The best team I ever worked on telecommuted. We were working on a new internet thingy back in the day when everything on the internet was new, and there were about a half dozen or so developers, working on a couple of spiffy new Sun boxes via telnet over ssh. It was a blast. Moral on the team was high, and we often burned the midnight oil simply to see this thing get built, and becuase our fearless leader was a genuine visionary. We communicated via email and comments in code and rcs. Then we would do weekly statuses via a conference call, but for the most part, we kept in touch via email and it worked like a champ.
We were the black project, Dave's crazy thing... building an internet service model in an organization that didn't even really see that much of a need for even computers from the get go. It was a tremendous amount of work but also a great deal of fun. It was a genuinely wonderful experience for me. We had a colorful team, filled with a bunch of just super people, and that's what really matters. If you've got good people, you are going to have a good team almost regardless of whether they are in the office or not.
If you have a bunch of unemployed programmers, collecting unemployment, don't you think they might not be, um programming? If anything, a recession would spur open source because you can get someone on the web for a lot cheaper in real dollars than any warm and fuzzy Windows would get you into.
Socialism is about assigning resources to people based on other than economic terms. You need to have a central authority to do that. Whether or not that central authority is democratically elected, as in the case of Europe, or, forced onto the people via revolutionaries, as in the case of the USSR, is beside the point. The idea is that a socialist society tries to identify the most capable people and tax them extra to support those who are not as capable, with the idea that ability brings with it additional social responsibility.
If you're trying to appeal to Republicans, wouldn't honesty be the opposite of what would be accepted?
Actually no. It's just that most Republicans support their candidates because they are the lesser of two evils. Look at the current fundraising lead for Dems. There's no excitement in either the libertarian wing, the capitalist wing, or the religious wing of the republican party. It's just dead.
Again, isn't it the Republicans who have a hard-on for spying?
Again, no. Yes, there are some who wrongly believe national security trumps concerns over privacy rights, just as much there are some Dems who wrongly believe that some crime concerns trump concerns over the right to keep and bear arms. There's plenty of wrong-headed-ness to go around in all parties, and what troubles me most is that even the most left wing Dem, Obama, has not actually committed to repealing USA PATRIOT, FISA Courts, or the Dept of Homeland Security.
Sheesh, 3 for 3. Again, it's the Republicans who want to destroy community
No, they just support policies that you feel threaten you. And vice versa. This is a propaganda argument, and nothing more. In point of fact, the single most community destroying policy on the table right now is free trade and the American membership in a number of military alliances world wide, and not a single Democratic candidate has offered to withdraw from the WTO or promote American products. Indeed, Obama actually casts Detroit as evil in his own pursuit of ethanol subsidies so he could get his win in Iowa. If there is going to be a welcome resurgence in isolationism, its going to come from Republicans before it comes from Democrats. Huckabee is more against all of this free trade and engagement with the world. Unfortunately, he is also a religious fruitcake!
What you've just described is effectively Anarchy, LOL.
A lot of conservatives are in fact anarchists at heart, when it comes to the federal government. Remember, conservatism has its roots in rural people that basically owned the family farm and really did whatever they wanted to, without any real regulation. If you were out in the American west 100 years ago, there was no one else anywhere near you. People only got together rarely for a church service and to sell goods at the closest railroad. There are still places like that. It was anarchy in a very true sense.
What I was criticizing is his belief that a) the so-called leftist reputation of open source for most people doesn't exist because they don't know what the hell open source even is,
The problem with that is that you are running up against the likes of the Wall Street Journal and Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, who are very successfully arguing that open source is some kind of communist thing. Then, when you go and read Stallman's own web sites, you'll find that he's basically your run of the mill socialist. Those things can put a lot of people off, and you need to be able to say that Stallman's views are not my own. Like, you can still argue that your source code is STILL your intellectual property, whether or not you choose to make it free as in open and free as in beer.
Look, I'm trying to get my software business rolling and I'm finding four things:
a) Selling commercial packages for Windows is extremely difficult online. You really need to have a highly trained sales force and a serious marketing budget. Corporations can pay you the big bucks, but, you need to lay out some big bucks yourself. Unless you plan on trying to be a millionaire, its probably not realistic to try and cater to vertical corporate markets via shareware or online software sales. It costs a ton of money to get in there... unless you hit the jackpot with that simple utility or game that everyone just have to have.... but there's a lot out there.
b) Advertising revenue from being the main web site for free software often exceeds the revenue you can get from shareware anyway. This surprises me, but, I've spent far more time bashing my head against Windows shareware world but the Linux world, for a lot less investment, is making more money for me. It may be that my writing is better than my software, for sure, but, those little google adsense keywords do pretty good.
c) There's really more interest in Linux, and, bigger players can give you some serious help. For example, IBM has an excellent solutions directory and keeps a database to help hook your system up with potential clients. That can translate into development work for you, to add new features, and really as more of an architect or senior level person (having designed the original project), then, at a lower rate a normal code-drone would get.
d) Developing for Linux, or just having a site out there, can impress a lot of people in IT, and in some ways, better than Windows does. Everyone does Windows, and so being involved in Linux sets you apart. I have a client that's a closet Linux fanatic, and once I admitted that I too, love my dual opteron (until the SATA chip died), running Linux, our relationship got a lot better and I find myself being involved in ever cooler projects.
So, yeah, there's this belief out there that Linux equals starvation whereas Windows is money, but, its a complicated world out there.
Options abound. Here's one crazy thing I've heard of. As the copyright holder, there's really nothing that precludes you from selling both versions of the same product. You could sell your product for Windows, for sure, and you could open source it for Linux, if you like.
Another thing you could do would be to offer your software as FOSS, but host a web site as a service that does it. Yes, you would in effect allow other people to create competition for you, but, usually, the biggest problem you have isn't the software, but getting people to buy into the idea that you have being your software. If you create a program to make a service that is FOSS, and suddenly a 1000 web sites pop up making it, you've in effect gotten free advertising for your concept, and the advantages of that cannot be understated.
All I can say is good luck. In 2008 I'm going all out Linux - as soon as I get my Opteron mended -, and for the reasons I've listed, I think I'm more likely to make myself a millionaire giving software away than I would be selling it under Windows.
It seems to me that for open source to advance, we need to get past this notion of FOSS as a "liberal" thing. There are plenty of us conservative neo-nazi fascist trying to take over the world Republicans that love Linux and it is incumbent upon us to communicate that using Linux is not an endorsement of Joseph Stalin.
a) Open Source is not communism and its not socialism. Socialism and communism are centrally planned, whereas, an open source system consists of thousands of voices, each operating with their own agenda. If any system is more like a communist system, its a big corporate system, which has all of its components centrally planned and designed. It's not like Linus Torvalds writes all of Linux. He's just famous for writing a very important piece at the center of things. While its true that you are not going to make billions of dollars writing that one thing and selling it over and over again, there's nothing to stop you from building a consulting firm offering open source solutions that makes billions and billions of dollars, if you want.
b) Rugged individualism. Open source is software about the inventor, without all of that unproductive fluff of corporate programming. You make something yourself, and then you publish it. If its good, people will use it. If not, then the project quickly dies.
c) Honesty. Open source systems are brutally honest. Whereas a system in a store will be filled with hype and lies, by contrast, an open source system tells it like it is. One of the things that I love about Linux is that the documentation with most of the software package clearly and immediately lists things that don't work or haven't been tested enough.
d) No spying. These days, using a copy of Windows makes it almost seem like you might be a criminal just for using it. And Windows is completely sealed up, and who knows what sort of deals that Microsoft cuts with the government. Because there's no secret codes in open source systems, everyone would know right away if something was wrong with it.
e) A real community. Every program these days has its communities, but with open source, you have a genuine interaction between the people that write and the people that use the software. Working in an open source community is like working in an old rural town, where everyone chips in to build that neighbor's house. Open source lets all of its dirty laundry out.
They could do the same in CA. Whatever they ultimately decide in CA is up to the politicians, who answer to the voters.
In America, they don't. They answer to the hardcore fanatics on either side of the political aisle in various primaries and vetting processes just to get on the ballot. By the time it gets to the general election, its already too late. Just have a look at the Democratic Primary, for example. Which candidate failed in the election (Bill Richardson), a centrist, popular, multi-term governor with significant experience as a congressman, cabinet member, or, somebody that wrote a book and gives good speeches? (Obama)
Jeez, I not only voted for Bush, but I gave the guy money, but the facts are on the table. All of the libertarian Republicans were forced out when Bush got elected or shortly therafter. Dick Army got the boot, Newt got the boot, Kasich got the boot, and so on.
The facts are facts though.
Before Bush was elected, Republicans in Congress were cheap bastards that brought the nation an unprecedented surplus. As soon as Bush got in, they became spending whores. It's just a simple fact, and you can't call that flamebait. If that offends you, then that's too bad, but those are the facts.
j498fn894The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
In this example, you make the assumption that you only have enough information encoded in the original content to encode the watermarking. You can always add more filler information to the system to make it much more difficult to detect the watermark. To rephrase your example, I combine the small mark with additional noise. It's difficult to do this with plaintext, but there's all sorts of room you could stick things in a waveform, which, when you think about it, is incredibly vast. I could probably throw off the sound of the music by an incredibly tiny amount, on every quadword, with really what is almost random noise. And, then, I could bury the watermark in that.
So, if the watermark was an encrypted name and credit card number (which I would do if I were them, as a deterrent), then, we're really talking less than 100 bytes, assuming a western character set. Against the several megabytes of an entire song, this is really chump change. Encoding personal information into purchased digital content is an excellent way to deter piracy.
Just because you say it is a joke does not make it ok to rant like that, nor does it make it funny.
It just means that you don't have the same sense of humor that I do. There's no absolute quantity called "Funny" and to attempt to even police it as such is downright silly.
All fuels take more energy to produce... in a sense, our present fossil fuel predicament is because we are using stored energy from the sun over millions of years. That we can even think about creating biofuels or really, any sort of fuel, efficiently, says a lot for how far the technology has come. But we'll never be able to just "create" a fuel, and the world's going to have to accept that.
Back when the Republicans first got control of congress, and were still lead by more fiscal conservatives, John Kasich actually distributed copies of the House spending bills in Excel and 123 formats off of his web page. I remember downloading one of those monsters via dialup and going through it. Then, of course, Bush got elected, and overnight, the likes of Kasich and Army were forced out, and with them went any hope of fiscal responsibility.
You just wait until my mortgage company puts its records on one of those things. Torpedos away! Oppps, sorry Mr. Stork, all of your records were destroyed... guess you just don't have to make that payment any more!
riend, the only magical thing that happens is that the fetus goes from being completely within the mother's bod
Men, we are so whipped.
Back in the day, when men were really men, your wife would have been your property, just like a remote control or a refrigerator, and the sole purpose for her existence would be to keep the place clean and crank out the kids. If she didn't like it, you'd smack her across the head and demand another drink, tell her that yes, her sister really is stupid, just before you leave to go get hammered and have an affair with her.
Now look at us... we're actually in a war with another culture because their men do this to their women, and we're all sitting around cooking and cleaning and begging the woman to have children. Our current president trembles at his mother's voice, surrounds himself with surrogate mothers, and the next one might even be a woman.
No wonder the USA is going down the tubes along with Europe. Western Men are pathetic little sissies.
I mean, back in the "good" old days, it was common for people in the USA to ride around with a beer in the hand. Nowadays, of course, that's been made illegal. But, if cars are driving themselves, then, why not pop a cold one and enjoy the ride?
Suddenly we find our local group of stars is host to numerous planets broadcasting loads of porn. The first image of intersteller life will be a happy finish!
I am not so sure that this is so much an isuee of Creative Commons, as it is the gray void that is relicensing. You should only be applying the CC to your own work and if you are applying the CC to something else, then you should responsible for the fallout, especially if the license is incompatible with the original.
I think the gist of the article is thus:
Owner A has photo B releases A under CC to X,Y,Z A sues X,Y,Z, but really B is to blame.
The game is that, I could take one of my friend's photos, and put it up on the likes of Wikipedia. Then, my friend turns around and sues Wikipedia for infringement. In other words, the claim is that the license somehow makes it possible to "game the system", but, as you already pointed out, I don't see how that isn't possible with any license.
I don't they can demand that you provide a key, because that is self-incrimination. However, they can certainly try to decrypt the data themselves. I unfortunately think the government can do searches of your computer equipment. However, I do not believe they can confiscate it. They should be required to take an image and return your data.
Ok, let me see if I understand this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can't have proofs or in depth reference materials, because more detail is out of scope for really no reason. But, they can somehow try and turn wiki into another google or a facebook.
Slashdot Mirror
The best team I ever worked on telecommuted. We were working on a new internet thingy back in the day when everything on the internet was new, and there were about a half dozen or so developers, working on a couple of spiffy new Sun boxes via telnet over ssh. It was a blast. Moral on the team was high, and we often burned the midnight oil simply to see this thing get built, and becuase our fearless leader was a genuine visionary. We communicated via email and comments in code and rcs. Then we would do weekly statuses via a conference call, but for the most part, we kept in touch via email and it worked like a champ.
We were the black project, Dave's crazy thing... building an internet service model in an organization that didn't even really see that much of a need for even computers from the get go. It was a tremendous amount of work but also a great deal of fun. It was a genuinely wonderful experience for me. We had a colorful team, filled with a bunch of just super people, and that's what really matters. If you've got good people, you are going to have a good team almost regardless of whether they are in the office or not.
If you have a bunch of unemployed programmers, collecting unemployment, don't you think they might not be, um programming? If anything, a recession would spur open source because you can get someone on the web for a lot cheaper in real dollars than any warm and fuzzy Windows would get you into.
You have some very odd ideas about socialism
Socialism is about assigning resources to people based on other than economic terms. You need to have a central authority to do that. Whether or not that central authority is democratically elected, as in the case of Europe, or, forced onto the people via revolutionaries, as in the case of the USSR, is beside the point. The idea is that a socialist society tries to identify the most capable people and tax them extra to support those who are not as capable, with the idea that ability brings with it additional social responsibility.
If you're trying to appeal to Republicans, wouldn't honesty be the opposite of what would be accepted?
Actually no. It's just that most Republicans support their candidates because they are the lesser of two evils. Look at the current fundraising lead for Dems. There's no excitement in either the libertarian wing, the capitalist wing, or the religious wing of the republican party. It's just dead.
Again, isn't it the Republicans who have a hard-on for spying?
Again, no. Yes, there are some who wrongly believe national security trumps concerns over privacy rights, just as much there are some Dems who wrongly believe that some crime concerns trump concerns over the right to keep and bear arms. There's plenty of wrong-headed-ness to go around in all parties, and what troubles me most is that even the most left wing Dem, Obama, has not actually committed to repealing USA PATRIOT, FISA Courts, or the Dept of Homeland Security.
Sheesh, 3 for 3. Again, it's the Republicans who want to destroy community
No, they just support policies that you feel threaten you. And vice versa. This is a propaganda argument, and nothing more. In point of fact, the single most community destroying policy on the table right now is free trade and the American membership in a number of military alliances world wide, and not a single Democratic candidate has offered to withdraw from the WTO or promote American products. Indeed, Obama actually casts Detroit as evil in his own pursuit of ethanol subsidies so he could get his win in Iowa. If there is going to be a welcome resurgence in isolationism, its going to come from Republicans before it comes from Democrats. Huckabee is more against all of this free trade and engagement with the world. Unfortunately, he is also a religious fruitcake!
What you've just described is effectively Anarchy, LOL.
A lot of conservatives are in fact anarchists at heart, when it comes to the federal government. Remember, conservatism has its roots in rural people that basically owned the family farm and really did whatever they wanted to, without any real regulation. If you were out in the American west 100 years ago, there was no one else anywhere near you. People only got together rarely for a church service and to sell goods at the closest railroad. There are still places like that. It was anarchy in a very true sense.
What I was criticizing is his belief that a) the so-called leftist reputation of open source for most people doesn't exist because they don't know what the hell open source even is,
The problem with that is that you are running up against the likes of the Wall Street Journal and Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, who are very successfully arguing that open source is some kind of communist thing. Then, when you go and read Stallman's own web sites, you'll find that he's basically your run of the mill socialist. Those things can put a lot of people off, and you need to be able to say that Stallman's views are not my own. Like, you can still argue that your source code is STILL your intellectual property, whether or not you choose to make it free as in open and free as in beer.
Look, I'm trying to get my software business rolling and I'm finding four things:
a) Selling commercial packages for Windows is extremely difficult online. You really need to have a highly trained sales force and a serious marketing budget. Corporations can pay you the big bucks, but, you need to lay out some big bucks yourself. Unless you plan on trying to be a millionaire, its probably not realistic to try and cater to vertical corporate markets via shareware or online software sales. It costs a ton of money to get in there... unless you hit the jackpot with that simple utility or game that everyone just have to have.... but there's a lot out there.
b) Advertising revenue from being the main web site for free software often exceeds the revenue you can get from shareware anyway. This surprises me, but, I've spent far more time bashing my head against Windows shareware world but the Linux world, for a lot less investment, is making more money for me. It may be that my writing is better than my software, for sure, but, those little google adsense keywords do pretty good.
c) There's really more interest in Linux, and, bigger players can give you some serious help. For example, IBM has an excellent solutions directory and keeps a database to help hook your system up with potential clients. That can translate into development work for you, to add new features, and really as more of an architect or senior level person (having designed the original project), then, at a lower rate a normal code-drone would get.
d) Developing for Linux, or just having a site out there, can impress a lot of people in IT, and in some ways, better than Windows does. Everyone does Windows, and so being involved in Linux sets you apart. I have a client that's a closet Linux fanatic, and once I admitted that I too, love my dual opteron (until the SATA chip died), running Linux, our relationship got a lot better and I find myself being involved in ever cooler projects.
So, yeah, there's this belief out there that Linux equals starvation whereas Windows is money, but, its a complicated world out there.
Options abound. Here's one crazy thing I've heard of. As the copyright holder, there's really nothing that precludes you from selling both versions of the same product. You could sell your product for Windows, for sure, and you could open source it for Linux, if you like.
Another thing you could do would be to offer your software as FOSS, but host a web site as a service that does it. Yes, you would in effect allow other people to create competition for you, but, usually, the biggest problem you have isn't the software, but getting people to buy into the idea that you have being your software. If you create a program to make a service that is FOSS, and suddenly a 1000 web sites pop up making it, you've in effect gotten free advertising for your concept, and the advantages of that cannot be understated.
All I can say is good luck. In 2008 I'm going all out Linux - as soon as I get my Opteron mended -, and for the reasons I've listed, I think I'm more likely to make myself a millionaire giving software away than I would be selling it under Windows.
It seems to me that for open source to advance, we need to get past this notion of FOSS as a "liberal" thing. There are plenty of us conservative neo-nazi fascist trying to take over the world Republicans that love Linux and it is incumbent upon us to communicate that using Linux is not an endorsement of Joseph Stalin.
a) Open Source is not communism and its not socialism. Socialism and communism are centrally planned, whereas, an open source system consists of thousands of voices, each operating with their own agenda. If any system is more like a communist system, its a big corporate system, which has all of its components centrally planned and designed. It's not like Linus Torvalds writes all of Linux. He's just famous for writing a very important piece at the center of things. While its true that you are not going to make billions of dollars writing that one thing and selling it over and over again, there's nothing to stop you from building a consulting firm offering open source solutions that makes billions and billions of dollars, if you want.
b) Rugged individualism. Open source is software about the inventor, without all of that unproductive fluff of corporate programming. You make something yourself, and then you publish it. If its good, people will use it. If not, then the project quickly dies.
c) Honesty. Open source systems are brutally honest. Whereas a system in a store will be filled with hype and lies, by contrast, an open source system tells it like it is. One of the things that I love about Linux is that the documentation with most of the software package clearly and immediately lists things that don't work or haven't been tested enough.
d) No spying. These days, using a copy of Windows makes it almost seem like you might be a criminal just for using it. And Windows is completely sealed up, and who knows what sort of deals that Microsoft cuts with the government. Because there's no secret codes in open source systems, everyone would know right away if something was wrong with it.
e) A real community. Every program these days has its communities, but with open source, you have a genuine interaction between the people that write and the people that use the software. Working in an open source community is like working in an old rural town, where everyone chips in to build that neighbor's house. Open source lets all of its dirty laundry out.
They could do the same in CA. Whatever they ultimately decide in CA is up to the politicians, who answer to the voters.
In America, they don't. They answer to the hardcore fanatics on either side of the political aisle in various primaries and vetting processes just to get on the ballot. By the time it gets to the general election, its already too late. Just have a look at the Democratic Primary, for example. Which candidate failed in the election (Bill Richardson), a centrist, popular, multi-term governor with significant experience as a congressman, cabinet member, or, somebody that wrote a book and gives good speeches? (Obama)
Jeez, I not only voted for Bush, but I gave the guy money, but the facts are on the table. All of the libertarian Republicans were forced out when Bush got elected or shortly therafter. Dick Army got the boot, Newt got the boot, Kasich got the boot, and so on.
The facts are facts though.
Before Bush was elected, Republicans in Congress were cheap bastards that brought the nation an unprecedented surplus. As soon as Bush got in, they became spending whores. It's just a simple fact, and you can't call that flamebait. If that offends you, then that's too bad, but those are the facts.
j498fn894The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
In this example, you make the assumption that you only have enough information encoded in the original content to encode the watermarking. You can always add more filler information to the system to make it much more difficult to detect the watermark. To rephrase your example, I combine the small mark with additional noise. It's difficult to do this with plaintext, but there's all sorts of room you could stick things in a waveform, which, when you think about it, is incredibly vast. I could probably throw off the sound of the music by an incredibly tiny amount, on every quadword, with really what is almost random noise. And, then, I could bury the watermark in that.
So, if the watermark was an encrypted name and credit card number (which I would do if I were them, as a deterrent), then, we're really talking less than 100 bytes, assuming a western character set. Against the several megabytes of an entire song, this is really chump change. Encoding personal information into purchased digital content is an excellent way to deter piracy.
Just because you say it is a joke does not make it ok to rant like that, nor does it make it funny.
It just means that you don't have the same sense of humor that I do. There's no absolute quantity called "Funny" and to attempt to even police it as such is downright silly.
All fuels take more energy to produce... in a sense, our present fossil fuel predicament is because we are using stored energy from the sun over millions of years. That we can even think about creating biofuels or really, any sort of fuel, efficiently, says a lot for how far the technology has come. But we'll never be able to just "create" a fuel, and the world's going to have to accept that.
Back when the Republicans first got control of congress, and were still lead by more fiscal conservatives, John Kasich actually distributed copies of the House spending bills in Excel and 123 formats off of his web page. I remember downloading one of those monsters via dialup and going through it. Then, of course, Bush got elected, and overnight, the likes of Kasich and Army were forced out, and with them went any hope of fiscal responsibility.
I half agree with both you. Now stop it with the super-reactionary attitudes
:-)
It's a joke, dude.
You just wait until my mortgage company puts its records on one of those things. Torpedos away! Oppps, sorry Mr. Stork, all of your records were destroyed... guess you just don't have to make that payment any more!
riend, the only magical thing that happens is that the fetus goes from being completely within the mother's bod
Men, we are so whipped.
Back in the day, when men were really men, your wife would have been your property, just like a remote control or a refrigerator, and the sole purpose for her existence would be to keep the place clean and crank out the kids. If she didn't like it, you'd smack her across the head and demand another drink, tell her that yes, her sister really is stupid, just before you leave to go get hammered and have an affair with her.
Now look at us... we're actually in a war with another culture because their men do this to their women, and we're all sitting around cooking and cleaning and begging the woman to have children. Our current president trembles at his mother's voice, surrounds himself with surrogate mothers, and the next one might even be a woman.
No wonder the USA is going down the tubes along with Europe. Western Men are pathetic little sissies.
I mean, back in the "good" old days, it was common for people in the USA to ride around with a beer in the hand. Nowadays, of course, that's been made illegal. But, if cars are driving themselves, then, why not pop a cold one and enjoy the ride?
Suddenly we find our local group of stars is host to numerous planets broadcasting loads of porn. The first image of intersteller life will be a happy finish!
I am not so sure that this is so much an isuee of Creative Commons, as it is the gray void that is relicensing. You should only be applying the CC to your own work and if you are applying the CC to something else, then you should responsible for the fallout, especially if the license is incompatible with the original.
I think the gist of the article is thus:
Owner A has photo
B releases A under CC to X,Y,Z
A sues X,Y,Z, but really B is to blame.
The game is that, I could take one of my friend's photos, and put it up on the likes of Wikipedia. Then, my friend turns around and sues Wikipedia for infringement. In other words, the claim is that the license somehow makes it possible to "game the system", but, as you already pointed out, I don't see how that isn't possible with any license.
I don't they can demand that you provide a key, because that is self-incrimination. However, they can certainly try to decrypt the data themselves. I unfortunately think the government can do searches of your computer equipment. However, I do not believe they can confiscate it. They should be required to take an image and return your data.
Ok, let me see if I understand this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can't have proofs or in depth reference materials, because more detail is out of scope for really no reason. But, they can somehow try and turn wiki into another google or a facebook.
Interesting!
Me thinks wiki should focus on its content.
But Duke Nukem Forever is being reworked exclusively for X-Box!
According to the summary of the article, Linux its market share, but Apple hasn't. Doesn't sound like dying to me, or even ill health.
e PageRank reference is just for media attention/allowing non-compsci people to understand it, though.
An inaccurate summary on slashdot? I'm shocked!
So MS patents an automation of the focus group process that gave us Visual Studio 2005. Good lord, this is welfare for lawyers, for sure.