I'm wondering what the second edition adds or modifies. It would be hard to top the first one for incisiveness and succinctness.
And, as I've pointed out earlier... Much as I'd rather live in a country with a constitution than without one, so I'd rather release my works under the GPL than not. The GPL is the constitution that works towards my continued freedom as both an end-user and a developer. The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom.
Network effects are the single most important factor in the economics of software development. A proprietary program that garners the time and attention of the world encourages the creation of other programs compatible with it, and not a free alternative, even if the proprietary program stemmed from that free alternative. Software is rendered obsolete by no longer functionally participating in the networked ecosystem of software. My 'free' program licensed under an excessively permissive license can be rendered useless by the existence of a proprietary program that was ultimately derived from the free program.
My continued freedom as a developer requires that I choose a license like the GPL.
I own a MacBook Pro. A darned fine piece of hardware. I even hold my nose a little and run OS X on it. Unlike other stuff you get from Apple, their laptops largely act like the customer owns them. I might even choose to run Windows in a VM that has no network access one of these days.:-/
Most of the people I give technical support to are close enough for me to easily help. I also give them a way to easily allow me to remotely login to their box. That helps a lot with everything except for network issues.:-)
That's why I made him a foe in the first place. Not Bradley Manning per-se (he's a traitor, one I happen to not be all that upset with, but still), but with Wikileaks in general.
In my opinion, showing just a still keyframe, or a keyframe with weird corruption is still preferable to channel switching taking a full 500-2000ms. Though the weird corruption would probably be a customer education issue.
Firing the mono developers didn't convince me of this. It's the fact they're basically moving Linux development to all be under a european division and giving them control over all the decisions. It's like they got that odd Linux thing and don't know exactly what to do with it.
I worked at Attachmate for awhile, and this doesn't really surprise me.
I the case of a request things get a little easier. The entity serving up the response can do a little extra work to send an immediate key frame and tailor the rest of the stream up until the next key frame for the requestor before shifting them to just getting a duplicate of the data everybody else is getting. You still have the request latency, but I bet you could still manage to keep the latency under 50ms if you tried hard.
Since many of these technologies transmit the data for all channels simultaneously, why not just scan for key frames and store the last key frame received for each channel? It might be that even just scanning for key frames might be too CPU intensive to do for all channels. But most people, when channel flipping, do so in a fairly predictable order. You could start doing this for the most likely targets for channel flipping when channel flipping behavior is detected.
Google is also keeping all of the money for itself, and is not passing any of it on to the users who supplied the data. If your smartphone paid you cash for every day you allow them to track your data, people would not be objecting so loudly.
Well, Google is, but indirectly, and its questionable exactly how much you benefit. Google allows phone manufacturers and networks to share some of the profits they get from people using their Android-based phones. This means that your service is potentially cheaper.
I consider that sort of software to be, at best, of extremely dubious usefulness, and at worst, almost as much a negative as having a virus. Why anybody would want to run it is a triumph of marketing over substance.
I think that things like ClamAV are pretty useful, largely because they do the scanning on something before it even gets close to the target computer. I think that they will still miss the most harmful stuff, but at least they are not operating in an environment that's basically already compromised and not slowing down the user's computer to do it.
Which makes it all the more amusing (in a cynical, schadenfreude sort of way) that solutions like ClamAV are out of the running. *sigh*
But there is an advantage, in that they are more likely to be surrounded by people familiar with Windows than Gnome or even OSX (which would otherwise be the obvious choice for naive users).
I've encountered this argument too, and it's true. It's also self-perpetuating. It will remain true as long as people keep on using the argument. Personally, I'd rather take the time to teach them to use something that isn't basically a single-source drug than have tying people to the Microsoft treadmill on my conscience.
t would be unreasonable to expect Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer to learn Linux...
This is on oft repeated fallacy. And it is a fallacy. There is nothing harder for 'grandma and grandpa' about Linux vs. Windows. Especially if they don't already know Windows. My computer-literate, non-programmer friends who want technical support from me use Linux, and I hardly ever get a call.
But the existing traffic shaping solutions are impenetrable and impossible to use. This makes me very unhappy. I'm also not sure that the traffic shaping policy I want is possible with the existing traffic shaping tools.
I have a small Linux box I use as a router, and I have 3 LANs + the external link. LAN 1 is my trusted internal network. LAN 2 is the network for any windows box, my gaming systems and any housemates. LAN 3 is the wireless.
I want a traffic shaping policy that says something like this:
Spare bandwidth is up for grabs, but allocated in a priority order.
My trusted network (LAN 1) has first dibs on any spare bandwidth above as long as everybody else is getting the guaranteed minimums.
My not-very-trusted network (LAN 2) has the next priority on any spare bandwidth, but has a guaranteed minimum incoming of 2mbits, and a guaranteed outgoing of 150kbits.
Outgoing bandwidth from my webserver on my trusted network is next in line for spare outgoing bandwidth, and has a guaranteed minimum of 400kbits outgoing.
The very untrusted network (LAN 3) has the lowest priority on any spare bandwidth, and has a guaranteed minimum incoming of 100kbits and a guaranateed minimum outgoing of 15kbits
This is complicated by the fact that I want intra-LAN traffic to be essentially unlimited. If someone somehow manages to saturate the 1Gb backbone on my internal network, I'll figure out how to deal with it outside the traffic shaping policy.
I already have a firewall policy that treats my wireless network as being as untrustworthy as the Internet.
Your characterization of the GPL is interestingly rabid, and your depiction of the AGPL is not entirely accurate. The AGPL only kicks in if people other than yourself access the software over a network. You could easily argue that much of what the software produces and sends over the network could be considered to be covered by copyright, and you are distributing all of that stuff to everybody who accesses it.
But, regardless, even if you were 100% correct, there is no contradiction. RMS has stated in various places that while he feels the GPL is the right license for 'functional works', for programs basically, that it may not be the right license for all things currently covered by copyright. For example, the GFDL is distinctly different from the GPL is several respects.
But the 3G carriers *do* care about which devices have access. I've been hoping for PANs (personal area networks) to catch on for a decade, but the main application has been mere cable replacement. Why? Because many of the devices in that personal network should really have access to the Internet and the carriers hate tethering. They hate it because they don't want to become commodity bandwidth providers. They don't want to become commodity suppliers because its very easy to compare prices for commodity suppliers. Just as I can easily compare two quotes for so many tons of pork bellies or pig iron, I can compare the charges for so many GB per month at a minimum guaranteed rate.
Yep, that's the problem in a nutshell. I knew there was a reason we weren't getting this, and this is it.
I don't want to use cloud apps. I want the data backed up to my server at home, and I want it to be fully (or just partially, but intelligently) cached locally so if I am disconnected from the Internet, I can still do stuff.
I don't know the model number or who makes it unfortunately. It's all rather obscured by the fact that it's from the dim and hazy possible future. *sigh*
I still think it's worth stating what the eventual goal is. Makes it easier to figure out how to get there.
My laptop, my phone, and my tablet should all just be viewports and ways of interacting with one homogenous device. They should all be integrated parts of a whole.
To that end, I do not care which thing has which feature. I just care that I can seamlessly access the Internet no matter where I am.
Unfortunately, I think you have it pegged. And that example conversation is priceless because it's exactly the conversation that would happen over and over. It might differ in a few details, but otherwise, in essence, be just that. People don't want to know how their infrastructure works, they just want it to work.
That's my feeling on the matter. They are not separate entities.
I'm wondering though, how that aligns with the frame of reference idea from relativity. Is there only one frame of reference for 'both' particles? What does it mean to have a single frame of reference that occupies two distinct locations in space?
If they have separate frames of reference, then they are not the same particle and there must be some other explanation. But if that's true, then how can state collapse be instantaneous? If they each have a distinct frame of reference, that means there is no notion of simultaneous that has any meaning. When does the state collapse in each frame?
Either interpretation poses grave problems for relativity, quantum mechanics, or both.
You are wrong. This interpretation has been disproven. There are some subtle statistical tests that disprove any 'hidden state' theory, including this one. Research the Bell Inequality and you will learn what they are and the experiments that have been run.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm wondering what the second edition adds or modifies. It would be hard to top the first one for incisiveness and succinctness.
And, as I've pointed out earlier... Much as I'd rather live in a country with a constitution than without one, so I'd rather release my works under the GPL than not. The GPL is the constitution that works towards my continued freedom as both an end-user and a developer. The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom.
Network effects are the single most important factor in the economics of software development. A proprietary program that garners the time and attention of the world encourages the creation of other programs compatible with it, and not a free alternative, even if the proprietary program stemmed from that free alternative. Software is rendered obsolete by no longer functionally participating in the networked ecosystem of software. My 'free' program licensed under an excessively permissive license can be rendered useless by the existence of a proprietary program that was ultimately derived from the free program.
My continued freedom as a developer requires that I choose a license like the GPL.
The real mind bender is.. Is there a difference? I mean, Anonymous isn't exactly organized is it? It's just a convenient name people adopt sometimes.
I own a MacBook Pro. A darned fine piece of hardware. I even hold my nose a little and run OS X on it. Unlike other stuff you get from Apple, their laptops largely act like the customer owns them. I might even choose to run Windows in a VM that has no network access one of these days. :-/
Most of the people I give technical support to are close enough for me to easily help. I also give them a way to easily allow me to remotely login to their box. That helps a lot with everything except for network issues. :-)
That's why I made him a foe in the first place. Not Bradley Manning per-se (he's a traitor, one I happen to not be all that upset with, but still), but with Wikileaks in general.
In my opinion, showing just a still keyframe, or a keyframe with weird corruption is still preferable to channel switching taking a full 500-2000ms. Though the weird corruption would probably be a customer education issue.
Firing the mono developers didn't convince me of this. It's the fact they're basically moving Linux development to all be under a european division and giving them control over all the decisions. It's like they got that odd Linux thing and don't know exactly what to do with it.
I worked at Attachmate for awhile, and this doesn't really surprise me.
I the case of a request things get a little easier. The entity serving up the response can do a little extra work to send an immediate key frame and tailor the rest of the stream up until the next key frame for the requestor before shifting them to just getting a duplicate of the data everybody else is getting. You still have the request latency, but I bet you could still manage to keep the latency under 50ms if you tried hard.
You confirm my decision to have you as a 'Foe'.
Since many of these technologies transmit the data for all channels simultaneously, why not just scan for key frames and store the last key frame received for each channel? It might be that even just scanning for key frames might be too CPU intensive to do for all channels. But most people, when channel flipping, do so in a fairly predictable order. You could start doing this for the most likely targets for channel flipping when channel flipping behavior is detected.
Google is also keeping all of the money for itself, and is not passing any of it on to the users who supplied the data. If your smartphone paid you cash for every day you allow them to track your data, people would not be objecting so loudly.
Well, Google is, but indirectly, and its questionable exactly how much you benefit. Google allows phone manufacturers and networks to share some of the profits they get from people using their Android-based phones. This means that your service is potentially cheaper.
I consider that sort of software to be, at best, of extremely dubious usefulness, and at worst, almost as much a negative as having a virus. Why anybody would want to run it is a triumph of marketing over substance.
I think that things like ClamAV are pretty useful, largely because they do the scanning on something before it even gets close to the target computer. I think that they will still miss the most harmful stuff, but at least they are not operating in an environment that's basically already compromised and not slowing down the user's computer to do it.
Which makes it all the more amusing (in a cynical, schadenfreude sort of way) that solutions like ClamAV are out of the running. *sigh*
But there is an advantage, in that they are more likely to be surrounded by people familiar with Windows than Gnome or even OSX (which would otherwise be the obvious choice for naive users).
I've encountered this argument too, and it's true. It's also self-perpetuating. It will remain true as long as people keep on using the argument. Personally, I'd rather take the time to teach them to use something that isn't basically a single-source drug than have tying people to the Microsoft treadmill on my conscience.
t would be unreasonable to expect Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer to learn Linux...
This is on oft repeated fallacy. And it is a fallacy. There is nothing harder for 'grandma and grandpa' about Linux vs. Windows. Especially if they don't already know Windows. My computer-literate, non-programmer friends who want technical support from me use Linux, and I hardly ever get a call.
But the existing traffic shaping solutions are impenetrable and impossible to use. This makes me very unhappy. I'm also not sure that the traffic shaping policy I want is possible with the existing traffic shaping tools.
I have a small Linux box I use as a router, and I have 3 LANs + the external link. LAN 1 is my trusted internal network. LAN 2 is the network for any windows box, my gaming systems and any housemates. LAN 3 is the wireless.
I want a traffic shaping policy that says something like this:
This is complicated by the fact that I want intra-LAN traffic to be essentially unlimited. If someone somehow manages to saturate the 1Gb backbone on my internal network, I'll figure out how to deal with it outside the traffic shaping policy.
I already have a firewall policy that treats my wireless network as being as untrustworthy as the Internet.
Actually, OKCupid does something like this, and it seems to work pretty well for them.
Your characterization of the GPL is interestingly rabid, and your depiction of the AGPL is not entirely accurate. The AGPL only kicks in if people other than yourself access the software over a network. You could easily argue that much of what the software produces and sends over the network could be considered to be covered by copyright, and you are distributing all of that stuff to everybody who accesses it.
But, regardless, even if you were 100% correct, there is no contradiction. RMS has stated in various places that while he feels the GPL is the right license for 'functional works', for programs basically, that it may not be the right license for all things currently covered by copyright. For example, the GFDL is distinctly different from the GPL is several respects.
But the 3G carriers *do* care about which devices have access. I've been hoping for PANs (personal area networks) to catch on for a decade, but the main application has been mere cable replacement. Why? Because many of the devices in that personal network should really have access to the Internet and the carriers hate tethering. They hate it because they don't want to become commodity bandwidth providers. They don't want to become commodity suppliers because its very easy to compare prices for commodity suppliers. Just as I can easily compare two quotes for so many tons of pork bellies or pig iron, I can compare the charges for so many GB per month at a minimum guaranteed rate.
Yep, that's the problem in a nutshell. I knew there was a reason we weren't getting this, and this is it.
I don't want to use cloud apps. I want the data backed up to my server at home, and I want it to be fully (or just partially, but intelligently) cached locally so if I am disconnected from the Internet, I can still do stuff.
Google has nothing to do with this. What headline or summary did you read?
*chuckle* It's too much for just me to make. I'm working on pieces of it.
I don't know the model number or who makes it unfortunately. It's all rather obscured by the fact that it's from the dim and hazy possible future. *sigh*
I still think it's worth stating what the eventual goal is. Makes it easier to figure out how to get there.
My laptop, my phone, and my tablet should all just be viewports and ways of interacting with one homogenous device. They should all be integrated parts of a whole.
To that end, I do not care which thing has which feature. I just care that I can seamlessly access the Internet no matter where I am.
Unfortunately, I think you have it pegged. And that example conversation is priceless because it's exactly the conversation that would happen over and over. It might differ in a few details, but otherwise, in essence, be just that. People don't want to know how their infrastructure works, they just want it to work.
That's my feeling on the matter. They are not separate entities.
I'm wondering though, how that aligns with the frame of reference idea from relativity. Is there only one frame of reference for 'both' particles? What does it mean to have a single frame of reference that occupies two distinct locations in space?
If they have separate frames of reference, then they are not the same particle and there must be some other explanation. But if that's true, then how can state collapse be instantaneous? If they each have a distinct frame of reference, that means there is no notion of simultaneous that has any meaning. When does the state collapse in each frame?
Either interpretation poses grave problems for relativity, quantum mechanics, or both.
You are wrong. This interpretation has been disproven. There are some subtle statistical tests that disprove any 'hidden state' theory, including this one. Research the Bell Inequality and you will learn what they are and the experiments that have been run.