There's a difference between being the most popular...
Fair enough, but there's also a difference between having a monopoly (which I firmly believe Google does) and engaging in anti-competitive behavior (which, to give them credit, I do not believe Google does).
In the interests of full disclosure: I work for one of Google's main competitors (or should I say, "competitors"), but my beliefs about Google haven't changed since I started working here. I'm still a fan, and still don't trust 'em.:)
I might go so far as to call your premise ridiculous. The rant itself was entertaining and raised a few interesting points (and I hasten to say that I am a third party voter, in general), but there seems to be this idea going around that because neither of two major US parties is ideal, they're both equally bad, and that's a steaming pile of crap (usually offered, as far as I can tell, by apologists for the more evil of the parties and/or the more evil elements of both parties).
Conservatives are for the status quo. Liberals are for things changing.
Actually, Liberals are for allowing diversity in society (be liberal in what you accept). Liberal and conservative are not opposites, except when repression and restriction are the status quo. Basically, Liberals are only for change when things are fubar (as they were quickly becoming under the so-called "neo-con" movement--but then the neo-cons weren't any flavor of conservative). Aside from that quibble, though, you've hit the nail on the head.
Of course, some will argue that the terms are changing, but then some people will also argue that war is peace, black is white, and we have always been at peace with Eastasia.:)
Sssshh! Anything we can do to keep bozos like that out of California is fine by me! Hey everyone, California sux, and nobody with any sense would want to live there! It's a great place to visit (unlike NJ), so come early and come often and bring lots of those nice tourist bux, but just make sure you go home after you're done having fun.:)
Plagiarism has been informally called "stealing" for decades.
Decades? Centuries, more like. And other uses of the term ("stealing away into the night", "stealing a kiss", "stealing a glance") all imply more about surreptition (surreptitiousness?) than about depriving anyone of anything, suggesting a connection with the word "stealth". In fact, "to steal away" (as in stealthy movement) dates back to the 1300s. Stealing glances and kisses dates back to the 1500s.
Arguing that these other well-established uses of the word are incorrect is a lot like insisting that "gay" really only means happy, except that it's a much less justifiable argument, as the meaning of the latter word changed much more recently.
I might subscribe to your theory if it weren't for the fact that lighttpd, which is a first-rate open-source web server, is explicitly listed as not vulnerable.
Fortunately, 90% of all software patents fail any trivial obviousness test, as they're almost invariable just some standard procedure or method with "using a compuer" or "over the Internet" tacked onto the end.
Meanwhile, we'll just have to see how Bilski plays out....
will the patent examiners who approved this one be fired for incompetence?
Probably not because they probably weren't. The patent was issued in 2004 under the guidelines that obtained at that time. KSR v Teleflex, which redefined the rules for determining obviousness, was only decided in 2007. If they issued this patent today (or at any time post-KSR), then we might be able to make a case for gross incompetence, but as it is, I think the examiners were just doing their job as it was defined at the time. Blame for the messed up state of affairs we used to have goes much higher up.
The flip side of course, is the all too real scenario: "I would like to remind the jury that even though the accused may be plainly guilty, he is white and the victim is black, and you are not required to convict him if you don't want to."
Jury nullification is definitely one of those double-edged swords. A great weapon against unjust laws, but, unfortunately, a great weapon against just laws as well.
No Yum, apt-get, and Synaptic are NOT a replacement for an App store.
Indeed, as someone who uses both on a daily basis, I have to say that apt-get and synaptic are vastly superior to the utter mess that is Android Market. About 75% of the apps I download from the Market actually work--apparently this has something to do with something called "cupcake", but nowhere does it explain what a cupcake is or why it would affect my phone. The reviews are nice, except that so many of them are posted by people who are obviously complete imbeciles; I half-trust the game reviews[*], but aside from that there seems to be no correlation (positive or negative) between an app's rating and its actual qualities[**]
As a developer, I suppose I can see something to some of your arguments about the advantages of Market to a developer, but as a user, I think Aptitude kicks ass!
[*] with notable exceptions: the reviews for "Zombie, Run", for example, show a widespread ignorance about what the game is and how it's supposed to work. Granted, a video game that must be played outdoors is pretty unusual, but there are a truly appalling number of reviews posted by people who obviously couldn't figure out that it has to be played outdoors despite the fact that the very first thing it says is, "you must be outdoors with a clear view of the sky to play this game".
[**] Normally, I tend to see people giving an app a bad review because they're idiots, but sometimes it's the opposite, as with the small handful of virus scanners (!) that are available. Yes, there are actually companies charging money for Linux virus scanners.
the hovercraft license scene from "The Butterfly Kid".
Holy smokes, there's an obscure reference! Especially these days. The second book in the series was written by Michael Kurland, who was married to my aunt at one time, but the third book was written by T.A. Waters who has the same last name as me, but was absolutely no relation. Boy we managed to confuse some people with that!:)
What? How dare you undermine my devout, fanatical, unthinking believe in the absolute superiority of the free market (which I define as any market so unregulated as to allow massive corruption, monopoly abuse, and the utter destruction of anything that could properly be called a "free market") with something as vacuous as facts?! The Libertarian Inquisition will see you burned at the stake, blasphemer!
Do you really, I mean really care about whether they had your slashdot password?
Depends on your UID. Mine, since it's in the very low four digit range, is probably worth some decent change, though I doubt if it really counts as a get rich quick scheme. Still, I can think of a whole lot of passwords that I'd be less protective of than my slashdot one.
Would I be protective of your slashdot password? No.
Actually, people pay to go see bands they've never heard of all the time. Not in gigantic sports arenas, no, but in local clubs and pubs. The cover charge is usually trivial if you're planning to have a few drinks anyway and many people (including me) think that even a mediocre band live is way more fun than a stale, dead recording of a top band. If people didn't go see unknown bands, places like The Fillmore, Mabuhay Gardens and CBGBs would have never become legendary.
You're also ignoring the Internet (although that one cuts both ways, as the lower barriers to self-promotion available through the Internet mean more competition) and the well-established phenomenon of the opening act. There are lots more ways to become known than just playing festivals (which is good, because I'm not a big fan of festivals--pub restroom facilities are bad enough).
Especially since that's what the popular t-shirt really translates to in the first place, which is why I've never bought one; it makes no sense. On the other hand, if they offered "there's no place like ~", I'd snap that up in an instant!:)
When I ssh into home from work, the IP addy I use bears no resemblance to 127.0.0.1, nor have I ever heard anyone, admin or developer, refer to localhost as "home".
From what I gather the whole 10 Fold, 3 Fold, was more about the progressive thickness of cloth in relation to the number of folds
That's an...interesting theory, but I can't find anything to support it. My M-W dictionary says the phrase goes back to the 12th century (so it has nothing to do with making planes of any type), and clearly states that "tenfold" means ten times, so your suggestion that it "really" means 2^10 is simply false. My own guess is that this ancient phrase has more to do with "in the fold" (where you find sheep, or perhaps wolves) than with cloth, but I can't prove that either.
The subject line is deliberately ambiguous, and I could probably support just about any interpretation you make, but my understanding is that SCO UNIX is still used in some embedded point-of-sale (POS) systems. There was also, IIRC, some noise in one of their recent filings about its popularity in Russia, so I guess it can be handy for controlling botnets or something.:)
It's not that I hate Mono--I just don't want it inflicted as a dependency of one of the standard (the better of the two big, IMO) Linux desktops. People who want/use Mono, like people who want/use Java should be free to install it and run it for whatever they want, and share free (and Free) apps amongst themselves, but I've already got about a dozen programming languages and runtimes installed, and I DO NOT WANT OR NEED this huge, bloated monstrosity (hugeness, bloatedness and monstrousness all confirmed when I manually purged the beast after the last time some lame dependency dragged it onto my system).
Heck, I came within inches, last year, of using Mono for a port from C#/.NET to Linux, and I would have been perfectly happy if that's the direction we'd chosen (although I'm pleased to say that our C++ port is working beautifully now), but I still don't want it embedded into my desktop!
A line by line clone and completely identical GUI design to the pixel level and not respecting the developers wish can be called unethical even if it's legal under the GPL/LGPL.
Attempting to weasel a ginormous bloated ugly runtime created with very suspicious motives into one of the standard Linux desktops can be called unethical even if it's legal under the GPL/LGPL. My sympathies for the dickwads who are trying to shove Mono down my throat are precisely zero. I don't care what they do with their own software on their own systems on their own time, but when they try to slime their junk all over my desktop (and as a Debian developer who was involved with earlier stages of Gnome develoment, I have no hesitation about calling it "my desktop"), then they don't deserve to have their wishes respected, in my arrogant opinion. Screw 'em!
Most OSS developers won't mind some credit for their hard work.
So, give 'em credit for the UI design or whatever. Just keep their blankty-blank C# code off my freakin' system!
Once Tomboy dies
We can only hope.
Gnote might stagnate
If Gnote stagnates after Tomboy dies, then there probably wasn't enough there to sustain an actual project in the first place. Frankly, if it weren't for the underhanded plans to force the crappy C# runtime onto as many people's desktops as possible, I'm not sure Tomboy would exist in the first place, so you might be right, but I'd call that a good thing! If it can't justify itself on its own as a standalone application, then it has no business on my desktop no matter what runtime it uses.
Just sign me a Debian Developer proudly using a mono-free Gnome desktop.
So, in other words, your attitude towards HR is the same as many people's attitude towards IT/MIS. Is it surprising that you don't get good results from HR when you start with the assumption that they're an obstacle?
Personally, I find HR very helpful when it comes to HR related matters--insurance, payroll, hiring, etc. I've worked at places that have better HR departments than others, but then I've worked at places that have better IT or MIS departments than others too. Assuming that all HR departments are full of fools is probably the major contributing factor towards creating BHRFHs. Just because they're not being helpful doesn't mean they're not out to get you, personally, and certainly doesn't mean that you don't deserve it.:)
I refused to sign an all-your-code-belongs-to-us agreement at my current employer, and almost didn't get the job because of it.
They almost always have a place for you to fill in exemptions for code/inventions you already owned before coming to work for them. As a Debian developer, I always just fill in "Debian GNU/Linux" in the exemption spot, and no one has ever objected, despite the fact that that's a hole big enough to drive a dozen web servers, eight web browsers, thirty-two Content Management Systems, four word processors, seventy-five programmer's editors, nine complete GUI toolkits, thirty-six programming languages, four hundred and seventy three games of varying quality, twenty-one window managers, forty-five email clients, a partridge in a pear tree*, and Goddess knows what else through. I used to try to explain the truly massive implications of those three simple words, but everyone (HR, manager or engineer) always said, "that's fine, we don't have a problem with it", so I stopped bothering.
Of course, it may help that I'm in California where employee rights laws are generally pretty strong.
* all numbers just guesses--I actually think that Debian may have three partridges in pear trees somewhere in its repositories.
There was an earlier case involving game carts and embedded trademarked identifiers where it was ruled that another company was allowed to use a particular trademark embedded in ROM because it was required to enable the full functionality of the game machine. So using your trademarked name as a "magic number" will not prevent others from connecting to your device or software legally. Once you use the trademark for a purpose other than identifying your business or product, it may become fair game in that other context.
If they were misrepresenting themselves to USERS as an Apple device in order to make sales (like the famous "Rollex Watch"), then they'd be in big trouble, but if all they're doing is misrepresenting themselves to the machine in order to get around some technical limitations of the software, then they should be fine.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between being the most popular...
Fair enough, but there's also a difference between having a monopoly (which I firmly believe Google does) and engaging in anti-competitive behavior (which, to give them credit, I do not believe Google does).
In the interests of full disclosure: I work for one of Google's main competitors (or should I say, "competitors"), but my beliefs about Google haven't changed since I started working here. I'm still a fan, and still don't trust 'em. :)
Except there's NO SUCH THING as the lesser of two evils.
Cthulhu would beg to differ. :)
I might go so far as to call your premise ridiculous. The rant itself was entertaining and raised a few interesting points (and I hasten to say that I am a third party voter, in general), but there seems to be this idea going around that because neither of two major US parties is ideal, they're both equally bad, and that's a steaming pile of crap (usually offered, as far as I can tell, by apologists for the more evil of the parties and/or the more evil elements of both parties).
Conservatives are for the status quo. Liberals are for things changing.
Actually, Liberals are for allowing diversity in society (be liberal in what you accept). Liberal and conservative are not opposites, except when repression and restriction are the status quo. Basically, Liberals are only for change when things are fubar (as they were quickly becoming under the so-called "neo-con" movement--but then the neo-cons weren't any flavor of conservative). Aside from that quibble, though, you've hit the nail on the head.
Of course, some will argue that the terms are changing, but then some people will also argue that war is peace, black is white, and we have always been at peace with Eastasia. :)
Sssshh! Anything we can do to keep bozos like that out of California is fine by me! Hey everyone, California sux, and nobody with any sense would want to live there! It's a great place to visit (unlike NJ), so come early and come often and bring lots of those nice tourist bux, but just make sure you go home after you're done having fun. :)
Plagiarism has been informally called "stealing" for decades.
Decades? Centuries, more like. And other uses of the term ("stealing away into the night", "stealing a kiss", "stealing a glance") all imply more about surreptition (surreptitiousness?) than about depriving anyone of anything, suggesting a connection with the word "stealth". In fact, "to steal away" (as in stealthy movement) dates back to the 1300s. Stealing glances and kisses dates back to the 1500s.
Arguing that these other well-established uses of the word are incorrect is a lot like insisting that "gay" really only means happy, except that it's a much less justifiable argument, as the meaning of the latter word changed much more recently.
"Forbidden Planet" stole shamelessly from Shakespeare's "The Tempest".
The runner stole third.
His over-the-top performance stole the show.
She silently stole away into the night.
As the door swung open, he stole a brief look inside.
"Steal" has all kinds of meanings in English. Only one of those meanings implies taking something away.
You very nearly raise a valid point. Unfortunately, your poor communication skills make it hard to spot.
I might subscribe to your theory if it weren't for the fact that lighttpd, which is a first-rate open-source web server, is explicitly listed as not vulnerable.
Fortunately, 90% of all software patents fail any trivial obviousness test, as they're almost invariable just some standard procedure or method with "using a compuer" or "over the Internet" tacked onto the end.
Meanwhile, we'll just have to see how Bilski plays out....
will the patent examiners who approved this one be fired for incompetence?
Probably not because they probably weren't. The patent was issued in 2004 under the guidelines that obtained at that time. KSR v Teleflex, which redefined the rules for determining obviousness, was only decided in 2007. If they issued this patent today (or at any time post-KSR), then we might be able to make a case for gross incompetence, but as it is, I think the examiners were just doing their job as it was defined at the time. Blame for the messed up state of affairs we used to have goes much higher up.
The flip side of course, is the all too real scenario: "I would like to remind the jury that even though the accused may be plainly guilty, he is white and the victim is black, and you are not required to convict him if you don't want to."
Jury nullification is definitely one of those double-edged swords. A great weapon against unjust laws, but, unfortunately, a great weapon against just laws as well.
No Yum, apt-get, and Synaptic are NOT a replacement for an App store.
Indeed, as someone who uses both on a daily basis, I have to say that apt-get and synaptic are vastly superior to the utter mess that is Android Market. About 75% of the apps I download from the Market actually work--apparently this has something to do with something called "cupcake", but nowhere does it explain what a cupcake is or why it would affect my phone. The reviews are nice, except that so many of them are posted by people who are obviously complete imbeciles; I half-trust the game reviews[*], but aside from that there seems to be no correlation (positive or negative) between an app's rating and its actual qualities[**]
As a developer, I suppose I can see something to some of your arguments about the advantages of Market to a developer, but as a user, I think Aptitude kicks ass!
[*] with notable exceptions: the reviews for "Zombie, Run", for example, show a widespread ignorance about what the game is and how it's supposed to work. Granted, a video game that must be played outdoors is pretty unusual, but there are a truly appalling number of reviews posted by people who obviously couldn't figure out that it has to be played outdoors despite the fact that the very first thing it says is, "you must be outdoors with a clear view of the sky to play this game".
[**] Normally, I tend to see people giving an app a bad review because they're idiots, but sometimes it's the opposite, as with the small handful of virus scanners (!) that are available. Yes, there are actually companies charging money for Linux virus scanners.
the hovercraft license scene from "The Butterfly Kid".
Holy smokes, there's an obscure reference! Especially these days. The second book in the series was written by Michael Kurland, who was married to my aunt at one time, but the third book was written by T.A. Waters who has the same last name as me, but was absolutely no relation. Boy we managed to confuse some people with that! :)
What? How dare you undermine my devout, fanatical, unthinking believe in the absolute superiority of the free market (which I define as any market so unregulated as to allow massive corruption, monopoly abuse, and the utter destruction of anything that could properly be called a "free market") with something as vacuous as facts?! The Libertarian Inquisition will see you burned at the stake, blasphemer!
Do you really, I mean really care about whether they had your slashdot password?
Depends on your UID. Mine, since it's in the very low four digit range, is probably worth some decent change, though I doubt if it really counts as a get rich quick scheme. Still, I can think of a whole lot of passwords that I'd be less protective of than my slashdot one.
Would I be protective of your slashdot password? No.
(No, not even if I were you.) :)
Actually, people pay to go see bands they've never heard of all the time. Not in gigantic sports arenas, no, but in local clubs and pubs. The cover charge is usually trivial if you're planning to have a few drinks anyway and many people (including me) think that even a mediocre band live is way more fun than a stale, dead recording of a top band. If people didn't go see unknown bands, places like The Fillmore, Mabuhay Gardens and CBGBs would have never become legendary.
You're also ignoring the Internet (although that one cuts both ways, as the lower barriers to self-promotion available through the Internet mean more competition) and the well-established phenomenon of the opening act. There are lots more ways to become known than just playing festivals (which is good, because I'm not a big fan of festivals--pub restroom facilities are bad enough).
Just say, "There's no place like localhost."
Especially since that's what the popular t-shirt really translates to in the first place, which is why I've never bought one; it makes no sense. On the other hand, if they offered "there's no place like ~", I'd snap that up in an instant! :)
When I ssh into home from work, the IP addy I use bears no resemblance to 127.0.0.1, nor have I ever heard anyone, admin or developer, refer to localhost as "home".
Ah well, wasn't the first time, and certainly won't be the last. :)
From what I gather the whole 10 Fold, 3 Fold, was more about the progressive thickness of cloth in relation to the number of folds
That's an...interesting theory, but I can't find anything to support it. My M-W dictionary says the phrase goes back to the 12th century (so it has nothing to do with making planes of any type), and clearly states that "tenfold" means ten times, so your suggestion that it "really" means 2^10 is simply false. My own guess is that this ancient phrase has more to do with "in the fold" (where you find sheep, or perhaps wolves) than with cloth, but I can't prove that either.
The subject line is deliberately ambiguous, and I could probably support just about any interpretation you make, but my understanding is that SCO UNIX is still used in some embedded point-of-sale (POS) systems. There was also, IIRC, some noise in one of their recent filings about its popularity in Russia, so I guess it can be handy for controlling botnets or something. :)
It's not that I hate Mono--I just don't want it inflicted as a dependency of one of the standard (the better of the two big, IMO) Linux desktops. People who want/use Mono, like people who want/use Java should be free to install it and run it for whatever they want, and share free (and Free) apps amongst themselves, but I've already got about a dozen programming languages and runtimes installed, and I DO NOT WANT OR NEED this huge, bloated monstrosity (hugeness, bloatedness and monstrousness all confirmed when I manually purged the beast after the last time some lame dependency dragged it onto my system).
Heck, I came within inches, last year, of using Mono for a port from C#/.NET to Linux, and I would have been perfectly happy if that's the direction we'd chosen (although I'm pleased to say that our C++ port is working beautifully now), but I still don't want it embedded into my desktop!
A line by line clone and completely identical GUI design to the pixel level and not respecting the developers wish can be called unethical even if it's legal under the GPL/LGPL.
Attempting to weasel a ginormous bloated ugly runtime created with very suspicious motives into one of the standard Linux desktops can be called unethical even if it's legal under the GPL/LGPL. My sympathies for the dickwads who are trying to shove Mono down my throat are precisely zero. I don't care what they do with their own software on their own systems on their own time, but when they try to slime their junk all over my desktop (and as a Debian developer who was involved with earlier stages of Gnome develoment, I have no hesitation about calling it "my desktop"), then they don't deserve to have their wishes respected, in my arrogant opinion. Screw 'em!
Most OSS developers won't mind some credit for their hard work.
So, give 'em credit for the UI design or whatever. Just keep their blankty-blank C# code off my freakin' system!
Once Tomboy dies
We can only hope.
Gnote might stagnate
If Gnote stagnates after Tomboy dies, then there probably wasn't enough there to sustain an actual project in the first place. Frankly, if it weren't for the underhanded plans to force the crappy C# runtime onto as many people's desktops as possible, I'm not sure Tomboy would exist in the first place, so you might be right, but I'd call that a good thing! If it can't justify itself on its own as a standalone application, then it has no business on my desktop no matter what runtime it uses.
Just sign me a Debian Developer proudly using a mono-free Gnome desktop.
So, in other words, your attitude towards HR is the same as many people's attitude towards IT/MIS. Is it surprising that you don't get good results from HR when you start with the assumption that they're an obstacle?
Personally, I find HR very helpful when it comes to HR related matters--insurance, payroll, hiring, etc. I've worked at places that have better HR departments than others, but then I've worked at places that have better IT or MIS departments than others too. Assuming that all HR departments are full of fools is probably the major contributing factor towards creating BHRFHs. Just because they're not being helpful doesn't mean they're not out to get you, personally, and certainly doesn't mean that you don't deserve it. :)
Thank you! That is exactly the one I had in mind. I actually did do some searching to try to find a link, but didn't stumble on the right keywords.
I refused to sign an all-your-code-belongs-to-us agreement at my current employer, and almost didn't get the job because of it.
They almost always have a place for you to fill in exemptions for code/inventions you already owned before coming to work for them. As a Debian developer, I always just fill in "Debian GNU/Linux" in the exemption spot, and no one has ever objected, despite the fact that that's a hole big enough to drive a dozen web servers, eight web browsers, thirty-two Content Management Systems, four word processors, seventy-five programmer's editors, nine complete GUI toolkits, thirty-six programming languages, four hundred and seventy three games of varying quality, twenty-one window managers, forty-five email clients, a partridge in a pear tree*, and Goddess knows what else through. I used to try to explain the truly massive implications of those three simple words, but everyone (HR, manager or engineer) always said, "that's fine, we don't have a problem with it", so I stopped bothering.
Of course, it may help that I'm in California where employee rights laws are generally pretty strong.
* all numbers just guesses--I actually think that Debian may have three partridges in pear trees somewhere in its repositories.
There was an earlier case involving game carts and embedded trademarked identifiers where it was ruled that another company was allowed to use a particular trademark embedded in ROM because it was required to enable the full functionality of the game machine. So using your trademarked name as a "magic number" will not prevent others from connecting to your device or software legally. Once you use the trademark for a purpose other than identifying your business or product, it may become fair game in that other context.
If they were misrepresenting themselves to USERS as an Apple device in order to make sales (like the famous "Rollex Watch"), then they'd be in big trouble, but if all they're doing is misrepresenting themselves to the machine in order to get around some technical limitations of the software, then they should be fine.