That was invented in Europe, and well over 200 centuries ago
Something like electricity doesn't get invented, it gets discovered. And it surely wasn't discovered by europeans (the Greeks new about static electricity). And as a previous post points out '200 centuries ago' is definitely a good one as Europe was surely a bastion of techonological innovation.
Methinks Hemos got a little carried away when he went off on his patent tirade. He says it himslef just prior to this, that it is about trademarks. Not patents. And now we're back to the retarded "I'm gonna patent X, and you'll all owe me money" crap. Trademarks go by different rules and Cobalt is claiming here that Apple's Cube will cause confusion with people getting the Cobalt Qube and Apple's Cube mixed up. Read first please!
The clips below are grabbed from a quick skim of the document...there may be errors in my interpretation.
According to a declaration submitted by plaintiffs, Time Warner engaged Paul, Weiss in May 1994 to render antitrust advice to Warner Home Video regarding negotiations between the motion picture, consumer electronics and information technology industries to develop a new voluntary technical standard for optical digital discs. These negotiations, which did not involve copy protection or encryption issues, led to an agreement on a voluntary DVD standard in September 1995. Paul, Weiss never has been retained to advise Time Warner concerning copyright or encryption issues with respect to optical digital discs or DVD, nor did it provide any advice on that subject to Time Warner or its affiliates during the tenure of the undersigned with the firm.(pg. 24)
Paul, Weiss is (as I understand it) the firm that was retained by Time Warner in '94. Judge Kaplan was a member of this firm, but did nothing for Time Warner at the time. Main point: It had nothing to do with copyright or encryption.
the allegation of bias must be made in an affidavit signed by the party, who must attest that the judge harbors a personal bias or prejudice against the party or in favor of an adversary. As noted, its procedural requirements are strictly enforced. And there are sound reasons for this requirement of an affidavit from the party, not the attorney. (pg. 27)
There is more detail on the noted page, but basically this is saying the appropriate procedure (Section 144 of the Judicial Code) for filing the motion was not followed (it must come "from the party, not the attorney"). In addition:
The Warner issue concerns whether the judge is disqualified by reason of a relationship, not personal bias or prejudice.(pg. 28)
Again this refers to Section 144, but this time mentions the reasons that a judge can properly be disqualified ("personal bias or prejudice") whereas this motion is trying to disqualify Kaplan simply due to his relationship to the firm.
There are quite a few other reasons given by Kaplan later on in the document, and most seem valid (at least according to this document) and give me no reason to believe that the judge should really be removed.
I'd be insane for them to try to d/l and watch each and every film to check whether it is copyrighted.
That is true, but why is that the only other option they have besides looking at the titles of the files? First, who is controlling the distribution of content on this service? Napster-like does not necessarily mean Napster with different file types being distributed. Since this is done with the "blessing" of Hollywood, it seems that they would be a likely point of distribution for the copyrighted content. The policing could include checking the films against the "valid" films that could be available (using md5sum say). This tactic wouldn't work well on Napster since there are 29 million potential sources for content. But AppleSoup is playing by different rules so the policing options are much different and very possibly more realistic.
As has been noted in postings above, this really isn't setting any sort of precedent. Many (I would think most) consulting companies have some sort of clause in the contract about how disputes will be settled and often explicitly mention mediation before lawsuits. At least that's the way most of the contracts are in the company I work for. Since you are apparently in the web design industry and are likely on some sort of contracted project, take a gander at the contract.
The reason these clauses are in the contracts in the first place is to protect the consulting company from getting sued in case of a fallout (for whatever reason), a tacit acknowledgement that it can, has, and will happen. Obviously this is only the first step in covering all of the bases. Setting quantitative and measurable goals for deliverables and documenting the various decisions throughout the project can go a long way towards preventing the second problem that you raise (the client choosing the wrong direction, despite your recommendations to the contrary). As long as the discussions with the client of the trade-offs and risk implications of these key decisions are documented it won't be very likely the client will sue if they don't like the finished work. And even less likely they would win.
It was questioned at the end of the article, but I think the point was lost (and maybe it was meant to be). This is not a problem with the various software vendors. Obviously if X software vendor sends me some software to review, they would like a good review or they wouldn't send it. And from the company's perspective, that (a good review) is what they should get, since I doubt very few companies actually feel that the product they are putting out is crap. (If that were the case, there wouldn't be any incentive to make it.) But as a reviewer you have an obligation to right an honest review of how well it performs the intended function and how it compares to its competitors. Now I can understand that since you got the product free you instinctively might want to write good reviews of the product (regardless of the products normal value), but what are the consequences of writing a bad review? Not getting the software sent in the future? Well, if the software warrants a bad review, why the heck would one want more free copies of it? Doesn't everybody already have a full set of AOL CD coasters.
How in the world did IBM, famous for its entrenched monopolist corporate culture, manage to turn itself around so quickly and fundamentally?
In 1993 Lou Gerstner took over as CEO of IBM. He had no experience in the technology industry (he came from RJR Nabisco), but he did have a solid vision for IBM and really saw IBM's strengths and weaknesses and how to leverage them. He transformed the overly formal and stuffy internal culture and policies (the "blue suits" stereotype), helped revamp the public's perception of Big Blue(a new and different ad campaign, more customer centric, more open), and set strong goals for IBM's future.
The details can be read in the book IBM Redux by Doug Garr, a former IBM executive. It's a pretty well-written book about where IBM was (almost dead) and how they got to where they are today.
You're saying that people won't be able to have these tests done unless they have insurance, which they can't get because they already had these tests done? Really? Chicken, egg; egg, chicken.
I disagree with you that Homer is actually a failure, at least in the same sense that Douglas Adams is speaking of. Sure, Homer is definitely a bit dim-witted, lazy, and pretty much everything else that would and/or should lead someone to being a dismal failure. Yet despite, or maybe due to the overabundance, of these traits he actually succeeds. His brief, but semi-successful singing career, his stint as an astronaut, his boxing breakthrough, and nearly every other misadventure of Homer's are really things that we envision "successful" people doing. I think it is probably that mix of the stereotypical traits of a failure with the fruits of success that gives Homer his appeal.
and I'm sure that anyone who saw it on the shelf (assuming it was packaged) would think "Cash for gnus??
How the hell do you automatically associate a product known only as "Quicken" with something that has anything to do with money much less the spot-on "balancing one's books?" Without any mention of money in the title, I dare say you are good. Real good. Of course maybe you already know that Quicken is personal finance management software due to marketing and seeing the box. Only after that do you automatically associate Quicken as you do. I suspect that if Gnucash was to do the same (and I'd doubt they'd use a plain brown box) you'd be rescued from the horrible confusion that non-windows software continues to thrust upon you (oh wait, look at their homepage..."The GNU way to manage your money").
Now the name may not be "pretty" but if that's how you're picking your software you probably shouldn't be using Linux, or *BSD, or whatever the heck you're using that's not Windows (wow, does that name ring nicely in my ears...it's like my "Window" to the internet...). Now if only there was some software to speed up my connection...maybe this here "Quicken" package thingee will do the trick...
One of the main reasons that IBM left "Sun out to dry" as you put it was due to Sun's backtracking on putting Java in the hands of an open standards body and instead to keep it under their own control. You seem to be upset with IBM for standing up for the "open standards are good" that you (and purt near everyone on/.) believe in. And despite this, IBM remains one of the biggest backers (if not the) of Java in the industry. Hardly "leaving Sun out to dry."
The only reason they aren't as powerful today is because they got too big and unresponsive, which led them to make several bad decisions.
That you feel IBM is less powerful today than the late 80's surprises me. By almost every indication financially the company is doing better and the general public (specifically the IT industry) has a more positive view of the company and not (I believe) for the reason you site. So IBM may not have a stranglehold on the tech industry lilke they used to, but that is "power" that they don't want. Look where it got them, and look where it is getting Microsoft.
As for bad decisions hurting IBM, they made their share of them. Their major mistake being their structural divisions of the company into different operating units in preparation for the governments forced breakup that never came. The ways in which they did this killed IBM in more ways than anyone not in the company at the time can even imagine. So even if Microsoft doesn't get divided, it could be very interesting anyway.
And I think that IBM's strategic movements towards Linux and other open source projects are much too broad and pervasive to be an IBM version of Microsoft's "embrace, extend, extinguish" that you believe it is.
Re:Learn to speak fucking English
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
Here is a link to a Network Computing article talking about WebSphere specifically but has links to older NC articles comparing several different Java application servers including WebLogic and Enhydra. These articles may be a bit outdated, but are still informative.
I have actually found WebSphere quite easy to install even with a minimum of Oracle or DB2 knowledge. Though WebSphere does require the "setup" of either Oracle or DB2 the commands required are minimal and IBM does provide scripts that will do the DB setup for you. I'd be interested to know what specifically you have found to be difficult about the installation.
My experience with IBM's WebSphere installation has been quite the opposite with relatively simple installation and configuration. As you point out it still only officially works with Java 1.1.x though I've seen it working with Java 1.2.x (but that is, of course, unsupported). In addition it requires either DB2 or Oracle.
Note that WAS 3.0x is almost 8 months old now and will likely be getting an update soon. It supports JSP.91 and 1.0, Servlet API 2.1, and EJB 1.0 (advanced and enterprise only) among many other things. It also runs on a large variety of platforms like most IBM server software: NT, Solaris, AIX, Netware, OS/2, OS/390, AS/400 and Linux. The Linux version is currently a point release behind at 2.03 which is a large leap in funcitonality (2.x versions of WAS do not require a db though). This should be changing real soon with Linux catching up to the rest.
Disclaimer: I do work for IBM and do work with WebSphere often. In addition, I have little to no experience with other application servers with which to compare WebSphere. What I say here is my own opinion and most definitely not that of the company that pulls my strings.
I think I'd prefer if when news from them came out, if it was _really_ necessary to see the article that someone would post the text here, so I wouldn't have to go to their site. Oh wait, they'd probably sue/....
As well they should. Verbatim copying and pasting to Slashdot would be stealing and most definitely not "fair use" of their owned article. Your desire to copy their article on/. is akin to buying one copy of the NY Times and photocopying them and giving them away. Better yet, sell 'em for half price.
As for ZDNet writing stuff just to attract/. traffic for ad banner revenue, that's racing on by ludicrous catching up to stupid. Your/. ego is getting to big. Of course if it really bothers you that much, then don't read the f'in article.
Regardless of whether the awards show should or shouldn't be interactive, this one most certainly was not. According to Webster interactivity is
1 : mutually or reciprocally active 2 : of, relating to, or being a two-way electronic communication system (as a telephone, cable television, or a computer) that involves a user's orders (as for information or merchandise) or responses (as to a poll)
In other words, contrary to Katz's statement, interactivity is all about delivery rather than content. Showing "behind the scenes" stuff does not in any way make this show interactive. In fact, interactivity requires one party reacting to the orders of another. However, the Oscars were still the same as always, one set of producers, directors, and participants spoon feeding me the show. Any request or order by me was in no way going to be acted on by any party related to the Oscars.
Well, the quote is a bit confusing. The first half makes some sense talking about retooling IBM's operating systems (OS/390 and AIX) which run on IBM's hardware (S/390 and RS/6000). My bet is that the author meant to say something more along the lines of retooling IBM's OS and hardware strategies to ensure Linux runs smoothly on the related platforms.
perhaps they should scrap this in favour of take-home Yeah this will surely solve those last two problems you noted. Once I can take an exam home there is no way the instructor can stop me from cheating. And surely this also gives me a greater opportunity to learn the material during the exam. Throughout college about 30% of my tests were take home tests and most of those we had about a week to do. Most of these tests were in mathematics with a few in cs. The reason such leniency was given on the tests is that the questions were proofs of some sort. Time-boxing this in a two hour exam would pretty much make it impossible to have any more tha one question. And if any student thought they could learn the material in a week, then they deserved the test score they got. As for cheating, there's the honor code, and the fact that the instructors trusted us not to cheat, and then there is the fact that if we did cheat it would probably be very easy to tell. (It's pretty easy to notice similar nuances between two coorecrt or incorrect proofs.)
Slashdot Mirror
Something like electricity doesn't get invented, it gets discovered. And it surely wasn't discovered by europeans (the Greeks new about static electricity). And as a previous post points out '200 centuries ago' is definitely a good one as Europe was surely a bastion of techonological innovation.
Methinks Hemos got a little carried away when he went off on his patent tirade. He says it himslef just prior to this, that it is about trademarks. Not patents. And now we're back to the retarded "I'm gonna patent X, and you'll all owe me money" crap. Trademarks go by different rules and Cobalt is claiming here that Apple's Cube will cause confusion with people getting the Cobalt Qube and Apple's Cube mixed up. Read first please!
There are quite a few other reasons given by Kaplan later on in the document, and most seem valid (at least according to this document) and give me no reason to believe that the judge should really be removed.
As has been noted in postings above, this really isn't setting any sort of precedent. Many (I would think most) consulting companies have some sort of clause in the contract about how disputes will be settled and often explicitly mention mediation before lawsuits. At least that's the way most of the contracts are in the company I work for. Since you are apparently in the web design industry and are likely on some sort of contracted project, take a gander at the contract.
The reason these clauses are in the contracts in the first place is to protect the consulting company from getting sued in case of a fallout (for whatever reason), a tacit acknowledgement that it can, has, and will happen. Obviously this is only the first step in covering all of the bases. Setting quantitative and measurable goals for deliverables and documenting the various decisions throughout the project can go a long way towards preventing the second problem that you raise (the client choosing the wrong direction, despite your recommendations to the contrary). As long as the discussions with the client of the trade-offs and risk implications of these key decisions are documented it won't be very likely the client will sue if they don't like the finished work. And even less likely they would win.
you mean subjective...
As for iam.com, subjectively or objectively, that navigation sucks.
It was questioned at the end of the article, but I think the point was lost (and maybe it was meant to be). This is not a problem with the various software vendors. Obviously if X software vendor sends me some software to review, they would like a good review or they wouldn't send it. And from the company's perspective, that (a good review) is what they should get, since I doubt very few companies actually feel that the product they are putting out is crap. (If that were the case, there wouldn't be any incentive to make it.) But as a reviewer you have an obligation to right an honest review of how well it performs the intended function and how it compares to its competitors. Now I can understand that since you got the product free you instinctively might want to write good reviews of the product (regardless of the products normal value), but what are the consequences of writing a bad review? Not getting the software sent in the future? Well, if the software warrants a bad review, why the heck would one want more free copies of it? Doesn't everybody already have a full set of AOL CD coasters.
dear post-sans-cogitation,
it's called "preferences" -- this link might work
In 1993 Lou Gerstner took over as CEO of IBM. He had no experience in the technology industry (he came from RJR Nabisco), but he did have a solid vision for IBM and really saw IBM's strengths and weaknesses and how to leverage them. He transformed the overly formal and stuffy internal culture and policies (the "blue suits" stereotype), helped revamp the public's perception of Big Blue(a new and different ad campaign, more customer centric, more open), and set strong goals for IBM's future.
The details can be read in the book IBM Redux by Doug Garr, a former IBM executive. It's a pretty well-written book about where IBM was (almost dead) and how they got to where they are today.
So let me get this straight...
You're saying that people won't be able to have these tests done unless they have insurance, which they can't get because they already had these tests done? Really? Chicken, egg; egg, chicken.
I disagree with you that Homer is actually a failure, at least in the same sense that Douglas Adams is speaking of. Sure, Homer is definitely a bit dim-witted, lazy, and pretty much everything else that would and/or should lead someone to being a dismal failure. Yet despite, or maybe due to the overabundance, of these traits he actually succeeds. His brief, but semi-successful singing career, his stint as an astronaut, his boxing breakthrough, and nearly every other misadventure of Homer's are really things that we envision "successful" people doing. I think it is probably that mix of the stereotypical traits of a failure with the fruits of success that gives Homer his appeal.
Over-analyzing the Simpsons....
How the hell do you automatically associate a product known only as "Quicken" with something that has anything to do with money much less the spot-on "balancing one's books?" Without any mention of money in the title, I dare say you are good. Real good. Of course maybe you already know that Quicken is personal finance management software due to marketing and seeing the box. Only after that do you automatically associate Quicken as you do. I suspect that if Gnucash was to do the same (and I'd doubt they'd use a plain brown box) you'd be rescued from the horrible confusion that non-windows software continues to thrust upon you (oh wait, look at their homepage..."The GNU way to manage your money").
Now the name may not be "pretty" but if that's how you're picking your software you probably shouldn't be using Linux, or *BSD, or whatever the heck you're using that's not Windows (wow, does that name ring nicely in my ears...it's like my "Window" to the internet...). Now if only there was some software to speed up my connection...maybe this here "Quicken" package thingee will do the trick...
That you feel IBM is less powerful today than the late 80's surprises me. By almost every indication financially the company is doing better and the general public (specifically the IT industry) has a more positive view of the company and not (I believe) for the reason you site. So IBM may not have a stranglehold on the tech industry lilke they used to, but that is "power" that they don't want. Look where it got them, and look where it is getting Microsoft.
As for bad decisions hurting IBM, they made their share of them. Their major mistake being their structural divisions of the company into different operating units in preparation for the governments forced breakup that never came. The ways in which they did this killed IBM in more ways than anyone not in the company at the time can even imagine. So even if Microsoft doesn't get divided, it could be very interesting anyway.
And I think that IBM's strategic movements towards Linux and other open source projects are much too broad and pervasive to be an IBM version of Microsoft's "embrace, extend, extinguish" that you believe it is.
Main Entry: ilk
Function: noun
Date: 1790
: SORT, KIND <the rejection of these books or others of like ilk -- Kathleen Molz>
Agreed.
Here is a link to a Network Computing article talking about WebSphere specifically but has links to older NC articles comparing several different Java application servers including WebLogic and Enhydra. These articles may be a bit outdated, but are still informative.
Correction: 2.x Standard edition of WebSphere does not require a database. 2.x Advanced editions require DB2 for Enterprise Java Services (EJS).
I have actually found WebSphere quite easy to install even with a minimum of Oracle or DB2 knowledge. Though WebSphere does require the "setup" of either Oracle or DB2 the commands required are minimal and IBM does provide scripts that will do the DB setup for you. I'd be interested to know what specifically you have found to be difficult about the installation.
My experience with IBM's WebSphere installation has been quite the opposite with relatively simple installation and configuration. As you point out it still only officially works with Java 1.1.x though I've seen it working with Java 1.2.x (but that is, of course, unsupported). In addition it requires either DB2 or Oracle.
.91 and 1.0, Servlet API 2.1, and EJB 1.0 (advanced and enterprise only) among many other things. It also runs on a large variety of platforms like most IBM server software: NT, Solaris, AIX, Netware, OS/2, OS/390, AS/400 and Linux. The Linux version is currently a point release behind at 2.03 which is a large leap in funcitonality (2.x versions of WAS do not require a db though). This should be changing real soon with Linux catching up to the rest.
Note that WAS 3.0x is almost 8 months old now and will likely be getting an update soon. It supports JSP
Disclaimer: I do work for IBM and do work with WebSphere often. In addition, I have little to no experience with other application servers with which to compare WebSphere. What I say here is my own opinion and most definitely not that of the company that pulls my strings.
I think I'd prefer if when news from them came out, if it was _really_ necessary to see the article that someone would post the text here, so I wouldn't have to go to their site. Oh wait, they'd probably sue /. ...
/. is akin to buying one copy of the NY Times and photocopying them and giving them away. Better yet, sell 'em for half price.
/. traffic for ad banner revenue, that's racing on by ludicrous catching up to stupid. Your /. ego is getting to big. Of course if it really bothers you that much, then don't read the f'in article.
As well they should. Verbatim copying and pasting to Slashdot would be stealing and most definitely not "fair use" of their owned article. Your desire to copy their article on
As for ZDNet writing stuff just to attract
did you read what you wrote? do you honestly believe it makes sense?
Bothering to read the press release, you would find that this does not interfere with normal phone usage nor DSL. Score one for laziness...
Regardless of whether the awards show should or shouldn't be interactive, this one most certainly was not. According to Webster interactivity is
1 : mutually or reciprocally active
2 : of, relating to, or being a two-way electronic communication system (as a telephone, cable television, or a computer) that involves a user's orders (as for information or merchandise) or responses (as to a poll)
In other words, contrary to Katz's statement, interactivity is all about delivery rather than content. Showing "behind the scenes" stuff does not in any way make this show interactive. In fact, interactivity requires one party reacting to the orders of another. However, the Oscars were still the same as always, one set of producers, directors, and participants spoon feeding me the show. Any request or order by me was in no way going to be acted on by any party related to the Oscars.
Well, the quote is a bit confusing. The first half makes some sense talking about retooling IBM's operating systems (OS/390 and AIX) which run on IBM's hardware (S/390 and RS/6000). My bet is that the author meant to say something more along the lines of retooling IBM's OS and hardware strategies to ensure Linux runs smoothly on the related platforms.
perhaps they should scrap this in favour of take-home Yeah this will surely solve those last two problems you noted. Once I can take an exam home there is no way the instructor can stop me from cheating. And surely this also gives me a greater opportunity to learn the material during the exam.
Throughout college about 30% of my tests were take home tests and most of those we had about a week to do. Most of these tests were in mathematics with a few in cs. The reason such leniency was given on the tests is that the questions were proofs of some sort. Time-boxing this in a two hour exam would pretty much make it impossible to have any more tha one question. And if any student thought they could learn the material in a week, then they deserved the test score they got. As for cheating, there's the honor code, and the fact that the instructors trusted us not to cheat, and then there is the fact that if we did cheat it would probably be very easy to tell. (It's pretty easy to notice similar nuances between two coorecrt or incorrect proofs.)
that's like saying that killing someone isn't illegal until i am caught