What possible features could you be using that require 4 gigs of RAM? I'm not going to pretend Eclipse is lightweight, but I find that it's memory footprint has been under 300 megs. I'm using the WTP Eclipse platform, and shifted a few months back from 3.2 to Europa(3.3). I'll probably be shifting entirely to the Red Hat Development Studio, because it's basically everything I'm using with a bit more, in a nice package. Are you perhaps using version 2? I haven't found a descent relational database management tool plugin for eclipse, and I'm curious if that Oracle plugin is the troublemaker. I've been using Squirrel SQL for the database.
I admit this would still be saying 512 megs is really stretching your system, and 1 gig is more like a sensible minimum to be developing on.
Damn straight, I think this bastard should get the $1,000,000 wire fraud penalty. This has nothing to do with copyright and I hope the guy who feels he can cheat the monetary system doesn't get punished under the wrong crime.
Actually, if the article you quoted is correct, Sun was the first to field it...
"Microsoft's Remote Scripting (MSRS), introduced in 1998, acted as a more elegant replacement for these techniques, with data being pulled in by a Java applet"
The key words being "Java applet". Some Microsoft employees apparently figured out how to use Java applets to do something like AJAX. Then they decided to use XML, instead of some other arbitrary format. Be it that Microsoft just recently has caught on to this whole "AJAX" thing I fail to see how they should be attributed with its invention. It's not like they have some major developer of their's on a pedestal saying, "Thank you for inventing AJAX!" To me, saying Microsoft basically invented AJAX is kind of like saying Al Gore basically invented the internet. Yes, Microsoft has helped AJAX form, but just because they implemented stuff in a different language for IE to stop using applets after Sun sued them successfully for being monopolistic bastards doesn't mean they should be given credit for inventing an object that could do the asynchronous XML bit of AJAX.
The rules could use more of the core simplifications that 3e did to 2e. It also is interesting to see that they're going to apply Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed style races, and apply it to the core D&D races. I wonder how much they'll take from his much better scaled magic system...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcana_Unearthed
Yes, you heard me, more powerful base races with advanced levels... It's coming in 4e.
Maybe the plan was something like, Step 1: make things uncomfortable for top developers. Step 2: Wait for them to develop stuff on the OGL. Step 3: Steal it... I mean legally use the OGL. Step 4: Profit.
You could say it was invented by the barbarian horde...
Then the behavior was then used by Sun and made public in 1995, except the language was in plain old Java, and it was part of the technology called "applet", which could be used with web browsers.
Then Microsoft made up some terribly convoluted name for the behavior, and put it into Outlook using their own equally crappy languages: VBScript and Jscript, which has nothing to do with normal web browsing, and really nothing to do with AJAX.
Mozilla, liking the terribly convoluted name, invents something accessible, and in Javascript with XML.
Web Developers like the idea, use it, and so does Microsoft.
Jesse James Garrett looks around and sees what the web community is doing, and invents the term AJAX. Apparently were some general ideas that could start to form standards based on all the ideas laid before him...
So, if something was made by the community at large, I suppose it follows that Microsoft invented Web 2.0?
Well, if you consider that they didn't write the javascript version of XMLHttpRequest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest
It would be more accurate to say that Mozilla invented AJAX, be it that it is "Asynchronous Javascript And XML" not "Asynchronous JScipt or VBScript And XML".
Of course, you could say that Mozilla based it off of Microsoft's stuff, but then Microsoft mimicked what was already going on with Sun's Java applets...
I'd say Jesse James Garrett or Adaptive Path pretty much invented all this AJAX stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_James_Garrett
indeed! Not only will it be easier to read, but it also will be more writable. Throw in the fact that it will add in the ability to have much more intelligent behavior of tables (datagrid) and menus. I don't think everyone should have to dive into various javascript wheels (prototype, dojo, and various others) for simple common GUI elements.
No, your right to use and change data is completely unrestricted. Not always in America. Not with the DMCA. Not with DRM. If there is DRM on the product, do you have these rights?
Not in Europe either. Last I heard you can't use artwork in a way that an artist would not want. If you bought a sculpture, you might get sued if you tried to sell it as a cabinet. If you mix up a tape for your own personal enjoyment, the artist could bring a case against you.
Just because they haven't come for you and your illegal ways, doesn't mean you have a right to do so. Just because the law is draconian doesn't mean it does society any good.
(disclaimer - IANAL)
This is true, but you would also be comparing a specific flaw in an end user's security vs. a new generic kind of exploit that effects dedicated servers. I imagine many.NET applications (even ones with C# code running unsafe code such as legacy C++ ) might have vulnerabilities from this type of exploit. End users being suckered into running nasty applets is different than a server listening for anyone in the world to exploit it. I think it might be more comparable to say that not using pointers is kind of like not wearing a bullet proof vest. You might not always need a bullet proof vest, and a bullet proof vest won't save you in all situations. The bullet proof vest might even be a bit cumbersome. However, if you're going to into a war zone - you might want to wear one.
Re:What you need is a signed id3 tag with that inf
on
False Copyright Claims
·
· Score: 1
I think the idea fails in the same way that DRM fails in that if someone can see the data, they can reproduce it. I suppose it might be feasible to make every last bit of data signed under a DRM scheme to make it difficult to copy without removing the DRM. Unfortunately, if you wanted to modify this piece of work, you would also need a closed system to do the modifications for you, otherwise, the only way you could use portions of the world would be if each piece of the encoding was already under its a separate DRM signature. Next, if you wanted to mix forms of it, you would need all various forms of encoding to be supported in a way that the user could not figure out. This is more preposterous than the current DRM scheme we have. You cannot stop someone from taking a hammer to something in their possession without forcibly restraining them from doing so. There's also the likelihood that the person with the hammer is strong, smart, or agile enough to get around such restraints. Regardless, assuming you find the philosopher's stone and are omnipotent and can force everyone to use such a scheme, there is still the issue that everyone who wants to use this information must be given access to every different kind of black box that plays each and every different kind of data. So, you now have added a large level of inefficiency to display each piece of media simply to preserve the attribution.
There are already systems that allows people to attribute works to their authors, be it from citations and metadata. However, these systems only work when the users follow the rules. Unlike ridiculous DRM schemes, they don't bloat everyone's experience who wishes to view the material. Unlike ridiculous DRM schemes, they don't attempt to achieve the impossible. An widely used open tagging format might be useful, but there will never be a way to stop every last person from taking a hammer to it and removing such information.
Science fiction? I'm thinking more like... one million dollars!!!... I mean one hundred..BILLION DOLLARS!!
How dare you suggest our government is wasting money on science fiction. If we can predict the weather, why can't we predict something incredibly more complex?
As far as I can tell, it programatically functions as it was designed. It's not a bug, this is not to say that there aren't flaws in the design... Get your terminology straight. For a broader example, e-mail is not a bug because spammers exist. A spam filter is not a bug fix, it is an improvement made for e-mail. Just because a spam filter does not filter all spam does not necessarily mean the filter has a bug. I'm probably misapplying math here, but I would argue that this feature creep runs parallel to Godel's incompleteness theorems in the idea that each feature applies new rules or axioms to a system. With this rule in place, there will always remain infinitely unknown (or arguably more infinite than infinite) many rules that remain true to the system. Some of these rules aren't ones that most users will like, and some might even be further considered abuse or spam. Furthermore, I would argue that there is no such thing as a perfect moderation system, much in the way that there is no such thing as a perfect government.
Apache Licence
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So is the GPLv3 compatible with Apache License v2 style licenses, or has that idea been abandoned?
If slashdot's comments and moderation can be abused, how is that a bug? Some features are inherently prone to different forms of abuse, and there is no magical way to completely solve the problem without removing the feature. I do not have faith in the idea that features can always have a perfect solution. If there was not a mistake in how something should function, it is not a bug. One could make improvements to make abuses harder, but this would be an improvement on the system - not a bug fix.
I wonder if they'll subpeno the ethernet cables... and the privately owned wires in the wall... If they're not owned by AT&T they're not protected. The information clearly passed through them, so by default, they stored that information.
If you look at how many different map locations the professional players rapidly switch to and from, I think it's fairly obvious a larger field of vision is advantageous strategy wise. Given that, the largest zoom out you can get without losing gameplay details would be what every serious player would have to play at. This could mean professional games involve 3 pixel sprites. I suppose Korea could just disable those features, and it could be a multiplayer option. Be it the game is 3d, I imagine it should support multiple resolutions without having to scale zoom. It doesn't sound like they're skimping on the graphics, will gamplay miss out on the beautiful artwork if they let you zoom way out?
Odd thing about computers is the amazing powers of reverse engineering they provide. There is no magical black box you cannot take apart. There will always be a way to take apart something once you get your hands on it. I admit, Sony might resort to using high explosives as their failsafe, but there is no such thing as magical DRM. I fail to see how on any logical level DRM solidly can work without the DMCA. Encryption works because it prevents a man in the middle from understanding the message. Public key encryption is like mailing an open lockbox and having the recipient put in their own lock box and a copy of a key to that box, then locking the box and mailing it. It seems to me DRM amounts to making a confounding number of mind boggling wadgets that make it hard to view something outside of a prescribed way. DRM is antithetical to open source, as it's not just machine code, and it certainly doesn't come with a manual written in some foreign programming language. Still, why would a company want to spend millions of dollars developing DRM when it's perfectly legal for everyone to use the crack that came out on the day of launch?
I can see how a patent would encourage someone to disclose their work from running in a black box server or factory, but DRM and copyright do nothing to encourage disclosure of information.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"blatent contradiction of government power" And how does the DMCA have anything to do with a limited time?
Neither BSD nor the GPL give a consistant vantage of what a copyright free world would be. The GPL portrays a more idealistic world free of copyright, this is to say people should provide source code for programs. If one was to apply this to the music industry, it would be consistant with forcing you to provide all the individual tracks used to make the music, and force those who wish to distribute new songs all the tracks they used to derive a new song. For the GPL, if you were to get rid of the open source clauses, eliminate any possibility of locking it down with any DMCA type theft, you would in essence have something closer to what it means to be free of copyright. The problem with BSD is that someone else can take your code and then not allow you to redistribute the portion of software they added. So if you're a copyright abolitionist, BSD is closer to putting the code in public domain rather than emulating a copyright free world. On the other hand, the GPL does open a door in terms of opening one's eyes to the needs of copyright reform.
To me, copyrights and patents are blatently contrary to the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. I suppose the better question is if this blatent contradiction of government power is a completely negative thing. In essence, it is a regulation on the free market. You can still sell ideas without copyright (as is with GPL software). What you can't do is have an exclusive right to what people do with your ideas. I think this might discourage the disclosure of some manufacturing processes - particularly when dealing with patents. Last I heard, hacker ideals and reverse engineering makes it rather impossible to distribute software and hide a manufacturing process so to speak. The only real use then for patents in software in a free(er) market is to share information that would be held in a server black box (perhaps the old ibm mainframe model). Idealy, patents should not apply to any software being distributed widely.
Slashdot Mirror
What version of the JDK are you using?
Eclipse 3.3 (Europa) really sped up the autocomplete features... Here's a little review of it. http://rf2-dev.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!33114F6710 97246!136.entry
and the europa site: http://www.eclipse.org/europa/
What possible features could you be using that require 4 gigs of RAM? I'm not going to pretend Eclipse is lightweight, but I find that it's memory footprint has been under 300 megs. I'm using the WTP Eclipse platform, and shifted a few months back from 3.2 to Europa(3.3). I'll probably be shifting entirely to the Red Hat Development Studio, because it's basically everything I'm using with a bit more, in a nice package. Are you perhaps using version 2? I haven't found a descent relational database management tool plugin for eclipse, and I'm curious if that Oracle plugin is the troublemaker. I've been using Squirrel SQL for the database. I admit this would still be saying 512 megs is really stretching your system, and 1 gig is more like a sensible minimum to be developing on.
Damn straight, I think this bastard should get the $1,000,000 wire fraud penalty. This has nothing to do with copyright and I hope the guy who feels he can cheat the monetary system doesn't get punished under the wrong crime.
Actually, if the article you quoted is correct, Sun was the first to field it... "Microsoft's Remote Scripting (MSRS), introduced in 1998, acted as a more elegant replacement for these techniques, with data being pulled in by a Java applet" The key words being "Java applet". Some Microsoft employees apparently figured out how to use Java applets to do something like AJAX. Then they decided to use XML, instead of some other arbitrary format. Be it that Microsoft just recently has caught on to this whole "AJAX" thing I fail to see how they should be attributed with its invention. It's not like they have some major developer of their's on a pedestal saying, "Thank you for inventing AJAX!" To me, saying Microsoft basically invented AJAX is kind of like saying Al Gore basically invented the internet. Yes, Microsoft has helped AJAX form, but just because they implemented stuff in a different language for IE to stop using applets after Sun sued them successfully for being monopolistic bastards doesn't mean they should be given credit for inventing an object that could do the asynchronous XML bit of AJAX.
The rules could use more of the core simplifications that 3e did to 2e. It also is interesting to see that they're going to apply Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed style races, and apply it to the core D&D races. I wonder how much they'll take from his much better scaled magic system... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcana_Unearthed Yes, you heard me, more powerful base races with advanced levels... It's coming in 4e. Maybe the plan was something like, Step 1: make things uncomfortable for top developers. Step 2: Wait for them to develop stuff on the OGL. Step 3: Steal it... I mean legally use the OGL. Step 4: Profit.
You could say it was invented by the barbarian horde... Then the behavior was then used by Sun and made public in 1995, except the language was in plain old Java, and it was part of the technology called "applet", which could be used with web browsers. Then Microsoft made up some terribly convoluted name for the behavior, and put it into Outlook using their own equally crappy languages: VBScript and Jscript, which has nothing to do with normal web browsing, and really nothing to do with AJAX. Mozilla, liking the terribly convoluted name, invents something accessible, and in Javascript with XML. Web Developers like the idea, use it, and so does Microsoft. Jesse James Garrett looks around and sees what the web community is doing, and invents the term AJAX. Apparently were some general ideas that could start to form standards based on all the ideas laid before him... So, if something was made by the community at large, I suppose it follows that Microsoft invented Web 2.0?
Just because you have fire, doesn't mean you know how to cook with it. To say Microsoft invented AJAX makes less sense than saying Sun invented AJAX.
AJAX is not a programming language. Ruby on Rails arguably is all about AJAX, particularly in its use of the Prototype framework.
Well, if you consider that they didn't write the javascript version of XMLHttpRequest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest It would be more accurate to say that Mozilla invented AJAX, be it that it is "Asynchronous Javascript And XML" not "Asynchronous JScipt or VBScript And XML". Of course, you could say that Mozilla based it off of Microsoft's stuff, but then Microsoft mimicked what was already going on with Sun's Java applets... I'd say Jesse James Garrett or Adaptive Path pretty much invented all this AJAX stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_James_Garrett
indeed! Not only will it be easier to read, but it also will be more writable. Throw in the fact that it will add in the ability to have much more intelligent behavior of tables (datagrid) and menus. I don't think everyone should have to dive into various javascript wheels (prototype, dojo, and various others) for simple common GUI elements.
This is true, but you would also be comparing a specific flaw in an end user's security vs. a new generic kind of exploit that effects dedicated servers. I imagine many .NET applications (even ones with C# code running unsafe code such as legacy C++ ) might have vulnerabilities from this type of exploit. End users being suckered into running nasty applets is different than a server listening for anyone in the world to exploit it. I think it might be more comparable to say that not using pointers is kind of like not wearing a bullet proof vest. You might not always need a bullet proof vest, and a bullet proof vest won't save you in all situations. The bullet proof vest might even be a bit cumbersome. However, if you're going to into a war zone - you might want to wear one.
I think the idea fails in the same way that DRM fails in that if someone can see the data, they can reproduce it. I suppose it might be feasible to make every last bit of data signed under a DRM scheme to make it difficult to copy without removing the DRM. Unfortunately, if you wanted to modify this piece of work, you would also need a closed system to do the modifications for you, otherwise, the only way you could use portions of the world would be if each piece of the encoding was already under its a separate DRM signature. Next, if you wanted to mix forms of it, you would need all various forms of encoding to be supported in a way that the user could not figure out. This is more preposterous than the current DRM scheme we have. You cannot stop someone from taking a hammer to something in their possession without forcibly restraining them from doing so. There's also the likelihood that the person with the hammer is strong, smart, or agile enough to get around such restraints. Regardless, assuming you find the philosopher's stone and are omnipotent and can force everyone to use such a scheme, there is still the issue that everyone who wants to use this information must be given access to every different kind of black box that plays each and every different kind of data. So, you now have added a large level of inefficiency to display each piece of media simply to preserve the attribution. There are already systems that allows people to attribute works to their authors, be it from citations and metadata. However, these systems only work when the users follow the rules. Unlike ridiculous DRM schemes, they don't bloat everyone's experience who wishes to view the material. Unlike ridiculous DRM schemes, they don't attempt to achieve the impossible. An widely used open tagging format might be useful, but there will never be a way to stop every last person from taking a hammer to it and removing such information.
Science fiction? I'm thinking more like... one million dollars!!! ... I mean one hundred..BILLION DOLLARS!!
How dare you suggest our government is wasting money on science fiction. If we can predict the weather, why can't we predict something incredibly more complex?
As far as I can tell, it programatically functions as it was designed. It's not a bug, this is not to say that there aren't flaws in the design... Get your terminology straight. For a broader example, e-mail is not a bug because spammers exist. A spam filter is not a bug fix, it is an improvement made for e-mail. Just because a spam filter does not filter all spam does not necessarily mean the filter has a bug. I'm probably misapplying math here, but I would argue that this feature creep runs parallel to Godel's incompleteness theorems in the idea that each feature applies new rules or axioms to a system. With this rule in place, there will always remain infinitely unknown (or arguably more infinite than infinite) many rules that remain true to the system. Some of these rules aren't ones that most users will like, and some might even be further considered abuse or spam. Furthermore, I would argue that there is no such thing as a perfect moderation system, much in the way that there is no such thing as a perfect government.
So is the GPLv3 compatible with Apache License v2 style licenses, or has that idea been abandoned?
If slashdot's comments and moderation can be abused, how is that a bug? Some features are inherently prone to different forms of abuse, and there is no magical way to completely solve the problem without removing the feature. I do not have faith in the idea that features can always have a perfect solution. If there was not a mistake in how something should function, it is not a bug. One could make improvements to make abuses harder, but this would be an improvement on the system - not a bug fix.
I wonder if they'll subpeno the ethernet cables... and the privately owned wires in the wall... If they're not owned by AT&T they're not protected. The information clearly passed through them, so by default, they stored that information.
professionals use photoshop... get your non professionals to spend $$$$loads...U sing-Paths-602-1.html
Or actually learn how to use the GIMP, despite its shortcomings...
How to do rounded corners in the GIMP:
http://www.gimptalk.com/forum/topic/Creating-And-
or cheat the system...
http://thepiratebay.org/
If you look at how many different map locations the professional players rapidly switch to and from, I think it's fairly obvious a larger field of vision is advantageous strategy wise. Given that, the largest zoom out you can get without losing gameplay details would be what every serious player would have to play at. This could mean professional games involve 3 pixel sprites. I suppose Korea could just disable those features, and it could be a multiplayer option. Be it the game is 3d, I imagine it should support multiple resolutions without having to scale zoom. It doesn't sound like they're skimping on the graphics, will gamplay miss out on the beautiful artwork if they let you zoom way out?
Odd thing about computers is the amazing powers of reverse engineering they provide. There is no magical black box you cannot take apart. There will always be a way to take apart something once you get your hands on it. I admit, Sony might resort to using high explosives as their failsafe, but there is no such thing as magical DRM. I fail to see how on any logical level DRM solidly can work without the DMCA. Encryption works because it prevents a man in the middle from understanding the message. Public key encryption is like mailing an open lockbox and having the recipient put in their own lock box and a copy of a key to that box, then locking the box and mailing it. It seems to me DRM amounts to making a confounding number of mind boggling wadgets that make it hard to view something outside of a prescribed way. DRM is antithetical to open source, as it's not just machine code, and it certainly doesn't come with a manual written in some foreign programming language. Still, why would a company want to spend millions of dollars developing DRM when it's perfectly legal for everyone to use the crack that came out on the day of launch? I can see how a patent would encourage someone to disclose their work from running in a black box server or factory, but DRM and copyright do nothing to encourage disclosure of information.
"1st amendment"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"blatent contradiction of government power"
And how does the DMCA have anything to do with a limited time?
Neither BSD nor the GPL give a consistant vantage of what a copyright free world would be. The GPL portrays a more idealistic world free of copyright, this is to say people should provide source code for programs. If one was to apply this to the music industry, it would be consistant with forcing you to provide all the individual tracks used to make the music, and force those who wish to distribute new songs all the tracks they used to derive a new song. For the GPL, if you were to get rid of the open source clauses, eliminate any possibility of locking it down with any DMCA type theft, you would in essence have something closer to what it means to be free of copyright. The problem with BSD is that someone else can take your code and then not allow you to redistribute the portion of software they added. So if you're a copyright abolitionist, BSD is closer to putting the code in public domain rather than emulating a copyright free world. On the other hand, the GPL does open a door in terms of opening one's eyes to the needs of copyright reform.
To me, copyrights and patents are blatently contrary to the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. I suppose the better question is if this blatent contradiction of government power is a completely negative thing. In essence, it is a regulation on the free market. You can still sell ideas without copyright (as is with GPL software). What you can't do is have an exclusive right to what people do with your ideas. I think this might discourage the disclosure of some manufacturing processes - particularly when dealing with patents. Last I heard, hacker ideals and reverse engineering makes it rather impossible to distribute software and hide a manufacturing process so to speak. The only real use then for patents in software in a free(er) market is to share information that would be held in a server black box (perhaps the old ibm mainframe model). Idealy, patents should not apply to any software being distributed widely.
Yeah, that whole limited time thing kind of gets in the way of the DMCA doesn't it?