Clearly, you don't. Cost effective does not mean cheaper. Cost effective means cost effective. There might be problems with what he's saying, but that's a damn weak rebuttal.
XML Schemas have the benefit of being written in XML. That should make XML Schema support fairly easy to manage. Of course, the parser has never been the hard part with XML.
He wants to run his site, using his software, and receive a bit of recognition for his accomplishment. Well, gee, I can clearly see what your problem is with that. Please. He spent time and effort designing, writing, and planning it, and Half-empty hasn't had a chance to establish itself, yet. But he released the code, anyway. How self-serving is that? If he was really interested in cashing in, he would've either waited until Half-empty became (magically) profitable before releasing any code or just never released the code at all. As it stands, he released Glasscode probably before Half-empty could take too much competition, and to avoid losing Half-empty to some loser who is solely interested in cashing in on someone else's work, he placed a temporary commercial use restriction. Well, shit, we better go and lynch him, now.
Or maybe it runx on UNIX! Or... Well, I perxonally uxe xawfixh, xo maybe you're right. But it xeemx to me that GTK+ ixn't bound to Xlib. Expecially xince it runx on Win32, BeOX, and the Linux framebuffer. But maybe I'm wrong.
I'll Hit Myself For This, So Don't You Worry...
on
Linux Powered Dodge
·
· Score: 1
So they've renamed their company to, "Monkey." But not really Monkey, because it's not Simian, it's Ximian. And why Ximian over Zimian? Because X's are cool. HelixCode is a good name. Certainly better than Ximian. Ximian reminds me of Verizon, which reminds me of Barbizon. So, great, they get stronger trademark claims out of Ximian. They also get people saying, "Huh?" when they first see Ximian. I would have honestly preferred "Home & Garden Gnome" over Ximian.
It doesn't really matter. Sure, what they say is (generally) not true, but for every 1 false, misleading, or misdirecting denouncement of Linux that Microsoft has, there's 3 well-thought out rebuttals and 200 "MS sux0r!"s. Linux might not get the play and spin it deserves in the old guard of computer magazines. That sucks, but attacking them with words isn't going to win that battle. Linux-specific or Linux-inclusive publications are going the right way: attack the economy of the matter. If there's a large enough market for Linux information, business will try to assimilate, rather than lose customers. There are, already, a lot of other media sources that report Linux information. The newspapers manage to be remarkably inclusive in this department. Of course, traditional media is often clueless (I once heard a CNN reporter say, verbatim, that there were a lot of displays related to "Linux, a popular programming language." People might disagree over the definitions of kernels/OS/distribution [IMHO, GNU/Debian Linux is more logical than Debian GNU/Linux] -- but I think everyone agrees that Linux is not a programming language), but that's acceptable. All we really need is the interest and the people still interested in truth and positive advocacy.
Forget Microsoft. Linux is better worrying about Linux than it is about Microsoft. With how outraged people get over Microsoft's FUD, I wouldn't be surprised to find a multiverse-esque Microsoftian Slashdot somewhere and a bunch of people talking about how the Linux nut cases are scared to death of Microsoft. Then again, there is ZDnet.
I saw it, and I'm still disputing your estimation. Saying "average" doesn't make it more truthful. If there are more exceptions to your rule than there are "average" cases, you have an ill-computed average. The vast majority of software I see in commercial settings is several years old, generally more than 3, almost without exception 2. Businesses, especially small ones, are reluctant to put money into upgrades if the current system is working fine. The amount of work available during the Y2K scare is also representative. Some people might have been writing programs that weren't Y2K compliant as last as 1998 and 1999, but it doesn't strike me as too terribly likely. Y2K might be the only reason your figure holds true, since a lot of antiquated systems were updated or replaced in the past two years. However, I still have my doubts, here. Even video stores and pizza parlors are using software 4 or more years old.
Ok, so they claim they "clean-roomed" it. Is that supposed to be something close to illegal in the patent world?
No. A clean room implementation is one done in an environment without other code or sources. That is, you wrote it completely yourself, without reference to anything (aside from the standard in this case). This reduces the likelihood of you purposefully or accidentally violating a copyright by inclusion of others' code. This is sort of the opposite of reverse engineering (but not really). With reverse engineering you take a product or component and by fiddling with it, you determine how it works. A lot of people will reverse engineer a protocol, and then go to a clean room to implement it (which is why it's not really the opposite of clean room implementation: they're not mutually exclusive and reverse engineering does not imply copyright violation).
AI was Kubrick's vehicle. Kubrick had worked off-and-on on the project for years, probably more than you can count on your two hands... Sadly, Kubrick died. Now we get Spielberg doing Kubrick doing a movie the decesaed director was never quite content with. This ought to go well.
Well, Apple has to make efforts to protect their trademarks...
The case does not involve Apple trademarks; none of the themes taken down had Apple's logo. Actually, I'll go further: they did not use any Apple trademarks, infringe any Apple copyrights, nor unlawfully use any idea or invention patented by Apple. In other words, they are themes that just look like Apple's Aqua.
Of course! At least they were nice about denying your fair use rights. I mean, we clearly can't have any of our rights protected against Big Corporations, any more, so we should just settle for them being nice to us, right?
If themes.org refused to remove themes with the Apple look-and-feel (and remember, look-and-feel ain't copyrightable; you can patent certain ideas, but nifty pixmaps doesn't a new invention make), they'd send a cadre of lawyers upon them. And not necessarily to fight it out with t.o -- the case law (as cited in other comments) is pretty clear, particularly the Apple v Microsoft case -- but to bully them into submission with the threat of long, expensive legal battles. Here is where the US citizens are losing many, many, many of their rights, and this is what the government absolutely needs to address. Being a capitalist, I do not believe the government should enforce egalitarianism within society or the marketplace; being rational and fair-minded, I cannot excuse this country from not strictly enforcing egalitarian views upon the judicial process. The court should err on the side of the preservation of the rights of people.
This does not mean the deconstruction of Big Business (though, I admit, I would like that as well): it means levelling the playing field between all people before the court. Justice is blind, you say. Indeed, justice is blind -- so blind, in fact, that it cannot see that it is judging David v Goliath. David might win eventually, he probably would in this case, but does he have the means and resources to last it out? In most cases, no.
Wow, you're quite the jackass. For the record, I did read it; I live in Northern California, within the SF Bay Area. And as any good, patriotic person in the Bay Area knows, LA uses all of our resources and gets them cheaper. Why should it be different with electricity? South of San Francisco I can get gas 60 cents cheaper than I can here. And guess where the gas companies are located? It's right bleeding here. So maybe if you knew something about California and the SF Bay Area at all, you would drop the attitude and comprehend that I wasn't seriously blaming LA or recommending actually dropping the bomb on it. It's simply that LA is the typical scapegoat around these parts.
Having seen the original articles and reports, I'm sort of suspect of the entire thing. Obviously, there are going to be (and, indeed, ARE) energy problems given the sheer density of people and businesses within California. There were planned outages during the summer, and there may be more in the future. Is there a newer, bigger problem, now? Maybe. But some of the people the reporters are relying upon are clearly not making scientific assertions. Anyone who says that we, "simply don't have enough electrons to send through the wires," is quite clearly unqualified to speak about electricity, at all.
Simply put, there are limiting factors on the amount of charge that can be drawn. We might be running up against that wall. But until I get a hold of some solid science, I'm reserving my judgement. It's usually difficult to judge how much bad reporting, bad science, and hyperbole get into AP blurbs. In this case, however, I'm quite sure it's not built on a solid foundation.
That is, of course, a real shame and a problem in-and-of itself. There are clearly failings and issues that need to be addressed. There are going to be widespread energy shortages down the road as a matter of sheer resource limitations. We need some solid science, good reporting, and real initiative to resolve these things soon. I would prefer the infrastructure to be in-place and well-tested before we're forced to kluge a solution to our increasing energy needs.
Barring any sweeping remedies, maybe we could just drop the bomb on Los Angeles?
Hasn't the idea of "data havens" been discussed to death? It seems odd that we should debating this particular incarnation of the idea, now. The problems with data havens are manifold.
Your data is only secure when you know where it is and who has it.
If there's no local storage, where's the key to decrypt the data?
If it's static, doesn't that give outside parties long periods of time to try your key?
If it's dynamic, how do you change the key? How do you upgrade the encryption itself?
Remote servers doesn't mean remote routes.
There are fundamental problems with trust in these schemes. These problems grow exponentially when there's issues with key storage. There's even more concerns about routes and bandwidth. There are probably resolutions to these problems, but does M-o-o-t address them? Can it?
Maybe the biggest problem facing m-o-o-t aren't technical or trust-based at all. Maybe it's a simple question of feasibility. Can you build a data haven infrastructure without a clear way to ensure you're not compromising the people running the havens for you?
There is no demand at this time for an [abandonware/Linux/BeOS/VMS/open source/free software] (pick one) version of our software. If there comes a time when there is sufficient demand, we will reconsider. Until then, please stop demanding it. And tell your friends to stop, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly, you don't. Cost effective does not mean cheaper. Cost effective means cost effective. There might be problems with what he's saying, but that's a damn weak rebuttal.
I pronounce bioxml as by-ox-mil. The more I try to pronounce GEML as a word, the more it sounds like GML.
XML Schemas have the benefit of being written in XML. That should make XML Schema support fairly easy to manage. Of course, the parser has never been the hard part with XML.
It's probably not useful to express hair color as full RGB values, though.
You were being serious, right? Oh.
He wants to run his site, using his software, and receive a bit of recognition for his accomplishment. Well, gee, I can clearly see what your problem is with that. Please. He spent time and effort designing, writing, and planning it, and Half-empty hasn't had a chance to establish itself, yet. But he released the code, anyway. How self-serving is that? If he was really interested in cashing in, he would've either waited until Half-empty became (magically) profitable before releasing any code or just never released the code at all. As it stands, he released Glasscode probably before Half-empty could take too much competition, and to avoid losing Half-empty to some loser who is solely interested in cashing in on someone else's work, he placed a temporary commercial use restriction. Well, shit, we better go and lynch him, now.
Or maybe it runx on UNIX! Or... Well, I perxonally uxe xawfixh, xo maybe you're right. But it xeemx to me that GTK+ ixn't bound to Xlib. Expecially xince it runx on Win32, BeOX, and the Linux framebuffer. But maybe I'm wrong.
My car gave me a bus error.
It's $3.25, thanks. I go for the higher grade stuff.
Did they contact Namix? Should they have?
Forget Microsoft. Linux is better worrying about Linux than it is about Microsoft. With how outraged people get over Microsoft's FUD, I wouldn't be surprised to find a multiverse-esque Microsoftian Slashdot somewhere and a bunch of people talking about how the Linux nut cases are scared to death of Microsoft. Then again, there is ZDnet.
Indeed! And computers use base 2, therefore we know they have 2 fingers.
I saw it, and I'm still disputing your estimation. Saying "average" doesn't make it more truthful. If there are more exceptions to your rule than there are "average" cases, you have an ill-computed average. The vast majority of software I see in commercial settings is several years old, generally more than 3, almost without exception 2. Businesses, especially small ones, are reluctant to put money into upgrades if the current system is working fine. The amount of work available during the Y2K scare is also representative. Some people might have been writing programs that weren't Y2K compliant as last as 1998 and 1999, but it doesn't strike me as too terribly likely. Y2K might be the only reason your figure holds true, since a lot of antiquated systems were updated or replaced in the past two years. However, I still have my doubts, here. Even video stores and pizza parlors are using software 4 or more years old.
e, i, e, i, oh fuck off.
Slashdot is infringing on the colorblindness patent. See the story on MS being sued for racism. So when we can expect the problems? Better yet, when can we expect the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters to be passed so we can start rounding up the colorblind world wide?!
No. A clean room implementation is one done in an environment without other code or sources. That is, you wrote it completely yourself, without reference to anything (aside from the standard in this case). This reduces the likelihood of you purposefully or accidentally violating a copyright by inclusion of others' code. This is sort of the opposite of reverse engineering (but not really). With reverse engineering you take a product or component and by fiddling with it, you determine how it works. A lot of people will reverse engineer a protocol, and then go to a clean room to implement it (which is why it's not really the opposite of clean room implementation: they're not mutually exclusive and reverse engineering does not imply copyright violation).
AI was Kubrick's vehicle. Kubrick had worked off-and-on on the project for years, probably more than you can count on your two hands... Sadly, Kubrick died. Now we get Spielberg doing Kubrick doing a movie the decesaed director was never quite content with. This ought to go well.
Isn't MacOS X based on BSD? Raphsody was Mach, yes? Am I misunderstanding you? Something else?
The case does not involve Apple trademarks; none of the themes taken down had Apple's logo. Actually, I'll go further: they did not use any Apple trademarks, infringe any Apple copyrights, nor unlawfully use any idea or invention patented by Apple. In other words, they are themes that just look like Apple's Aqua.
If themes.org refused to remove themes with the Apple look-and-feel (and remember, look-and-feel ain't copyrightable; you can patent certain ideas, but nifty pixmaps doesn't a new invention make), they'd send a cadre of lawyers upon them. And not necessarily to fight it out with t.o -- the case law (as cited in other comments) is pretty clear, particularly the Apple v Microsoft case -- but to bully them into submission with the threat of long, expensive legal battles. Here is where the US citizens are losing many, many, many of their rights, and this is what the government absolutely needs to address. Being a capitalist, I do not believe the government should enforce egalitarianism within society or the marketplace; being rational and fair-minded, I cannot excuse this country from not strictly enforcing egalitarian views upon the judicial process. The court should err on the side of the preservation of the rights of people.
This does not mean the deconstruction of Big Business (though, I admit, I would like that as well): it means levelling the playing field between all people before the court. Justice is blind, you say. Indeed, justice is blind -- so blind, in fact, that it cannot see that it is judging David v Goliath. David might win eventually, he probably would in this case, but does he have the means and resources to last it out? In most cases, no.
Wow, you're quite the jackass. For the record, I did read it; I live in Northern California, within the SF Bay Area. And as any good, patriotic person in the Bay Area knows, LA uses all of our resources and gets them cheaper. Why should it be different with electricity? South of San Francisco I can get gas 60 cents cheaper than I can here. And guess where the gas companies are located? It's right bleeding here. So maybe if you knew something about California and the SF Bay Area at all, you would drop the attitude and comprehend that I wasn't seriously blaming LA or recommending actually dropping the bomb on it. It's simply that LA is the typical scapegoat around these parts.
Simply put, there are limiting factors on the amount of charge that can be drawn. We might be running up against that wall. But until I get a hold of some solid science, I'm reserving my judgement. It's usually difficult to judge how much bad reporting, bad science, and hyperbole get into AP blurbs. In this case, however, I'm quite sure it's not built on a solid foundation.
That is, of course, a real shame and a problem in-and-of itself. There are clearly failings and issues that need to be addressed. There are going to be widespread energy shortages down the road as a matter of sheer resource limitations. We need some solid science, good reporting, and real initiative to resolve these things soon. I would prefer the infrastructure to be in-place and well-tested before we're forced to kluge a solution to our increasing energy needs.
Barring any sweeping remedies, maybe we could just drop the bomb on Los Angeles?
There are fundamental problems with trust in these schemes. These problems grow exponentially when there's issues with key storage. There's even more concerns about routes and bandwidth. There are probably resolutions to these problems, but does M-o-o-t address them? Can it?
Maybe the biggest problem facing m-o-o-t aren't technical or trust-based at all. Maybe it's a simple question of feasibility. Can you build a data haven infrastructure without a clear way to ensure you're not compromising the people running the havens for you?
What'dya think, sirs?
There is no demand at this time for an [abandonware/Linux/BeOS/VMS/open source/free software] (pick one) version of our software. If there comes a time when there is sufficient demand, we will reconsider. Until then, please stop demanding it. And tell your friends to stop, as well.
Without moving parts, too.