This will be especially relevant for Bandwidth co-ops.
The biggest obstacle to creating a co-op is having enough potential subscribers to convince the telcos that it will be worth their while to run the dry pairs the "last mile" from the DSL POPs to the houses. I am guessing that this technology will begin to allow metropolitan bandwidth co-ops to have an effective solution outside of the telco's control. Please, oh please, let broadband not suck forever.
A question which I don't think has been asked enough is "Do we have a right to know what is being done with our information?". When medical surveys are conducted, they survey-takers are required by law to disclose what information is being taken and for what purpose the information will be used. Shouldn't government be held to the same standard? I'd feel better about handing my info over if I knew that it wasn't going to be used to track my movements, or in some other underhanded way.
Are there any medical professionals out there who know the details of what is required of medical research in terms of informed consent of the subjects? Also, why that consent is required, and can that be applied in this case?
Here's an idea for Yellow Dog: Develop a linux compatibility layer for OS X. True, many command-line utilities already compile and run just fine on OS X, but many depend on libraries specific to linux, and won't compile.
Solution: develop a simple-to-install set of libraries which would enable use of most (if not all) linux programs on OS X.
Now this is entirely apple-legend, but I have heard that the "sosumi" system alert sound was the first musical alert sound. The name, when said out loud, is "So Sue Me", and I've heard that it was a jab at the law suit Apple Corp. threatened over getting into music with the (then new) computer. It might be a complete load of poo story, but its fun anyways:-)
Premise one : it is Work to create content, whether it be music, video, the printed word, or computer code. What do I mean by Work? Well, first it requires a portion of the content creator's lifespan to create content. Obviously, the people doing the creating must meet their needs during this time, and more skilled (or at least more popular) content creators must receive proportionally more compensation for their labors. (hence popular content receives more compensation)
Well (obviously) the entire open-source movement couldn't exist then, because people aren't getting paid all that much to work on it. Oh well, time to go back to Windows, everything else has failed before it even had a chance.
Premise Two : If someone is allowed to enjoy such created content, whatever to media, without paying for it they decrease the incentive the creators of such content have to produce it. If so few people pay for it in some manner that it is more effort to create content than the creators are compensated (measured in subjective terms, of course) then the creator of the content will likely move on to a more productive form of employment.
Okay, I think you've missed the boat on Art itself here. Art is not done for the profits. Most artists find it very very difficult to make a living at what they do. Yet they keep doing it because they love to perform their art. For every band that you see as a one-hit-wonder on TRL this week there are dozens/hundreds which have music just as good or better, yet will never be seen. It is not the hope of some day finding acceptance in corporate America (and through them in the minds of the stuporous populous), or the power and wealth which go along with such acceptance which drives them. It is the love of their art and the thrill which comes along with sharing it with people which keeps artists going.
Premise 3 : The digital age allows one to make absolutely perfect copies of content, for almost any form. Many people find they can get content for free with perfect quality.
Well then its about freakin' time that someone realized that the advent of digital technology means that the MPAA, RIAA, and such organizations who arose out of a need for national distribution of their industry's products have been obsoleted by technology. They simply cannot survive trying to peddle their wares any more. They will adapt to the new economic realities of their situation, or perish, plain and simple. It won't matter what laws are passed. It's simply corporate evolution. They are unfit to continue.
Um, you guys don't know heads from tails. Go read up a bit.
If you go to to apple's darwin site (i think it's www.opensource.apple.com/darwin) and check in the projects listing, you'll find a little entry for emacs.
What you're not getting is that Darwin is NOT just a kernel. It is a whole operating system distribution.
You said: Apple will not be porting the Mac OS to x86 for the same reason that Steve Jobs won't allow the smallest bit of GPLed code into Darwin. It would put Apple out of business.
Ready?
1) Emacs is GPL'd
2) Emacs is included into the OS X install.
Thus, I show you to be wrong.
Here's an idea: let's require those who are commenting on apple's software to include a disclaimer in the same vein as IANAL. We could call it IDRAS (I Don't Run Apple Software).
Well, in any case, IRAS. I'd guess this guy didn't.
Sayeth Mr. Gates: "...it makes it impossible for a commercial company to use any of that work or build on any of that work."
I would contend that Mac OS X, which includes tons of GPL'd software (gcc, emacs among others), is a product of a commercial company building on GPL'd software. The difference is that Apple, when they have been making changes to GPL'd code, has been submitting their changes back from whence it came. They have an engineer who is in charge of giving patches back to the open source community.
They've given many patches to the Apache project. The Objective-C commit manager for gcc is actually an Apple employee.
The point is this: You can mix commercial and GPL. The commercial companies just have to play nice, and do their part too. Next time you download the latest Apache or gcc, just realize that you're running code written, among others, by Apple engineers.
If only Microsoft weren't so threatened by open source, maybe they'd learn to use it as the enourmous tool that it is.
I finally get to be a Moderator (supreme cosmic power at my fingertips!) and I get stuck moderating people's trolls on slashdot's april fools posts? Dah. Its a cruel cruel web.
Well, I don't really have much of a problem with the premise of this proposal. What bothers me is the fact that in the past, internet users have only been allowed to listen to the home team's broadcast.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a real like of the broadcasters in my town (Joe Castiglione and Jerry Trupiano in Boston) and didn't much like listening to the other team's home broadcasts. The opponents broadcasters never felt as comfortable to me, and they were unable to satisfy my need for coherency between broadcasts, as they needed to provide information to their home audience primarily, and leave Red Sox Nation infos out (if they knew them at all).
I have a feeling that this policy may change, but if MLB maintains the status quo, and weei.com is forbidden from broadcasting games over the internet, I will be rather peeved.
Slashdot Mirror
In the words of the Republican party: NO.
Geez you people are lazy. Since this is an international energy issue, let's turn to... i dunno... the International Energy Agency?
http://www.iea.org/files/energy_subsidies.pdf
"The IEA analysis has revealed that fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $557 bn in 2008."
Iraq's oil subsidy ALONE was $100 bn (from same summary paper).
I've been working on very well-known projects for many years, and the best advice I can give is to avoid shared mutable state.
This will be especially relevant for Bandwidth co-ops.
The biggest obstacle to creating a co-op is having enough potential subscribers to convince the telcos that it will be worth their while to run the dry pairs the "last mile" from the DSL POPs to the houses. I am guessing that this technology will begin to allow metropolitan bandwidth co-ops to have an effective solution outside of the telco's control. Please, oh please, let broadband not suck forever.
A question which I don't think has been asked enough is "Do we have a right to know what is being done with our information?". When medical surveys are conducted, they survey-takers are required by law to disclose what information is being taken and for what purpose the information will be used. Shouldn't government be held to the same standard? I'd feel better about handing my info over if I knew that it wasn't going to be used to track my movements, or in some other underhanded way.
Are there any medical professionals out there who know the details of what is required of medical research in terms of informed consent of the subjects? Also, why that consent is required, and can that be applied in this case?
Just curious...
Here's an idea for Yellow Dog:
Develop a linux compatibility layer for OS X. True, many command-line utilities already compile and run just fine on OS X, but many depend on libraries specific to linux, and won't compile.
Solution: develop a simple-to-install set of libraries which would enable use of most (if not all) linux programs on OS X.
Comments?
Now this is entirely apple-legend, but I have heard that the "sosumi" system alert sound was the first musical alert sound. The name, when said out loud, is "So Sue Me", and I've heard that it was a jab at the law suit Apple Corp. threatened over getting into music with the (then new) computer. It might be a complete load of poo story, but its fun anyways :-)
Premise one : it is Work to create content, whether it be music, video, the printed word, or computer code. What do I mean by Work? Well, first it requires a portion of the content creator's lifespan to create content. Obviously, the people doing the creating must meet their needs during this time, and more skilled (or at least more popular) content creators must receive proportionally more compensation for their labors. (hence popular content receives more compensation)
Well (obviously) the entire open-source movement couldn't exist then, because people aren't getting paid all that much to work on it. Oh well, time to go back to Windows, everything else has failed before it even had a chance.
Premise Two : If someone is allowed to enjoy such created content, whatever to media, without paying for it they decrease the incentive the creators of such content have to produce it. If so few people pay for it in some manner that it is more effort to create content than the creators are compensated (measured in subjective terms, of course) then the creator of the content will likely move on to a more productive form of employment.
Okay, I think you've missed the boat on Art itself here. Art is not done for the profits. Most artists find it very very difficult to make a living at what they do. Yet they keep doing it because they love to perform their art. For every band that you see as a one-hit-wonder on TRL this week there are dozens/hundreds which have music just as good or better, yet will never be seen. It is not the hope of some day finding acceptance in corporate America (and through them in the minds of the stuporous populous), or the power and wealth which go along with such acceptance which drives them. It is the love of their art and the thrill which comes along with sharing it with people which keeps artists going.
Premise 3 : The digital age allows one to make absolutely perfect copies of content, for almost any form. Many people find they can get content for free with perfect quality.
Well then its about freakin' time that someone realized that the advent of digital technology means that the MPAA, RIAA, and such organizations who arose out of a need for national distribution of their industry's products have been obsoleted by technology. They simply cannot survive trying to peddle their wares any more. They will adapt to the new economic realities of their situation, or perish, plain and simple. It won't matter what laws are passed. It's simply corporate evolution. They are unfit to continue.
Rant mode off.
Um, you guys don't know heads from tails. Go read up a bit.
If you go to to apple's darwin site (i think it's www.opensource.apple.com/darwin) and check in the projects listing, you'll find a little entry for emacs.
What you're not getting is that Darwin is NOT just a kernel. It is a whole operating system distribution.
You said:
Apple will not be porting the Mac OS to x86 for the same reason that Steve Jobs won't allow the smallest bit of GPLed code into Darwin. It would put Apple out of business.
Ready?
1) Emacs is GPL'd
2) Emacs is included into the OS X install.
Thus, I show you to be wrong.
Here's an idea: let's require those who are commenting on apple's software to include a disclaimer in the same vein as IANAL. We could call it IDRAS (I Don't Run Apple Software).
Well, in any case, IRAS. I'd guess this guy didn't.
Sayeth Mr. Gates: "...it makes it impossible for a commercial company to use any of that work or build on any of that work."
I would contend that Mac OS X, which includes tons of GPL'd software (gcc, emacs among others), is a product of a commercial company building on GPL'd software. The difference is that Apple, when they have been making changes to GPL'd code, has been submitting their changes back from whence it came. They have an engineer who is in charge of giving patches back to the open source community.
They've given many patches to the Apache project. The Objective-C commit manager for gcc is actually an Apple employee. The point is this: You can mix commercial and GPL. The commercial companies just have to play nice, and do their part too. Next time you download the latest Apache or gcc, just realize that you're running code written, among others, by Apple engineers. If only Microsoft weren't so threatened by open source, maybe they'd learn to use it as the enourmous tool that it is.
I finally get to be a Moderator (supreme cosmic power at my fingertips!) and I get stuck moderating people's trolls on slashdot's april fools posts? Dah. Its a cruel cruel web.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a real like of the broadcasters in my town (Joe Castiglione and Jerry Trupiano in Boston) and didn't much like listening to the other team's home broadcasts. The opponents broadcasters never felt as comfortable to me, and they were unable to satisfy my need for coherency between broadcasts, as they needed to provide information to their home audience primarily, and leave Red Sox Nation infos out (if they knew them at all).
I have a feeling that this policy may change, but if MLB maintains the status quo, and weei.com is forbidden from broadcasting games over the internet, I will be rather peeved.