Horsefeathers. Are you saying that people wanted to go see "Clones" and couldn't find a ticket? That movie theatres, who are mostly struggling for their business survival, are turning away people who'd like to see a movie? Do you think that if they'd only put Hugh Grant's "About a Boy" on a few more screens, it'd have taken in a hundred million it's first weekend too?
Exactly! The keyword here is "control." The article claims that speech is not a great way to exert detailed control over a machine. They're quite correct. The example they use is using speech to page down or highlight and italisize a word.
Long before word processors and even type writers, people used stenographers and secrataries to take diction. If you were dictating a letter, you didn't set look over the secratary's shoulder and tell her when to change pages or which words to italisize. You simple talked and trusted her to handle the details.
So long as a computer is a machine requiring detailed control and instructions, speech is an awkward interface. Once computers reach the point (and they will) where they can be trusted to handle the details and only need broad, general instructions, speech will become a viable interface.
The proposed solution is MUCH worse than the original law. A law that requires copy protection can be gotten around. It might make me a criminal to do so, but my chances of actually getting busted for it is quite slim.
On the other hand, a law which gives the government explicit permission to tap my net communications any time they like so they can check and see if I might be engaged in piracy is one of the most horrifying things I can imagine in terms of violations of civil liberties. It makes Carnivore insignificant. Christ! This idea makes Holling's proposed legislation look downright benevolent!
And then what? You find X, but it depends on Y. So now you're searching for Y, etc.
It isn't a matter of not understanding metacharacters. It's a matter of published instructions which don't work and having to manually perform tasks which should be automated. Small, sharp tools are cool. But I'm not going to go out and cut my grass with a paring knife. The issue isn't whether or not I know how to pipe ls through xargs. It's whether or not I should HAVE to.
I run debian on my Dell Inspiron 8100. And as a matter of fact, I'm fond of chains, though not so big on whips. Don't see the relationship between the two, however. Debian on a laptop is no more difficult than debian on a desktop.
OK, so the argument is that this is a Bad Thing because, although it has legitimate uses, some parent might abuse it. Isn't that like arguing that DeCSS should be illegal because somegody might abuse it to pirate a movie?
So, if Blizzard were really concerned solely about CD identification, they could add an external verification server and release a patch to the game to set up a Q3-like system. 3rd party servers would then just have to implement the public protocol and would never need to see the actual verification code.
How do Quake III Arena and similar games handle it? If you run an internet game, your systems acts as a server. However, the CD key is still verified via ID servers. Or am I misunderstanding the process there?
The market is a bit more complex than that. Borland releases a product. It sells poorly. Why? Is it because no one needs the product? Is it because the product performs poorly? Is it because no one knows about the product, or what the product will do? Is it because consumers don't like the terms under which the product is licensed? The market is more than just buy/sell transactions. It includes research, advertising and other forms of communication and feedback between buyer and seller. Consumers complaining, either publicly or directly to the company, certainly are a part of the market dynamics. They ARE part of how the market works.
OK, help me out here. If I want access to the 'net, I HAVE to go to an ISP (or tap into an existing connection somehow.) Once I get a connection, I can't reasonably share it with all my friends. Sure, they can come to my house and use it, or I could set up a modem bank and allow them to call in, but neither of those is really feasible.
Once I go to your download.com and grab a program, however, I can share it with every one of my friends without any real effort or cost to me. So why are my friends going to pay to access your site? Sure, "everyone would pay $10 a month if they had to pay that to access all the newest software." The problem is, they don't HAVE to do it now and they're not going to HAVE to do it under your plan.
Horsefeathers. You can have all the capital and knowledge in the world but you can't build an automobile without physical supplies of aluminum, rubber, glass, plastics, etc. Capital and knowledge are requirements as well, but that aren't nearly sufficient in and of themselves. You say "Given enough base materials AND mechanical work..." Well, of COURSE! That GIVEN which you so glibly dismiss is exactly the point. You MUST have those things to reproduce physical goods; to reproduce a computer program all you need is a storage medium.
Certainly, given enough Capital and Knowledge, I can build an exact replica of, say, a Corvette. But building one doesn't really help me build the next one. Mass production and assembly lines can reduce cost to some extent but there is still a fixed cost associated with the production of physical goods.
If you made the blueprints of a Corvette public domain, most people still wouldn't be able to afford one. Make the source of Linux public domain and anyone who wants it can have it.
Linux wasn't produced for free. It cost a great deal in terms of time and human effort. So did designing a Corvette. But the initial, knowledge-gathering phase of Linux is pretty much the whole cost. The knowledge-gathering phase of a Corvette is only a part of the cost.
Why limit yourself? I ride both a '78 Harley Davidson Electraglide and a Specialized Rockhopper FSR. I've got somewhere between 7 and 9 tatoos, depending upon how you count them, and all kinds of scars, from bouncing off everything from cars (the Harley) to trees (the Rockhopper). If it feels good, do it. And that ain't just about sex.
Wow. Talking about ridiculous notions. Where in the hell did you take economics?
The whole POINT of the H1-B system is to INTERERE with supply and demand. It works to artificially keep the supply low by limiting the number of foreign workers who may come here and work. The H1-B system is entirely skewed in the programmer's favor because it protects them from foreign competition. If you want supply and demand to actually set the wages, eleminate H1-B visas entirely and allow as many foreign programmers to come in as want.
Uh, what are you talking about? Nobody is complaining about the deal that foreign programers get. At least, not the foreign programmers. People are lining up, fighting, begging, clamoring to get H1-B visas. The point isn't that foreign programers are getting the shaft; the point is that foreign programmers are getting paid to move here and work while American programmers, particularly experienced American programmers, can't find a job, and the software industry is lobbying to bring MORE foreign programmers in.
Perhaps this is a sign that the "industry standard" rate is too high. Maybe American programmers should be willing to work for a bit less.
Certainly, Napster CAN do this. I haven't seen anyone saying that they can't do this, that it should be illegal, that they should be sued, etc. But just as Napster can do what they want, we can do what we want too. And that includes sitting around bitching about Napster's poor decision making or even organizing a boycott of Napster. No one is questioning their right to make the decision; we're discussing the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the choice.
OK, after you've booed yourself hoarse and thrown all the rotten tomatoes you have handy, is there a freely available Windows client for doing this? I'm currently running VNC but that is SLOW. I'm familiar with EXCEED but not willing to pay for it. Everything else I've found is in extreme alpha stages and not usable for daily use.
"I retain copyright, but you may copy this source if you accept that the cost is making available the source to anything built with it."
Not quite true. You can build anything you like with it without releasing the source. You're only required to release the source if you release the binaries. Take Apache for example, modify it all to hell and put it to running your web server. You don't have to release the source. Allow others to use your modified copy for their servers, however, and THEN you have to give them the source as well.
GPL can fairly be described as being viral, even by an advocate (such as myself), and doesn't "protect" against anything.
The GPL allows you to release your code to others fairly safely. Sure, it's backbone comes from copyright laws but to say that it doesn't protect anything is splitting a pretty fine hair.
What was Avant!'s crime? They stole intellectual property. Since when is stealing intellectual property considered a crime on Slashdot? Shouldn't we be applauding Avant! for taking a principled stand by refusing to recognize archaic and unjust intellectual property laws?
There's no reason they shouldn't start another business. The idea is that they should not profit from their illegal acts. If they want to start over from scratch, without any of the assets they invested in the illegal company, more power to them.
The real answer is that it's much easier to prove possession of burglary tools than it is to prove burglary or attempted burglary. (BTW, don't mistake my stating the principle as support of it. You're quite right that punishment should be based upon actual harm done.)
Slashdot Mirror
Horsefeathers. Are you saying that people wanted to go see "Clones" and couldn't find a ticket? That movie theatres, who are mostly struggling for their business survival, are turning away people who'd like to see a movie? Do you think that if they'd only put Hugh Grant's "About a Boy" on a few more screens, it'd have taken in a hundred million it's first weekend too?
Exactly! The keyword here is "control." The article claims that speech is not a great way to exert detailed control over a machine. They're quite correct. The example they use is using speech to page down or highlight and italisize a word.
Long before word processors and even type writers, people used stenographers and secrataries to take diction. If you were dictating a letter, you didn't set look over the secratary's shoulder and tell her when to change pages or which words to italisize. You simple talked and trusted her to handle the details.
So long as a computer is a machine requiring detailed control and instructions, speech is an awkward interface. Once computers reach the point (and they will) where they can be trusted to handle the details and only need broad, general instructions, speech will become a viable interface.
The proposed solution is MUCH worse than the original law. A law that requires copy protection can be gotten around. It might make me a criminal to do so, but my chances of actually getting busted for it is quite slim.
On the other hand, a law which gives the government explicit permission to tap my net communications any time they like so they can check and see if I might be engaged in piracy is one of the most horrifying things I can imagine in terms of violations of civil liberties. It makes Carnivore insignificant. Christ! This idea makes Holling's proposed legislation look downright benevolent!
And then what? You find X, but it depends on Y. So now you're searching for Y, etc.
It isn't a matter of not understanding metacharacters. It's a matter of published instructions which don't work and having to manually perform tasks which should be automated. Small, sharp tools are cool. But I'm not going to go out and cut my grass with a paring knife. The issue isn't whether or not I know how to pipe ls through xargs. It's whether or not I should HAVE to.
I run debian on my Dell Inspiron 8100. And as a matter of fact, I'm fond of chains, though not so big on whips. Don't see the relationship between the two, however. Debian on a laptop is no more difficult than debian on a desktop.
OK, so the argument is that this is a Bad Thing because, although it has legitimate uses, some parent might abuse it. Isn't that like arguing that DeCSS should be illegal because somegody might abuse it to pirate a movie?
So, if Blizzard were really concerned solely about CD identification, they could add an external verification server and release a patch to the game to set up a Q3-like system. 3rd party servers would then just have to implement the public protocol and would never need to see the actual verification code.
How do Quake III Arena and similar games handle it? If you run an internet game, your systems acts as a server. However, the CD key is still verified via ID servers. Or am I misunderstanding the process there?
< anal whining > That's not an oscilloscope trace. It's a spectrum analyzer. < /anal whining >
The market is a bit more complex than that. Borland releases a product. It sells poorly. Why? Is it because no one needs the product? Is it because the product performs poorly? Is it because no one knows about the product, or what the product will do? Is it because consumers don't like the terms under which the product is licensed? The market is more than just buy/sell transactions. It includes research, advertising and other forms of communication and feedback between buyer and seller. Consumers complaining, either publicly or directly to the company, certainly are a part of the market dynamics. They ARE part of how the market works.
OK, help me out here. If I want access to the 'net, I HAVE to go to an ISP (or tap into an existing connection somehow.) Once I get a connection, I can't reasonably share it with all my friends. Sure, they can come to my house and use it, or I could set up a modem bank and allow them to call in, but neither of those is really feasible.
Once I go to your download.com and grab a program, however, I can share it with every one of my friends without any real effort or cost to me. So why are my friends going to pay to access your site? Sure, "everyone would pay $10 a month if they had to pay that to access all the newest software." The problem is, they don't HAVE to do it now and they're not going to HAVE to do it under your plan.
Horsefeathers. You can have all the capital and knowledge in the world but you can't build an automobile without physical supplies of aluminum, rubber, glass, plastics, etc. Capital and knowledge are requirements as well, but that aren't nearly sufficient in and of themselves. You say "Given enough base materials AND mechanical work..." Well, of COURSE! That GIVEN which you so glibly dismiss is exactly the point. You MUST have those things to reproduce physical goods; to reproduce a computer program all you need is a storage medium.
Certainly, given enough Capital and Knowledge, I can build an exact replica of, say, a Corvette. But building one doesn't really help me build the next one. Mass production and assembly lines can reduce cost to some extent but there is still a fixed cost associated with the production of physical goods.
If you made the blueprints of a Corvette public domain, most people still wouldn't be able to afford one. Make the source of Linux public domain and anyone who wants it can have it.
Linux wasn't produced for free. It cost a great deal in terms of time and human effort. So did designing a Corvette. But the initial, knowledge-gathering phase of Linux is pretty much the whole cost. The knowledge-gathering phase of a Corvette is only a part of the cost.
Why limit yourself? I ride both a '78 Harley Davidson Electraglide and a Specialized Rockhopper FSR. I've got somewhere between 7 and 9 tatoos, depending upon how you count them, and all kinds of scars, from bouncing off everything from cars (the Harley) to trees (the Rockhopper). If it feels good, do it. And that ain't just about sex.
Perhaps you meant to say "Why do you neeed the list, when you have apt-spy?"
Given today's optimizing compilers, the two are probably functionally equivalent.
That's what "contingency" means... that the pay is contingent upon winning.
I think the "him" in question is Mosfet. If Future Tech wins the lawsuit, will they then have to pay Mosfet the money they owe him?
There IS no science fiction currently on televisions that I'm aware of. There's lots of fantasy with a scientific bent, but no real sci-fi.
The whole POINT of the H1-B system is to INTERERE with supply and demand. It works to artificially keep the supply low by limiting the number of foreign workers who may come here and work. The H1-B system is entirely skewed in the programmer's favor because it protects them from foreign competition. If you want supply and demand to actually set the wages, eleminate H1-B visas entirely and allow as many foreign programmers to come in as want.
Perhaps this is a sign that the "industry standard" rate is too high. Maybe American programmers should be willing to work for a bit less.
Certainly, Napster CAN do this. I haven't seen anyone saying that they can't do this, that it should be illegal, that they should be sued, etc. But just as Napster can do what they want, we can do what we want too. And that includes sitting around bitching about Napster's poor decision making or even organizing a boycott of Napster. No one is questioning their right to make the decision; we're discussing the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the choice.
OK, after you've booed yourself hoarse and thrown all the rotten tomatoes you have handy, is there a freely available Windows client for doing this? I'm currently running VNC but that is SLOW. I'm familiar with EXCEED but not willing to pay for it. Everything else I've found is in extreme alpha stages and not usable for daily use.
Not quite true. You can build anything you like with it without releasing the source. You're only required to release the source if you release the binaries. Take Apache for example, modify it all to hell and put it to running your web server. You don't have to release the source. Allow others to use your modified copy for their servers, however, and THEN you have to give them the source as well.
GPL can fairly be described as being viral, even by an advocate (such as myself), and doesn't "protect" against anything.
The GPL allows you to release your code to others fairly safely. Sure, it's backbone comes from copyright laws but to say that it doesn't protect anything is splitting a pretty fine hair.
What was Avant!'s crime? They stole intellectual property. Since when is stealing intellectual property considered a crime on Slashdot? Shouldn't we be applauding Avant! for taking a principled stand by refusing to recognize archaic and unjust intellectual property laws?
There's no reason they shouldn't start another business. The idea is that they should not profit from their illegal acts. If they want to start over from scratch, without any of the assets they invested in the illegal company, more power to them.
The real answer is that it's much easier to prove possession of burglary tools than it is to prove burglary or attempted burglary. (BTW, don't mistake my stating the principle as support of it. You're quite right that punishment should be based upon actual harm done.)