And I can't wait to see how fast countermeasures become even more dangerous;
Active intervention (counter microbots) Passive intervention (environmental blocks) Misdirection (drugs next door!) Modification (alter the dogs themselves) Malevolent (alter the dogs to bite the innocent, destroying public faith, risk of actual physical harm in deploying them)
This would be great - applying the conceptual acts against the real in legal context. This also means that maybe we could get other things to be thought of in context. Portscans are wrong? =You left the doors and windows open should you expect no one walks in? My box = my house. If I let you in and you can find opened rooms to wander in - isn't that my fault? If you open a locked door, I could be pissed, but is that the same as breaking and entering or just destruction of property (if you were already welcomed in)? Hmm.
1. We *really* need a repository/site that keeps all the common information.
2. Even answering request for information cost money. We should gather information and present these cost incentives to the vendors showing how providing the information SAVES them money.
I've thought about this for some time - expecially since the subject came up when developing for the BeOS. Common hardware information - files that you have received from the vendor that have no restrictions on distribution, notes and documentation that you have made while figuring out how a particular piece of hardware, and maybe even restricted NDA type stuff if it was staffed and acceptable to the vendor(s) should be available.
Is anyone out there responsible for answering the replies to all requests? Managing the support staff that does? Can you (even anonymously) forward any costs estimates or projections?
If you read this and know of any links/sites/info that you want to share email it to me and I'll assemble it.
M$=closed, proprietary, corporate owned products. Yes, this makes them the evil Borg.
And as for absorbing ideas - EVERYONE should do that.
You see the surface, but not the depth of water; You are wrong. There indeed has been lots of innovation in Linux. There has been lots of innovation in M$. The difference is that you have complete access to all the innovations in Linux. You don't have complete access to well - little from M$, and they purchase innovation to use(which is somehow 'cheating') or to kill off opposing technology.
I'd go into it at length, but I don't like to feed the Troll *too* much. Consider yerself marked down.:)
And in this instance, the trusted source - the originator should have no trouble securing licenses (read: make money) with the people who need this data, and need it to be accurate.
And if someone copies their data, labeling it as being 'the original' it would be no different than someone copying and say, selling RedHat 6. They need to relabel and say 'containing parts in whole or peicemeal from RedHat 6'
I attended the Linux University in Washington DC last week, and spoke to a few people at SGI, as well as listened to the many presentations there.
I don't know about the layoffs, but I will say that everyone seemed quite happy and excited to be working at SGI on projects that involved Linux. I don't know about profitability, but their decision to providing full time personnel that contribute to Open Source projects is a big win for anyone wanting to use Linux.
I hope this is part of a new trend and vision that continues to make them successful.
RedHat is a Linux distributor. Linux is likened to water. There are many distributors that will sell you water. Some have better quality, sell it in different bottles, add a little extra and spend more on advertising. All water does not taste the same, but close enough for some people not to notice. There are many people who will only drink bottled watter, there are some who drink anything, and some who prefer it straight from the tap - or lake.
They can always kill the bottled water manufacturer - they can't stop the water.
Everyone is so emotional because the kid next door got a new bike a few weeks after you got yours. I hope Apple fails.
Why?
1. The colors (copying the multicolor options) Colors are not subject to patent. So some people are unhappy with their lack of originality. Fine -hold a grudge.
2. The case (is this a pun?:) I have seen IBM PCs that were consisting of the same visual composure, the only difference being the square case hidden away by a long cable. The FUNCTION is remarkably similar, everything you need being right in front of you as part of the monitor. I have a slimtop PC that has a monitor on it. Looks similar to an iMac from far away, except for the colors (and when you get close you see the monitor is square and couldn't be an iMac). If you break it into a function of it's usability I can also think of one or two computers (non-apple) that are one piece, no additional parts, integrated monitor systems. Think of the integrated Intel and Sony systems that are also changing from prototypes to reality. Point being that the ornamentation of an integrated computer is NOT something that should be covered by the iMac patent. The FUNCTION of the system is not unique.
So you go basically to a question of style in function. Looks. Exact look and feel. Ignore the colors. Think black and white if you like.
The EPower does look similar but is NOT an exact copy. I actually like the EPower look better than the iMac. It has it's own base/stand. It has a floppy. The external parts are not interchangeable with an iMac.
If someone were coping watches from a famous manufacturer for the explicit purpose of pretending to be that brand and sell based on the brands quality name it would be deliberate deceit and should quite rightly be illegal. If they made their own similar watch, with their own name, and did not copy the PATENTED FUNCTIONALITY of their competitors watch (like a barometer in the watch perhaps?) then they are simply selling to the same market. If they used the same watch face fonts and colors one could argue they were trying to confuse the customers. As long as they don't pretend to be the opposing brand, they just lack originality.
One of the reasons the iMac was able to exist is that Apple could create the system and be assured of its perception as a functional choice. The MacOS users don't expect more. Who else besides Apple makes MacOS compatibles? The PC industry has been avoiding cut down systems. It is (was?) untested to provide an X86 system that has little to no compatibility for expansion or used a new motherboard design with one slot. That is exactly what the EPower is - one step past a NLX motherboard. Sony started this idea and Daewoo is just trying to ride the wave.
And here is the best reason I can think of for wanting Apple to fail: I want one of these systems. I can't and wouldn't want to get it from Apple. I have money waiting to be spent on one of these systems when they hit the market and do not care how many people complain about its lack of originality. Daewoo is dead on with this one. I hope they have much success and spawn copycat system, which will then begin to innovate and differentiate themselves outside of the old system computability rules.
"Technological vandalism and hostility - flaming, personal attacks, virus and mail-bomb attacks -- occur because the people who practice and advocate them must operate at an enormous physical and psychological distance from the people they attack and from the consequences of their actions. "
Some of use have no problem in being close, personal AND attacking you. Why would you think I wouldn't as soon smack you as look at you if I was so inclined? Fear? Consequences? Sure - just get really good at dealing with the consequences or minimize the consequences by understanding the reactions that may be generated. Woah - is this hacking?!?:b
Well sure, a common perception may be that Linux users are arrogant; part of the 'mines better than yours' or more appropriately part of the change in mindset for TYPICAL computer users.
If someone has scorn for a computer system you are happy with, what is your reaction? Sure, we all could play nice and live and let live - but if you aggrevate others, they sometimes form perls of wisdom and catch a clue.
"Bob, you should try Linux" doesn't grab interest as much as "Bob, WinNT is crap in comparision to running that DNS on Linux - Linux wins handsdown." Arrogance? Perhaps.
As for RMS, I've never personally met him - but he does have the admirable quality of standing for something consistantly. And if anyone wants to be noticed they have to be perceived as unaccepted. He spreads the gospel of open source free software louder than ANYONE else. Peace and prosperity to him.
The meek shall inherit the earth - in the mean time the bold will make a pretty good living.
Hey! Where did you see the review? I have emailed them, I have called them twice. Last week the phone just rang, this week it forwards to voicemail that states "please enter in the box number". !
@#$$@#! I wanted to get the Phoenix Gold, but oh well!!
Yes, I am aware of the setting. Now if I wasn't aware of it I certainly would have appreciated you pointing it out with such flair and respect.:b I'm certainly also your able to understand my needs better than I do, and therefore I most certainly don't care about other users posting to ACs. Can I go to the bathroom now? Oh, my shoes are untied, could you please...
My machine is already spiritual - I have given it this ability, it is my own spirituality. We will not evolve into a new species, we will evolve - as will our science.
Smart computers? Yes. No distinction between humans and computers? Highly improbable. Even if I incorporate technology inside me, it is just technology being used by me.
The other concept that is frequently abused is the difference between information and knowledge. Information can easily be referenced, accessed and accumulated by computers -usually faster than humans. However knowledge, the EXPERIENCE that comes with information is somethings humans do better, and I suspect always will.
I don't believe that humans (or any biological life) would be innately superior to computers (or any mechanical life) that were equally as functional. Biological life is not more sacred than the machine. I do believe we are more spritual. We have something that cannot be replicated, built, or manufactured no matter what we evolve to - a spirit.
I think allowing ACs post is wonderful. Having to read them isn't. Registered user accounts should have the option to not read them - only seeing other registered accounts as an option to seeing every Tom, Dick, and -uh; I mean every AC, AC, and AC post. A technical solution that provides an answer without detracting, bitching, or berating anyone.
The only difference between planning an Open Source project and planning not to go Open Source is that in an Open Source project anyone has the ability to review the code, 'own' the code, use the code, and *gasp* evaluate the projects source. If you don't have an Open Source project, you can hide your code, only let those whom contractually bind you audit your product, and produce binaries that are specific to one OS and platform.
Also; just because it is Open Source it doesn't mean that it will be a Linux/GNU project (but one can hope). If it is on WinNT/Solaris/BeOS/HPUX/etc.. then you should still aspire to use Open Source.
I know I want all government funded software that has no reason not to be released, freely available and accessible by the real government - the people, you and me.
Slashdot Mirror
And I can't wait to see how fast countermeasures become even more dangerous;
Active intervention (counter microbots)
Passive intervention (environmental blocks)
Misdirection (drugs next door!)
Modification (alter the dogs themselves)
Malevolent (alter the dogs to bite the innocent, destroying public faith, risk of actual physical harm in deploying them)
Why?
Get the picture?
This would be great - applying the conceptual acts against the real in legal context. This also means that maybe we could get other things to be thought of in context. Portscans are wrong? =You left the doors and windows open should you expect no one walks in? My box = my house. If I let you in and you can find opened rooms to wander in - isn't that my fault? If you open a locked door, I could be pissed, but is that the same as breaking and entering or just destruction of property (if you were already welcomed in)? Hmm.
1. We *really* need a repository/site that keeps all the common information.
2. Even answering request for information cost money. We should gather information and present these cost incentives to the vendors showing how providing the information SAVES them money.
I've thought about this for some time - expecially since the subject came up when developing for the BeOS. Common hardware information - files that you have received from the vendor that have no restrictions on distribution, notes and documentation that you have made while figuring out how a particular piece of hardware, and maybe even restricted NDA type stuff if it was staffed and acceptable to the vendor(s) should be available.
Is anyone out there responsible for answering the replies to all requests? Managing the support staff that does? Can you (even anonymously) forward any costs estimates or projections?
If you read this and know of any links/sites/info that you want to share email it to me and I'll assemble it.
Hey! If it doesn't render in the Desktop Browser then don't go there! ;)
I've always liked trolls...
:)
M$=closed, proprietary, corporate owned products.
Yes, this makes them the evil Borg.
And as for absorbing ideas - EVERYONE should do that.
You see the surface, but not the depth of water; You are wrong. There indeed has been lots of innovation in Linux. There has been lots of innovation in M$. The difference is that you have complete access to all the innovations in Linux. You don't have complete access to well - little from M$, and they purchase innovation to use(which is somehow 'cheating') or to kill off opposing technology.
I'd go into it at length, but I don't like to feed the Troll *too* much. Consider yerself marked down.
Bullshit. Look at the indexed cost for production of their machines and you will see it is not equal to 0.00.
I want to be able to buy an iMac, put Linux on it, and have Apple refund me the price for the operating system software that I do not want!
And in this instance, the trusted source - the originator should have no trouble securing licenses (read: make money) with the people who need this data, and need it to be accurate.
And if someone copies their data, labeling it as being 'the original' it would be no different than someone copying and say, selling RedHat 6. They need to relabel and say 'containing parts in whole or peicemeal from RedHat 6'
Blah, blah, blah..
I attended the Linux University in Washington DC last week, and spoke to a few people at SGI, as well as listened to the many presentations there.
I don't know about the layoffs, but I will say that everyone seemed quite happy and excited to be working at SGI on projects that involved Linux. I don't know about profitability, but their decision to providing full time personnel that contribute to Open Source projects is a big win for anyone wanting to use Linux.
I hope this is part of a new trend and vision that continues to make them successful.
Right on target. RedHat != Linux.
RedHat is a Linux distributor. Linux is likened to water. There are many distributors that will sell you water. Some have better quality, sell it in different bottles, add a little extra and spend more on advertising. All water does not taste the same, but close enough for some people not to notice. There are many people who will only drink bottled watter, there are some who drink anything, and some who prefer it straight from the tap - or lake.
They can always kill the bottled water manufacturer - they can't stop the water.
I sit corrected. Let me thank you for enlightening me. However would you be willing to agree that Apple shouldn't have sole patent on a colored case?
Everyone is so emotional because the kid next door got a new bike a few weeks after you got yours. I hope Apple fails.
:)
Why?
1. The colors (copying the multicolor options)
Colors are not subject to patent. So some people are unhappy with their lack of originality. Fine -hold a grudge.
2. The case (is this a pun?
I have seen IBM PCs that were consisting of the same visual composure, the only difference being the square case hidden away by a long cable. The FUNCTION is remarkably similar, everything you need being right in front of you as part of the monitor. I have a slimtop PC that has a monitor on it. Looks similar to an iMac from far away, except for the colors (and when you get close you see the monitor is square and couldn't be an iMac). If you break it into a function of it's usability I can also think of one or two computers (non-apple) that are one piece, no additional parts, integrated monitor systems. Think of the integrated Intel and Sony systems that are also changing from prototypes to reality.
Point being that the ornamentation of an integrated computer is NOT something that should be covered by the iMac patent. The FUNCTION of the system is not unique.
So you go basically to a question of style in function. Looks. Exact look and feel. Ignore the colors. Think black and white if you like.
The EPower does look similar but is NOT an exact copy. I actually like the EPower look better than the iMac. It has it's own base/stand. It has a floppy. The external parts are not interchangeable with an iMac.
If someone were coping watches from a famous manufacturer for the explicit purpose of pretending to be that brand and sell based on the brands quality name it would be deliberate deceit and should quite rightly be illegal. If they made their own similar watch, with their own name, and did not copy the PATENTED FUNCTIONALITY of their competitors watch (like a barometer in the watch perhaps?) then they are simply selling to the same market. If they used the same watch face fonts and colors one could argue they were trying to confuse the customers. As long as they don't pretend to be the opposing brand, they just lack originality.
One of the reasons the iMac was able to exist is that Apple could create the system and be assured of its perception as a functional choice. The MacOS users don't expect more. Who else besides Apple makes MacOS compatibles?
The PC industry has been avoiding cut down systems. It is (was?) untested to provide an X86 system that has little to no compatibility for expansion or used a new motherboard design with one slot. That is exactly what the EPower is - one step past a NLX motherboard. Sony started this idea and Daewoo is just trying to ride the wave.
And here is the best reason I can think of for wanting Apple to fail: I want one of these systems. I can't and wouldn't want to get it from Apple. I have money waiting to be spent on one of these systems when they hit the market and do not care how many people complain about its lack of originality. Daewoo is dead on with this one. I hope they have much success and spawn copycat system, which will then begin to innovate and differentiate themselves outside of the old system computability rules.
"Technological vandalism and hostility - flaming, personal attacks, virus and mail-bomb attacks -- occur because the people who practice and advocate them must operate at an enormous physical and psychological distance from the people they attack and from the consequences of their actions. "
:b
Some of use have no problem in being close, personal AND attacking you. Why would you think I wouldn't as soon smack you as look at you if I was so inclined? Fear? Consequences? Sure - just get really good at dealing with the consequences or minimize the consequences by understanding the reactions that may be generated. Woah - is this hacking?!?
Well sure, a common perception may be that Linux users are arrogant; part of the 'mines better than yours' or more appropriately part of the change in mindset for TYPICAL computer users.
If someone has scorn for a computer system you are happy with, what is your reaction? Sure, we all could play nice and live and let live - but if you aggrevate others, they sometimes form perls of wisdom and catch a clue.
"Bob, you should try Linux" doesn't grab interest as much as "Bob, WinNT is crap in comparision to running that DNS on Linux - Linux wins handsdown." Arrogance? Perhaps.
As for RMS, I've never personally met him - but he does have the admirable quality of standing for something consistantly. And if anyone wants to be noticed they have to be perceived as unaccepted. He spreads the gospel of open source free software louder than ANYONE else. Peace and prosperity to him.
The meek shall inherit the earth - in the mean time the bold will make a pretty good living.
Hey! Where did you see the review?
I have emailed them, I have called them twice. Last week the phone just rang, this week it forwards to voicemail that states "please enter in the box number". !
@#$$@#! I wanted to get the Phoenix Gold, but oh well!!
Anyone else notice the intelligence of the Poster reflected in the grammar and spelling?
Yes, I am aware of the setting. Now if I wasn't aware of it I certainly would have appreciated you pointing it out with such flair and respect. :b I'm certainly also your able to understand my needs better than I do, and therefore I most certainly don't care about other users posting to ACs. Can I go to the bathroom now? Oh, my shoes are untied, could you please...
My machine is already spiritual - I have given it this ability, it is my own spirituality. We will not evolve into a new species, we will evolve - as will our science.
Smart computers? Yes. No distinction between humans and computers? Highly improbable. Even if I incorporate technology inside me, it is just technology being used by me.
The other concept that is frequently abused is the difference between information and knowledge. Information can easily be referenced, accessed and accumulated by computers -usually faster than humans. However knowledge, the EXPERIENCE that comes with information is somethings humans do better, and I suspect always will.
I don't believe that humans (or any biological life) would be innately superior to computers (or any mechanical life) that were equally as functional. Biological life is not more sacred than the machine. I do believe we are more spritual. We have something that cannot be replicated, built, or manufactured no matter what we evolve to - a spirit.
I think allowing ACs post is wonderful. Having to read them isn't. Registered user accounts should have the option to not read them - only seeing other registered accounts as an option to seeing every Tom, Dick, and -uh; I mean every AC, AC, and AC post. A technical solution that provides an answer without detracting, bitching, or berating anyone.
The only difference between planning an Open Source project and planning not to go Open Source is that in an Open Source project anyone has the ability to review the code, 'own' the code, use the code, and *gasp* evaluate the projects source. If you don't have an Open Source project, you can hide your code, only let those whom contractually bind you audit your product, and produce binaries that are specific to one OS and platform.
Also; just because it is Open Source it doesn't mean that it will be a Linux/GNU project (but one can hope). If it is on WinNT/Solaris/BeOS/HPUX/etc.. then you should still aspire to use Open Source.
I know I want all government funded software that has no reason not to be released, freely available and accessible by the real government - the people, you and me.