA clients are actually paying for this.
Unaffiliated producers can then make the shows and movies that they need to make and reap the benefits of radio, TV, CDs and DVDs that are in no shape to compete because the **AAs have made it systemically and systematically impossible.
Just because your have requin coding and broadcast flags dosn't mean you have to use them and just because you can make more dough making a "Fear Factor" doesn't mean that you want to. Eventually, content producers will be pretty much forced to opt out if they want to produce content.
Brest Bleu? Camember? Port Salut? Danish Bimbo cheese? Japanese Sage Darby? Or ever chedar, though there's not much call for it 'round here. -Mr. Wenslydale
We're stuck in the dilemma that it costs just as much to make one copy as to make /transmit X thousand copies. (That's why upload speeds stink. They don't trust us and, so far, they're right.)
When the media "products" are properly enabled to protect themselves by being state full, we'll be done with this foolishness. Until then, we're in an adversarial situation.
Incontinentia Buttocks. (We're all Python fans...)