...of presenting the real issue: GPL vs. BSD and other licenses that allow proprietary forking. It's the GPL that MSFT really hates. If all I had was the article to go on, I'd get the impression that MSFT hates all free software and we know that isn't true.
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
IP can be copied
No it can't. There is only one Quake, Doom, Gone With The Wind, or Metallica album in the world. It's just that some of these items are large, and some of them are small. Joe's "How to frobulate grommets from late 60s English motorbikes" is small. Gone With The Wind is big.
Or... IP is like the Mandelbrot set. It may look like those other little copies are copies, but they aren't--they are tethered to the main set in ways that aren't readily apparent. In the case of IP, all the copies are tethered together because they represent *one* experience shared within a cultural context.
* many ideas in the public domain had their greatest impact in ways that couldn't be anticipated. the "consumers" who used these ideas to create even better ideas would not have been able to value their demand for the prerequisite idea until they had actually "consumed" it. the government can't figure out how much to tax ideas which don't seem to have much value until they spur another idea.
This is the "assessment" problem--how do you assess the value of something that has never sold? This is why I said there should be no tax if the idea isn't sold.
Frankly, the property tax idea was rather off-the-cuff, and was raised mostly to counter an AIP movement argument that I believe to be mostly empty rhetoric. In other words, I haven't fleshed it out with much thought. Now that I think about it, modeling things after property taxes could give rise to excessive taxation in the IP realm, and it would certainly introduce more beurocracy, which is bad.
I think I agree most with the posters who simply want to eliminate the *obvious* abuses that now exist: Repeal the DMCA, Roll back the Copyright Extension (Bono law), moratorium on software and business process patents until the issues can be studied, and general reform at the patent office. In particular, the patent office should have a much higher rejection rate than it does now.
Likewise, I have no desire to dramaticly roll back or eliminate IP laws. Suggestions that software should have less than 10 years of protection are flawed--the useful life of software is short now because we are early in the widespread use of computers. That is not likely to be the case after computers have been around longer.
In other words, I want fair and balanced IP laws which is what I think most people want. Trouble is, we are seeing polarization and conflict on this issue... Methinks the sigmeister who said "all extremists should be shot" said it best.:)
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, I already have plans to blow myself up at a sidewalk cafe on July 4--to show I'm not a terrorist.
Well, don't blame me. It's not my specious reasoning.
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
The "IP is not property" argument is an old one now, and it's fatal flaw is this:
It doesn't matter if IP law is formulated based on property law or not. Anti Intellectual Property advocates want you to believe that formulating IP as property would lead to perpetual IP rights resulting in ridiculous measures such as being sued for using 2+2 because somebody patented that.
The truth of the matter is that such abuses can occur regardless of the basis on which the law is formulated. In fact, IP law was never formulated based on the idea that IP is real property, and the AIP movement is already proving my point here by complaining about the existing IP laws!
In fact, formulating IP as real property could actually sanitize things a great deal. That's because it could then be taxed, and if necessary, taxed 100% in some cases. When something is passed into the public domain, from the point of view of the person who produced it, it's like paying a 100% tax on their IP.
Of course, behind the AIP movement's desire to abolish the concept of IP is their desire to levy a 100% tax on IP--socialism in its purest form. They like to raise issues regarding the formulation of the law because it conceals their true motives and brings the issue into an academic realm where they can obfuscate the issue. It plays in their favor. Formulate IP as property--like real estate, and it can be taxed like real estate. Fail to pay your IP tax, and get "foreclosed". If it brings nothing at auction, it passes to the PD. The tax would only be levied against people who actually sold IP products. Give something away for free, and you pay no IP tax.
For example, I write a book, and it sells 50,000 copies. The value of that IP is "assessed" and taxed like a house. You can appeal the assessment, just like with real esate. The tax would be used, in part, to fund a database that would assess demand for the product. So, if I was no longer printing the book, but 20,000 people registered demand for a new copy (obligating themselves to pay their stated price if a copy were available), and the $20,000 IP tax was too much for me to pay, I could auction the IP. The buyer would have to agree to print the work to receive the registered demand money.
You've pointed out one of the critical problems with the current arrangement--if the bus stops on a divided highway, the kids are unprotected when they cross the other side. OTOH, it isn't practical to require the other side to stop because there might be trees, bushes, walls, etc. dividing the highway so it might not even be possible to see the bus. You could make it illegal to have children cross the divided highway (and repeal the requirement for anybody to stop when the bus is on such a highway) but then you would have to have the bus double back for any children who lived on the other side.
However, the real crux of the problem is Fairfax's layout as you describe. You can't change it either because the Home Owners Association Taliban will be all over your case about cut-through traffic. Every once in a while some developer will screw up and create a delightful little short-cut. That happened in Kings Park and they went nuts with speed bumps, calming circles, etc. OK fine, I understand they don't want people going 50 mph by their front yards, the bumps don't bother me that much. Then again, maybe the sanest thing to do is have little gates that would raise only for buses, emergency vehicles, and certified residents. Then of course there would be a gate vandalism problem, so you would have to camera the gate and ticket people...
Oh... I have all kinds of ideas about city planning... better to leave off here.
Get used to it. Virginia has had a similar school bus law for years. In fact, when I was a delivery driver I used to say "I'm stuck behind a portable stopsign" whenever I was stuck behind a school bus.
OTOH, we don't have any law that says you have to stop for pedestrians who step on the road outside of a cross-walk. I've heard that drivers in CA are obliged to come to a full stop even if the ped is jay-walking. It seems like that would cause more problems since pedestrians are not always obvious, whereas a big ugly yellow bus is hard to miss.
The bottom line is that you will get used to the new law. I haven't heard anybody in VA complaining about it *ever*.
Also, don't label the kid as a "darwin" type. It's amazing what can happen to otherwise intelligent people. Big bus, quiet luxury car, lots of ambient noise, distractions... THUD. It could happen to anybody. In fact, to prevent bus drivers from running over their own kids, our buses now have a flip-out betal barrier to prevent kids from walking too close to the blind spot in front of the bus. When I was in jr. high they didn't have that. Instead they showed us a film called "Death Zone" that warned you not to linger too close to the bus. I don't recall their stats on kids who got konked in the blind spots, but it was enough for them to make a movie about it.
They should still show Death Zone just for the heck of it... I mean... it's a classic. That, and that movie where there's no oxygen left on Earth. Anybody else here remember that one? The one where it's the little girl's birthday and she and her grandfather get surface passes?
These are legislators solving a problem that doesn't exist
I'd say they are taking a very small problem that has already been reported and nipping it in the bud. This reminds me--the very same people who are now saying that Bush knew about 911 are the very same people that would probably have sluffed off a hijack warning before then. So, what we have here are some politicians who are actually demonstrating forsight, and getting blasted by comments like yours. Would you prefer to see a statisticly significant uptick in brain damage incidents at New Jersey hospitals before action is taken?
No farmers, no steelworkers, no Cuban immigrants, no nothin'. It ain't a key "swing planet", it has no electoral votes, no representation, no key industries, and it isn't even a decent vacation spot.
What we need is a lobby. First make land grants on Mars. Slip it in as a rider on some military spending bill. Then, we can start complaining about how transportation is lousy there; maybe divert some funds from Amtrak, grease a few palms here and there. The first rocket needs to be loaded with representatives for welfare mothers, schoolchildren, teachers, steelworkers, farmers, union members, and other key constituency groups who know how to lobby. The scientists can come later.
If the rocket makes it we'll get one helluva Mars lobby. If it blows up, that'll be fine too. It's a win-win situation.
Hey, don't blame me. You were the ones who brought Congress into the picture.
If I'm not into MP3s and stuff, I shouldn't have to pay it. Instead, they should offer a "tier 2" ISP service like cable does. A lot of people would be willing to pay more $5/month or more for such a service, but if I don't want it I shouldn't have to pay for it (which a lot of other people have suggested, but I didn't see anybody draw the cable analogy. Just my $0.02)
From his treehouse, through a telescope, Bart observes men chugging the
tonic and running indoors to their female partners.
Bart: OK, it's now _painfully_ clear the adults are _definitely_
paving the way for an invasion by the saucer people. Milhouse: You fool! Can't you see it's a massive government conspiracy?
Or have they gotten to you too?
[he and Bart start wrestling] Lisa: Hey! Hey, hey, stop it! Stop it! Why are you guys jumping
to such ridiculous conclusions? Haven't you ever heard of
Occam's Razor? "The simplest explanation is probably the
correct one." Bart: [condescending] So what's the simplest explanation? Lisa: I don't know. Maybe they're all reverse vampires and they
have to get home before dark. Everyone: Aah! Reverse vampires! Reverse vampires!
[Lisa sighs]
-- The Simpsons, "Grampa vs. Sexual Inadequacy"
Well then, please modify this page:
http://www.abisource.com/download/index.phtml?all= 1
Under the Windows section, it should include a link for the source, as well as describing the system requirements for building it. MSVC? Cygwin? Without sitting through a 15 meg download on my modem, I still wouldn't know by looking at this page, which is misleadingly titled "all downloads".
You know what--I just figure it out! It's purely psychological. The "downloads" link was at the top, and when I got to "all downloads" I figured there was noplace else to go. After all, something called "all downloads" must have all the downloads. I saw the "developers" link, but never clicked on it, thinking that it would be either something just for the core developers, or something for people who had already downloaded the source which I figured I couldn't do because I had just visited "all downloads". It was like my mind tuned it out. Of course, that was last night just before bed, but still maybe this is a "usability issue" for the website.
I can't believe this got modded up as informative! Of course that was the first thing I downloaded. It only installed the binary and other runtime data files.
Besides, the tarballs for the other systems are 15 megs. Some other guy said I could use the regular tarball. Which one is the "regular" one? The Linux one or the BSD one?
Now, I'm not interested in becoming a "power developer" with this thing, but I like to have things be buildable. Any contribution I make is likely to be of the "one or two line bugfix" variety. That, of course, is one of the powers of Open Source--thousands of guys making one or two line fixes. Since my level of involvement is likely to be just tweaks, it doesn't make sense for me to put a great deal of effort into obtaining the source.
Also, when I have GPL software I always want source because if I ever distribute it to someone the GPL puts me under the gun to give them source, and if I've never built it from source I could face a compliance issue from them--they might come back and say "hey, you gave me obfuscated source, you lousy Windows freak, can you explain how to build it". And if I can't explain how to build it, I haven't really given them source.
Now, I understand that there are many different build environments for Windows. If they used something obscure to build it, that's fine. I don't have any problems with somebody telling me that the W version is built with "Cromulated Express IDE and froo-froo GNU cross-compiler v 2.5.1". However, chances are they didn't use anything unusual. It's probably Cygwin or MSVC. Don't worry about alientating Windows developers by telling them they need such tools--just put it in the system requirements for Windows developers. We'll meet them if we're interested. (I'm getting into general advice for publishers of Free Software on Windows now, not necessarily aimed just at Abi).
Another thing *not* to do. Don't package the source using InstallShield. Yes. I actually know of one project that did that, but I won't name them. ZIP files are best, but gzipped/tar is OK if you provide a link to download UNTGZ.EXE.
The best thing of course, is to offer one universal tarball for all systems. That should not be impractical, since makefiles and project files seldom add more than a few kb. Then, source can be redistributed with confidence, knowing that it is buildable on all supported systems. Usually, all you have to do is rename a makefile and you are cool. However, since they had multiple source archives I assumed that the one for Windows simply wasn't there. The cynic in me says that perhaps they are borrowing a page from MSFT's book--by discouraging bugfixes from Windows developers, they hope to make the Windows version crappier, and migrate more users to GNU/Linux.
Most Mac users don't compile their programs either, but they have it for Mac. Also, a lot of Windows developers (myself included) don't use CVS on a regular basis, whereas most *NIX developers do, yet they have tailor-made archives for two different *NIX platforms. Why the stumbling block?
you can see in higher resolution than should be optically possible
That seems very counter-intuitive, but since you've suggested it, I can postulate at least one way that could be achieved: When something moves, you get multiple samples per cell, which the optical-neural system could then be intelligently integrating into a higher resolution picture. If that's true though, it wouldn't help you when staring intently at something that isn't moving.
If those papers can suggest anything that allows you to improve resolution when neither the subject nor the optical receptors are moving, I will be truly impressed. Actually, I think that's impossible but I can't prove it off the top of my head.
This Isn't Free Software For Windows... unless the download for the Windows source is just in an awkward spot where I can't find it. I found source downloads for FreeBSD, Linux, and MacOS X, but not Windows.
Well, apparently it comes with the standard Free Software helpdesk support. However, if being cussed at is not enough, you can pay extra and get punched in the face.:)
Let's build on that. How dense could the sensors get before the optical limits of the eye would become the bottleneck?
Also, since these things are using the photo-voltaic effect to generate the electrical impulse, isn't there a limit to how well they would work in low light? Can that limit be overcome? Could they build units that grabbed inductive power from a transmitter in your glasses to overcome that problem, or maybe even allow super night vision? Will future soldiers be encouraged to get such implants? On the opposite side of that equation, would they allow you to look at the sun without being damaged?
How many of you have ever seen a white LED light, much less read by one? I saw one in one of those Sharper Image type stores a while back. It was a flashlight that had a light that reminded me of a cross between flourescent and those annoying blue headlights.
I realize they are efficient, but they are just not very pleasant. They might be useful as porchlights, but I wouldn't want to sit in a room with one and read for any length of time. Also, LEDs are probably not made in those countries. Simply giving them things is not going to encourage development (assuming that you think development is a good thing). I think we are better off educating the 3rd world then just giving them things. Educate them in math and language, and then they can solve their own problems, and in a way that will be suited to their culture, without contributing to the growing disatisfaction with the "imperialist" West. If you have to give them lights to educate them, give 'em good old incandescent/battery lamps. Kids won't be encouraged to learn under those annoying white lights.
I can't even find the side panels, musta thrown'm out. I've got too much external hardware, ribbon cables, protoboards, etc, dandling out of most of them
He's not lying either. I saw him typing that on channel 6.
Oh no! What does that say about the US government? Followed by, You haven't been reading/. very long, have you?
And, since I've been roused to post yet again, I suppose I should address everything in this/back that concerns me.
1. Harlan Ellison has a right to defend his copyrights, but he's an idiot to go after what a powerful ISP that is becoming more and more like a common carrier. Wasn't there a move at one point to make ISPs CCs?
2. The Simpsons is definitely on the way out. I can't say exactly when it started on the way out... it's rather like the onset of cold weather. At some point, you start wearing a hat but it doesn't usually jump from 90 to 40 all in one day, and there are plenty of 80s mixed in with the 50s. Every once in a while I still get a good belly laugh from the Simpson's, but it's been a while. Last Sunday's Apu affair just sort of sat there. How old are the octuplets? They ought to age them correctly. That would yield a good shot where Maggie meets one and then looks at Marge as if to say "why not me?"... Actually, I've seen lots of suggestions from fans that are better than the real scripts. That's a certain sign the show is dying. Like Saturday Night Live jumped the shark when GE Smith started playing. Even George Foreman smashing Smith's guitar hasn't saved it. I can still think of better scripts than they can, but I can't pinpoint the moment of failure for the Simpons... sorry.
Cool. I pulled that ZIP code out of my posterior, based on nothing more than 2 facts: 1. ZIP codes in the Northeast are lowest, ZIP codes in the Southwest are highest. and 2. My ZIP code is in Virginia and it's 22***. I'm pleased that I actually hit the deep South, and a bordering state no less. If I'd actually hit the right state, that would have been uber cool, and yeah, I coulda looked it up but it was a joke, not my SAT test.
As for your other point, Krusty was oblivious enough to do that at the Apollo theatre (which is where I got the idea) so he might be oblivious enough not to check the work of his kampaign manager either. I guess I could have put the office in Springfield Missouri though.:)
Slashdot Mirror
...of presenting the real issue: GPL vs. BSD and other licenses that allow proprietary forking. It's the GPL that MSFT really hates. If all I had was the article to go on, I'd get the impression that MSFT hates all free software and we know that isn't true.
IP can be copied
No it can't. There is only one Quake, Doom, Gone With The Wind, or Metallica album in the world. It's just that some of these items are large, and some of them are small. Joe's "How to frobulate grommets from late 60s English motorbikes" is small. Gone With The Wind is big.
Or... IP is like the Mandelbrot set. It may look like those other little copies are copies, but they aren't--they are tethered to the main set in ways that aren't readily apparent. In the case of IP, all the copies are tethered together because they represent *one* experience shared within a cultural context.
* many ideas in the public domain had their greatest impact in ways that couldn't be anticipated. the "consumers" who used these ideas to create even better ideas would not have been able to value their demand for the prerequisite idea until they had actually "consumed" it. the government can't figure out how much to tax ideas which don't seem to have much value until they spur another idea.
This is the "assessment" problem--how do you assess the value of something that has never sold? This is why I said there should be no tax if the idea isn't sold.
Frankly, the property tax idea was rather off-the-cuff, and was raised mostly to counter an AIP movement argument that I believe to be mostly empty rhetoric. In other words, I haven't fleshed it out with much thought. Now that I think about it, modeling things after property taxes could give rise to excessive taxation in the IP realm, and it would certainly introduce more beurocracy, which is bad.
I think I agree most with the posters who simply want to eliminate the *obvious* abuses that now exist: Repeal the DMCA, Roll back the Copyright Extension (Bono law), moratorium on software and business process patents until the issues can be studied, and general reform at the patent office. In particular, the patent office should have a much higher rejection rate than it does now.
Likewise, I have no desire to dramaticly roll back or eliminate IP laws. Suggestions that software should have less than 10 years of protection are flawed--the useful life of software is short now because we are early in the widespread use of computers. That is not likely to be the case after computers have been around longer.
In other words, I want fair and balanced IP laws which is what I think most people want. Trouble is, we are seeing polarization and conflict on this issue... Methinks the sigmeister who said "all extremists should be shot" said it best. :)
Totally not what I meant, and you know it.
Sorry, I already have plans to blow myself up at a sidewalk cafe on July 4--to show I'm not a terrorist.
Well, don't blame me. It's not my specious reasoning.
The "IP is not property" argument is an old one now, and it's fatal flaw is this:
It doesn't matter if IP law is formulated based on property law or not. Anti Intellectual Property advocates want you to believe that formulating IP as property would lead to perpetual IP rights resulting in ridiculous measures such as being sued for using 2+2 because somebody patented that.
The truth of the matter is that such abuses can occur regardless of the basis on which the law is formulated. In fact, IP law was never formulated based on the idea that IP is real property, and the AIP movement is already proving my point here by complaining about the existing IP laws!
In fact, formulating IP as real property could actually sanitize things a great deal. That's because it could then be taxed, and if necessary, taxed 100% in some cases. When something is passed into the public domain, from the point of view of the person who produced it, it's like paying a 100% tax on their IP.
Of course, behind the AIP movement's desire to abolish the concept of IP is their desire to levy a 100% tax on IP--socialism in its purest form. They like to raise issues regarding the formulation of the law because it conceals their true motives and brings the issue into an academic realm where they can obfuscate the issue. It plays in their favor. Formulate IP as property--like real estate, and it can be taxed like real estate. Fail to pay your IP tax, and get "foreclosed". If it brings nothing at auction, it passes to the PD. The tax would only be levied against people who actually sold IP products. Give something away for free, and you pay no IP tax.
For example, I write a book, and it sells 50,000 copies. The value of that IP is "assessed" and taxed like a house. You can appeal the assessment, just like with real esate. The tax would be used, in part, to fund a database that would assess demand for the product. So, if I was no longer printing the book, but 20,000 people registered demand for a new copy (obligating themselves to pay their stated price if a copy were available), and the $20,000 IP tax was too much for me to pay, I could auction the IP. The buyer would have to agree to print the work to receive the registered demand money.
You've pointed out one of the critical problems with the current arrangement--if the bus stops on a divided highway, the kids are unprotected when they cross the other side. OTOH, it isn't practical to require the other side to stop because there might be trees, bushes, walls, etc. dividing the highway so it might not even be possible to see the bus. You could make it illegal to have children cross the divided highway (and repeal the requirement for anybody to stop when the bus is on such a highway) but then you would have to have the bus double back for any children who lived on the other side.
However, the real crux of the problem is Fairfax's layout as you describe. You can't change it either because the Home Owners Association Taliban will be all over your case about cut-through traffic. Every once in a while some developer will screw up and create a delightful little short-cut. That happened in Kings Park and they went nuts with speed bumps, calming circles, etc. OK fine, I understand they don't want people going 50 mph by their front yards, the bumps don't bother me that much. Then again, maybe the sanest thing to do is have little gates that would raise only for buses, emergency vehicles, and certified residents. Then of course there would be a gate vandalism problem, so you would have to camera the gate and ticket people...
Oh... I have all kinds of ideas about city planning... better to leave off here.
Get used to it. Virginia has had a similar school bus law for years. In fact, when I was a delivery driver I used to say "I'm stuck behind a portable stopsign" whenever I was stuck behind a school bus.
OTOH, we don't have any law that says you have to stop for pedestrians who step on the road outside of a cross-walk. I've heard that drivers in CA are obliged to come to a full stop even if the ped is jay-walking. It seems like that would cause more problems since pedestrians are not always obvious, whereas a big ugly yellow bus is hard to miss.
The bottom line is that you will get used to the new law. I haven't heard anybody in VA complaining about it *ever*.
Also, don't label the kid as a "darwin" type. It's amazing what can happen to otherwise intelligent people. Big bus, quiet luxury car, lots of ambient noise, distractions... THUD. It could happen to anybody. In fact, to prevent bus drivers from running over their own kids, our buses now have a flip-out betal barrier to prevent kids from walking too close to the blind spot in front of the bus. When I was in jr. high they didn't have that. Instead they showed us a film called "Death Zone" that warned you not to linger too close to the bus. I don't recall their stats on kids who got konked in the blind spots, but it was enough for them to make a movie about it.
They should still show Death Zone just for the heck of it... I mean... it's a classic. That, and that movie where there's no oxygen left on Earth. Anybody else here remember that one? The one where it's the little girl's birthday and she and her grandfather get surface passes?
These are legislators solving a problem that doesn't exist
I'd say they are taking a very small problem that has already been reported and nipping it in the bud. This reminds me--the very same people who are now saying that Bush knew about 911 are the very same people that would probably have sluffed off a hijack warning before then. So, what we have here are some politicians who are actually demonstrating forsight, and getting blasted by comments like yours. Would you prefer to see a statisticly significant uptick in brain damage incidents at New Jersey hospitals before action is taken?
...will be based on Legos.
Not enough votes on Mars.
No farmers, no steelworkers, no Cuban immigrants, no nothin'. It ain't a key "swing planet", it has no electoral votes, no representation, no key industries, and it isn't even a decent vacation spot.
What we need is a lobby. First make land grants on Mars. Slip it in as a rider on some military spending bill. Then, we can start complaining about how transportation is lousy there; maybe divert some funds from Amtrak, grease a few palms here and there. The first rocket needs to be loaded with representatives for welfare mothers, schoolchildren, teachers, steelworkers, farmers, union members, and other key constituency groups who know how to lobby. The scientists can come later.
If the rocket makes it we'll get one helluva Mars lobby. If it blows up, that'll be fine too. It's a win-win situation.
Hey, don't blame me. You were the ones who brought Congress into the picture.
If I'm not into MP3s and stuff, I shouldn't have to pay it. Instead, they should offer a "tier 2" ISP service like cable does. A lot of people would be willing to pay more $5/month or more for such a service, but if I don't want it I shouldn't have to pay for it (which a lot of other people have suggested, but I didn't see anybody draw the cable analogy. Just my $0.02)
From his treehouse, through a telescope, Bart observes men chugging the
tonic and running indoors to their female partners.
Bart: OK, it's now _painfully_ clear the adults are _definitely_
paving the way for an invasion by the saucer people.
Milhouse: You fool! Can't you see it's a massive government conspiracy?
Or have they gotten to you too?
[he and Bart start wrestling]
Lisa: Hey! Hey, hey, stop it! Stop it! Why are you guys jumping
to such ridiculous conclusions? Haven't you ever heard of
Occam's Razor? "The simplest explanation is probably the
correct one."
Bart: [condescending] So what's the simplest explanation?
Lisa: I don't know. Maybe they're all reverse vampires and they
have to get home before dark.
Everyone: Aah! Reverse vampires! Reverse vampires!
[Lisa sighs]
-- The Simpsons, "Grampa vs. Sexual Inadequacy"
Well then, please modify this page:= 1
http://www.abisource.com/download/index.phtml?all
Under the Windows section, it should include a link for the source, as well as describing the system requirements for building it. MSVC? Cygwin? Without sitting through a 15 meg download on my modem, I still wouldn't know by looking at this page, which is misleadingly titled "all downloads".
You know what--I just figure it out! It's purely psychological. The "downloads" link was at the top, and when I got to "all downloads" I figured there was noplace else to go. After all, something called "all downloads" must have all the downloads. I saw the "developers" link, but never clicked on it, thinking that it would be either something just for the core developers, or something for people who had already downloaded the source which I figured I couldn't do because I had just visited "all downloads". It was like my mind tuned it out. Of course, that was last night just before bed, but still maybe this is a "usability issue" for the website.
I can't believe this got modded up as informative! Of course that was the first thing I downloaded. It only installed the binary and other runtime data files.
And yes, I looked for it:
Besides, the tarballs for the other systems are 15 megs. Some other guy said I could use the regular tarball. Which one is the "regular" one? The Linux one or the BSD one?
Now, I'm not interested in becoming a "power developer" with this thing, but I like to have things be buildable. Any contribution I make is likely to be of the "one or two line bugfix" variety. That, of course, is one of the powers of Open Source--thousands of guys making one or two line fixes. Since my level of involvement is likely to be just tweaks, it doesn't make sense for me to put a great deal of effort into obtaining the source.
Also, when I have GPL software I always want source because if I ever distribute it to someone the GPL puts me under the gun to give them source, and if I've never built it from source I could face a compliance issue from them--they might come back and say "hey, you gave me obfuscated source, you lousy Windows freak, can you explain how to build it". And if I can't explain how to build it, I haven't really given them source.
Now, I understand that there are many different build environments for Windows. If they used something obscure to build it, that's fine. I don't have any problems with somebody telling me that the W version is built with "Cromulated Express IDE and froo-froo GNU cross-compiler v 2.5.1". However, chances are they didn't use anything unusual. It's probably Cygwin or MSVC. Don't worry about alientating Windows developers by telling them they need such tools--just put it in the system requirements for Windows developers. We'll meet them if we're interested. (I'm getting into general advice for publishers of Free Software on Windows now, not necessarily aimed just at Abi).
Another thing *not* to do. Don't package the source using InstallShield. Yes. I actually know of one project that did that, but I won't name them. ZIP files are best, but gzipped/tar is OK if you provide a link to download UNTGZ.EXE.
The best thing of course, is to offer one universal tarball for all systems. That should not be impractical, since makefiles and project files seldom add more than a few kb. Then, source can be redistributed with confidence, knowing that it is buildable on all supported systems. Usually, all you have to do is rename a makefile and you are cool. However, since they had multiple source archives I assumed that the one for Windows simply wasn't there. The cynic in me says that perhaps they are borrowing a page from MSFT's book--by discouraging bugfixes from Windows developers, they hope to make the Windows version crappier, and migrate more users to GNU/Linux.
Most Mac users don't compile their programs either, but they have it for Mac. Also, a lot of Windows developers (myself included) don't use CVS on a regular basis, whereas most *NIX developers do, yet they have tailor-made archives for two different *NIX platforms. Why the stumbling block?
you can see in higher resolution than should be optically possible
That seems very counter-intuitive, but since you've suggested it, I can postulate at least one way that could be achieved: When something moves, you get multiple samples per cell, which the optical-neural system could then be intelligently integrating into a higher resolution picture. If that's true though, it wouldn't help you when staring intently at something that isn't moving.
If those papers can suggest anything that allows you to improve resolution when neither the subject nor the optical receptors are moving, I will be truly impressed. Actually, I think that's impossible but I can't prove it off the top of my head.
This Isn't Free Software For Windows... unless the download for the Windows source is just in an awkward spot where I can't find it. I found source downloads for FreeBSD, Linux, and MacOS X, but not Windows.
Well, apparently it comes with the standard Free Software helpdesk support. However, if being cussed at is not enough, you can pay extra and get punched in the face. :)
Let's build on that. How dense could the sensors get before the optical limits of the eye would become the bottleneck?
Also, since these things are using the photo-voltaic effect to generate the electrical impulse, isn't there a limit to how well they would work in low light? Can that limit be overcome? Could they build units that grabbed inductive power from a transmitter in your glasses to overcome that problem, or maybe even allow super night vision? Will future soldiers be encouraged to get such implants? On the opposite side of that equation, would they allow you to look at the sun without being damaged?
How many of you have ever seen a white LED light, much less read by one? I saw one in one of those Sharper Image type stores a while back. It was a flashlight that had a light that reminded me of a cross between flourescent and those annoying blue headlights.
I realize they are efficient, but they are just not very pleasant. They might be useful as porchlights, but I wouldn't want to sit in a room with one and read for any length of time. Also, LEDs are probably not made in those countries. Simply giving them things is not going to encourage development (assuming that you think development is a good thing). I think we are better off educating the 3rd world then just giving them things. Educate them in math and language, and then they can solve their own problems, and in a way that will be suited to their culture, without contributing to the growing disatisfaction with the "imperialist" West. If you have to give them lights to educate them, give 'em good old incandescent/battery lamps. Kids won't be encouraged to learn under those annoying white lights.
This is your pilot speaking. Nevermind the turbulence, just keep your eyes on the blinkenlights.
I can't even find the side panels, musta thrown'm out. I've got too much external hardware, ribbon cables, protoboards, etc, dandling out of most of them
He's not lying either. I saw him typing that on channel 6.
Oh no! What does that say about the US government? Followed by, You haven't been reading /. very long, have you?
And, since I've been roused to post yet again, I suppose I should address everything in this /back that concerns me.
1. Harlan Ellison has a right to defend his copyrights, but he's an idiot to go after what a powerful ISP that is becoming more and more like a common carrier. Wasn't there a move at one point to make ISPs CCs?
2. The Simpsons is definitely on the way out. I can't say exactly when it started on the way out... it's rather like the onset of cold weather. At some point, you start wearing a hat but it doesn't usually jump from 90 to 40 all in one day, and there are plenty of 80s mixed in with the 50s. Every once in a while I still get a good belly laugh from the Simpson's, but it's been a while. Last Sunday's Apu affair just sort of sat there. How old are the octuplets? They ought to age them correctly. That would yield a good shot where Maggie meets one and then looks at Marge as if to say "why not me?"... Actually, I've seen lots of suggestions from fans that are better than the real scripts. That's a certain sign the show is dying. Like Saturday Night Live jumped the shark when GE Smith started playing. Even George Foreman smashing Smith's guitar hasn't saved it. I can still think of better scripts than they can, but I can't pinpoint the moment of failure for the Simpons... sorry.
Those girls with the hairy armpits like to f***.
Cool. I pulled that ZIP code out of my posterior, based on nothing more than 2 facts: 1. ZIP codes in the Northeast are lowest, ZIP codes in the Southwest are highest. and 2. My ZIP code is in Virginia and it's 22***. I'm pleased that I actually hit the deep South, and a bordering state no less. If I'd actually hit the right state, that would have been uber cool, and yeah, I coulda looked it up but it was a joke, not my SAT test.
As for your other point, Krusty was oblivious enough to do that at the Apollo theatre (which is where I got the idea) so he might be oblivious enough not to check the work of his kampaign manager either. I guess I could have put the office in Springfield Missouri though. :)