They almost certainly were unauthorized. But that doesn't matter, as copyright law does grant you some limited rights to make copies without authorization.
In most jurisdictions these rights would include transferring cd's to mp3's for personal use.
> First, what does "more advanced tasks" actually mean? I could use an EEE PC for programming, ssh > access, and, I'm sure, many other things that this reviewer has never heard of.
And neither has the intended target audience for the review (or for the EEE PC).
> I'm not claiming the situation is good for Linux gaming. But to claim there are no sophisticated > games for it, even if we're all willing to ignore Wine/Cedega, is factually untrue. By "factually > untrue", I mean it's in the realm of 2+2=5. Even for very large values of 2, that statement is > wrong, and always will be.
It refers to the kind of games the self-declared gamers want to use a box for, rather than the kind of games the intended audience is interested in (flash games, solitaire).
The statement is factually untrue in the sense that "the world is round" is a factually untrue statement in the context of people who believe in a flat Earth (since, to the nerd, only a mathematically perfect sphere would qualify as "round").
Congratulation, you have discovered that consumer report is not written for nerds with autistic tendencies.
> this whole Slashdot article is about them making a buck online, so are they even nonprofit?
Yes, non-profit is a legal term that doesn't involve giving away stuff for free.
And "expert" can also refer to the ability to explain complicated stuff in terms ordinary people can understand.
It includes maxima and a lot of other packages. It seems to me that Sage is an attempt to glue together the various existing free math packages using Python. I'm not sure what I think of it, it makes it somewhat confusing to get started with because it does so many different things.
Jimmy Wales explicitly talks about "young students" (as opposed to "academics").
University students should obviously quote research papers and other primary sources, and not Encyclopedia of any kinds.
But using Wikipedia as a "stepping stone to other sources" as Wales also suggest is applicable to everyone, which means Wikipedia is far more useful than traditional encyclopedia at academic institutions.
> The problem is, most of these documents are NOT worded such that you can > do that without a VP level or above management person signing off on the document.
It is a win-win situation. You sign the amended contract, and either it is legally binding in the amended form, or it is not. If it is not, you haven't signed away any rights, and your employment falls under whatever local law dictates. You will never be bound by a different contract than the one you signed.
Of course, if you want more rights than local law provides, you will have to get someone with sufficient power to sign the amended contract, but that is a different situation.
> It almost all fields, it is impossible to get all the experts to review and critique before > publication.
Not all, but but all journals that are considered peer-reviewed by the organization that matters to scientists (that is, those handing out grants) get one to three peers from the same field to review the article before publication.
For most articles, this pre-publishing review is by far the strongest review they get.
Not in the traditional sense. It is much more similar to how/. works. PLoS ONE accept articles from all branches of science and medicine, and the articles are deemed "worthy" of publication by the editorial board mostly on technical issues (necessarily so, since no editorial board can cover all branches of science). Like/., the *real* "peer review" is done after publication, by comments and annotations.
This is quite unlike traditional scientific journal (and unlike all the other PLoS journals which are quite traditional apart from being Open Access) where an article is reviewed anonymously by peers (from the same discipline) before publication.
It is actually quite nice that PLoS, apart from pioneering Open Access, also experiments more fundamentally with the scientific process, by adapting techniques from sites like/..
But it is misleading to state that the article has been published in a peer reviewed journal, as it means something different in this case. It would be more correct to say that it has been published for peer review in a journal. At the time I'm writing this, no peers have yet to review the article.
Most scientist would hesitate publishing in PLoS ONE simply because it does not have an impact factor rating, which is very important for how valuated when seeking grants etc.
When a game is that much hyped, there will be a backslash.h
Misunderstanding the purpose of reviews
on
BioShock Backlash
·
· Score: 1
Good reviews are not just consumer information. They are also entertainment. And expressing "rage and loathing" can be a lot more entertaining than just stating that the novel was poorly written.
> That's going a bit far. If you quit, why should they pay you severance?
Because the value of you *not* working for the competition is more worth to the company than the money in question naturally. It system is actually in use for the upper levels of management, where the people are too smart to sign a non compete agreement with no compensation. It is a significant part of what's behind Golden handshakes.
The problem is that most engineers are lousy businessmen, and thus willing to sign away something value for free (if the non-compete agreement wasn't valuable to the company, it wouldn't be there).
> The HR people all invariably say "that's not what we're intending"
That one is particularly easy, cross out the relevant part of the contract, and write "what they were intending" in the margin.
If have never personally experienced problems with modifying the contracts, usually the "hiring officer" will accept them. The same laziness that makes most people accept the outrageous contracts, also works on the people on the other side of the fence.
That non-compete agreements are damaging is well known to anyone with any economic understanding, a market economy is based on competition. If you take that away, you are left with something as even worse than the old communist economies. A planed economy without the planning part.
Whether you call it anti-compete agreements, guilds, trusts, or five year plans, the result is the same. Short time gains for a few, long time economic stagnation for everybody.
Anyone wanting the state to enforce non-compete agreements is either deeply corrupt, or deeply incompetent. There is no third possibility.
The economic case against DRM is far less clear cut. The strongest arguments against DRM are not economic, but moral, and concerns the loss of consumer rights. And are as such much weaker, going against economic theory is just stupid, going against a specific moral theory is obviously a value judgment.
I'd guess the economic rewards would be much more attractive to an Indian, than to someone from Western Europe or North America. Most of us are either working for a good salary on free software as part of our full time job, or have another full time job, and are working on free software our spare time for the love of it.
In either case, an economic reward for working on free software won't change much, as we are already fully "compensated", or otherwise economically secure and using free software as a hobby. And the number of young people wanting to become programmers in EU and US is far less than what the industry needs, to this is not going to change.
The rewards system will mostly be interesting for students here.
The educational system in India, however, produce huge amounts of programmers, far more than the domestic market can use use. And since living costs is much lower in India, making a living from the reward system might be quite feasible.
The majority of contribution to the listed software projects already comes from people who get their salary from Sun.
I guess Sun is trying to find a way where they can pay people to work on their projects without directly being employed by Sun. The advantage for Sun would be that they wouldn't have to fire people or pay health or other benefits, and it might be easier to recruit people. The advantage for the programmers would be flexibility in how many hour they want to put into a particular project. And, if Sun doesn't prevent it, that they might be paid twice for doing the same job. Once by their main employer, who pay them to implement a specific feature they need in a project, and once by Sun for doing the same thing.
Neither "Linux" not "mob" is mentioned anywhere in the article, except for the headline.
The article is about the Novell vs SCO case, it advocate well that the issue of ownership is UNIX(TM) is far from clear cut, and leaps to the conclusion that it should have been decided by a jury rather than by a judge.
A jury is *closer* to to "mob-justice" than a judge, and Linux is rather irrelevant to the question of ownership of UNIX(TM), the headline makes no sense.
Was the headline selected by someone else than the author? Does Fortune get significant money from click hits? If so, maybe an editor chosed the headline to infuriate the Linux "mob".
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the red team die first, it is an established scientific fact that wearing red shirts significantly shortens your life expectancy.
They almost certainly were unauthorized. But that doesn't matter, as copyright law does grant you some limited rights to make copies without authorization.
In most jurisdictions these rights would include transferring cd's to mp3's for personal use.
Presumably the government would buy their office package with some sort of support contract.
The 47 year old mother of 3 probably know a lot more about the subject than the 25 year old Kelly LeBrock from Weird Science.
Which is why the water-fall model is rarely a good match for software development.
And, incidentally, also while outsourcing (especially off-shore outsourcing) software development is rarely leading to success stories.
> First, what does "more advanced tasks" actually mean? I could use an EEE PC for programming, ssh
> access, and, I'm sure, many other things that this reviewer has never heard of.
And neither has the intended target audience for the review (or for the EEE PC).
> I'm not claiming the situation is good for Linux gaming. But to claim there are no sophisticated
> games for it, even if we're all willing to ignore Wine/Cedega, is factually untrue. By "factually
> untrue", I mean it's in the realm of 2+2=5. Even for very large values of 2, that statement is
> wrong, and always will be.
It refers to the kind of games the self-declared gamers want to use a box for, rather than the kind of games the intended audience is interested in (flash games, solitaire).
The statement is factually untrue in the sense that "the world is round" is a factually untrue statement in the context of people who believe in a flat Earth (since, to the nerd, only a mathematically perfect sphere would qualify as "round").
Congratulation, you have discovered that consumer report is not written for nerds with autistic tendencies.
> this whole Slashdot article is about them making a buck online, so are they even nonprofit?
Yes, non-profit is a legal term that doesn't involve giving away stuff for free.
And "expert" can also refer to the ability to explain complicated stuff in terms ordinary people can understand.
It includes maxima and a lot of other packages. It seems to me that Sage is an attempt to glue together the various existing free math packages using Python. I'm not sure what I think of it, it makes it somewhat confusing to get started with because it does so many different things.
I'd say yes.
> Is there any evidence of teachers banning students from simply reading Wikipedia?
Yes.
Jimmy Wales explicitly talks about "young students" (as opposed to "academics").
University students should obviously quote research papers and other primary sources, and not Encyclopedia of any kinds.
But using Wikipedia as a "stepping stone to other sources" as Wales also suggest is applicable to everyone, which means Wikipedia is far more useful than traditional encyclopedia at academic institutions.
> I have no doubt in a few years Putin (or his successor) will finally toss away the pretense
> of being a Democracy
Really? The communist never did give up their pretense. They even, like Putin, invented other parties to create a 100% loyal opposition.
It would be so much more in the spirit of Douglas Adams.
> The problem is, most of these documents are NOT worded such that you can
> do that without a VP level or above management person signing off on the document.
It is a win-win situation. You sign the amended contract, and either it is legally binding in the amended form, or it is not. If it is not, you haven't signed away any rights, and your employment falls under whatever local law dictates. You will never be bound by a different contract than the one you signed.
Of course, if you want more rights than local law provides, you will have to get someone with sufficient power to sign the amended contract, but that is a different situation.
> It almost all fields, it is impossible to get all the experts to review and critique before
> publication.
Not all, but but all journals that are considered peer-reviewed by the organization that matters to scientists (that is, those handing out grants) get one to three peers from the same field to review the article before publication.
For most articles, this pre-publishing review is by far the strongest review they get.
Not in the traditional sense. It is much more similar to how /. works. PLoS ONE accept articles from all branches of science and medicine, and the articles are deemed "worthy" of publication by the editorial board mostly on technical issues (necessarily so, since no editorial board can cover all branches of science). Like /., the *real* "peer review" is done after publication, by comments and annotations.
/..
This is quite unlike traditional scientific journal (and unlike all the other PLoS journals which are quite traditional apart from being Open Access) where an article is reviewed anonymously by peers (from the same discipline) before publication.
It is actually quite nice that PLoS, apart from pioneering Open Access, also experiments more fundamentally with the scientific process, by adapting techniques from sites like
But it is misleading to state that the article has been published in a peer reviewed journal, as it means something different in this case. It would be more correct to say that it has been published for peer review in a journal. At the time I'm writing this, no peers have yet to review the article.
Most scientist would hesitate publishing in PLoS ONE simply because it does not have an impact factor rating, which is very important for how valuated when seeking grants etc.
When a game is that much hyped, there will be a backslash.h
Good reviews are not just consumer information. They are also entertainment. And expressing "rage and loathing" can be a lot more entertaining than just stating that the novel was poorly written.
> That's going a bit far. If you quit, why should they pay you severance?
Because the value of you *not* working for the competition is more worth to the company than the money in question naturally. It system is actually in use for the upper levels of management, where the people are too smart to sign a non compete agreement with no compensation. It is a significant part of what's behind Golden handshakes.
The problem is that most engineers are lousy businessmen, and thus willing to sign away something value for free (if the non-compete agreement wasn't valuable to the company, it wouldn't be there).
> The HR people all invariably say "that's not what we're intending"
That one is particularly easy, cross out the relevant part of the contract, and write "what they were intending" in the margin.
If have never personally experienced problems with modifying the contracts, usually the "hiring officer" will accept them. The same laziness that makes most people accept the outrageous contracts, also works on the people on the other side of the fence.
That non-compete agreements are damaging is well known to anyone with any economic understanding, a market economy is based on competition. If you take that away, you are left with something as even worse than the old communist economies. A planed economy without the planning part.
Whether you call it anti-compete agreements, guilds, trusts, or five year plans, the result is the same. Short time gains for a few, long time economic stagnation for everybody.
Anyone wanting the state to enforce non-compete agreements is either deeply corrupt, or deeply incompetent. There is no third possibility.
The economic case against DRM is far less clear cut. The strongest arguments against DRM are not economic, but moral, and concerns the loss of consumer rights. And are as such much weaker, going against economic theory is just stupid, going against a specific moral theory is obviously a value judgment.
I'd guess the economic rewards would be much more attractive to an Indian, than to someone from Western Europe or North America. Most of us are either working for a good salary on free software as part of our full time job, or have another full time job, and are working on free software our spare time for the love of it.
In either case, an economic reward for working on free software won't change much, as we are already fully "compensated", or otherwise economically secure and using free software as a hobby. And the number of young people wanting to become programmers in EU and US is far less than what the industry needs, to this is not going to change.
The rewards system will mostly be interesting for students here.
The educational system in India, however, produce huge amounts of programmers, far more than the domestic market can use use. And since living costs is much lower in India, making a living from the reward system might be quite feasible.
The majority of contribution to the listed software projects already comes from people who get their salary from Sun.
I guess Sun is trying to find a way where they can pay people to work on their projects without directly being employed by Sun. The advantage for Sun would be that they wouldn't have to fire people or pay health or other benefits, and it might be easier to recruit people. The advantage for the programmers would be flexibility in how many hour they want to put into a particular project. And, if Sun doesn't prevent it, that they might be paid twice for doing the same job. Once by their main employer, who pay them to implement a specific feature they need in a project, and once by Sun for doing the same thing.
> As soon as the technology starts to get close, the scientists and environmentalists will stop it,
> so as to not contaminate a virgin environment.
The scientist will *want* to go there, in order to gain scientific knowledge.
The environmentalists won't matter, red rocks aren't cute, so they won't have popular support.
> True, but this reveals a great lack of motivation and vision among U.S. lawmakers
So telling NASA to use their budget on science rather than propaganda shows "lack of vision"?
Neither "Linux" not "mob" is mentioned anywhere in the article, except for the headline.
The article is about the Novell vs SCO case, it advocate well that the issue of ownership is UNIX(TM) is far from clear cut, and leaps to the conclusion that it should have been decided by a jury rather than by a judge.
A jury is *closer* to to "mob-justice" than a judge, and Linux is rather irrelevant to the question of ownership of UNIX(TM), the headline makes no sense.
Was the headline selected by someone else than the author? Does Fortune get significant money from click hits? If so, maybe an editor chosed the headline to infuriate the Linux "mob".