The obvious joke (as obviously pointed out in the writeup) is that you make a copy of the image when you display it in your browser.
The issue is the rebroadcasting of the image by someone who doesn't hold the copyright on it.
As a photographer, if I put my hard work on the internet and suddenly some business plasters it all over their site without my consent, I would be pissed off. A google image cache with a searchable image database would be similar, and objecting to it is reasonable.
You have a good point, and I have no argument with it.
However, what I would like you to consider the original ideas that I may come up with. What RMS et. al. would really like is to force me to release the source code for any program I distribute under GPL like terms, no matter what the origin was. As far as pre-existing GPL software is concerned, I have no problems. If I modify and release, the source goes with it. No problem. But I do disagree with compelling everyone to release the source code for all of the software that has ever been written. If you follow the writings and speeches of RMS and the rest of the FSF, you will see that freeing all of the source code is their ultimate goal. That would be nothing more than tyrany born in virtue, and is just as bad as the predatory practices of Microsoft.
To follow up on my previous post, I would like you to consider this.
If I go to the store and buy a CD player, I own it. I can listen to CDs, give the player to my mother, and loan it to my friends. I can take it apart, try to figure out how it works, and from that information try to build my own. However, the company that builds the CD player does not have to give me the schematics or any other design documents for the CD player.
Apply this same logic to software. If I go out and buy a text editor, for example, many software companies will try to restrict how I use it. They say that I can't share it with my mother, or loan it to my friends. No, I can only use it for the task it was designed for (editing text). The software companies say that I can't take it apart and figure out how it works. I think that is wrong. The text editor is a tool, like the CD player, even if the software aspect of it blurs the line in some way. Having said that, the source code is just like a schematic. It tells a person or a machine how to build a tool. Why do I have any special right to that?
Following a slightly different line; it seems more reasonable to abolish software patents. How many innovations in fields like digital music (MP3), compression (LZW), and optimization (Interior Point Methods), have been stifled by software patents? (Hint, three stunted areas of growth are in parenthesis).
The FSF encourages innovation through a license that keeps the source available for everyone to look at, modify, and redistribute. It protects peoples freedoms and their ideas. If I (or anyone) wants to distribute and idea, open it for discussion, allow the idea to change, and ensure that those changes will not disappear, the work of the FSF allows me to do that. In some sense, that is freedom, and is to be commended. However, I do not like the notion that my ideas, the ideas formed with my own genius and hard work, should be thrown into the public domain just because I formulated them. I should have the freedom to share my ideas, keep them secret, or sell them to the highest bidder. Taking away that freedom in the name of other freedoms not only tramples some of my liberties, but also cheapens the others.
An argument I don't understand
on
Microsoft vs. Ximian
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The Free Software Foundation has recently started to promote the idea that all software should be free. This includes open source, free software, and (currently) proprietary software. To clarify that statement, Microsoft keeps their source secret, and the FSF feels that the source should be made available for all to view, modify, and redistribute. This is a point that was touched upon in the Washington Post article.
I don't understand this point of view. I am very supportive of free software as a choice. I like GNU software. I prefer to use free and open source software (yes, I do recognise the distinction between the two). In my personal life I have been free of Microsoft for over a year, and mostly free from it in my career. However, I appreciate and respect the copyright that Microsoft (and other software companines) holds on their software.
By stating that "all software must be free, no matter who developed it," I believe that the FSF is shooting itself in the foot. By crippling itself with such extremism, the FSF takes away opportunities to convince people that by having a choice, they can make the choice to improve their futures by choosing free software. The FSF political tendencies seem to be closer to dictatorship rather than the common attack of communism. Even if a dictatorship is benevolent, it is still a dictatorship.
Free Software has come so far, and has improved the quality of our lives so much. Preaching the word of freedom while advocating the removal of freedoms is counterproductive. Can anyone give a rational explanation as to why the FSF and its advocates push this unintuitive line of thought?
* The CD is a freakin' CD-R!?
* Instructions are great, and truly geared towards a FreeBSD novice
* Lots of screen shots with deatiled instructions
* Covers lots of topics
This book is as good or better than any beginner Linux book I've seen.
Still, it didn't give me any indication on how to set up my PCI modem (no, it is not a win-modem!). Damn my uninformed purchase! (the modem, not the book)
Every extra day that I take to plan, every minute I spend thinking about design, and every extra line of code I write to make my software more pleasing is another line that could add more functionality, another minute wasted not producing something tangible, and another day that I need to be paid. When it comes right down to it, most software is just good enough to get the job done because that is what is most profitable in the short term. I revel in every bit of beautiful code I write, but also know that if I spend too much time making my code beautiful I will be replaced by someone more interested in just getting the job done. If I really wanted to produce art, I would have gone into a field that produces recognizable art.
Do you think that Theo and his merry band of bandits would really convince Bernstein to change his license? After all, the FBI and the NSA fucked with Bernstein, and last time I checked Bernstein was winning (as much as you can against those guys). See the whole shebang at http://cr.yp.to. (Ok maybe not, but he is still fighting).
I think biggest problem with LyX is that it uses Xforms, it will be great if more developers will work to move Lyx to
gtk/qt/GNOME/KDE
The lyx people are very aware of this stumbling block. One of their stated goals is to make lyx gui independent. That means support for gtk and qt. Go to http://www.lyx.org to find out more.
Lyx is awesome. I love it. It's easy to lay out documents, it's easy to use source control, it's easy to import pictures, and the appearance of the document looks professional even if the content is fluff. My only gripe with it (and this could very well just be a clueless user problesm) is the inability to import a table of data. I still haven't figured out a way to bring in an MxN table without cutting and pasting every single entry. Oh well.
To get back on topic, I have tried to install Koffice several times over the last six months. I've never been successful in compiling it. I just gave up
Gosh, when I go to work I like to get things done. I like to write my programs; I like to run my tests; I like to read research papers. Scott Adams seems to think that the best kind of work is no work. If you hate what you're doing, this is true. If you like your job, it's not. I want a quiet, well lit cube with lots of desk space. Yes, an office would be better, but you make the best of what you have. The article was kind of funny, but not in the way it was intended to be funny. Scott Adams is out of touch with the white collar working community, and it shows both in the article and in his comic strip.
I would buy a G4 cube on e-bay and slap linux on it. An inexpensive, small, quiet box would be perfect for my one bedroom apartment. And yes, I prefer Linux to OS X. I run both on my G3 (given to me, so it cost nothing) right now, and spend 95% of my time in Linux.
It's not for newbies any more than Linux on I86 wasn't for newbies a year ago? Here are the steps for installing SuSE Linux PPC on a mac:
Reformat your hard drive. You need an hfs partition (not hfs+) to install the boot loader on. This is a good place to put OS9 if you want to run Mac on Linux.
Install Linux. This includes setting up your swap, root, and other partitions.
Install yaboot (a lilo like program) onto the hfs partition. Configure yaboot. No worse than lilo
Set up the open firmware to boot lilo (not too hard), or set up the open firmware for dual boot. Dual booting is the hardest part, although there are some tools that automate the process. I dual boot so I can play with OS X. Mac on Linux meets all of my OS9 needs.
The distributions keep getting better and better. GCC is a general purpose compiler, so it generates general purpose (real slower) code on almost every platform. I've been using some flavor of PPC Linux for almost 2 years now, and find the platform to be very mature.
I own a Blue and White G3, and I prefer to run Linux on it. Why? I prefer to spend my money on things other than computers. I was given the G3, so I run Linux on it. It outperforms OS9 and OSX in almost every way. It runs quieter than any I86 box I've owned.
My previous employers got all hot and bothered over buying the newest apple hardware. I wanted to get my job done, so I installed Linux on my G3 at work. It did everything that I needed it to do, and I was grateful to be able to run Linux without creating too many waves in the company.
People like you fascinate me. You recoil at anything that is different, or anything that challenges your rigid preconceived notions. Pull you head out of your ass and try to look at the good in the world once in a while.
I've used Mac OS 9, Max OS X, Yellog Dog 1.2, and SuSE 7.x on my Blue and White G3. Right now OS X and OS 9 share a disc, while SuSE sits on another one. My OS of choice is SuSE. I play around with OS X from time to time, and use OS 9 for watching DVDs. Using Windowmaker I can set up a very OS X like desktop that runs faster. I have many more apps available right out of the box under Linux than I do OS X, and they don't crash at odd times. I have upgraded my OS X to the most recent version. I think that OS X is beautiful, and nice to work in. For me it is just a toy, though, and I do all of my important work on the Linux side.
Ok, that's all I'm going to say. My hangover makes it hurt to write.
I've spent the last two days downloading, installing, and trying to compile with the Intel C++ compiler for Linux. The compiler is installed now, but I can't compile with it. My first program had one line that printed out "Hello, world."
The compiler crashed and burned. Their techical support site (which you get to by clicking on a creepy NDA) didn't contain much information. The links that did look interesting were broken
Eventually I found a document contained a list of known bugs. One of them was " was not included in the distribution. This will be fixed in the next update." Fantastic!
Has anyone out there successfully installed this compiler? My employers are very interested in using it (we want fast code for our intel machines), and I am very interested in trying it out.
My DOG punishes me by leaving "presents" in my shoes.
Why people love Code Red
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The newsmakers love it because they get to print lots of muckracking headlines about "another hacker threat," and the "evil red chinese attack on the good guys." A scary computer virus means ratings!
Microsoft loves it because they get to release patches, and proclaim to the world "we're the good guys, protecting you from those unamerican people who share code!"
The lawmakers get shits and giggles because now they have a reason to pass new, more restrictive laws regarding comminication across "the information superhighway."
The prison system salivates over this sort of stuff. It creates more potential for 15 year old kids to be thrown in prison for essentially victomless crimes. Nothing like young ass for the seasoned prison rapists!
Open source fanatics get another nit to pick with big bad Microsoft. Go free software! No, go open source! No, go free software!
News like this is the best kind around.
Re:Some interesting implications
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 2
With a suitable oracle, a Turing machine can indeed solve the Halting problem. Indeed, let K be the set of all (Goedel numbers) of (oracle-less) Turing machines which halt when started with empty input. Then a Turing machine with a K-oracle can trivially solve the Halting Problem: it just examines its input (which will be the Goedel number of a Turing machine) and checks if it lies in K. If so, it answers "yes" and otherwise answers "no".
Do you have a constructive proof of this oracles existence? Constructive is the key word here. The problem is similar to finding the (Kolmogorov) complexity of a natural number. You can prove that every number does have a complexity (measured as the minimum size representation of that number), but you can't compute the complexities. The function exists, but you can't compute it.
Turing's theorem is much more interesting that you seem to give it credit for. Let B be a set of natural numbers. Define the "B-Halting Problem" as Given an arbitrary Turing machine, determine whether that Turing machine, when equipped with a B-oracle, halts after being started with empty input. Then Turing's proof shows that no Turing machine equipped with only a B-oracle can solve the B-Halting Problem. The usual, oracle-less, version is a special case of this: just take B = empty set.
You're absolutely right. The Turing Theorem is interesting (as long as you don't consider the original paper. ..snore!). It's unfortunate that everyone just chooses to ignore it, instead of really investigating what the implications of the theorem are (along side with Godels Incompleteness Theorem). They're mostly held up as clever examples, then discretely swept under the table.
Randomness is not an essential part of the study of Turing machines-with-oracle, and the Halting Problem does not involve randomness at all.
Not at all? The fields share many similarities, and it's hard to find a modern discussion of one without the other.
Cheers!
Re:Some interesting implications
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 2
Um, stupid comment. The Halting Problem is a problem because you can't show that every turing machine program halts (or doesn't halt). Are you really interested in the modern research in this field? Go take a look at Exploring Randomness. This is a fantastic book that does a great job of, well, exploring randomness.
Are you downloading the correct kernel? If you poke around the Linux PPC web pages and mailing lists you will quickly discover that, yes, the official Linus and Alan trees generally do not compile. There is an active effort to keep a PPC branch up to date. The branch exists mainly because Linus doesn't like the way that the PPC people submit their patches, so they more often than not don't make it into the main tree.
Having said all of this, I was going to post a link to the PPC BitKeeper pages. They're gone now, with a message that they will be set up elsewhere. Until then, you can find lots of Linux for PPC community resources at http://www.penguinppc.org.
Slashdot Mirror
It has a very tiny memory footprint
You can configure it to do almost any thing you want
You can group many windows into one frame, which helps to manage lots of netscape, xterm, and other app windows.
It supports windomaker dock apps
A gui that isn't all gooey. I like that.
The issue is the rebroadcasting of the image by someone who doesn't hold the copyright on it.
As a photographer, if I put my hard work on the internet and suddenly some business plasters it all over their site without my consent, I would be pissed off. A google image cache with a searchable image database would be similar, and objecting to it is reasonable.
You have a good point, and I have no argument with it.
However, what I would like you to consider the original ideas that I may come up with. What RMS et. al. would really like is to force me to release the source code for any program I distribute under GPL like terms, no matter what the origin was. As far as pre-existing GPL software is concerned, I have no problems. If I modify and release, the source goes with it. No problem. But I do disagree with compelling everyone to release the source code for all of the software that has ever been written. If you follow the writings and speeches of RMS and the rest of the FSF, you will see that freeing all of the source code is their ultimate goal. That would be nothing more than tyrany born in virtue, and is just as bad as the predatory practices of Microsoft.
To follow up on my previous post, I would like you to consider this.
If I go to the store and buy a CD player, I own it. I can listen to CDs, give the player to my mother, and loan it to my friends. I can take it apart, try to figure out how it works, and from that information try to build my own. However, the company that builds the CD player does not have to give me the schematics or any other design documents for the CD player.
Apply this same logic to software. If I go out and buy a text editor, for example, many software companies will try to restrict how I use it. They say that I can't share it with my mother, or loan it to my friends. No, I can only use it for the task it was designed for (editing text). The software companies say that I can't take it apart and figure out how it works. I think that is wrong. The text editor is a tool, like the CD player, even if the software aspect of it blurs the line in some way. Having said that, the source code is just like a schematic. It tells a person or a machine how to build a tool. Why do I have any special right to that?
Following a slightly different line; it seems more reasonable to abolish software patents. How many innovations in fields like digital music (MP3), compression (LZW), and optimization (Interior Point Methods), have been stifled by software patents? (Hint, three stunted areas of growth are in parenthesis).
The FSF encourages innovation through a license that keeps the source available for everyone to look at, modify, and redistribute. It protects peoples freedoms and their ideas. If I (or anyone) wants to distribute and idea, open it for discussion, allow the idea to change, and ensure that those changes will not disappear, the work of the FSF allows me to do that. In some sense, that is freedom, and is to be commended. However, I do not like the notion that my ideas, the ideas formed with my own genius and hard work, should be thrown into the public domain just because I formulated them. I should have the freedom to share my ideas, keep them secret, or sell them to the highest bidder. Taking away that freedom in the name of other freedoms not only tramples some of my liberties, but also cheapens the others.
The Free Software Foundation has recently started to promote the idea that all software should be free. This includes open source, free software, and (currently) proprietary software. To clarify that statement, Microsoft keeps their source secret, and the FSF feels that the source should be made available for all to view, modify, and redistribute. This is a point that was touched upon in the Washington Post article.
I don't understand this point of view. I am very supportive of free software as a choice. I like GNU software. I prefer to use free and open source software (yes, I do recognise the distinction between the two). In my personal life I have been free of Microsoft for over a year, and mostly free from it in my career. However, I appreciate and respect the copyright that Microsoft (and other software companines) holds on their software.
By stating that "all software must be free, no matter who developed it," I believe that the FSF is shooting itself in the foot. By crippling itself with such extremism, the FSF takes away opportunities to convince people that by having a choice, they can make the choice to improve their futures by choosing free software. The FSF political tendencies seem to be closer to dictatorship rather than the common attack of communism. Even if a dictatorship is benevolent, it is still a dictatorship.
Free Software has come so far, and has improved the quality of our lives so much. Preaching the word of freedom while advocating the removal of freedoms is counterproductive. Can anyone give a rational explanation as to why the FSF and its advocates push this unintuitive line of thought?
My first impressions:
* The CD is a freakin' CD-R!?
* Instructions are great, and truly geared towards a FreeBSD novice
* Lots of screen shots with deatiled instructions
* Covers lots of topics
This book is as good or better than any beginner Linux book I've seen.
Still, it didn't give me any indication on how to set up my PCI modem (no, it is not a win-modem!). Damn my uninformed purchase! (the modem, not the book)
So much for proof reading my posts. Parse was to what, and you'll be much happier.
"Me fail english? That's unpossible!"
"Short term" is the operative phrase in that quote. Was should be, and what is, are two totally different things.
Flame on.
Every extra day that I take to plan, every minute I spend thinking about design, and every extra line of code I write to make my software more pleasing is another line that could add more functionality, another minute wasted not producing something tangible, and another day that I need to be paid. When it comes right down to it, most software is just good enough to get the job done because that is what is most profitable in the short term. I revel in every bit of beautiful code I write, but also know that if I spend too much time making my code beautiful I will be replaced by someone more interested in just getting the job done. If I really wanted to produce art, I would have gone into a field that produces recognizable art.
Do you think that Theo and his merry band of bandits would really convince Bernstein to change his license? After all, the FBI and the NSA fucked with Bernstein, and last time I checked Bernstein was winning (as much as you can against those guys). See the whole shebang at http://cr.yp.to. (Ok maybe not, but he is still fighting).
The lyx people are very aware of this stumbling block. One of their stated goals is to make lyx gui independent. That means support for gtk and qt. Go to http://www.lyx.org to find out more.
Lyx is awesome. I love it. It's easy to lay out documents, it's easy to use source control, it's easy to import pictures, and the appearance of the document looks professional even if the content is fluff. My only gripe with it (and this could very well just be a clueless user problesm) is the inability to import a table of data. I still haven't figured out a way to bring in an MxN table without cutting and pasting every single entry. Oh well.
To get back on topic, I have tried to install Koffice several times over the last six months. I've never been successful in compiling it. I just gave up
Gosh, when I go to work I like to get things done. I like to write my programs; I like to run my tests; I like to read research papers. Scott Adams seems to think that the best kind of work is no work. If you hate what you're doing, this is true. If you like your job, it's not. I want a quiet, well lit cube with lots of desk space. Yes, an office would be better, but you make the best of what you have. The article was kind of funny, but not in the way it was intended to be funny. Scott Adams is out of touch with the white collar working community, and it shows both in the article and in his comic strip.
Your sig is: Moderate Drunk
Is "Moderate" supposed to be an adjective or a verb?
Yes.
I would buy a G4 cube on e-bay and slap linux on it. An inexpensive, small, quiet box would be perfect for my one bedroom apartment. And yes, I prefer Linux to OS X. I run both on my G3 (given to me, so it cost nothing) right now, and spend 95% of my time in Linux.
Reformat your hard drive. You need an hfs partition (not hfs+) to install the boot loader on. This is a good place to put OS9 if you want to run Mac on Linux.
Install Linux. This includes setting up your swap, root, and other partitions.
Install yaboot (a lilo like program) onto the hfs partition. Configure yaboot. No worse than lilo
Set up the open firmware to boot lilo (not too hard), or set up the open firmware for dual boot. Dual booting is the hardest part, although there are some tools that automate the process. I dual boot so I can play with OS X. Mac on Linux meets all of my OS9 needs.
The distributions keep getting better and better. GCC is a general purpose compiler, so it generates general purpose (real slower) code on almost every platform. I've been using some flavor of PPC Linux for almost 2 years now, and find the platform to be very mature.
My previous employers got all hot and bothered over buying the newest apple hardware. I wanted to get my job done, so I installed Linux on my G3 at work. It did everything that I needed it to do, and I was grateful to be able to run Linux without creating too many waves in the company.
People like you fascinate me. You recoil at anything that is different, or anything that challenges your rigid preconceived notions. Pull you head out of your ass and try to look at the good in the world once in a while.
I can hold my breath for two minutes. Even OS X isn't that slow!
Ok, that's all I'm going to say. My hangover makes it hurt to write.
The compiler crashed and burned. Their techical support site (which you get to by clicking on a creepy NDA) didn't contain much information. The links that did look interesting were broken
Eventually I found a document contained a list of known bugs. One of them was " was not included in the distribution. This will be fixed in the next update." Fantastic!
Has anyone out there successfully installed this compiler? My employers are very interested in using it (we want fast code for our intel machines), and I am very interested in trying it out.
My DOG punishes me by leaving "presents" in my shoes.
Microsoft loves it because they get to release patches, and proclaim to the world "we're the good guys, protecting you from those unamerican people who share code!"
The lawmakers get shits and giggles because now they have a reason to pass new, more restrictive laws regarding comminication across "the information superhighway."
The prison system salivates over this sort of stuff. It creates more potential for 15 year old kids to be thrown in prison for essentially victomless crimes. Nothing like young ass for the seasoned prison rapists!
Open source fanatics get another nit to pick with big bad Microsoft. Go free software! No, go open source! No, go free software!
News like this is the best kind around.
Do you have a constructive proof of this oracles existence? Constructive is the key word here. The problem is similar to finding the (Kolmogorov) complexity of a natural number. You can prove that every number does have a complexity (measured as the minimum size representation of that number), but you can't compute the complexities. The function exists, but you can't compute it.
Turing's theorem is much more interesting that you seem to give it credit for. Let B be a set of natural numbers. Define the "B-Halting Problem" as Given an arbitrary Turing machine, determine whether that Turing machine, when equipped with a B-oracle, halts after being started with empty input. Then Turing's proof shows that no Turing machine equipped with only a B-oracle can solve the B-Halting Problem. The usual, oracle-less, version is a special case of this: just take B = empty set. You're absolutely right. The Turing Theorem is interesting (as long as you don't consider the original paper. . .snore!). It's unfortunate that everyone just chooses to ignore it, instead of really investigating what the implications of the theorem are (along side with Godels Incompleteness Theorem). They're mostly held up as clever examples, then discretely swept under the table.
Randomness is not an essential part of the study of Turing machines-with-oracle, and the Halting Problem does not involve randomness at all.
Not at all? The fields share many similarities, and it's hard to find a modern discussion of one without the other.
Cheers!
Having said all of this, I was going to post a link to the PPC BitKeeper pages. They're gone now, with a message that they will be set up elsewhere. Until then, you can find lots of Linux for PPC community resources at http://www.penguinppc.org.