They don't like "Feisty Fawn"? Or is it "Ubuntu"? Or maybe "Linux"?
If they're going to complain about names, then they'll always have a reason to bitch. Any professional shop would look at what it could do, not what it was named.
The point is, the abstract could describe this as "A method wherein the ice cream is scooped with a bare hand" and it wouldn't matter, because the specific claims are all that matters.
Yes, but you STILL don't demonstrate where "vacation" would NOT meet those criteria. Read for yourself about the "one or more of the predetermined responses".
So having a SINGLE predetermined response WOULD meet the basics of that.
I'm going to predict that Google will take this patent apart in court. Despite what you two claim.
t's almost like he intentionally trolls his readership by stating the most outrageous possible point of view, just to stir up hits and discussion.
Well, aside from the "discussion" part. It's all about the page hits.
Remember, the more page hits you get, the more important you are. And the more important you are, the more you can charge for advertising on your pages.
Right now the big guns are 100% behind "Software as a Service" (SaaS). Which is the same as being an "Application Service Provider" (ASP) used to be. Which is almost like "Web Apps" were. And so on and so forth.
If Linux were more popular in the user community, how long do you think it would be before someone decided to email around a shell script that had some local privlege escalation code in it, and managed to work out a botnet from Linux boxes?
What's your email address? I'll send you one today.
The problem is NOT sending the email.
The problem is getting enough new people to run the script so that the infection rate exceed the disinfection rate. Otherwise the "virus" will "die" when it is "in the wild".
The more steps required to get a box infected, the lower the infection rate will be. Five steps at 90% success each... still gives you only 59% of a successful infection. And that's not even counting the people who realize part way through that they shouldn't be doing that.
Sure the hole would get fixed relatively quickly, but the hacked computers probably wouldn't. We'd have the same problem that we have in Windows.
Nope. Microsoft's security model is badly broken in MANY places. Think back to their last anti-trust trial where they claimed that "integrating" IE's code with the OS was a "good thing".
All that means is that IE is a very easy avenue for OS cracks on Windows.
Try that with a Linux-based browser.
By default, Ubuntu ships with NO open ports. On Windows, they're all open, but they have a software firewall sitting on top of them. Again, Microsoft's security model is flawed. Which is why you STILL see cracked WinXPsp2 boxes.
Of course this ode ignores users who have time for playing games or people who still print stuff (yes I've tried to install a linux unfriendly printer and I'm burning down Lexmarks office next tuesday).
And from TFA:
Both of the above mentioned Linux companies have really poor hardware compatibility lists (HCLs).
I remember submitting reviews of NIC's years and years and years ago to one of the public hardware sites. That was then bought out and killed by a media company.
Ubuntu is collecting the information, but it hasn't put it out in a friendly format yet.
I'd like to see a bootable CD from a Linux distributor that will identify everything it can on a box and output that to something that I can upload to a website.
Then that website would identify the components that auto-magically work with their distribution (version A or B or C...)
And try a "best guess" at the components that it did not recognize AND the components that it did recognize that do NOT work auto-magically.
And allow the user to enter descriptions of the components that were not recognized.
The final goal being that I can take a CD into Fry's and ask to boot it to see if I want that system or not. Down to the component level. Yes, I like that system, but I want it with a soundcard that is supported.
Do that and you'll see more HARDWARE sales tied to Linux. And happier Linux users.
I've often wondered why magazines aren't formated for the different levels of expertise. Why not have the first 1/3'rd of the magazine devoted to beginner articles. The 2nd devoted to intermediate articles and the last 3rd devoted to expert material?
That way you'd appeal to every range in your audience AND your magazines would be worth keeping.
I'm still not seeing why the OSI hasn't developed a CHART where each license is placed based upon what it allows and what it restricts.
No, this doesn't have to be a 2 dimensional line.
Then, any gaps would be easily seen and a line could be drawn saying "all licenses below this point are compatible with the GPL v2" or whatever license you're looking at.
Then there wouldn't be a question of which license to use. Just look for which one meets your minimal requirements.
Yes, the spammer can determine whether it has a valid account. But that means...
#1. The spammer already HAS the account name and is checking to see if it still works. Defeat this by generously distributing SpamTrap accounts. And accepting email to them. And then opt'ing out of the email that they receive.
#2. The spammer is trying to guess a new name. Good luck with that. Sure, maybe SOMEWHERE there is an email account of "frank@example.com" but good luck finding it. If you want to have some FUN, watch your logs for examples of this. Then setup some of them as SpamTraps. And follow #1 above.
I use both of these approaches. It makes filtering spam VERY easy.
I've always refered to that as a "phone book attack".
After X failed addresses, block the sender.
Except you have to make exceptions for things like gmail and hotmail and other major ISP's and mail delivery services.
Instead of sending and NDR though, I just reject at SMTP time. If the ISP's were a bit smarter, they'd see X rejections (5xx-series) and shut down ALL outbound email from that account.
Now, if you look at the license, it is indeed an open source license, and it can be used in conjunction with the BSD, Apache,or MIT licenses, but not the GPL.
The OSI doesn't even correctly track the licenses that it has "approved" already. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category How about a diagram showing the progression of license restrictions? Hmmmmmm? That way you could look at the chart and SEE where a specific license falls.
It would also show any holes that are not covered by a license yet.
Then it would be easy to draw a line and say "anything below this line is GPLv2 compatible". Or GPLv3 or whatever.
Instead we have licenses that effectively duplicate each other. And we argue over whether Microsoft's proposed licenses are "okay" or not. Instead we should be able to look at the proposed license and see exactly where in the matrix it falls and whether it is filling an existing void. Or simply duplicating an existing license's restrictions and grants.
They don't really have a foot in the door, because any time Microsoft even tries to do anything even reasonably associated with open source, the OSS community shits itself and starts with all the Admiral Ackbar "it's a trap" crap.
Microsoft says that Linux "violates" how many Microsoft patents?
Microsoft paid how much money to SCO for a license Microsoft doesn't appear to use?
Microsoft arranged for Baystar to invest how much money in SCO?
And the list goes on and on and on.
Microsoft can, at any time, download the source code for almost EVERYTHING in "Linux". And they can write whatever apps they want that "interoperates" with whatever in "Linux". And they can release it under whatever license they want.
But we aren't seeing that, are we? And the reason is that Microsoft's goal is to find some way to cripple Linux as a competitor. That's it. That's all it is.
So we should be wary of any and all "changes" that Microsoft wants. Keep the distinct and separate from Linux.
It is theoretically possible for a pattern that appears to be ordered to arise from a "random" process,...
Yes. But the "pattern" seen will not duplicate itself in other experiments. Other "patterns" will appear to appear.
An easy demonstration is with a colony of fruit flies. Split them into different sub-colonies and prevent inter-colony breeding. Eventually the colonies will not be able to breed with each other.
If the "pattern" was a real pattern, then it would occur in each colony.
If it were random, then each colony would vary. Which is what we observe.
...therefore is not possible to prove any process is not random.
No. That depends upon the process. Random mutation can be shown to be random in that it does not follow the same pattern in different colonies.
If you are going hold falsify-ability in such high regard to the process of formulating a scientific hypothesis, you must accept that neither random mutation nor quantum mechanics can be taught as "science" either.
Again, no. It isn't whether something CAN be shown not to be falsifiable. It's whether an experiment COULD be designed that would show that it could be falsified.
The other way is to be able to predict what mutation will occur and when. Repeatedly.
Personally, I'd focus on the "random" part. People can complain all day long about how you haven't "falsified" it. But not being able to falsify something just means that there's more support for your position. Which is different than not being able to state a case where falsification would be possible.
The "Intelligent Design" people attempt to confuse the issue of whether something happened randomly or whether it happened because someone "designed" it to happen.
If you throw the dice and get a 7, was it because of luck or because the dice were weighted?
You cannot tell after the fact if you cannot examine the dice. And that's what they focus on. They accept everything that can be demonstrated, but they refuse to believe that it was random.
So don't argue that. Focus on whether it is "Science" or not.
Who cares what they want to believe in their churches? This is about what gets taught in the science classes of our country.
If it cannot be falsified it is not Science and does NOT belong in a science class. At all. Not even to "teach the controversy". Period. End of statement.
Now, do they accept that "Intelligent Design" does not belong in science class? Yes/No?
If "Yes", how would they falsify it do demonstrate that it IS scientific?
I'm getting sick of the constant anti-Christian rants here on/. I happen to be Catholic, and nobody who knows me would accuse me of being an intellectual lightweight -- i.e., Christian != stupid.
Luther (1483 - 1546) and the Protestant Reformation
Which lead to many, Many, MANY, MANY years of war between Catholics and Protestants.
Galileo (1564 - 1642)... hmmm, born AFTER Luther. Forced to recant his heliocentric model by the Inquisition.
I guess that depends upon what your definition of "stupid" is. The Church ACTIVELY opposed printing the Bible in local languages.
Except that I'm not redistributing this supposed derivative work, now am I?
No, you're not.
And his... point?... whatever... is kind of like saying that the ads are PART of the "work" that he created.
But the ads change. This is NOT like "product placement" in a movie. I cannot "fuzz out" a can of Mountain Dew (tm) in a movie. But whether I have to walk past an ad for Mountain Dew ON THE WAY INTO THE MOVIE or an ad for Coca Cola (tm) does NOT alter the "work" that is the movie.
From the site: 'Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.'
I do almost all of my holiday and gift shopping on-line.
On the other hand, I seldom ever click on ads on sites. I shop at on-line stores. I find those stores by searching Google for the items I want.
So, yeah, it probably isn't in your best interest to have me use up your bandwidth to read your opinions on X in the hope that I might click on an ad for Y or Z.
My time is valuable. What are you offering me as incentive to read your ads? Specifically.
With a bank, if you get the numbers wrong, you lose that bank as a client FOREVER.
With an election, if you get the number wrong, you have a politician who will be your friend for life.
Think about it. They can handle billions of dollars, but they can't keep a million votes straight? At some point you realize that it isn't incompetence. It's their goal.
Slashdot Mirror
So
I guess we're going to have to re-write the old "it's not a bug, it's a feature".
Meanwhile, we'll be seeing new bugs in the new "functionality" that is not a new "feature".
Exactly.
They don't like "Feisty Fawn"?
Or is it "Ubuntu"?
Or maybe "Linux"?
If they're going to complain about names, then they'll always have a reason to bitch. Any professional shop would look at what it could do, not what it was named.
Yes, but you STILL don't demonstrate where "vacation" would NOT meet those criteria. Read for yourself about the "one or more of the predetermined responses".
So having a SINGLE predetermined response WOULD meet the basics of that.
I'm going to predict that Google will take this patent apart in court. Despite what you two claim.
Can you be more specific on exactly where he is an "idiot"?
So far, so good.
Yes.
Yes. If recipient == X then do Y.
Not only "classifying" but also responding.
Seems like he was right and you were wrong.
It will come from the people to manage.
Always listen to them and hear what they're telling you.
Well, aside from the "discussion" part. It's all about the page hits.
Remember, the more page hits you get, the more important you are. And the more important you are, the more you can charge for advertising on your pages.
Right now the big guns are 100% behind "Software as a Service" (SaaS). Which is the same as being an "Application Service Provider" (ASP) used to be. Which is almost like "Web Apps" were. And so on and so forth.
What's your email address? I'll send you one today.
The problem is NOT sending the email.
The problem is getting enough new people to run the script so that the infection rate exceed the disinfection rate. Otherwise the "virus" will "die" when it is "in the wild".
The more steps required to get a box infected, the lower the infection rate will be. Five steps at 90% success each
Nope. Microsoft's security model is badly broken in MANY places. Think back to their last anti-trust trial where they claimed that "integrating" IE's code with the OS was a "good thing".
All that means is that IE is a very easy avenue for OS cracks on Windows.
Try that with a Linux-based browser.
By default, Ubuntu ships with NO open ports. On Windows, they're all open, but they have a software firewall sitting on top of them. Again, Microsoft's security model is flawed. Which is why you STILL see cracked WinXPsp2 boxes.
And from TFA:
I remember submitting reviews of NIC's years and years and years ago to one of the public hardware sites. That was then bought out and killed by a media company.
Ubuntu is collecting the information, but it hasn't put it out in a friendly format yet.
I'd like to see a bootable CD from a Linux distributor that will identify everything it can on a box and output that to something that I can upload to a website.
Then that website would identify the components that auto-magically work with their distribution (version A or B or C
And try a "best guess" at the components that it did not recognize AND the components that it did recognize that do NOT work auto-magically.
And allow the user to enter descriptions of the components that were not recognized.
The final goal being that I can take a CD into Fry's and ask to boot it to see if I want that system or not. Down to the component level. Yes, I like that system, but I want it with a soundcard that is supported.
Do that and you'll see more HARDWARE sales tied to Linux. And happier Linux users.
And I want a pony and a plastic rocketship.
I've often wondered why magazines aren't formated for the different levels of expertise. Why not have the first 1/3'rd of the magazine devoted to beginner articles. The 2nd devoted to intermediate articles and the last 3rd devoted to expert material?
That way you'd appeal to every range in your audience AND your magazines would be worth keeping.
I'm still not seeing why the OSI hasn't developed a CHART where each license is placed based upon what it allows and what it restricts.
No, this doesn't have to be a 2 dimensional line.
Then, any gaps would be easily seen and a line could be drawn saying "all licenses below this point are compatible with the GPL v2" or whatever license you're looking at.
Then there wouldn't be a question of which license to use. Just look for which one meets your minimal requirements.
Yes, the spammer can determine whether it has a valid account. But that means ...
#1. The spammer already HAS the account name and is checking to see if it still works. Defeat this by generously distributing SpamTrap accounts. And accepting email to them. And then opt'ing out of the email that they receive.
#2. The spammer is trying to guess a new name. Good luck with that. Sure, maybe SOMEWHERE there is an email account of "frank@example.com" but good luck finding it. If you want to have some FUN, watch your logs for examples of this. Then setup some of them as SpamTraps. And follow #1 above.
I use both of these approaches. It makes filtering spam VERY easy.
I've always refered to that as a "phone book attack".
...
After X failed addresses, block the sender.
Except you have to make exceptions for things like gmail and hotmail and other major ISP's and mail delivery services.
Instead of sending and NDR though, I just reject at SMTP time. If the ISP's were a bit smarter, they'd see X rejections (5xx-series) and shut down ALL outbound email from that account.
And I want a pony and a plastic spaceship and
I lost points on my last review because of my "over reliance" on email. And I'll probably lose points on the next one.
Don't forget that in a lot of email systems I can tell when you've opened my email and whether you deleted it or not.
Email is its own paper trail AND with magical CYA powers. And that really annoys a certain type of personality.
First - wire their own country for it.
Second - provide gateways and translations from the old Internet to their new version.
Third - provide the specs in an Open standard so anyone else can also implement it.
Fourth - provide the specs for tunneling their new Internet through the old one until the new Internets are connected to each other.
At the very worst they end up with their improved version for their own people. (If it really is improved.)
http://www.linuxworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x_linux.c gi?pagetosend=/export/home/httpd/linuxworld/news/2 007/081607-matt-asay-interview.html&pagename=/news /2007/081607-matt-asay-interview.html&pageurl=http ://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/081607-matt-asay-i nterview.html&site=lw_general
The OSI doesn't even correctly track the licenses that it has "approved" already.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category
How about a diagram showing the progression of license restrictions? Hmmmmmm? That way you could look at the chart and SEE where a specific license falls.
It would also show any holes that are not covered by a license yet.
Then it would be easy to draw a line and say "anything below this line is GPLv2 compatible". Or GPLv3 or whatever.
Instead we have licenses that effectively duplicate each other. And we argue over whether Microsoft's proposed licenses are "okay" or not. Instead we should be able to look at the proposed license and see exactly where in the matrix it falls and whether it is filling an existing void. Or simply duplicating an existing license's restrictions and grants.
Where's the structure?
Microsoft says that Linux "violates" how many Microsoft patents?
Microsoft paid how much money to SCO for a license Microsoft doesn't appear to use?
Microsoft arranged for Baystar to invest how much money in SCO?
And the list goes on and on and on.
Microsoft can, at any time, download the source code for almost EVERYTHING in "Linux". And they can write whatever apps they want that "interoperates" with whatever in "Linux". And they can release it under whatever license they want.
But we aren't seeing that, are we? And the reason is that Microsoft's goal is to find some way to cripple Linux as a competitor. That's it. That's all it is.
So we should be wary of any and all "changes" that Microsoft wants. Keep the distinct and separate from Linux.
Yes. But the "pattern" seen will not duplicate itself in other experiments. Other "patterns" will appear to appear.
An easy demonstration is with a colony of fruit flies. Split them into different sub-colonies and prevent inter-colony breeding. Eventually the colonies will not be able to breed with each other.
If the "pattern" was a real pattern, then it would occur in each colony.
If it were random, then each colony would vary. Which is what we observe.
No. That depends upon the process. Random mutation can be shown to be random in that it does not follow the same pattern in different colonies.
Again, no. It isn't whether something CAN be shown not to be falsifiable. It's whether an experiment COULD be designed that would show that it could be falsified.
The other way is to be able to predict what mutation will occur and when. Repeatedly.
Personally, I'd focus on the "random" part. People can complain all day long about how you haven't "falsified" it. But not being able to falsify something just means that there's more support for your position. Which is different than not being able to state a case where falsification would be possible.
Sure it can be.
If a dog ever conceives a cat, then evolution has been falsified. It's as easy as that.
The "Intelligent Design" people attempt to confuse the issue of whether something happened randomly or whether it happened because someone "designed" it to happen.
If you throw the dice and get a 7, was it because of luck or because the dice were weighted?
You cannot tell after the fact if you cannot examine the dice. And that's what they focus on. They accept everything that can be demonstrated, but they refuse to believe that it was random.
So don't argue that. Focus on whether it is "Science" or not.
Who cares what they want to believe in their churches? This is about what gets taught in the science classes of our country.
If it cannot be falsified it is not Science and does NOT belong in a science class. At all. Not even to "teach the controversy". Period. End of statement.
Now, do they accept that "Intelligent Design" does not belong in science class? Yes/No?
If "Yes", how would they falsify it do demonstrate that it IS scientific?
Luther (1483 - 1546) and the Protestant Reformation
Which lead to many, Many, MANY, MANY years of war between Catholics and Protestants.
Galileo (1564 - 1642)
I guess that depends upon what your definition of "stupid" is. The Church ACTIVELY opposed printing the Bible in local languages.
No, you're not.
And his
But the ads change. This is NOT like "product placement" in a movie. I cannot "fuzz out" a can of Mountain Dew (tm) in a movie. But whether I have to walk past an ad for Mountain Dew ON THE WAY INTO THE MOVIE or an ad for Coca Cola (tm) does NOT alter the "work" that is the movie.
The frame is not the painting.
I do almost all of my holiday and gift shopping on-line.
On the other hand, I seldom ever click on ads on sites. I shop at on-line stores. I find those stores by searching Google for the items I want.
So, yeah, it probably isn't in your best interest to have me use up your bandwidth to read your opinions on X in the hope that I might click on an ad for Y or Z.
My time is valuable. What are you offering me as incentive to read your ads? Specifically.
With a bank, if you get the numbers wrong, you lose that bank as a client FOREVER.
With an election, if you get the number wrong, you have a politician who will be your friend for life.
Think about it. They can handle billions of dollars, but they can't keep a million votes straight? At some point you realize that it isn't incompetence. It's their goal.