It tries, but shifting router loads add uncertainty. A route change would be worse, and even if NTP clients and servers ask for source routing (which I don't think they do) most of the network will ignore it (if not drop the packets entirely as spoofing or cracking attempts).
The legal status of fair use hasn't changed--it's a defense, not an affirmative right. You won't be charged for infringement if you succeed, but if they make it impossible (and they're making more and more progress), it sucks to be us.
All those people with PVRs boast about saving time watching TV by pausing the first 20 minutes and then skipping ads. Since DVDs don't have ads (at least not as interruptions), playing them substantially faster than 60fields/second is the obvious step. (Isn't there supposed to be some graceful way to drop audio samples so everyone doesn't sound like chipmunks?)
If Andreessen (or any of the other leads) were competent programmers, Netscape would have had a working parser and they wouldn't have botched every HTML extension (IMG instead of OBJECT, FRAMESET instead of LINK, LAYER instead of IFRAME) and then failed to document them as valid SGML.
Re:Marketing Hype = More $$$
on
Web Services
·
· Score: 1
SOAP is a design toolkit (like yacc, TCP/IP, and electrical schematic symbols). Since the abstractions are standardized, you can use it to concisely and thoroughly specify a protocol and have some hope of interoperating with the same knuckle-draggers who could never get IIOP to work.
The answer to the question "shouldn't any business trying to make money be afraid of new competition?" is no. Fear of competition is recognition that your position in the industry is undeserved, and a free market (if allowed to function) would quickly take it back from you.
They pay as little as they think they can get away with in tax, and charge whatever amount yields the highest net income for them. The two aren't related (why would the price-sensitivity of their customers vary with their corporate tax return?) and if their taxes go down they certainly won't lower their prices to compensate.
The bubble burst because of a huge number of fledgling companies whose "business plans" ended with
... and we'll do it all below cost (to corner the ___ market) and make it up by selling ad impressions on the Internet!
that diverted and squandered vast resources from the productive economy (as symbolized by investors' losses) until the investors finally caught on. Only a small number of these companies were selling copies of software (as opposed to selling the labor of writing it, which is ethical and works), so freedom is hardly to blame here.
Apache's extensibility is an innovation, especially compared with NCSA httpd. But you're probably looking for whole systems like
Perl (far different than any of its forebears)
PGP (web of trust was absolutely novel)
Emacs (a decades-old text editor still flexible enough to make into a PIM and a Web browser--simultaneously!)
EROS (we've needed capability-based security forever, and this is GPL'd and even DARPA-funded)
Freenet (probably not even possible for a proprietary company to get away with)
It's just that of all the things that obviously and urgently need doing, there's already proprietary software that does most of it (precisely because those things were urgent for users, it was possible for vendors to afford to do them), so naturally if they choosing priorities well most of their work will look derivative, at least until they catch up.
Anything nontrivial is long enough to qualify for a copyright, and therefore was copyrighted the moment it was written. The default legal status is "no copies/derived works allowed except for fair use", and using a work in its entirety without intending critique is probably not fair use.
Calling your idea "EGPL" seems misleading, since it's nothing like a copyleft license. I have seen books with boilerplate saying "the code contained in this book is in the public domain" (and other books explicitly reserving all rights to the authors), which sounds adequate. Since sample code traditionally omits almost all error handling and is meant to be modified, I don't think readers would have much of a case for liability due to bugs, but IANAL.
Competition is how our society allocates scarce resources to producers. Ethical businesses deal with competition by offering better (or at least as as good) value to customers, or giving up and finding something different they're extraordinarily good at providing. Preventing competition from existing is an admission of abject failure, and it steals resources from competent producers.
S/MIME vendors have made peer key certification needlessly difficult (one key can't usefully be signed by two certifiers, and hardly any users' S/MIME clients can sign keys anyway) to drum up business for bureaucratic single points of failure that are hostile to privacy and pseudonymity. PGP's web of trust is more democratic, and its source has long been available.
Anyone claiming that it's possible to leave this universe and enter another needs to explain why we never see anyone entering this universe (after presumably having left another).
If you assume parallel universes to resolve paradoxes, we know nobody warned Mallett's father, and if he goes "back" he will be warning a man in some other universe who corresponds to his father--and the Mallett in that universe (not ours) may not bother to build a time machine.
Slash HTML is about right. Letting you use quotations and emphasize phrases is useful. Letting you specify a font or color for the entire message (which are almost inevitably going to be less readable than my hand-chosen defaults) is not.
If I sent the original message, I know what I wrote
If I may not be able to tell exactly which idea you're commenting on, the appropriate quote (as above) can help. If not, don't quote anything. The only reason for putting the entire previous message at the bottom is that you know I don't want to read it, which is a clue that it shouldn't be there at all.
As poor management decisions go, letting your investors talk you into burning money for the privilege of selling them a larger share of the company (on extremely favorable terms) to raise money you didn't really need has to be near the top of the list.
I've heard "can't live without Mozilla tabs" before. Why? My box already has a perfectly good window manager--what good is another that only works in one app and whose controls and key bindings don't even appear on the menus?
Wiser heads than ours also forbade patents on mathematical formulæ, which we already changed lightly.
Society only benefits when a patented invention would not have been rediscovered and published during the term of the patent (so that the expiration of the patent term gives us access to the invention sooner than we otherwise would have had it), yet the patent system takes no account of the pace of progress or number of inventors in a field.
It's in the public domain. Feel free to fork it. Don't get your hopes up, though--his politics have a lot in common with most geeks' (which is probably why he put them in!)
The official NSFNet terms of service forbade commercial use. The rules were hardly "unwritten", just not thoroughly enforced. Even when CIX formed a commerce-friendly backbone, everyone knew some commercial traffic would leak into shorter paths through NSFNet, which meant some peer had violated the terms of service, but they didn't want to require that everyone buy two routers to make sure that didn't happen.
The US supreme court has somehow decided that the government must overcome higher barriers in order to restrict political speech, but commercial speech is still protected. The First Amendment isn't limited to any particular purpose.
People who have discussions on Usenet are such a small minority of any ISP's users that most ISPs wouldn't bother maintaining newsfeeds at all if not for demand for pr0n and w4r3z. Think of it like the junk mail subsidy for US first class mail, and an alarming comment on society.
Slashdot Mirror
Would it work over the multicast backbone, or do you rely on latency being strictly proportional to physical distance?
It tries, but shifting router loads add uncertainty. A route change would be worse, and even if NTP clients and servers ask for source routing (which I don't think they do) most of the network will ignore it (if not drop the packets entirely as spoofing or cracking attempts).
The legal status of fair use hasn't changed--it's a defense, not an affirmative right. You won't be charged for infringement if you succeed, but if they make it impossible (and they're making more and more progress), it sucks to be us.
All those people with PVRs boast about saving time watching TV by pausing the first 20 minutes and then skipping ads. Since DVDs don't have ads (at least not as interruptions), playing them substantially faster than 60fields/second is the obvious step. (Isn't there supposed to be some graceful way to drop audio samples so everyone doesn't sound like chipmunks?)
If Andreessen (or any of the other leads) were competent programmers, Netscape would have had a working parser and they wouldn't have botched every HTML extension (IMG instead of OBJECT, FRAMESET instead of LINK, LAYER instead of IFRAME) and then failed to document them as valid SGML.
SOAP is a design toolkit (like yacc, TCP/IP, and electrical schematic symbols). Since the abstractions are standardized, you can use it to concisely and thoroughly specify a protocol and have some hope of interoperating with the same knuckle-draggers who could never get IIOP to work.
The answer to the question "shouldn't any business trying to make money be afraid of new competition?" is no. Fear of competition is recognition that your position in the industry is undeserved, and a free market (if allowed to function) would quickly take it back from you.
They pay as little as they think they can get away with in tax, and charge whatever amount yields the highest net income for them. The two aren't related (why would the price-sensitivity of their customers vary with their corporate tax return?) and if their taxes go down they certainly won't lower their prices to compensate.
- Perl (far different than any of its forebears)
- PGP (web of trust was absolutely novel)
- Emacs (a decades-old text editor still flexible enough to make into a PIM and a Web browser--simultaneously!)
- EROS (we've needed capability-based security forever, and this is GPL'd and even DARPA-funded)
- Freenet (probably not even possible for a proprietary company to get away with)
It's just that of all the things that obviously and urgently need doing, there's already proprietary software that does most of it (precisely because those things were urgent for users, it was possible for vendors to afford to do them), so naturally if they choosing priorities well most of their work will look derivative, at least until they catch up.Calling your idea "EGPL" seems misleading, since it's nothing like a copyleft license. I have seen books with boilerplate saying "the code contained in this book is in the public domain" (and other books explicitly reserving all rights to the authors), which sounds adequate. Since sample code traditionally omits almost all error handling and is meant to be modified, I don't think readers would have much of a case for liability due to bugs, but IANAL.
Competition is how our society allocates scarce resources to producers. Ethical businesses deal with competition by offering better (or at least as as good) value to customers, or giving up and finding something different they're extraordinarily good at providing. Preventing competition from existing is an admission of abject failure, and it steals resources from competent producers.
S/MIME vendors have made peer key certification needlessly difficult (one key can't usefully be signed by two certifiers, and hardly any users' S/MIME clients can sign keys anyway) to drum up business for bureaucratic single points of failure that are hostile to privacy and pseudonymity. PGP's web of trust is more democratic, and its source has long been available.
Anyone claiming that it's possible to leave this universe and enter another needs to explain why we never see anyone entering this universe (after presumably having left another).
If you assume parallel universes to resolve paradoxes, we know nobody warned Mallett's father, and if he goes "back" he will be warning a man in some other universe who corresponds to his father--and the Mallett in that universe (not ours) may not bother to build a time machine.
Slash HTML is about right. Letting you use quotations and emphasize phrases is useful. Letting you specify a font or color for the entire message (which are almost inevitably going to be less readable than my hand-chosen defaults) is not.
As poor management decisions go, letting your investors talk you into burning money for the privilege of selling them a larger share of the company (on extremely favorable terms) to raise money you didn't really need has to be near the top of the list.
I've heard "can't live without Mozilla tabs" before. Why? My box already has a perfectly good window manager--what good is another that only works in one app and whose controls and key bindings don't even appear on the menus?
Wiser heads than ours also forbade patents on mathematical formulæ, which we already changed lightly.
Society only benefits when a patented invention would not have been rediscovered and published during the term of the patent (so that the expiration of the patent term gives us access to the invention sooner than we otherwise would have had it), yet the patent system takes no account of the pace of progress or number of inventors in a field.
Should any vendor with an important enough role be able to buy the right to have no competitors?
It's in the public domain. Feel free to fork it. Don't get your hopes up, though--his politics have a lot in common with most geeks' (which is probably why he put them in!)
The official NSFNet terms of service forbade commercial use. The rules were hardly "unwritten", just not thoroughly enforced. Even when CIX formed a commerce-friendly backbone, everyone knew some commercial traffic would leak into shorter paths through NSFNet, which meant some peer had violated the terms of service, but they didn't want to require that everyone buy two routers to make sure that didn't happen.
The US supreme court has somehow decided that the government must overcome higher barriers in order to restrict political speech, but commercial speech is still protected. The First Amendment isn't limited to any particular purpose.
People who have discussions on Usenet are such a small minority of any ISP's users that most ISPs wouldn't bother maintaining newsfeeds at all if not for demand for pr0n and w4r3z. Think of it like the junk mail subsidy for US first class mail, and an alarming comment on society.