What I can't figure out (and what frightens me) is that these agreements do not seem to indicate that they only exist for as long as the software is installed. Does Kaaza still have legal rights to your CPU after you uninstall? How far does your permission go?
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's phone call was definately not cheap.
On credit card transactions, the actual transaction is what's being purchased. The bank actually purchases the transaction from the merchant. They then sell it to Visa, Who sells it to the Issuing bank who then charges the person's account. It's odd, but that's actually how it works. And since some people buy houses (and corporations buy inventories) with a single credit card transaction, that's a lock of buck for the byte.
To all those reading this, wondering where their Porsche is, there's a simple fact you should know now before it's too late. A six figure income will not make up for ever living above your means. You're better off putting off those luxuries until you can get them without a credit card or a loan. If today's pleasure is purchased at the cost of your future, you can forget all about pleasure tomorrow.
I didn't realize wealth was only instant money
on
Open Source Limitations?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In my tiny small uninformed mind, I was under the impression that wealth was actually a measure of possessions, comforts, and things we begin to gather after the basics such as food, shelter, and wild sex are taken care of.
The simple truth of the matter is that there is plenty of room for closed source solutions without impacting open source at all. Games, Kiosks, and software solutions for major industries are all perfect examples of closed source that no one really minds. For example, the software that allows Visa to authorize and settle transactions probably will remain closed source for the course of my lifetime because there's no real reason to open it.
However, I don't need to be paid for all of the software I create, anymore than I need to be paid for every web page, every peice of advice, and every photo I take. many of them I can give away for free at no loss to myself.
And this is where I actually get wealthy. These contributions come back because I no longer just have access to my little bit, but I have access to everyone else's contributions as well.
We've seen a lot of it over the years from Microsoft and other major companies, but the people who once used to rally it no longer carry it on their news sites, but they actually have become a source of FUD as well.
OK. So this was posted as humor. But somehow it didn't read as humor. It read as an article that claims you need to spend money to prevent viruses on Windows while you could run a virus free linux system by just pumping an 80 IQ.
On Windows you're likely to get a virus from one of two places, either installing software or running software that allows scripts in it's data files.
Both of these are easy enough to defend against, however, it's seems like it's not in the best interest of the Linux community to let that be known. A little Fear, a little Uncertainty, a little Doubt is a much better weapon.
And when it's over, the truth is that had this been presented as a factual article on how simple it is to remain Virus Free on a Linux system, it wouldn't have even been read by many, nevermind submitted to Slashdot.
After all, FUD sells. It just doesn't make me proud to belong to the community selling it.
"Thank god the industry shut them down... now that piracy has been stopped they can all sleep much better."
It seems to be a far cry from the old days when the free software/open source movements were about letting the creators of a work choose the license and the distribution methods.
Apparently, some of us have decided that that is a freedom that should be reserved for some of us, and not for everyone.
If the large corporations in the music industry want to limit their distribution method and use antiquated licenses, we should respect their decision. They do not have a monopoly on music. There are alternatives and just as the open source community would prefer people using open source software, other musicians would like to get their music heard.
For once, lets consider treating others the way we want to be treated.
To everyone worried about security holes that have never been exploited, the added bandwidth of streaming images and (god forbid) sound, and the thought that your microphone will be used to spy on you, here's a hint.
If there's anything NEW (ie, less than a year old) on that site, I missed it.
If there's any indication that this will actually be out in a few months, I missed it.
If there's anything indicating JPEG2000 support for Mozilla, The Gimp, Paint Shop Pro, or Photoshop in the near future, I missed it.
I've yet to see anything that indicates there are no more patent issues and that people can support this format without patent issues (Read "Can the Gimp ship with this?")
Regarding Exploer PNG support:
AlphaImageLoader Filter:
Displays an image within the boundaries of the object and between the object background and content, with options to clip or resize the image. When loading a Portable Network Graphics (PNG) image, tranparency--from zero to 100 percent is supported.
Just because I do miss it, I still see almost no support for the beloved fractal image format *.fif
I think it's now part of LizardTech's line of image compression/fractal tools. If you think jpeg200 offers compression, then you missed the fif format completely.
The software industry is basicly driven by two factors. Enlightened self interest or greed. It doesn't matter if it's closed source or open source, both sides have enough people within their camps that are there for one reason or the other.
It's rare that you see someone complaining about anything whose price ranges from free to cheap, but yet the two highest rated posts in this thread as I write this do exactly that. They complain about software whose full functionality isn't available for free and about the greed involved with liscenses that expire over time.
But the real case of greed is simple. The industry and the open source movement is filled with it. From software pirates to the people who support but fail to contribute to the open source movement, the goal seems to be to watch out for person number one.
If you're a geek there are two simple rules of life you should know by now. Writing software takes time and food and shelter costs money. Unless you have someone else to support you, the best way to provide food and shelter for your family is to sell your software.
But people don't pay. And if you charge for your efforts, people complain and attempt to enforce their will upon your creation.
Let's be honest. When Microsoft commits and act of pure greed we scream bloody murder. Why then do we not scream bloody murder at every software pirate out there? Why are we outraged at the actions of a large company but not at the actions of a band of warez distributors? Is it because we have become so selfish that we only care about people stealing from us and we're willing to turn a blind eye to people stealing from other programmers?
"Software wants to be free"
Bull. It's software. It doesn't care one way or the other. Greedy people want it to be free for them. The software is too dumb to care.
In my opinion, the biggest problem facing the open source movement is that someone has to figure out how, in a world where people are unwilling to pay for a good product, we're going to feed our families. Because if there's anything I've seen in the past year it's the fact that the Open Source movement has definatly attracted a large number of people interested in Free Software.
A zero sum game is a game that, by defination, someone is going to lose. Chess is a zero sum game. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ZESUGAM.html for more details.
Non-zero sum games are something else altogether.
http://www.winwenger.com/part37.htm is a good read on this subject with an extremely simple zero sum game (on page 2)
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/ ze rosum.html is a longer read with some more complex games. Well worth the time.
If you want some deeper insight, try http://ubmail.ubalt.edu/~harsham/opre640A/partVI.h tm
"the belief that others do not deserve to be paid for their creations."
otherwise known as:
"'free' as in 'free beer'(once you pick the lock at the package store)"
There is plenty of free software, free graphics, and other free resources. But rather than use Strata 3d base, people would prefer to pirate Maya. Rather than using Gimp, people would prefer to pirate Photoshop. Rather than using Linux, people would prefer to pirate Windows? Why?
Because piracy allows people to set their own price to zero and juistify it to themselves.
A free market is based on the buyer and seller agreeing on a price. Piracy, by it's refusal to even include the seller in the conversation, is death to a free market economy. This reduces the number of sellers wishing to participate, and therefore the amount of goods available.
It could be argued that piracy helps makes Microsoft a monopoly. Few people can afford to create competing products and not get paid for their efforts.
Since so much of the content of Barney is in the public domain anyway, they're going to be hard pressed to defend what few items they can.
Personally, since they felt compelled to take music from the American revolution and traditional childrens' songs and rewrite the lyrics in an attempt to make money, I feel less than zero pity for them. I think somewhere along the way, the creators of Barney either forgot what they were doing or simply never had any morals to begin with. Either way, I'd love to see them removed from Pubic Broadcasting stations.
[i]More troubling, the Kodak team found that the new program steered orders for picture prints to companies that would have to pay to be listed in Windows, and that these companies also would be asked to pay Microsoft a fee on every photo sent through Windows.
"We were being frozen out," says Mr. Gerskovich, a 44-year-old Kodak vice president. "Consumers were effectively being denied a choice of which photo software they could use. More important, they should be able to send photos to any Internet printing service they choose--without paying a tax to Microsoft."
Ok, fine.
Now explain this to me.
Kodak so far has been unable to create digital products or services that could replace film in the all-important consumer market. Mr. Gerskovich's camera and its allied software are seen as the best hope. The company's plan is to use the Internet to drive its digital-camera customers directly to Kodak picture labs to buy their prints.
Are they upset simply because Microsoft beat them to the punch with the same business model? Kodak is trying to use their software to steer customers to use their products. Microsoft is trying to use their softwarwe to steer customers to use their products. What the heck is the difference?
The main mosaic right now is being done blind, that is, none of the artists get to see what has been created in the adjacent squares... Neat stuff, a very nice example of something that couldn't be done in the pre-Net era."
This means in order to be secure the message need to be beamed directly from the source to the receiver.
Ok. So it's fine to authenticate the source of the transmission, assuming that you only care about the last machine to touch the transmission, but when the transmission passes through multiple machines you can't prove the original source from the data received at the destination. All you can do is hope all the previous connections are trustworthy.
Now how many people here work with a technology that has NO store and forward capability?
Out here, we program in Java, Smalltalk, and Cobol, making web applications that use mainframe applications for the source of the data. (We
re doing settlement for a large financial processor.) Our area uses Extreme Programming for our methodology and the business staff and clients are here in the office with us working closely together.
On the average we find $2000 and about a week usually does the job. This allows them to attend one major conference a year or attend a week long training class for the newer members. Proper budgeting allows newer members two weeks of training for $2000. We find that we get a very good return on the investment.
The senior members that attend the conferences share their experiences with the team and usually focus on those seminars that are valuable to the team. When they return we all benefit from the experience as they share the knowledge.
It seems to me, if I'm understanding this correctly, that I'll be able to legally purchase imports and indy records from Europe without paying insanely inflated prices and without the traditional long wait.
Personally, this is extremely exciting to me as it fills a market niche that previously has been suffering in the brick and mortar methodology. It no longer matters where I am, what the local stores are willing to risk stocking, or what the popular music of the day is on the radio. I can get the latest releases of the bands I actually want to listen to quickly and cheaply and those bands will probably see (I'm assuming) some portion of that money.
Two thumbs up for once.
The water in the think tank needs cleaning.
on
MilSpec Biotech
·
· Score: 3
"-- Bioengineered tracking agents soldiers would swallow before going into the field, which could help the Army follow troop movements and maybe allow sensor-equipped snipers to distinguish friend from foe."
It also allows enemy sensor equipped snipers to have a field day...
-- Wrist-top biosensors to guard against germ warfare, combined perhaps with vaccines that could be developed rapidly in the field and "functional food" rations laced with edible vaccines."
The anti-ebola tastes best when you add the reto-virus ketchup.
-- Armor as flexible as skin, tough as an abalone shell and enhanced with "living characteristics," such as the ability to heal itself when torn.
This damn armor healed itself when I went to the latrine and now my **** is stuck!
-- Even more far-out possibilities fall under the general heading of biology- based "performance enhancement" for soldiers, including brain implants...
Brain implants? I knew a Captain who could have used one of those...
This year the CalTech Beavers sucessfully completed their bid for the National Football Championship cup, easily beating the Nebraska Cornhuskers in the Nokia Bowl.
A spokesperson for Caltech claims that by improving on poorly made MIT technology they were able to improve their skills simply by employing mobile computing devices. The helmet shields displayed all necessary information including which taunts were the most effective, the current play, and an overhead view of the field.
Not all the students at Caltech are happy though. Todd M. is quoted as saying, "This gives a distinct advantage to healthy people who are willing to walk, or, god-forbid, run. This encouragement of healthy behavior is clearly against everything that nerds have stood up (or more importantly sat-down) for all these years.
Still, the celebrations are continuing with signs all over the campus advertising "Free (as in beer) Beer!"
Does it really matter since you only need the laptop to enter and display information?
As long as the device can communicate information with any larger box (or distributed groups of boxes) it can ignore all of the "limits" mentioned.
Treating the ultimate laptop like an enclosed object that cannot communicate limits the power of the laptop immensely and unfairly.
What standards do internet appliances adhere to?
Do they even adhere to a common standard?
What capabilities do they have for updating their code to adhere to standards in the future?
As a designer, I keep my eye on a variety of browsers. I keep my eye on Webstandards.org and Mozilla and I try to see where the trends are and where they're going.
But Internet appliances are another story. If they are following a common standard in any way shape or form, I simply can't find it. And that scares me.
"All inventions which I conceive or develop during my employment, whether alone or jointly with others ans whether during my working hours or otherwise, whic relates to the business or interests of Company or any business or other company in which Company has an interest sall be Company's exclusive property".
On the other hand, I worked for SAC/STRATCOM. Their policy was much simpler: "If you plan on leaving the country in the next five years or you meet someone you find out is from any foriegn country, let us know. We'll want to interview you."
Slashdot Mirror
What I can't figure out (and what frightens me) is that these agreements do not seem to indicate that they only exist for as long as the software is installed. Does Kaaza still have legal rights to your CPU after you uninstall? How far does your permission go?
On credit card transactions, the actual transaction is what's being purchased. The bank actually purchases the transaction from the merchant. They then sell it to Visa, Who sells it to the Issuing bank who then charges the person's account. It's odd, but that's actually how it works. And since some people buy houses (and corporations buy inventories) with a single credit card transaction, that's a lock of buck for the byte.
Answering the question: What the heck is a GDP anyway?
The CIA world factbook, which beats the reference materials I used to have as a kid.
To all those reading this, wondering where their Porsche is, there's a simple fact you should know now before it's too late. A six figure income will not make up for ever living above your means. You're better off putting off those luxuries until you can get them without a credit card or a loan. If today's pleasure is purchased at the cost of your future, you can forget all about pleasure tomorrow.
The simple truth of the matter is that there is plenty of room for closed source solutions without impacting open source at all. Games, Kiosks, and software solutions for major industries are all perfect examples of closed source that no one really minds. For example, the software that allows Visa to authorize and settle transactions probably will remain closed source for the course of my lifetime because there's no real reason to open it.
However, I don't need to be paid for all of the software I create, anymore than I need to be paid for every web page, every peice of advice, and every photo I take. many of them I can give away for free at no loss to myself.
And this is where I actually get wealthy. These contributions come back because I no longer just have access to my little bit, but I have access to everyone else's contributions as well.
When it's over I have a large photo collection, an operating system, a graphics editor, a coding enviroment, and a plethora of other tools.
As Bucky Fuller long alo realized, by giving away the right things to the right people, I can make myself wealthy.
Life is not a zero sum game.
We've seen a lot of it over the years from Microsoft and other major companies, but the people who once used to rally it no longer carry it on their news sites, but they actually have become a source of FUD as well.
OK. So this was posted as humor. But somehow it didn't read as humor. It read as an article that claims you need to spend money to prevent viruses on Windows while you could run a virus free linux system by just pumping an 80 IQ.
On Windows you're likely to get a virus from one of two places, either installing software or running software that allows scripts in it's data files.
Both of these are easy enough to defend against, however, it's seems like it's not in the best interest of the Linux community to let that be known. A little Fear, a little Uncertainty, a little Doubt is a much better weapon.
And when it's over, the truth is that had this been presented as a factual article on how simple it is to remain Virus Free on a Linux system, it wouldn't have even been read by many, nevermind submitted to Slashdot.
After all, FUD sells. It just doesn't make me proud to belong to the community selling it.
It seems to be a far cry from the old days when the free software/open source movements were about letting the creators of a work choose the license and the distribution methods.
Apparently, some of us have decided that that is a freedom that should be reserved for some of us, and not for everyone.
If the large corporations in the music industry want to limit their distribution method and use antiquated licenses, we should respect their decision. They do not have a monopoly on music. There are alternatives and just as the open source community would prefer people using open source software, other musicians would like to get their music heard.
For once, lets consider treating others the way we want to be treated.
It must be Slushdot instead.
News for Luddites. FUD that matters.
To everyone worried about security holes that have never been exploited, the added bandwidth of streaming images and (god forbid) sound, and the thought that your microphone will be used to spy on you, here's a hint.
INSTALL LYNX YOU LUDDITES!
Thank you.
If there's any indication that this will actually be out in a few months, I missed it.
If there's anything indicating JPEG2000 support for Mozilla, The Gimp, Paint Shop Pro, or Photoshop in the near future, I missed it.
I've yet to see anything that indicates there are no more patent issues and that people can support this format without patent issues (Read "Can the Gimp ship with this?")
Regarding Exploer PNG support:
AlphaImageLoader Filter:
Displays an image within the boundaries of the object and between the object background and content, with options to clip or resize the image. When loading a Portable Network Graphics (PNG) image, tranparency--from zero to 100 percent is supported.
Just because I do miss it, I still see almost no support for the beloved fractal image format *.fif I think it's now part of LizardTech's line of image compression/fractal tools. If you think jpeg200 offers compression, then you missed the fif format completely.
The software industry is basicly driven by two factors. Enlightened self interest or greed. It doesn't matter if it's closed source or open source, both sides have enough people within their camps that are there for one reason or the other.
It's rare that you see someone complaining about anything whose price ranges from free to cheap, but yet the two highest rated posts in this thread as I write this do exactly that. They complain about software whose full functionality isn't available for free and about the greed involved with liscenses that expire over time.
But the real case of greed is simple. The industry and the open source movement is filled with it. From software pirates to the people who support but fail to contribute to the open source movement, the goal seems to be to watch out for person number one.
If you're a geek there are two simple rules of life you should know by now. Writing software takes time and food and shelter costs money. Unless you have someone else to support you, the best way to provide food and shelter for your family is to sell your software.
But people don't pay. And if you charge for your efforts, people complain and attempt to enforce their will upon your creation.
Let's be honest. When Microsoft commits and act of pure greed we scream bloody murder. Why then do we not scream bloody murder at every software pirate out there? Why are we outraged at the actions of a large company but not at the actions of a band of warez distributors? Is it because we have become so selfish that we only care about people stealing from us and we're willing to turn a blind eye to people stealing from other programmers?
"Software wants to be free"
Bull. It's software. It doesn't care one way or the other. Greedy people want it to be free for them. The software is too dumb to care.
In my opinion, the biggest problem facing the open source movement is that someone has to figure out how, in a world where people are unwilling to pay for a good product, we're going to feed our families. Because if there's anything I've seen in the past year it's the fact that the Open Source movement has definatly attracted a large number of people interested in Free Software.
Free as in beer that is.
just read this
(It's not like I want to spend an hour pimping a language when there's a site devoted to it.)
A zero sum game is a game that, by defination, someone is going to lose. Chess is a zero sum game. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ZESUGAM.html for more details.
/ ze rosum.html is a longer read with some more complex games. Well worth the time.
h tm
Non-zero sum games are something else altogether.
http://www.winwenger.com/part37.htm is a good read on this subject with an extremely simple zero sum game (on page 2)
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game
If you want some deeper insight, try http://ubmail.ubalt.edu/~harsham/opre640A/partVI.
otherwise known as:
"'free' as in 'free beer'(once you pick the lock at the package store)"
see also:
piracy and web design
There is plenty of free software, free graphics, and other free resources. But rather than use Strata 3d base, people would prefer to pirate Maya. Rather than using Gimp, people would prefer to pirate Photoshop. Rather than using Linux, people would prefer to pirate Windows? Why? Because piracy allows people to set their own price to zero and juistify it to themselves. A free market is based on the buyer and seller agreeing on a price. Piracy, by it's refusal to even include the seller in the conversation, is death to a free market economy. This reduces the number of sellers wishing to participate, and therefore the amount of goods available. It could be argued that piracy helps makes Microsoft a monopoly. Few people can afford to create competing products and not get paid for their efforts.
Since so much of the content of Barney is in the public domain anyway, they're going to be hard pressed to defend what few items they can. Personally, since they felt compelled to take music from the American revolution and traditional childrens' songs and rewrite the lyrics in an attempt to make money, I feel less than zero pity for them. I think somewhere along the way, the creators of Barney either forgot what they were doing or simply never had any morals to begin with. Either way, I'd love to see them removed from Pubic Broadcasting stations.
"We were being frozen out," says Mr. Gerskovich, a 44-year-old Kodak vice president. "Consumers were effectively being denied a choice of which photo software they could use. More important, they should be able to send photos to any Internet printing service they choose--without paying a tax to Microsoft."
Ok, fine.
Now explain this to me.
Kodak so far has been unable to create digital products or services that could replace film in the all-important consumer market. Mr. Gerskovich's camera and its allied software are seen as the best hope. The company's plan is to use the Internet to drive its digital-camera customers directly to Kodak picture labs to buy their prints.
Are they upset simply because Microsoft beat them to the punch with the same business model? Kodak is trying to use their software to steer customers to use their products. Microsoft is trying to use their softwarwe to steer customers to use their products. What the heck is the difference?
Make up your minds!!!!!! :)
Slashdot Deja Vu
Back by popular demand
Play it again Sam
You mean like the Aids Quilt?
Ok. So it's fine to authenticate the source of the transmission, assuming that you only care about the last machine to touch the transmission, but when the transmission passes through multiple machines you can't prove the original source from the data received at the destination. All you can do is hope all the previous connections are trustworthy.
Now how many people here work with a technology that has NO store and forward capability?
On the average we find $2000 and about a week usually does the job. This allows them to attend one major conference a year or attend a week long training class for the newer members. Proper budgeting allows newer members two weeks of training for $2000. We find that we get a very good return on the investment.
The senior members that attend the conferences share their experiences with the team and usually focus on those seminars that are valuable to the team. When they return we all benefit from the experience as they share the knowledge.
It seems to me, if I'm understanding this correctly, that I'll be able to legally purchase imports and indy records from Europe without paying insanely inflated prices and without the traditional long wait.
Personally, this is extremely exciting to me as it fills a market niche that previously has been suffering in the brick and mortar methodology. It no longer matters where I am, what the local stores are willing to risk stocking, or what the popular music of the day is on the radio. I can get the latest releases of the bands I actually want to listen to quickly and cheaply and those bands will probably see (I'm assuming) some portion of that money.
Two thumbs up for once.
It also allows enemy sensor equipped snipers to have a field day...
-- Wrist-top biosensors to guard against germ warfare, combined perhaps with vaccines that could be developed rapidly in the field and "functional food" rations laced with edible vaccines."
The anti-ebola tastes best when you add the reto-virus ketchup.
-- Armor as flexible as skin, tough as an abalone shell and enhanced with "living characteristics," such as the ability to heal itself when torn.
This damn armor healed itself when I went to the latrine and now my **** is stuck!
-- Even more far-out possibilities fall under the general heading of biology- based "performance enhancement" for soldiers, including brain implants...
Brain implants? I knew a Captain who could have used one of those...
A spokesperson for Caltech claims that by improving on poorly made MIT technology they were able to improve their skills simply by employing mobile computing devices. The helmet shields displayed all necessary information including which taunts were the most effective, the current play, and an overhead view of the field.
Not all the students at Caltech are happy though. Todd M. is quoted as saying, "This gives a distinct advantage to healthy people who are willing to walk, or, god-forbid, run. This encouragement of healthy behavior is clearly against everything that nerds have stood up (or more importantly sat-down) for all these years.
Still, the celebrations are continuing with signs all over the campus advertising "Free (as in beer) Beer!"
Does it really matter since you only need the laptop to enter and display information? As long as the device can communicate information with any larger box (or distributed groups of boxes) it can ignore all of the "limits" mentioned. Treating the ultimate laptop like an enclosed object that cannot communicate limits the power of the laptop immensely and unfairly.
Do they even adhere to a common standard?
What capabilities do they have for updating their code to adhere to standards in the future?
As a designer, I keep my eye on a variety of browsers. I keep my eye on Webstandards.org and Mozilla and I try to see where the trends are and where they're going.
But Internet appliances are another story. If they are following a common standard in any way shape or form, I simply can't find it. And that scares me.
Ignorance does that to people.
-----
"All inventions which I conceive or develop during my employment, whether alone or jointly with others ans whether during my working hours or otherwise, whic relates to the business or interests of Company or any business or other company in which Company has an interest sall be Company's exclusive property".
On the other hand, I worked for SAC/STRATCOM. Their policy was much simpler: "If you plan on leaving the country in the next five years or you meet someone you find out is from any foriegn country, let us know. We'll want to interview you."
-----