Why shouldn't AOL bitch about this, in any form they choose, when they're paying for bandwith, etc.
OK, did you even read the article? Consider the alternative, TOC. If Jabber, GAIM, and every other AIM client used TOC to connect to AOL's servers (sacrificing some functionality), would AOL be able to bitch about the bandwidth?
That would be like complaining that you left your front door unlocked and put out a sign inviting everyone in to eat your food and drink your drink.
If anything, the metaphor for using OSCAR changes to some extra people coming in through your backdoor and using your toilet too.
So, yes, it is using AOLs resources, but so is TOC -- and TOC is sanctioned. The argument can't be about resources then. It has to be about whether or not its a use sanctioned by thw owner of those resources.
Now if this doesn't sound like performing an illegal action... then I don't know what is.
Having standby methods does not maqking something illegal. It is no more illegal than their present solution to steal, as you put it, AOL's resources. Here's another example of something that sound illegal that really isn't:
Covering your two-year-old kid in vast quantities of dihydrogen monoxide as he screams bloody murder.
As others have stated here, to be a defacto standard, you need a majority of users -- or at least, the largest piece of the pie. Jabber doesn't presently have that.
In fact, the driving forces of Jabber seem to be in conflict with this. The OpenSource jabber.org guys seem bent on adding amazingly cool features and pushing that Jabber is more than IM. The commcercial arm seems relatively silent but appears to be amed only at corporations.
To become a defacto standard, they need users. To get users, they need to focus on Jabber proliferation -- both client and server. Add features the common IM man wants, make it more usable than the native IM clients and servers, etc.
First, attract users to gain visibility. Then add features to show what else you can do.
I've tried confincing some people at my office to open the firewall for Jabber. I figure, rather than specific holes for each of AIM, ICQ, etc., why notopen one whole for Jabber instead of one for each IM platform?
Alas they refused. The next alternative for me would be some sort of HTTP tunneling to get through the corporate firewall. Alas, I have found no support for this, although I've seen tidbits that some people are investigating it.
I'd be more inclined to tinker with Jabber if the server weren't tied to Linux. Sure, there are some fringe projects trying to run the server on other platforms (most interestingly, Java). But what is really needed are some other stable platforms for Jabber servers.
Years ago, while attending a Chemistry Seminar in high school, I attended a presentation on programmed cell death. While the presentation (and presumably the research) focused on brain cells, it sounds very much like this AIF gene.
So is this new? Perhaps it is the discovery of the gene that is new, but nto the knowledge that cells can commit suicide.
There is a general oversight in copy protection that I have never sees considered by these copy-protection-happy folks nor brought up by their antagonists.
Copyright terms are limited. Is the copyright protection?
Of course not, that's nearly impossible to do. If a copyright term today is, say, 100 years, will that copy protected CD be copyable in 2101? Same goes for SDMI, DVDs and all that other crap.
After the term, will it then be legal to "circumvent" such copy protection?
But wait, there's more! Copyright term extensions of been hostorically retroactive (for no legitimate reason I can see). So, is someone were to make a copy-protected CD that then becomes copyable after 100 years, what do the copyright holders do when the term has been retroactively extended to 200 years?
If they can't properly protect something for the term of its copyright, they shouldn't protecte it at all -- its at the expense of society ultimately and it shouldn't be allowed.
Lyrics, either as a separate file, or interseresed in the MP3 data.
Biographical notes associated with teh band's production of the song/album.
Membership to band's official website (run by the label)
Mailing list for concert, album, etc. info related ot the band.
Discount (via unique ID so it can't be used more than once) on concert tickets.
Discount on merchandise from the band (i.e. T-shirts, hats, bumper stickers, etc.)
Imagine, when you buy an MP3 or an MP# album from the label's site, you're credited with the purchase your account gains access to all resources related to it. Thus, as a true patron of the band/label (i.e. not a pirate), your time/money has opened more resources to you that you can't get elsewhere (at least not all of them).
the music industry whas been shortsighted in failing to realize the many benefits of the Internet as a delivery mechanism for music
Its not that the music industry has failed to realize this. Its that they will not take advantage of it until they can assure they will have utmost control in the new medium. They could've started sellign MP3s years ago, but they feared thatw ithout control, piracy would run rampant (and it probably would).
Their flaw is in seeking ultimate and flawless control. It doesn't exist. They might think they will find it, but when they do, and they use it, it will be defeated. Then they'll be even more sore because theyw asted all of their R&D dollars on a gate that is now swinging wide open. Furthermore, they'll hen kick themselves for all of the revenues they missed out on while they were holding out for the fabled flawless control system.
As I've said many times before, the best way to defeat piracy is in a battle of value. Make the legit content more valuable (by value-added features and services and affordable cost and easy access) than the pirated content (difficult to track down, unreliable quality, no value-added features and services).
I'd be more than happy to drop AIM and start using Jabber (what with various clients with PGP support, etc.). Unfortunately, a lot of people I know still use AIM and with AOL blocking Jabber, Jabber has hardly any use for me. Furthermore, at work, they refuse to open the firewall to allow Jabber connections through.
After haning out in the JDev conference room on Jabber.org, some of the somebodies in there states that AOL was blocking Jabber.org's server by IP. That being the case, combined with GAIMs response that the latest libfaim does connecto to AIM, its not the library to blame. It's a blatant smack in the face by AOL.
Congratulations to Jabber.org on reaching this milestone.
The labels just produce crap like Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys
We think Britney and Backstreet are crap because we're not pre-teen girls. I bet they think our music sucks, too. You can get all snobish if you want, but the truth is that labels, being businesses, produce what consumers want. If consumers want crap, that's what they get, and lots of it. Sure, some good indie bands get missed, but a lot of others make it, and the ones that don't probably appeal to too small an audience to go big-time... If there were really this huge, untapped market for "good" music, then some new label would come along and clean up.
I tend to disagree here. I don't think they soley produce what the public wants. I think its more along the line of controlling what we can have in a trust-like manner, and them bombarding us with it (radio play, marketing, media hype, etc.) until we're brainwashed into liking it. What's more, I think they've also figured out that those tactics work on younger people better than old.
Of course, all of that can be explained away as teenage rebelliousness and normal business practices. I figure that the reality of what happens is somewhere inbetween. Its certainly not just following market demand though, they're pushing it. I doubt anyone in their customer base said "gee, I wish I could have a blonde, big breasted, omigawd girl who covers up her lack of musical talent with ridiculous coreographing!".
Music labels already rip off artists
True, the system is broken, but it at least gives some artists some money. It's better than nothing, and, until you come up with a better system, it's the only game in town.
Again, someone did try to come up with another system. But in one way or another, the RIAA members have a stranglehold on the whole darn thing. Its turned into a industry where you have to be able to refine, mass produce and market your music, not just put your MP3s on a website.
So its not so much that its all we have because no one else has tried, but its all we have because of the high cost of entry. Startup labels tend to be gobbled up, or indirectly owned by, the big labels.
While I agree that their is more complexity to genetics than the genes by themselves, we seem to be overlooking another alternative that may at least partially play into this:
Maybe we're ot as complex as we think ourselves.
Perhaps if we were more humble we might see that we're less than 2 times the complexity of a common round worm after all.
One of the points the author was making was that Linux/OSS isn't profitable.
Now, you go off spouting that he missed the point that "it's about Free as in Freedom, not Free as in Beer". I think it is *you* who missed the author's point.
While I agree that one of the primary goals of OSS is to be Free (as in Freedom), that was not what the author was getting at. Corel was a company with a mandate to make money, as most corporations try to do. Obviously not enough people wanted to pay for freedom, so the freedom concept of Linux wasn't profitable -- not to mention the respect of the Linux concepts as pertaining to Corel. Corel didn't make the money they wanted to, so, they dropped it.
"I don't think distributions in general are profitable for anybody. Really, in what way can people make money at all on Linux?"
Hmm... So suppose that a company that makes servers and, say, also manufactures their version of UNIX. By switching to Linux, opening up their proprietary technologies, and cutting the amount of development work while leveraginb other OSS projects, they can increase the quality of their servers while decreasing the cost, thus undercutting their competition. I suspect that IBM is moving in this direction. It is a business decision which is very sensible and avoids every problem that Burney raises.
It sounds to that your described scenario isn't making money off a linux distribution, but off of the reduced cost by using linux instead of aa more expensive OS with their hardware.
I think the author of the original question was asking how you can make money directly from a linux distribution, or indirectly with services relating to it. You scenario describes using linux as a less costly replacement for one component of the computer system. That's apples and oranges.
Or were you suggesting that the hardware in this case would be the value added to the linux distro?
First of all, databsses can handle large amounts of arbitrary data, such as BLOBs or big chunks of text.
Secondly, I think you missed the fact that maintaining two separate data stores (database for headers, filesystem for message content) will certainly be more work than just using one or the other.
Lastly, a filesystem and a database are both stored on a magnetic disk (for the most part). How is it easier to corrupt one than the other? Back in the good ol' MS-DOS days, I lost data when BOTH copies of the FAT were corrupted. I've also had to manually rebuild NTFS partition data. In both cases, there were relatively small points of failure.
So, what do you do in th ereverse case from what you described? Suppose the portion of the filesystem containing the mail is lost. Can you rebuild those lost messages from the database which you would have store only the headers?
I stayed with a company for too long, in large part due to loyalty -- to the product and to my fellow employees.
As a result, I did not receive my last paycheck when I, along with my co-workers, were laid off. Other bad stuff is still creeping out of the woodwork now.
Lemme tell you, as a skilled IT worker, I have plenty of offers -- buu missing that last 2 weeks and missing 2 weeks while interviewing -- it is leaving a mark.
I have a young family and a new house and not a lot of savings, but even if I was single, 4 weeks without pay could be detrimental.
Leave now for you and your family's sake. Do your best to warn your friends without stepping any legal boundaries for your sake. Sort of a cross between "blood is thicker than water" and "treat others as you would have them do unto you".
There's actually more then just Pow Wow left - Jabber comes to mind, but the field has definitely narrowed over the last few years.
Sure, Jabber is there, but I think it will be a long time, unfortunately, before it has anything meaningful to offer.
The server, to my knowledge, only runs on Linux, and still has some bugs -- especially in the agents. The clients (I've only tried the Windows flavor) are either buggy or lacking in features -- or both!
In fact, I tried experimentally to use Jabber last week instead of AIM (I tried JabberIM, WinJab and myJabber). I had to change servers twice because the previous one shut down an agent, or shut down completely. Each time, I essentially had to hand-enter my Roster items (a.k.a. buddy list) again since there is no way to import/export rosters.
I'm pretty close to installing VMWare and running Linux in it so I can run a Jabber server and develop my own client. But, who am I kidding? I don't have time for that!
I'll just stick to AIM, with all of its glorious bloat, for now
No offense to MySQL, but is it ready for such a task? Last I heard, MySQL didn't have record-level-locking except in some experimental forks. Are there any features lacking from MySQL that might make another database more appropriate (ignoring for the moment the license of them).
More like BeOS's filesystem?
on
MySQL FS
·
· Score: 2
Would this MySQL-based file system be more like BeOS's file system, where files can have arbitrary attributes at the FS level, and you can query based on them?
As I recall, they made their announcement when "most" of the genome was sequenced - and they still don't know what 99% of it does.
Isn't that what we give diplomas and degrees for? You finsih all of the classes but yous till don't know what 99% of teh stuff you learned is used for.
I've always felt that the brain's sheer amount of cells was more than enough to account for our perceived intelligence, but not until I took an artificial neural networks class in college did I start to have reasons to back up my feeling.
In that one short quarter, we saw and learned how neurons could be arranged to do the simple non-linear regression you've pointed out. But we also saw self-organizing maps (having the network choose an arbitrary number of categories to categorize your data), and even a semi-infinite memory (storing data and then recalling it with a partial stimulus). We also saw examples of NNs being used to cancel out unknown noise in a signal, convert text-to-speech with only 7 neurons, drive a car in limited conditions with 25 neurons.
After seeing this "tip of the iceberg", I feel more assured feeling that the millions of neurons and connections between them are more than enough to account for our complex behavior we call "intelligence".
Slashdot Mirror
OK, did you even read the article? Consider the alternative, TOC. If Jabber, GAIM, and every other AIM client used TOC to connect to AOL's servers (sacrificing some functionality), would AOL be able to bitch about the bandwidth?
That would be like complaining that you left your front door unlocked and put out a sign inviting everyone in to eat your food and drink your drink.
If anything, the metaphor for using OSCAR changes to some extra people coming in through your backdoor and using your toilet too.
So, yes, it is using AOLs resources, but so is TOC -- and TOC is sanctioned. The argument can't be about resources then. It has to be about whether or not its a use sanctioned by thw owner of those resources.
Now if this doesn't sound like performing an illegal action ... then I don't know what is.
Having standby methods does not maqking something illegal. It is no more illegal than their present solution to steal, as you put it, AOL's resources. Here's another example of something that sound illegal that really isn't:
Covering your two-year-old kid in vast quantities of dihydrogen monoxide as he screams bloody murder.
Of course, no two-year-old wants to take a bath.
So what would it take then to compile it on Win32?
In fact, the driving forces of Jabber seem to be in conflict with this. The OpenSource jabber.org guys seem bent on adding amazingly cool features and pushing that Jabber is more than IM. The commcercial arm seems relatively silent but appears to be amed only at corporations.
To become a defacto standard, they need users. To get users, they need to focus on Jabber proliferation -- both client and server. Add features the common IM man wants, make it more usable than the native IM clients and servers, etc.
First, attract users to gain visibility. Then add features to show what else you can do.
I've tried confincing some people at my office to open the firewall for Jabber. I figure, rather than specific holes for each of AIM, ICQ, etc., why notopen one whole for Jabber instead of one for each IM platform? Alas they refused. The next alternative for me would be some sort of HTTP tunneling to get through the corporate firewall. Alas, I have found no support for this, although I've seen tidbits that some people are investigating it.
I'd be more inclined to tinker with Jabber if the server weren't tied to Linux. Sure, there are some fringe projects trying to run the server on other platforms (most interestingly, Java). But what is really needed are some other stable platforms for Jabber servers.
So is this new? Perhaps it is the discovery of the gene that is new, but nto the knowledge that cells can commit suicide.
Copyright terms are limited. Is the copyright protection?
Of course not, that's nearly impossible to do. If a copyright term today is, say, 100 years, will that copy protected CD be copyable in 2101? Same goes for SDMI, DVDs and all that other crap.
After the term, will it then be legal to "circumvent" such copy protection?
But wait, there's more! Copyright term extensions of been hostorically retroactive (for no legitimate reason I can see). So, is someone were to make a copy-protected CD that then becomes copyable after 100 years, what do the copyright holders do when the term has been retroactively extended to 200 years?
If they can't properly protect something for the term of its copyright, they shouldn't protecte it at all -- its at the expense of society ultimately and it shouldn't be allowed.
Imagine, when you buy an MP3 or an MP# album from the label's site, you're credited with the purchase your account gains access to all resources related to it. Thus, as a true patron of the band/label (i.e. not a pirate), your time/money has opened more resources to you that you can't get elsewhere (at least not all of them).
You forgot 'keel hauling the land lubbers'.
Its not that the music industry has failed to realize this. Its that they will not take advantage of it until they can assure they will have utmost control in the new medium. They could've started sellign MP3s years ago, but they feared thatw ithout control, piracy would run rampant (and it probably would).
Their flaw is in seeking ultimate and flawless control. It doesn't exist. They might think they will find it, but when they do, and they use it, it will be defeated. Then they'll be even more sore because theyw asted all of their R&D dollars on a gate that is now swinging wide open. Furthermore, they'll hen kick themselves for all of the revenues they missed out on while they were holding out for the fabled flawless control system.
As I've said many times before, the best way to defeat piracy is in a battle of value. Make the legit content more valuable (by value-added features and services and affordable cost and easy access) than the pirated content (difficult to track down, unreliable quality, no value-added features and services).
I'd be more than happy to drop AIM and start using Jabber (what with various clients with PGP support, etc.). Unfortunately, a lot of people I know still use AIM and with AOL blocking Jabber, Jabber has hardly any use for me. Furthermore, at work, they refuse to open the firewall to allow Jabber connections through.
Congratulations to Jabber.org on reaching this milestone.
We think Britney and Backstreet are crap because we're not pre-teen girls. I bet they think our music sucks, too. You can get all snobish if you want, but the truth is that labels, being businesses, produce what consumers want. If consumers want crap, that's what they get, and lots of it. Sure, some good indie bands get missed, but a lot of others make it, and the ones that don't probably appeal to too small an audience to go big-time... If there were really this huge, untapped market for "good" music, then some new label would come along and clean up.
I tend to disagree here. I don't think they soley produce what the public wants. I think its more along the line of controlling what we can have in a trust-like manner, and them bombarding us with it (radio play, marketing, media hype, etc.) until we're brainwashed into liking it. What's more, I think they've also figured out that those tactics work on younger people better than old.
Of course, all of that can be explained away as teenage rebelliousness and normal business practices. I figure that the reality of what happens is somewhere inbetween. Its certainly not just following market demand though, they're pushing it. I doubt anyone in their customer base said "gee, I wish I could have a blonde, big breasted, omigawd girl who covers up her lack of musical talent with ridiculous coreographing!".
Music labels already rip off artists
True, the system is broken, but it at least gives some artists some money. It's better than nothing, and, until you come up with a better system, it's the only game in town.
Again, someone did try to come up with another system. But in one way or another, the RIAA members have a stranglehold on the whole darn thing. Its turned into a industry where you have to be able to refine, mass produce and market your music, not just put your MP3s on a website.
So its not so much that its all we have because no one else has tried, but its all we have because of the high cost of entry. Startup labels tend to be gobbled up, or indirectly owned by, the big labels.
Maybe we're ot as complex as we think ourselves.
Perhaps if we were more humble we might see that we're less than 2 times the complexity of a common round worm after all.
Now, you go off spouting that he missed the point that "it's about Free as in Freedom, not Free as in Beer". I think it is *you* who missed the author's point.
While I agree that one of the primary goals of OSS is to be Free (as in Freedom), that was not what the author was getting at. Corel was a company with a mandate to make money, as most corporations try to do. Obviously not enough people wanted to pay for freedom, so the freedom concept of Linux wasn't profitable -- not to mention the respect of the Linux concepts as pertaining to Corel. Corel didn't make the money they wanted to, so, they dropped it.
Corel is not a non-profit organization.
Hmm... So suppose that a company that makes servers and, say, also manufactures their version of UNIX. By switching to Linux, opening up their proprietary technologies, and cutting the amount of development work while leveraginb other OSS projects, they can increase the quality of their servers while decreasing the cost, thus undercutting their competition. I suspect that IBM is moving in this direction. It is a business decision which is very sensible and avoids every problem that Burney raises.
It sounds to that your described scenario isn't making money off a linux distribution, but off of the reduced cost by using linux instead of aa more expensive OS with their hardware.
I think the author of the original question was asking how you can make money directly from a linux distribution, or indirectly with services relating to it. You scenario describes using linux as a less costly replacement for one component of the computer system. That's apples and oranges.
Or were you suggesting that the hardware in this case would be the value added to the linux distro?
First of all, databsses can handle large amounts of arbitrary data, such as BLOBs or big chunks of text.
Secondly, I think you missed the fact that maintaining two separate data stores (database for headers, filesystem for message content) will certainly be more work than just using one or the other.
Lastly, a filesystem and a database are both stored on a magnetic disk (for the most part). How is it easier to corrupt one than the other? Back in the good ol' MS-DOS days, I lost data when BOTH copies of the FAT were corrupted. I've also had to manually rebuild NTFS partition data. In both cases, there were relatively small points of failure.
So, what do you do in th ereverse case from what you described? Suppose the portion of the filesystem containing the mail is lost. Can you rebuild those lost messages from the database which you would have store only the headers?
I say do one or the other, and then BACKUP OFTEN!
As a result, I did not receive my last paycheck when I, along with my co-workers, were laid off. Other bad stuff is still creeping out of the woodwork now.
Lemme tell you, as a skilled IT worker, I have plenty of offers -- buu missing that last 2 weeks and missing 2 weeks while interviewing -- it is leaving a mark.
I have a young family and a new house and not a lot of savings, but even if I was single, 4 weeks without pay could be detrimental.
Leave now for you and your family's sake. Do your best to warn your friends without stepping any legal boundaries for your sake. Sort of a cross between "blood is thicker than water" and "treat others as you would have them do unto you".
It's a good thing you didn't ask me about STABLE Jabber servers. I don't know what I could've answered then.
Sure, Jabber is there, but I think it will be a long time, unfortunately, before it has anything meaningful to offer.
The server, to my knowledge, only runs on Linux, and still has some bugs -- especially in the agents. The clients (I've only tried the Windows flavor) are either buggy or lacking in features -- or both!
In fact, I tried experimentally to use Jabber last week instead of AIM (I tried JabberIM, WinJab and myJabber). I had to change servers twice because the previous one shut down an agent, or shut down completely. Each time, I essentially had to hand-enter my Roster items (a.k.a. buddy list) again since there is no way to import/export rosters.
I'm pretty close to installing VMWare and running Linux in it so I can run a Jabber server and develop my own client. But, who am I kidding? I don't have time for that!
I'll just stick to AIM, with all of its glorious bloat, for now
No offense to MySQL, but is it ready for such a task? Last I heard, MySQL didn't have record-level-locking except in some experimental forks. Are there any features lacking from MySQL that might make another database more appropriate (ignoring for the moment the license of them).
Would this MySQL-based file system be more like BeOS's file system, where files can have arbitrary attributes at the FS level, and you can query based on them?
DSFP (Deap Sea Floor Probe) #223-K
Summary of data for 1/10/1901
Humidity: %100 +/- 0%
Light: 0 Lumens +/- 0 Lumens
Pressure: OVERFLOW
Temperature: 0.56 C
Isn't that what we give diplomas and degrees for? You finsih all of the classes but yous till don't know what 99% of teh stuff you learned is used for.
I've always felt that the brain's sheer amount of cells was more than enough to account for our perceived intelligence, but not until I took an artificial neural networks class in college did I start to have reasons to back up my feeling.
In that one short quarter, we saw and learned how neurons could be arranged to do the simple non-linear regression you've pointed out. But we also saw self-organizing maps (having the network choose an arbitrary number of categories to categorize your data), and even a semi-infinite memory (storing data and then recalling it with a partial stimulus). We also saw examples of NNs being used to cancel out unknown noise in a signal, convert text-to-speech with only 7 neurons, drive a car in limited conditions with 25 neurons.
After seeing this "tip of the iceberg", I feel more assured feeling that the millions of neurons and connections between them are more than enough to account for our complex behavior we call "intelligence".