Yeah, I got pulled over once at around 3 am, because the cop said I was weaving around in my lane. Well, the REASON I was weaving around in my lane was because I was looking in the rear-view mirror, trying to figure out why a car had closed in on me going 120-150 mph, then slowed down to my speed and started shadowing me. Christ, I thought the guy was some kind of psychopathic freeway killer, it scared the shit out of me.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
I guess those laws allowed a senator for from the state to get away with murder
"The state" refers to Massachusetts. Why would he be talking about California in the middle of a discussion about MA? It strikes me as pretty friggin' obvious that he was talking about Kennedy.
P.S. I'm from California, but I go Brown...
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Thanks, I was just about to point that out:) "Unique" means one of a kind, so either there is something else like it (making it not unique) or there's not.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Okay, granted, you've got me there. But, as I mentioned in my original post, the reason the FSF insists on control of all the code in their projects is that, according to their lawyers, with many copyright holders the code becomes unprotected. You don't get much more hardcore Free than RMS, and he says that GPLed projects, to be well protected, must have only one copyright holder.
So, by giving Sun your copyright, you allow Sun the possibility of abandoning the GPLed version and releasing a commercial version. By retaining your copyright, you allow anyone with sufficiently deep pockets to fight it out in court to release a commercial fork. In either case, I think the bad publicity would offset any advantages, anyway.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Of course, none of this would be a problem if copyrights didn't last 120 FUCKING YEARS!!! If we can get that back down to a reasonable number (life of author or 20 years, whichever comes second, for example), then it all becomes a lot less important. They can only charge your "rent" for a limited period of time.
Actually, the scheme I like is this: you lose exclusive reproduction rights after a short period (maybe 5 years) but retain derivative product rights for much longer (life of author). Within 5 years, you've made most of the money anyway, but you don't have to worry about someone hijacking your characters and making it into (for example) porn.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
It would be nice if ones copyright was assumed transferred by commitment or by electronic decree, rather than snail-mail/fax.
True, but be careful what you wish for. If Sun can bind you with electronic agreements, so could everyone else. Fax doesn't sound like it'd be too bad though, I'm sure most of us have a few old fax modems lying around.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
First of all, if it's GPLed, does it really matter if you have the copyright? The FSF also requires the same for contributions to its projects, and that was what produced the emacs/Xemacs schism. If there are many copyright holders for a single piece of software, it will be difficult for any of them to enforce it.
If it really bothers you, you are obviously allowed to fork it, ala Xemacs. A bit more work than you're probably looking for, but certainly a viable option (and you can keep taking code from them forever, as long as new realeases stay GPLed)
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
And what hidden APIs would those be? The ones Wine was able to re-implement from scratch? For that matter, as stupid as it is, "shared source" DOES mean that programmers can go in and look at the code for Windows, thereby revealing any and all "hidden APIs."
I think you forgot your anti-paranoia pills...
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
If Nasa's not happy, then it's a damn good thing they're getting their funding cut! There's 6 billion people out there who have never gone into space, and if the priviledged dozen who do get to go aren't enjoying it, then it's time for them to step aside. Let some people who DO want to be there go.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Hello? Did you get to the part of the article where it explicitly states that the section in his log where he said that life "sucks" on the station was censored? Yes, it was leaked. Or else it was made up. But it was not freely available from his log.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
I don't necessarily disagree with you (I think MS may have some tough times ahead, but it is fairly competently run... dunno, we'll see), but the Baby Bells growing is fairly standard for broken monopolies. In fact, one of the Robber Barons (don't remember off the top of my head which one) was informed while playing golf that the government had split his company. He nodded his head, turned to his golfing partner and said "buy stock in my company, it'll double in a year." And it did, indeed, go through the roof.
Basically, monopolies are owned for the most part by fairly meglomaniacal types, and so even when it would make economic sense to spin part of it off, they don't want to, or don't think about it, because they like owning an enormous, monopolistic company. The companies get so big that they repress their own industries, and end up not only preventing themselves from making a profit, but also stifle the growth of the industry, cutting into their own revenues too.
This is one of the reasons I was happy that the courts rejected the break up order. I'd rather see Microsoft get beaten down than have them be split into two smaller, more dynamic Baby-softs, that continue to dominate their markets (OS and Office software, respectively) for years to come.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Talking about.sigs generally annoys me (yes, I KNOW some babies have to be taught to use a nipple. Brain deficiencies on the part of some newborns does not make it non-intuitve), but I was just struck with a counter-example: sex. STDs are spread and pregnancy is caused by sex, a social interaction. Yet condoms, a technological solution, cures this.
I suppose one could argue that this is actually a biological problem, not a sociological one, but since society as a whole is just a result of our biological urges for protection and procreation, the same could really be said for any sociological problem.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Quite frankly, I agree. It would be good to have a 5 year break from size increases, to focus on faster read times. Just like with CPU MHz, everyone focuses on one number, and forgets that other things are important too. I admit, I'm guilty of this sometimes too, but as long as the population at large overlooks hd speed, it's harder to get info on it.
For the time being, we have plenty of space for home use (I have a two year old 35 gig hard drive, and I still have plenty of room). We'll fill it up at some point in the future, of course, but I expect that it would be after we get other viable media. And if you REALLY need more space NOW, start burning DVDs.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
The reason Napster's in trouble is that, as you say, they are aiding and abetting in copyright violation. Remember, NAPSTER isn't the one doing this, the users are. So, by implementing the measures that they have, they are no longer aiding this copyright violation, they are making it difficult.
Analagously, you would probably prosecute a landlord who owned an apartment building in which pot was being grown on the roof, because that's something he should know about and stop. However, you would not prosecute a landlord because one of his tenants was growing pot in a closet, and never smoked it in the building, because he would have no reasonable way of knowing about, or stopping that. Likewise, as long as Napster makes a good effort to stop copyright violation, they should be guilt free. The RIAA should then have to sue the users if they are still unsatisfied.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
So like in WWII we will have to build completely from scratch when our shuttles are too expensive and cumbersome compared to the competition from Japan/China/India and Europe/Russia.
Yeah, so? As I recall, we won WWII. Keeping weapons totally up to date is very expensive. Keeping weapons semi up to date, and then replacing everything in the event of a real war makes a lot more sense.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
I highly recommend it to science fiction fans out there. The ending blows goats, as with most David Brin books (not that it's BAD, per se, but just that it's kind of useless), but all in all it's a fairly good treatment of a society in which the importance of men has been reduced. He also has an afterword in which he describes several difficulties with cloning humans, which from the sound of the article, are still very much present.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Woah, let's not jump into bed with them too fast. I agree, this is a pretty reasonable outcome, but I regard it more as a compromise (as in, a situation where both sides are a little unhappy but no one is furious) then as some great benevolent gift.
First, Adobe would have had to prove TM violation. Similar names or no, Illustrator IS descriptive of the product in question. Not quite open and shut. Second, they'd have to prove damages, and when it only runs on KDE, which has maybe 45% of the Linux market, which in turn has maybe 8% of the overall computer market, it'd be awfully tough to show those damages.
Finally, even though Adobe did call off the dogs, they DID send the dogs out in the first place. While any opening letter from a legal firm is likely to be strongly worded, most companies would have simply demanded the name change and left it at that.
All in all, I'm not disappointed or angry at Adobe, but neither am I hearalding them as champions of the little guy.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
I wasn't really making much of an argument. I was just saying, if a company goes bankrupt, or is on the verge of bankrupcy, then the fact that they would go back on an earlier deal is no surprise. Indeed, in bankrupcy proceedings, all contracts are declared null and void, so it is no longer considered fraud if they drop services offered "for life."
If a government agency goes back on a promise, it's a bigger deal, because governments aren't supposed to commit fraud. I would expect that the Canadian government is not bankrupt, so they don't have the same excuse.
So obviously you don't understand, because there's a big difference between bankrupcy of a private corporation and fraud commited by a government.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Well, obviously the one thing that makes this a tad different is that it's the post office. I don't know what the Canadian post office is like, but in the US, it's an unfunded government agency. That would make the fraud implications a little more serious than just a dot-com going bankrupt.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
My opinion, no matter how stupid you may think it is, matters and if I belong to the majority then you, sir, are shit out of luck.
Luckily, you're not. No one in this country gives a fuck about NASA except a half dozen people on/. So in this case, you are shit out of luck.
Besides which, just because the majority wants something doesn't mean the government should fund it. The majority of the population may like the Simpsons, but that doesn't mean the government should start sending Fox money. That kind of thinking is exactly what allowed slavery, or Nazism. Because most people hate Jews/blacks/immigrants/whatever, we have the right to kill or imprison them. Well, asshole, you're wrong. Being in the majority doesn't justify anything.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Maybe you'd be happy to pay for it, but some others don't honestly give a flying fuck about NASA, and would be more than happy to see it fold. To you, it's a matter of "human curiosity." To me, it's a matter of a wasteful agency flushing money down the crapper.
If you want to fund a private, non-profit, pure science space agency, be my guest. But don't force ME to pay for it.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Here's how Webvan should have worked:
on
Webvan Out Of Gas
·
· Score: 3
They should have planned to make a profit nearly instantly. The key is to start small, and make a profit. Then, when you've proven your model, you spend more of that venture capital to expand to a new market. Prove the new market, then expand again.
Instead, what they did was they spent half their money going into EVERY market, and then the rest ran out before they had a chance to iron out the kinks in their business plan. Web based ordering CAN work, the question is how. Maybe it's just a niche market, requiring that people come to a physical location to pick up their orders or a gross markup for delivery. I'm sure there are those out there (the disabled, for example) who would be willing to pay for that kind of service. Alternatively, maybe Webvan really WAS on the right track, and would have gathered a large enough customer base by next year to be profitable, as they claimed right up to the end.
However, Webvan will never know because they moronically spent all their money in the first (and, as it turns out, only) two years of their existence. It's not like web-based ordering is a natural monopoly, where only the first person to establish themselves will make money. In the long run, whoever can compete best on price and service is who will rule the market. So, there was no reason for Webvan's frenzied growth, because the markets would never be locked off to them.
Now, there's a few supermarkets going about this the right way. They're taking tentative steps toward web based ordering, feeling out the market. Eventually, one of them will hit on the winning combination, and the rest will shortly follow. I, for one, am not sad to see Webvan go.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I got pulled over once at around 3 am, because the cop said I was weaving around in my lane. Well, the REASON I was weaving around in my lane was because I was looking in the rear-view mirror, trying to figure out why a car had closed in on me going 120-150 mph, then slowed down to my speed and started shadowing me. Christ, I thought the guy was some kind of psychopathic freeway killer, it scared the shit out of me.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The state" refers to Massachusetts. Why would he be talking about California in the middle of a discussion about MA? It strikes me as pretty friggin' obvious that he was talking about Kennedy.
P.S. I'm from California, but I go Brown...
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Thanks, I was just about to point that out :) "Unique" means one of a kind, so either there is something else like it (making it not unique) or there's not.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
So, by giving Sun your copyright, you allow Sun the possibility of abandoning the GPLed version and releasing a commercial version. By retaining your copyright, you allow anyone with sufficiently deep pockets to fight it out in court to release a commercial fork. In either case, I think the bad publicity would offset any advantages, anyway.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Actually, the scheme I like is this: you lose exclusive reproduction rights after a short period (maybe 5 years) but retain derivative product rights for much longer (life of author). Within 5 years, you've made most of the money anyway, but you don't have to worry about someone hijacking your characters and making it into (for example) porn.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
True, but be careful what you wish for. If Sun can bind you with electronic agreements, so could everyone else. Fax doesn't sound like it'd be too bad though, I'm sure most of us have a few old fax modems lying around.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
If it really bothers you, you are obviously allowed to fork it, ala Xemacs. A bit more work than you're probably looking for, but certainly a viable option (and you can keep taking code from them forever, as long as new realeases stay GPLed)
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
I think you forgot your anti-paranoia pills...
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
If Nasa's not happy, then it's a damn good thing they're getting their funding cut! There's 6 billion people out there who have never gone into space, and if the priviledged dozen who do get to go aren't enjoying it, then it's time for them to step aside. Let some people who DO want to be there go.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Hello? Did you get to the part of the article where it explicitly states that the section in his log where he said that life "sucks" on the station was censored? Yes, it was leaked. Or else it was made up. But it was not freely available from his log.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Basically, monopolies are owned for the most part by fairly meglomaniacal types, and so even when it would make economic sense to spin part of it off, they don't want to, or don't think about it, because they like owning an enormous, monopolistic company. The companies get so big that they repress their own industries, and end up not only preventing themselves from making a profit, but also stifle the growth of the industry, cutting into their own revenues too.
This is one of the reasons I was happy that the courts rejected the break up order. I'd rather see Microsoft get beaten down than have them be split into two smaller, more dynamic Baby-softs, that continue to dominate their markets (OS and Office software, respectively) for years to come.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Talking about .sigs generally annoys me (yes, I KNOW some babies have to be taught to use a nipple. Brain deficiencies on the part of some newborns does not make it non-intuitve), but I was just struck with a counter-example: sex. STDs are spread and pregnancy is caused by sex, a social interaction. Yet condoms, a technological solution, cures this.
I suppose one could argue that this is actually a biological problem, not a sociological one, but since society as a whole is just a result of our biological urges for protection and procreation, the same could really be said for any sociological problem.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
If you were the first thing alive in the universe, forget prima donna programmer, you're kind of by definition a prima everything...
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
For the time being, we have plenty of space for home use (I have a two year old 35 gig hard drive, and I still have plenty of room). We'll fill it up at some point in the future, of course, but I expect that it would be after we get other viable media. And if you REALLY need more space NOW, start burning DVDs.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Analagously, you would probably prosecute a landlord who owned an apartment building in which pot was being grown on the roof, because that's something he should know about and stop. However, you would not prosecute a landlord because one of his tenants was growing pot in a closet, and never smoked it in the building, because he would have no reasonable way of knowing about, or stopping that. Likewise, as long as Napster makes a good effort to stop copyright violation, they should be guilt free. The RIAA should then have to sue the users if they are still unsatisfied.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Yeah, so? As I recall, we won WWII. Keeping weapons totally up to date is very expensive. Keeping weapons semi up to date, and then replacing everything in the event of a real war makes a lot more sense.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
God, I hate baseball.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
I highly recommend it to science fiction fans out there. The ending blows goats, as with most David Brin books (not that it's BAD, per se, but just that it's kind of useless), but all in all it's a fairly good treatment of a society in which the importance of men has been reduced. He also has an afterword in which he describes several difficulties with cloning humans, which from the sound of the article, are still very much present.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
First, Adobe would have had to prove TM violation. Similar names or no, Illustrator IS descriptive of the product in question. Not quite open and shut. Second, they'd have to prove damages, and when it only runs on KDE, which has maybe 45% of the Linux market, which in turn has maybe 8% of the overall computer market, it'd be awfully tough to show those damages.
Finally, even though Adobe did call off the dogs, they DID send the dogs out in the first place. While any opening letter from a legal firm is likely to be strongly worded, most companies would have simply demanded the name change and left it at that.
All in all, I'm not disappointed or angry at Adobe, but neither am I hearalding them as champions of the little guy.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
If a government agency goes back on a promise, it's a bigger deal, because governments aren't supposed to commit fraud. I would expect that the Canadian government is not bankrupt, so they don't have the same excuse.
So obviously you don't understand, because there's a big difference between bankrupcy of a private corporation and fraud commited by a government.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Happily. Now who is this Roselvelt you speak of?
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Well, obviously the one thing that makes this a tad different is that it's the post office. I don't know what the Canadian post office is like, but in the US, it's an unfunded government agency. That would make the fraud implications a little more serious than just a dot-com going bankrupt.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Luckily, you're not. No one in this country gives a fuck about NASA except a half dozen people on /. So in this case, you are shit out of luck.
Besides which, just because the majority wants something doesn't mean the government should fund it. The majority of the population may like the Simpsons, but that doesn't mean the government should start sending Fox money. That kind of thinking is exactly what allowed slavery, or Nazism. Because most people hate Jews/blacks/immigrants/whatever, we have the right to kill or imprison them. Well, asshole, you're wrong. Being in the majority doesn't justify anything.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
If you want to fund a private, non-profit, pure science space agency, be my guest. But don't force ME to pay for it.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Instead, what they did was they spent half their money going into EVERY market, and then the rest ran out before they had a chance to iron out the kinks in their business plan. Web based ordering CAN work, the question is how. Maybe it's just a niche market, requiring that people come to a physical location to pick up their orders or a gross markup for delivery. I'm sure there are those out there (the disabled, for example) who would be willing to pay for that kind of service. Alternatively, maybe Webvan really WAS on the right track, and would have gathered a large enough customer base by next year to be profitable, as they claimed right up to the end.
However, Webvan will never know because they moronically spent all their money in the first (and, as it turns out, only) two years of their existence. It's not like web-based ordering is a natural monopoly, where only the first person to establish themselves will make money. In the long run, whoever can compete best on price and service is who will rule the market. So, there was no reason for Webvan's frenzied growth, because the markets would never be locked off to them.
Now, there's a few supermarkets going about this the right way. They're taking tentative steps toward web based ordering, feeling out the market. Eventually, one of them will hit on the winning combination, and the rest will shortly follow. I, for one, am not sad to see Webvan go.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.