...in public institutions, like state schools, this should be clear: they're public institutions, funded by public money, so the public should get the benefits.
But the public does get the benefit: if they didn't sell the research, they would require even more public funding to do it.
No. Whether something's deliberate or not is a matter of fact - i.e. it is deliberate if and only if the result was intended. On the other hand, whether something mainly affects A or B is not, it depends on the subjective weights you apply to different actions.
However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.
This oft-overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.
This is just plain stupid. Everything anyone does affects others in some sense. Who it mainly affects is a matter of opinion.
At the core of Collins's criteria was that a good-to-great company had to have "fifteen-year cumulative stock returns at or below the general stock market, punctuated by a transition point, then cumulative returns at least three times the market over the next fifteen years." The screening process cut the 1,435 down to 126, then 19, and finally these 11 companies: Abbott, Circuit City, Fannie Mae, Gillette, Kimberly-Clarke, Kroger, Nucor, Philip Morris, Pitney Bowes, Walgreens, and Wells Fargo.
Isn't this like looking for talentless people who became millionaires and finding they bought lottery tickets, when in fact, buying lottery tickets tends to make people poorer?
Your friends are laughing at you because, although using the keyboard "feels" faster, nonetheless you are wrong.
Isn't the extent to which it interrupts your train of thought more important than speed? I would speculate that the reason the keyboard feels faster is that it interrupts your train of thought less.
If you have a reason for asserting that such a distinction is "sloppy" I am interested in hearing it.
The same reason as a distinction between 'high' and 'low' is sloppy: it doesn't tell you how to divide things into two piles without depending on an arbitary cut-off point.
Strategy is considered the high-level, where the theater-level commanders and above are.
I suppose that's one way of looking at it, IMO a rather sloppy one. It's not the one used in game theory where a strategy is complete contingent plan, i.e. you have a plan for whatever your opponent might do. IMO a real strategy game would be one with more than one optimal strategy.
I don't think a graphics environment could survive too long on Linux without at least some form of network transparency.
Forgive me for asking what may be a silly question: but why? Network transparency for the fileaystems makes sense, but for GUI seems silly becuause of the latency problems. Why must a program be running on a remote computer rather than running on the local computer but using the remote computers filesystem where necessary?
For things like stopping/starting webservers etc on remote computers, isn't telnet fine?
If there is no market for JVM on desktops, then there is also no market for WWW browsers, instant messaging clients, and multimedia players... since these are all also given away for free.
Your argument is horribly inconsistent and flawed. If it is evil for Microsoft to include Internet Explorer, it is equally as evil to include a JVM.
You really can't have it both ways.
Wrong
There is not a market for JVM for desktops: they're given way free, the market is downstream. As long as the JVM isn't broken, including it in windows is fine. There was, however, a market for web-browsers, so including it in windows is not fine.
The idea of the airlines having fingerprints for every passenger is pretty scary - but banks and many stores fingerprint when you use/cash checks. What level of this type of stuff will we accept?
Scary? Maybe I just don't get it, but all this whining over civil liberties seems plain silly to me. Something has to be done to reassure people, and better airport security seems one of the more sensible options. IMO it's a hell of a lot better than some naïve military campaign against terrorism (if you think military action can prevent terrorism, take a look at Israel). Is it really going to hurt if they know which flight you're on?
I agree with you (and have said so in another post in this thread) that the focus must be on ACTIONS. That is what the entire body of criminal law does.
Nice idea, but fails in practice. Hijacking airliners is illegal but waving a legal document at hijackers won't stop them: taking their tools away, however, might.
I used to remember this quote about what distinguished civilised people from the rest, but I seem to have forgotten it. (I guess it wasn't important anyway.)
I'm the admin of a small open source project. What I'd like is a book that builds on the experience of others that could help me do it better. What I don't want is a history of the open source/freesoftware movement. The only reason why I'm doing is because I enjoy it, and my only goal is building a good piece of software. I don't want to change the world, and I would like to distance myself as far as possible from anyone's (IMO nutty) political movements.
Can anyone recommend anything? The review suggests this book is not what I'm looking for.
Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties?
Personally, no. I'm more bothered that the Bush Administration will use the terrorist attacks as a blank check for military action that will take away more lives. I guess it's just me though.
Oh right, so the architects of the WTC were to blaim for the building falling down?
No. Noone in their right mind would have expected those attacks. However, when you connect a machine to the internet, you can be almost certain it will be port scanned for weaknesses.
In the company I work for Red Code attacked a handful of servers out of hundreds or even thousands- the rest had been patched
Security can never be 100%. I'm suggesting that if reasonable precautions haven't been taken, then blame should be shared.
IMO your car analogy misses important features of the case. I think a better analogy would be a fire officer deciding what fire precautions to take. He knows that for every fire, someone must take the blame. He also knows that most fires are started by arsonists. Taking fire precautions is a time consuming and tedious job. Whatever punishment is given to arsonists, arson attacks won't stop: most arsonists get away, and most of them are kids so can't be punished severely anyway. The fire officer knows this, the problem is that what's important to him and his immediate manager is that they don't get blamed for fires and sacked, and that they are not overworked taking fire precautions. If there is a fire and they're not blamed, it's not the end of the world for them since other people do most of the clearing up. They have an incentive take less than the optimum level of fire precautions and to make sure arsonists get all the blame for fires.
For those of you out there who admire the portability of Java but want something faster or open source, the answer to your prayers is finally here.
I've been living in a cave for 5 years praying for exactly this. I like java, the problem is it's so slow it wouldn't even run benchmarks. What's more, without being able to see the source code, how can you be sure Sun isn't using it to spy on you. The other thing I love about free software is how it is always well designed and bug free. Those guys at Sun and IBM think spending billions on R&D will somehow result in better software. It amazes how stupid they are: they just don't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end, it is the income tax that allows the government to control your life....
I always thought it was the people who voted for governments that gave them the power to control things.
7.??????????????
Wiping your ass on slashdot comments?
...in public institutions, like state schools, this should be clear: they're public institutions, funded by public money, so the public should get the benefits.
But the public does get the benefit: if they didn't sell the research, they would require even more public funding to do it.
No. Whether something's deliberate or not is a matter of fact - i.e. it is deliberate if and only if the result was intended. On the other hand, whether something mainly affects A or B is not, it depends on the subjective weights you apply to different actions.
This is a legimate definition of power.
Well if you don't mind power depending on opinion, I suppose its legitimate. The problem is that people's opinions differ.
However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.
This oft-overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.
This is just plain stupid. Everything anyone does affects others in some sense. Who it mainly affects is a matter of opinion.
At the core of Collins's criteria was that a good-to-great company had to have "fifteen-year cumulative stock returns at or below the general stock market, punctuated by a transition point, then cumulative returns at least three times the market over the next fifteen years." The screening process cut the 1,435 down to 126, then 19, and finally these 11 companies: Abbott, Circuit City, Fannie Mae, Gillette, Kimberly-Clarke, Kroger, Nucor, Philip Morris, Pitney Bowes, Walgreens, and Wells Fargo.
Isn't this like looking for talentless people who became millionaires and finding they bought lottery tickets, when in fact, buying lottery tickets tends to make people poorer?
Your friends are laughing at you because, although using the keyboard "feels" faster, nonetheless you are wrong.
Isn't the extent to which it interrupts your train of thought more important than speed? I would speculate that the reason the keyboard feels faster is that it interrupts your train of thought less.
If you have a reason for asserting that such a distinction is "sloppy" I am interested in hearing it.
The same reason as a distinction between 'high' and 'low' is sloppy: it doesn't tell you how to divide things into two piles without depending on an arbitary cut-off point.
Strategy is considered the high-level, where the theater-level commanders and above are.
I suppose that's one way of looking at it, IMO a rather sloppy one. It's not the one used in game theory where a strategy is complete contingent plan, i.e. you have a plan for whatever your opponent might do. IMO a real strategy game would be one with more than one optimal strategy.
Forgive me for asking what may be a silly question: but why? Network transparency for the fileaystems makes sense, but for GUI seems silly becuause of the latency problems. Why must a program be running on a remote computer rather than running on the local computer but using the remote computers filesystem where necessary?
For things like stopping/starting webservers etc on remote computers, isn't telnet fine?
If there is no market for JVM on desktops, then there is also no market for WWW browsers, instant messaging clients, and multimedia players... since these are all also given away for free.
No. Read my comment again carefully to see why.
Your argument is horribly inconsistent and flawed. If it is evil for Microsoft to include Internet Explorer, it is equally as evil to include a JVM.
You really can't have it both ways.
Wrong
There is not a market for JVM for desktops: they're given way free, the market is downstream. As long as the JVM isn't broken, including it in windows is fine. There was, however, a market for web-browsers, so including it in windows is not fine.
The idea of the airlines having fingerprints for every passenger is pretty scary - but banks and many stores fingerprint when you use/cash checks. What level of this type of stuff will we accept?
Scary? Maybe I just don't get it, but all this whining over civil liberties seems plain silly to me. Something has to be done to reassure people, and better airport security seems one of the more sensible options. IMO it's a hell of a lot better than some naïve military campaign against terrorism (if you think military action can prevent terrorism, take a look at Israel). Is it really going to hurt if they know which flight you're on?
Of course encryption is a "tool of terrorism."...Concentrate on the terrorists and not on their tools.
An unsound argument!
If terrorism can be prevented by regulating peoples actions, then peoples actions can also be regulated so there is no need for encryption.
Nice idea, but fails in practice. Hijacking airliners is illegal but waving a legal document at hijackers won't stop them: taking their tools away, however, might.
..no longer applies. Instead please use references to the WTC attacks.
I used to remember this quote about what distinguished civilised people from the rest, but I seem to have forgotten it. (I guess it wasn't important anyway.)
I'm the admin of a small open source project. What I'd like is a book that builds on the experience of others that could help me do it better. What I don't want is a history of the open source/freesoftware movement. The only reason why I'm doing is because I enjoy it, and my only goal is building a good piece of software. I don't want to change the world, and I would like to distance myself as far as possible from anyone's (IMO nutty) political movements.
Can anyone recommend anything? The review suggests this book is not what I'm looking for.
Personally, no. I'm more bothered that the Bush Administration will use the terrorist attacks as a blank check for military action that will take away more lives. I guess it's just me though.
Isn't locking current policies a change in policy?
LOL.. Off the top of my head.. 24 hours per month.
(If you read carefully, I said if people aren't taking precautions, they shouldn't get damages - not that they should do community service.)
No. Noone in their right mind would have expected those attacks. However, when you connect a machine to the internet, you can be almost certain it will be port scanned for weaknesses.
In the company I work for Red Code attacked a handful of servers out of hundreds or even thousands- the rest had been patched
Security can never be 100%. I'm suggesting that if reasonable precautions haven't been taken, then blame should be shared.
IMO your car analogy misses important features of the case. I think a better analogy would be a fire officer deciding what fire precautions to take. He knows that for every fire, someone must take the blame. He also knows that most fires are started by arsonists. Taking fire precautions is a time consuming and tedious job. Whatever punishment is given to arsonists, arson attacks won't stop: most arsonists get away, and most of them are kids so can't be punished severely anyway. The fire officer knows this, the problem is that what's important to him and his immediate manager is that they don't get blamed for fires and sacked, and that they are not overworked taking fire precautions. If there is a fire and they're not blamed, it's not the end of the world for them since other people do most of the clearing up. They have an incentive take less than the optimum level of fire precautions and to make sure arsonists get all the blame for fires.
I've been living in a cave for 5 years praying for exactly this. I like java, the problem is it's so slow it wouldn't even run benchmarks. What's more, without being able to see the source code, how can you be sure Sun isn't using it to spy on you. The other thing I love about free software is how it is always well designed and bug free. Those guys at Sun and IBM think spending billions on R&D will somehow result in better software. It amazes how stupid they are: they just don't get it.