"Having a homosexual marriage is like having dry water."
Cool, I had no idea that human relations were like physical properties. What happens if two men try to marry--do they fly apart like magnets? Dissolve into thin air? Have any pictures of this?
phantomfive wrote: "we have Republicans who say, 'government is too big, we need to either cut it or cut its budget'"
You didn't put enough emphasis on the word SAY. Republicans **say** government is too big, but what they mean is: give some of that money to our interest groups (defense, fossil fuel, financial, health insurance, etc. companies). I'm not defending Democratic spending--I'm just saying at least they don't lie about it.
Look it up: spending under Republican presidents Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2 all went way up. Reagan - 80% increase Bush1 - 30% increase Bush2 - 67% increase
tjarrett wrote: "We acknowledge the inherent selection bias (the applications in the report come from our customers) in the methodology section."
It's good of him to point that out, but that's not the only flaw in the study I'm sure. First of all it was done by someone with a stake in the outcome, which is always problematic, even with the purest of intentions.
Second, the article says "[t]he vulnerability with the highest total count was cross-site scripting (XSS), and was the third most prevalent flaw."
In my experience that's usually an artifact of the application server and the test tool--not the code. Out of the box most app servers error pages echo back arguments like parameter=evil_script. The tool says that's XSS. The vendors like BEA, Sun, Oracle don't seem to agree, although they'll send you a patch if you beg.
I wonder whether Veracode actually validated that the "vulnerabilities" were actually exploitable.
Obama refuses to use markup "...to associate data cells and header cells for data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers. "
I'm sure you meant to actually learn how academic publishing works before issuing strongly worded opinions... maybe you ran out of time, etc.
However, I might be able to help by correcting a few points: 1) journal publishing isn't lucrative, and 2) the Government does not pay the publishers--they're on their own to figure out how to cover their costs, usually through subscriptions.
Unsurprisingly, Slashdot commentors think that the U.S. Congress should give us something for nothing. However, this law will likely disturb the economics of academic publishing, which could have serious consequences.
Academic journals don't just print to paper submitted articles; their real value is quality control: organizing peer reviews and editing, i.e., determining what is fit to print. In research, quality control is extremely valuable, and if Congress appropriates their means of re-couping their costs, then those quality controls may disappear.
The fact that the research behind the paper may be taxpayer-funded is just a distraction. If journals start turning down papers based on the funds source for the research, then those research funds are just wasted.
For scientists, the only thing sensationalism gets you is the ruthless mockery of your peers. For example, how did sensationalism work out for the Cold Fusion crew of Fleischmann & Pons? Of course it helps your grant proposal to link your research to broader impacts, but sensationalism does not equal broader impacts.
My reference for Buddahism is Siddartha by Herman Hesse, which I recently read. If that book represents Buddahism, then there's nothing religious/supernatural about Buddahism.
OT: Do you have a reason for this distaste, or is this just another slashdot kneejerk reaction?
You wrote: "Yes I do. You may want to click on my user page and read some of the other posts I made in this discussion."
OT: Okay, I just did, and found just more opinions, unsupported by facts. I spent a few minutes on Google, and found credible sources of information that undermined every argument you made.
You wrote, "As has been argued by me and many others, it has already been payed for."
OT: This statement isn't an argument. The taxpayers agent (i.e., Fed agencies) get to use the invention without restraint, and the Navy accrue license fees from all others. The patent is licensed to anyone else. Everybody wins!
You wrote, "most departments rather keep their budget and extra income isn't used to replace tax income, it comes on top of it"
OT: If you're alleging that agencies somehow hide their license revenue out of their budget, then that's a pretty serious allegation that would have to be supported with facts to be credible.
You wrote "this comes at the price of less competition and more expensive products using the patented technology."
OT: Federal agencies license their patents, so how is competition restricted? According to U.S. law, restrictive licenses can only be granted under special circumstances, with public notice, etc.
You wrote: "It [the Federal government] does have virtually unlimited funds in the form of taxes. It is also the party that can set the rules for everyone else in the market."
OT: Maybe you missed this in 12th grade civics, but Congress passes laws regarding both taxes and interstate commerce. The Naval Research Laboratory doesn't have any say on this.
You wrote: "This is a highly undesirable mix of roles. Often this kind mixing of government and industry is regarded as a strong indication of facsism also and for good reasons I believe."
OT: Whaaa? Since the Navy was started, they have mixed with industry to develop new systems & weapons. If you're making the "slippery slope" arguement, that slope isn't very slippery so far.
You wrote: "Paying companies on the free market for their products directly helps that free market, puts money directly into the economy, and as a result is highly desirable. Having a government department develop some technology causes none of those effects, rather, it takes away chances from other participants on that free market,"
OT: Again no facts, and no logic either. How does government patenting (and licensing) a technology harm the free market? One point you miss is that government labs focus on research relevant to their mission, a mission that no free market entity has (e.g., fight wars). If they patent a technology, it means they aren't restricted to just a sole source producer, which means more competitition, better products.
You wrote: "a very high chance of favoritism towards specific 'producers', and has the additional problem that the government gets to decide who can involve himself in development of the technology.
OT: Another unsubstantiated allegation without supporting evidence. The law requires that federal-owned patents "shall be made available for licensing as deemed appropriate in the public interest." Anything else is illegal. I have some experience as a consultant to the Navy, and the place was crawling with lawyers and auditors.
You wrote: "...if you allow government departments to develop technology then care should be taken to prevent thoise problems, and making their work freely avaiulable to all quite accomplishes that."
OT: If you spent 5 minutes Googling Navy patents you'd find that they seem to be pretty open about people licensing their patents, especially if it helps the Navy's mission.
dogdude wrote: "That's one thing about this whole OSS thing that the zealots don't understand... software can be, and often is used as a competitive advantage. Why would a company (say mine) "share" it's code for it's custom apps with competitors"
When I see comments like this I wonder whether it's willful ignorance or just people shooting off on something they know nothing about. The GPL clearly says that you are "... free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them." See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html #CanIDemandACopy.
That's clear enough and so easy to find out, so why the FUD?
...late in the war the US had intelligence on the then operating concentration camps in Germany and had the range to bomb them, but opted instead for targets of militaristic value. I can see the point of sticking w/military targets, but it's shame that a few sorties weren't scheduled for the camps, which might have saved hundreds of thousands of innocent lives
I'm not the military expert you obviously are, but I don't recall ever reading about precision smart bombs in the 1940s that could have achieved what you describe.
AFAIK the tech was limited to scattering lots and lots of high explosives over a wide area--i.e., kill them all, and let the gods sort them out.
I live in a free country, Argentina, and he is most definitely *not* my leader.
"Leader of the free world" is a Cold War propaganda term, when the president of the US would have been considered the counterpart of the Soviet Premier (i.e., non-free world leader).
Hint: now the term is used ironically, since the war is over.
Parent wrote: "These are people who took the money, then refused to do what they'd promised to do. If you don't want to be bound by these terms, don't participate in the program."
Yours is a nice theory, but what if they stop selling the special price ones, and every other manufacturer follows suit?
Then everyone is subject to arbitrary and coercive contract terms, since they can print anything they want and you're not going to read every bit of fine print at the store.
So, no, this is not reasonable. If you buy it, it's yours. And want to send it Joe's Remanufacturer, then it's none of their damn business.
Slashdot Mirror
"Having a homosexual marriage is like having dry water."
Cool, I had no idea that human relations were like physical properties. What happens if two men try to marry--do they fly apart like magnets? Dissolve into thin air? Have any pictures of this?
Attila: you tell 'em! It's damned gobmint conspiracy! Next thing you know they'll make us have gay marriages!
...welcome our new Sensorimotor Neural Engineering overlords.
phantomfive wrote: "we have Republicans who say, 'government is too big, we need to either cut it or cut its budget'"
You didn't put enough emphasis on the word SAY. Republicans **say** government is too big, but what they mean is: give some of that money to our interest groups (defense, fossil fuel, financial, health insurance, etc. companies). I'm not defending Democratic spending--I'm just saying at least they don't lie about it.
Look it up: spending under Republican presidents Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2 all went way up.
Reagan - 80% increase
Bush1 - 30% increase
Bush2 - 67% increase
source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf
tjarrett wrote: "We acknowledge the inherent selection bias (the applications in the report come from our customers) in the methodology section."
It's good of him to point that out, but that's not the only flaw in the study I'm sure. First of all it was done by someone with a stake in the outcome, which is always problematic, even with the purest of intentions.
Second, the article says "[t]he vulnerability with the highest total count was cross-site scripting (XSS), and was the third most prevalent flaw."
In my experience that's usually an artifact of the application server and the test tool--not the code. Out of the box most app servers error pages echo back arguments like parameter=evil_script. The tool says that's XSS. The vendors like BEA, Sun, Oracle don't seem to agree, although they'll send you a patch if you beg.
I wonder whether Veracode actually validated that the "vulnerabilities" were actually exploitable.
Obama refuses to use markup "...to associate data cells and header cells for data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers. "
Impeach him!
FACT: NSF did implement a site filtering tool (Blue Coat WebFilter) in 2008. This story is old news, the employees involved were fired or disciplined.
The Washington Times is just exploiting this for sensationalism and political points.
The pontiff complained, âoeA new mentality is creeping in that tends to justify a different consideration of life and personal dignity.â
But what he was thinking was: I wonder if we can get hotter-looking Catholics this way? Cuz the ones around here...
Without Majel Barrett, there can never be another Star Trek movie or show. It is forbidden.
You wrote: "That was the day that I lost all faith in our government."
You mean your faith in your government was dependent on the perfect execution of intricate security procedures by $20K/year TSA guards?
Stunning....
The legislation doesn't affect textbook companies, like McGraw-Hill, Houghton Mifflin, Holt, Prentice Hall, and Harcourt. It's the academic journals--small outfits, highly specialized, low margins.
I'm sure you meant to actually learn how academic publishing works before issuing strongly worded opinions... maybe you ran out of time, etc.
However, I might be able to help by correcting a few points: 1) journal publishing isn't lucrative, and 2) the Government does not pay the publishers--they're on their own to figure out how to cover their costs, usually through subscriptions.
Unsurprisingly, Slashdot commentors think that the U.S. Congress should give us something for nothing. However, this law will likely disturb the economics of academic publishing, which could have serious consequences.
Academic journals don't just print to paper submitted articles; their real value is quality control: organizing peer reviews and editing, i.e., determining what is fit to print. In research, quality control is extremely valuable, and if Congress appropriates their means of re-couping their costs, then those quality controls may disappear.
The fact that the research behind the paper may be taxpayer-funded is just a distraction. If journals start turning down papers based on the funds source for the research, then those research funds are just wasted.
My complete Vonnegut collection is worth something due to the Dead Authors Effect. Let the bidding begin!
Vielen dank, Kurt.
For scientists, the only thing sensationalism gets you is the ruthless mockery of your peers. For example, how did sensationalism work out for the Cold Fusion crew of Fleischmann & Pons?
Of course it helps your grant proposal to link your research to broader impacts, but sensationalism does not equal broader impacts.
My reference for Buddahism is Siddartha by Herman Hesse, which I recently read. If that book represents Buddahism, then there's nothing religious/supernatural about Buddahism.
Really? What supernatural beings do they worship in Buddahism or Confucianism?
The counter examples, Confusiansim and Buddahism, with hundreds of millions of adherents, would tend to disprove your point.
OT: Do you have a reason for this distaste, or is this just another slashdot kneejerk reaction?
You wrote: "Yes I do. You may want to click on my user page and read some of the other posts I made in this discussion."
OT: Okay, I just did, and found just more opinions, unsupported by facts. I spent a few minutes on Google, and found credible sources of information that undermined every argument you made.
You wrote, "As has been argued by me and many others, it has already been payed for."
OT: This statement isn't an argument. The taxpayers agent (i.e., Fed agencies) get to use the invention without restraint, and the Navy accrue license fees from all others. The patent is licensed to anyone else. Everybody wins!
You wrote, "most departments rather keep their budget and extra income isn't used to replace tax income, it comes on top of it"
OT: If you're alleging that agencies somehow hide their license revenue out of their budget, then that's a pretty serious allegation that would have to be supported with facts to be credible.
You wrote "this comes at the price of less competition and more expensive products using the patented technology."
OT: Federal agencies license their patents, so how is competition restricted? According to U.S. law, restrictive licenses can only be granted under special circumstances, with public notice, etc.
You wrote: "It [the Federal government] does have virtually unlimited funds in the form of taxes. It is also the party that can set the rules for everyone else in the market."
OT: Maybe you missed this in 12th grade civics, but Congress passes laws regarding both taxes and interstate commerce. The Naval Research Laboratory doesn't have any say on this.
You wrote: "This is a highly undesirable mix of roles. Often this kind mixing of government and industry is regarded as a strong indication of facsism also and for good reasons I believe."
OT: Whaaa? Since the Navy was started, they have mixed with industry to develop new systems & weapons. If you're making the "slippery slope" arguement, that slope isn't very slippery so far.
You wrote: "Paying companies on the free market for their products directly helps that free market, puts money directly into the economy, and as a result is highly desirable. Having a government department develop some technology causes none of those effects, rather, it takes away chances from other participants on that free market,"
OT: Again no facts, and no logic either. How does government patenting (and licensing) a technology harm the free market? One point you miss is that government labs focus on research relevant to their mission, a mission that no free market entity has (e.g., fight wars). If they patent a technology, it means they aren't restricted to just a sole source producer, which means more competitition, better products.
You wrote: "a very high chance of favoritism towards specific 'producers', and has the additional problem that the government gets to decide who can involve himself in development of the technology.
OT: Another unsubstantiated allegation without supporting evidence. The law requires that federal-owned patents "shall be made available for licensing as deemed appropriate in the public interest." Anything else is illegal. I have some experience as a consultant to the Navy, and the place was crawling with lawyers and auditors.
You wrote: "...if you allow government departments to develop technology then care should be taken to prevent thoise problems, and making their work freely avaiulable to all quite accomplishes that."
OT: If you spent 5 minutes Googling Navy patents you'd find that they seem to be pretty open about people licensing their patents, especially if it helps the Navy's mission.
Do you have a reason for this distaste, or is this just another slashdot kneejerk reaction?
My company has a requirement to do text search on binary documents stored in the database (currently Sybase).
What other DBMSs besides Oracle and SQL Server can do this?
I looked at MySQL and briefly at Postgresql, and no dice.
I'm just saying that maybe your database choice ought to depend on your requirements.
dogdude wrote: "That's one thing about this whole OSS thing that the zealots don't understand... software can be, and often is used as a competitive advantage. Why would a company (say mine) "share" it's code for it's custom apps with competitors"
l #CanIDemandACopy.
When I see comments like this I wonder whether it's willful ignorance or just people shooting off on something they know nothing about. The GPL clearly says that you are "... free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them." See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.htm
That's clear enough and so easy to find out, so why the FUD?
...late in the war the US had intelligence on the then operating concentration camps in Germany and had the range to bomb them, but opted instead for targets of militaristic value. I can see the point of sticking w/military targets, but it's shame that a few sorties weren't scheduled for the camps, which might have saved hundreds of thousands of innocent lives
I'm not the military expert you obviously are, but I don't recall ever reading about precision smart bombs in the 1940s that could have achieved what you describe.
AFAIK the tech was limited to scattering lots and lots of high explosives over a wide area--i.e., kill them all, and let the gods sort them out.
I live in a free country, Argentina, and he is most definitely *not* my leader.
"Leader of the free world" is a Cold War propaganda term, when the president of the US would have been considered the counterpart of the Soviet Premier (i.e., non-free world leader).
Hint: now the term is used ironically, since the war is over.
You can put away your soapbox now.
Parent wrote: "These are people who took the money, then refused to do what they'd promised to do. If you don't want to be bound by these terms, don't participate in the program."
Yours is a nice theory, but what if they stop selling the special price ones, and every other manufacturer follows suit?
Then everyone is subject to arbitrary and coercive contract terms, since they can print anything they want and you're not going to read every bit of fine print at the store.
So, no, this is not reasonable. If you buy it, it's yours. And want to send it Joe's Remanufacturer, then it's none of their damn business.