Could mean some bucks for The Open Group, too
on
UNIX.com On eBay?
·
· Score: 3
The real question is: "How much will The Open Group" get out of the deal? (I read that they hold the trademark on Unix(TM) now.
It doesn't seem that the seller is OpenGroup (I can't confirm this, my whois is crapping out, but the DNS is CAIS and SILKROAD), but any commercial owner (or computer-related owner) will have to negotiate with OpenGroup to use the domain at all.
One moderate advantage of manuals is the ability to jot notes on the margins.
I'm not a big fan of this practice in many situations, but sometimes it can be a lifesaver. A reference manual that's been annotated for your particular system(s) and setup(s) can be a lifesaver that *grows* in value with use.
Try doing that on a CD-ROM. There are annotation schemes that write to the HDD, but they don't 'follow the CD' from computer to computer. It's easy to write an efficient, informative note when you know the ref text will be right there beside it.
I love the 6502. I learned machine code on it as a teenager in the late 70's. But I don't believe any 6502 version was ever space qualified. [I do recall a lot of talk about it in the 80's, though] Maybe there is a "6502-like" CPU, but I'll leave that determination to the CPU experts.
Space Technology ia an area of special interest for me. Here are the CPUs that I use in "back-of-the-envelope" speculation and planning.
AFAIK, the most powerful fully space-qualified CPU is the RAD-6000 SC (rad-hardened IBM/6000 single chip RISC computer akin to a R6000 workstation) used on the Mars pathfinder, the IMAGE satellite (Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration) and several other projects. As a guess, the GNU CC-supported MIL-SPEC 1750A (16 bit PDP-11-like CPU ca. 1979) is the most popular CPU in use right now for 'power apps', and 80C85 and 80C86 are quite common among NASA craft currently in space.
I had some links to lists of space qualified CPUs (don't know if they were comprehensive) but they are all dead now. If anyone has the link to the space-qualified hardware list, please post them here.
Someone ought to tell his county sheriff that he's an easy catch now. Alternatively, maybe residents of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin should be worried.
Seriously though, I'm the same age, and I've seen so many of my 1962 cohort die over the years that I don't even have the words anymore. Med students driving home after a long night on-call; a 16-year-old early admission BA/JD student in a 'freak' amusement park accident, enjoying her final weeks before she left for college; more than one suicide...
A lot of talent and promise gone. A lot of suffering we couldn't heal.
I hope I don't sound hokey if I urge you... if you have a friend who drinks too much, or who seems depressed... please find out what you can do to help. There may not be much you can do, and it may not add to your/. karma but often a small effort is all it takes.
On his his DWI rap sheet alone, The warning signs were clear. I hope someone at least tried to help.
Mixed population bacterial genetics may be a far better anology than eukayotic (nuclear) genetics for explaining the distribution and prevalence of mitochondrial populations
First, some much simplified background (I have a degree in molecular biology): Mitochondria are self-reproducing organelles (= cell 'organs') that many people believe were once independent organisms that entered into a symbiotic relationship with a host cell, and eventually became utterly dependent on the cell. They now function as the primary site for the production of ATP, the main cellular fuel. There may be hundreds or thousands in a single cell
Mitochondria reproduce (to some degree) independently of the cell, and contain their own DNA. The DNA for everything else is in the nucleus (the cell's brain) but the mitochondria 'live' and reproduce in cytoplasm (cell body). When we breed, the nuclear DNA does the whole dance of meiosis/mitosis we learned in school, but the mitochondria fission like bacteria. Most (if not all) of the mitochondria is from the mother because a) the egg has thousands of times as much cytoplasm as the sperm; and b) after first contact with the egg, the sperm's mitochondria go into hyperdrive ("the acrosome reaction") and burn themselves out.
Now for the Original Contributions
1. In the billions of years of symbiosis since the development of eukaryotes, many genes that are useful or essential to the mitochondria have 'migrated' into the nucleus.
2. Though the mitchondrial 'support' genes are fairly cosistent from person to person, they aren't identical in everyone. Those genes only got to the nucleus by accident (mutation, adaptation by mitochondria to the available cell resources, etc) and therefore not all strains may be able to live in all people, or certain strains may enjoy a competititve advantage in a given person
3. Some individuals are known to have multiple strains of mitochondria, due to the various flukes and accidents of biological history. I know of no study that states that *most* humans have only one strain, and doubt its the case. It's actually a good idea to have multiple strains, since anything that kills (or impedes the reproduction of) a solo strain would kill (or prevent the reproduction of) its host. Multistrain individuals should be slightly hardier.
4. Mitochondria became part of the cell when we were single celled organisms. The mitochondrial DNA variation we measure is presumed to be 'nonessential' because mitochondria have very little DNA, and most of it was largely fixed long ago. We presume we're sorting mitochondria by 'eye color', but we may not be.
4) Mitochondria must adapt to their host as the host changes. A cow's mitochondria is much less similar to ours than you'd expect, considering that cows and men didn't diverge very long ago on a mitchondrial timescale.
5) Suppose a type mitochondria in a remote tribe requires the (nucleus) gene PII'ase. This is fine if the tribe all carries the (nuclear) gene for PII'ase. However, this mitochondrial line may die out when interbred because outside populations may not carry the gene PII'ase.
6) I can think of a dozen other mechanisms, but let's not go overboard.
Conclusion: Mitochondria are subject to many of the evolutionary and selection pressures as independent bacteria, symbiotes, etc. the finding that there are seven major strains of mitochondria in modern man simply suggests that seven mitochondrial strains are widespread and well-adapted to the core genome of humans
It doesn't mean there were only seven 'original women'
It may mean that there were only seven (mitochondrially) *undemanding* women [ducks!] and the truth may be far more complicated. (lesser strains may coexist with the support of the major strains, etc.) and probably are.
As irritated as I am when generally mainstream scientific theories like dinosaur warm-bloodedness are touted as breaking news decades too late (and as annoyed as I am when stuff shows up in my slashboxes days before it makes the main topic) I'll leave those issues to others.
Instead I'd like to suggest that as you read the many intelligent postings (I hope you're filtering at +2, I'd be afraid to go any lower on *this* topic), you think about man.
The ancient reptile line seems to have had one (or a relatively small number) line that exploded into the panoply of mainstream dinosaurian lines we all know and love so well.
Mankind has similarly exploded into a marked predominance of the earth's biosphere in it's own peculiar sense [But never forget that the ants under your yard may exceeed your family's total biomass -- let's not get too carried away with ourselves). I find it fascinating, whenever I read any new evolutionary tale, to ask what this might mean for man (or his technologies) evolution in 1-100 million years. Pure speculation for a species that has only been around a fraction of a single million, but we monkey men are so fascinated by colorful ideas and sparkly concepts.
For example, it's very odd to think of ourselves diversifying as the proto-dinosaurids must have done, to fill countless niches. But that *IS* the hallmark of biological success throughout the known fossil record.
The hallmark of biological failure, on the other hand, is well known and easily envisioned. Fortunately that doesn't make it any more likely.
[1] since evolution does not 'select' or 'optimize' with a purpose, all evolutionary narratives are simply intelligible "Just so" stories, a la Kipling
I admit the article in this story (and worse, Mr. Billington's standard publicity shot) make him seem like a smug priggish pedant -- the kind of geek even geeks don't like, even though they bathe.
However, as someone who has always lusted after the vast intellectual ocean of the Library of Congress, I've been following his work, not closely, but at least enough to instantly recognize his name...
Anyway, this particular "National Librarian" (a title I find distasteful, and of questionable provenance) is a reform librarian. He's one of the good guys, folks. [Well, at least as far as this office goes -- let's not forget, only twelve men have held the post in 200 years and it didn't open it's doors to the public until almost 1900. It's not a hotbed of change.]
Back in the late 80's I recall being very excited by his intent to increase access to the Library's many collections, and his ideas for updating the Library (including electronic access) I also recall that his publicity has tended to go in cycles -- often beginning with what seemed like a almost Luddite conservative stance (that always disappointed me) and refining and clarifying it in succesive articles and interviews until I had to admit he was pretty sensible (albeit on the conservative end of sensible)
A few times he made some public-pleasing comments that were almost startlingly progressive, but was forced to back down. I have to admit (from my experience in professional organizations) that it is much more painful to have to back off on a promise (due to politics or finance) than it is to be criticized as stodgy for years, and accomplish more than you promised.
Anyway, while I was infuriated by the article linked to this story, I give Billington the benefit of a doubt, based on past experience. He has spent many millions of dollars each year (and raised an equal amount from the private sector) for electronic initiatives, test beds, local library electronic archival/publication projects, and national and intenational 'digital library' initiatives and contests. That may not seem like much, but when you consider how tightly strained the LoC's budget is, it's really pretty good.
"The unleased, unlimited pursuit of truth may be the last frontier and the ultimate proving ground for our American ideal of freedom. In a world of increasing physical restraints and limitations, it is only in the life of the mind and spirit that the horizons of freedom can remain truly infinite. We must rediscover what we should have known all along, that the pursuit of truth is the noblest part of Jefferson's legacy." - James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress
Here are a few of his writings on the subject of 'digital libraries', while in his current office. They aren't the best ones, but alas, I don't have time to dig up and scan the printed articles I have on file (ironic, eh?):
MrPiccolo said: 1. That's outside the Terms and Conditions, so it's not real clear that would have any actual legal force if the rest of the T&C had been followed to the letter.
2. "Incorporating your program into proprietary programs" has not been clearly defined within the License. It is conceivable that a court of law would rule that dynamic linking is not incorporating a GPL program into a proprietary program.
Thanks! Those are useful insights.
For the record, I have no intention of linking GPL libraries to proprietary software. I just want us to keep our eyes open, and not listen to our own echos when it comes to the weight of GPL.
It's a remarkable document, but in a certain sense it's still in 'gamma testing' (released to the public but the real-world shakeout isn't over) I'd like to think that we could be prepared for GPL2 (if needed) without lots of bug-patched GPLs (1.012a , etc) What a nightmare that would be! Even 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 would be no joy for us.
I hardly get any spam on my.edu address, neither do my other faculty relatives. And what we get is traceable, as you noted.
I guess they think we're poor students and not worth the effort.
Now, on my.com addresses, I get dozens of spams per day per primary account. And since I own my own domain, I use traceable addresses whenever I think a source might be harvested, so I know who leaked it or where it was harvested from.
Let me tell you, they aren't at all reasonable. I get tons of spam for addresses at my domain that haven't been active for five years or more (I've been around a while), even though those addresses are set to 'bounce' all incoming as undeliverable
I also get "shotgun" mail. That's mail sent to addresses that *never* existed on my site [e.g. they send mail to admin@, charles@, and even porn@ at a long list of domains, hoping someone 'lives' there]
I can only imagine how many 'not even close' (shotgun, dead) spams clog any typical ISP. What do they care? They forge their return address -- it's fire and forget.
The Junkbusters site has some useful info, but notice it doesn't tell you (anywhere I could find) who they are, and how they are funded. As far as I can tell, they are a PRO-marketing outfit intended to take the heat off the entire direct marketing industry.
People see their 'to-do' lists and feel it's too much trouble to actually do, while simultaneously feeling 'protected under the law'. In essence, they imply it's *you're* fault for not being diligent.
Furthermore, two minutes of inspection will show you that their advice is flawed. often the very first suggestions on each page are ineffective.
Take their 'script' for dealing with telemarketers, which begins:
...just ask the questions in this script. If they answer no, you may be able to sue them. You can print copies of it to keep by every phone at home. If everyone follows it, the junk calls will slowly but surely drop off.
``Are you calling to sell something?'' (or ``is this a telemarketing call?'')
...
So if my sister calls, and I ask this question, and she answer "No", I can sue her?;-> But seriously, I've actually tried it, and invariably the telemarketer offers some deflecting answer beginning with 'No' ("No, I just want to let you know about an opprtunity...") You can spend a long time trying to get them to admit they're selling something (they are given deflecting scripts to use against this checklist!) and I doubt you'd have any luck suing on the basis that they denied trying to sell you something.
I love checklists, but his one seems designed to grind you down so you eventually stop asserting your rights. It asks you to do a *lot* more work than is required by law, and adds nothing to your privacy (9 questions if you *don't* want to sue, when all you legally have to do is tell them to put you one their company-wide "do not call" list. 20 steps (not all bulleted) per call if you want to sue) It makes every marketing call exactly the sort of interuption you're trying to avoid. Result: you think it's more prudent to hang up, and your name stays on the list.
Another flawed strategy, the first suggestion on the main page, is to contact the DMA. Compliance with the Direct Marketing Association 'Don't call' list is purely voluntary. Few telemarketers check it (even if they're members of the DMA) and more importantly, it *does not* 'start the clock' on the more stringent actions allowed by law [like suing in small claims].
Okay, I goofed, so I should be the one to correct it.
I was responding to a previous post that cited a passage [which they termed the "infamous viral" clause] as being the basis for disallowing linkage by proprietary programs. That post was incorrect. On purusing the GPl itself, I found an explicit prohibition. My argument is therefore invalid.
From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html :
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License.
Be has a reponsibility to scrutinize the licenses of such code, not hope someone spots it and tells them [1]. you can bet that if a similar mistake occurred with a proprietary lib, heads would roll.
I'm not anti-Be, but everyone has to realize that it's *their* job to respect the GPL. this *is* the high road, compared to the standard corporate solution: a lawsuit.
[1] IANAL, but AFAIK Copyright law does not have quite the same 'defense' requirement that Trademark law has. [A trademark must be defended or it may weaken or lapse]
Even if it did, Bruce would have even more reason to bring each infringement into the open. Since he might not catch every infringement, he could at least show he vigorously pursued the ones he caught
I have read many discussions of this passage, by people whose opinions I respect. However, I am not quite sure I accept the 'viral' interpretation of this condition, and alas, the courts have not ruled on it.
I respectfully submit my objections for comment.
*IF* I linked a proprietary program to a GPL library, *and* I were hauled into court, I think it would be relatively easy to demonstrate that my whole program didn't fall under GPL.
1) Write a small program that links a GPL library. [or write your own demo library and GPL it]
2) Write an alternate non-GPL library (same functions, different code) to show that a program simply requires *a* library with the correct functions, not any specific library, and hence not the GPL'ed library in question.
3) Since a calling program can run with any library containing the correct functions, then calling programs are an "identifiable section of that work" that is "not derived from the Program" (capital-P Program, meaning the GPL'd library, quoting the GPL itself) "and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves"
4) Some will argue that my program isn't a 'separate work' if distributed together with the GPL library, but proprietary software can co-exist on the same CD as GPL software, and still be proprietary even if the proprietary software requires the GPL software to run! Corel ships its Linux software with a Linux distro. That Corel software won't run without Linux. Does that make Corel automatically GPL?
In other words: if I ship Fords with Michellin GPL tires, I don't GPL my Fords, because they could also use (in theory) Goodyears. If the Michellin GPL tire had a *patented* feature that my Fords needed, then it would be an entirely different matter, because Goodyear would be precluded from making such tires. Copyrights, unlike patents don't preclude you from "rolling your own".
This is simply a demonstration of principle. I don't actually need to write any more libraries, as long as programs are independent in principle.
Look at the other side: If I have a GPL program that calls a PROPRIETARY library, I obviously have no right to pull that library into GPL -- and there is nothing to keep me from making my program GPL. The library is independent of the program, and can be used in many programs, even if it can't 'run' by itself. Similarly a program could run with an alternate library, and is independent.
Note: some may consider this a bug, but it's there in the language of the GPL. Proprietary licenses for library code apply different restrictions.
Submitted in response to:
It is in condition #2 of the GPL, which reads (in part): "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
1) It's nothing new. It's commonly done, and many famous historical patents have been sold (e.g. many 'cotton gin' patents, though I can't recall if Cyrus McCormick's was ever sold) PL-X will not change the fundamentals of patent sales any more than e-bay changed the fundamentals of yard sales
2) You can buy licenses [to use the patented idea in a specified way] or the patent itself [acquiring all the *created* rights the original owner had]. Since companies generally negotiate the license that they buy, that than buy 'take-it-or-leave-it' deals like a shrinkwrap licenses, the extent of a license can vary dramatically. Many commercial licenses, for example, allow the buyer to 'sub-license' the technology to others (with conditions)
3) One right that cannot genuinely be sold is the right to a place in the history books (though it is not incredibly uncommon for patent purchases to include language that pushes the seller to imply the patent was the original property of the buyer)
The PTO generally retains the original patent owner in its public records. [I vaguely recall that there have been exceptions, especially after lawsuits. Can anyone offer us the details?]
MS likes to claim they 'innovated' technology when they simply purchased the full copyright rights to a product that embodies or utilizes a principle. We could be charitable and assume that, since they didn't create it, they did not understand the extent or limits of the innovation they purchased, and the meaning of 'buying a patent.
That would be an *extremely* charitable concession to MS, but excessively 'free and easy' sales of patents could increase the number of legitimate misunderstanding or disagreement over what was bought or sold. HOTLINE's license is an example, IIRC
4) Patent rights are not *that* dissimilar to many property rights in other types of property, so while it's possible to make arguments that make patent rights seem bizarre, they often aren't. You can buy a piece of land, for example, even though the 'original owner' obtained it by homestead or other grant of rights by the government (and not by actual purchase from the native Americans). Most private real estate in the US falls into this category
5) Many of the arguments made in this discussion are illusory (one must obtain a patent from the PTO before selling it) But other seemingly silly sounding arguments are not (it is possible to buy 'rights' in a patent before it is granted, but those rights can't be exercised with full weight until they actually materialize -- when the patent granted) In between is a vast grey area that is the realm of the courts -- it's often worthwhile to take a shot. Then again, in the current legal environment, what isn't that way?
6) You can build a device for personal use even if it is directly based on an existing patent. Just don't expect to ever sell it. I'll repeat that: YOU CAN COPY AND USE A PATENTED IDEA FOR YOUR OWN USE WITHOUT A LICENSE. IANAL, but that's been a longstanding principle (the cotton gin was an example: plantations often had a factory or blacksmith make them a private custom unit, rather than buy McCormick's commercial version) Don't count on the courts to stand beside you if a cyber-company targets you, though.
7) The problem with the "e-bay" analogy is that patent sales are not simple purchases with a large body of consostent prior law behind it. Patent and License sales (between companies) are usually custom negotiations.
A lot of companies have faltered when the critical patent belonged to one of the principles, and not the company itself. A lot of inventors have been unhappy to learn they no longer controlled the patent that belonged to their company -- including rights to derivative development.
__________
No CEOs allowed unless accompanied by lawyer
on
eBay For Patents?
·
· Score: 3
Obviously, it might be fun to poke through such a database, especially if it ever encompasses a significant fraction of the patents in force.
However buying patent rights or licenses is definitely not something you want to do without a patent lawyer not merely approving, but preferably managing the process, to make sure you are buying the rights you need, now and in the future. Of course, if you're buying a patent or license, you'll want a lawyer to do a full patent search for any other applicable patents (at the PTO) anyway.
This may put a different gloss on the breezy image of an 'ebay for patents'. This will be a place where entrepreneurs may want to rubberneck, but the serious business is transacted between lawyers.
We've had a lot of discussion of copyright and licensing, and we're going o have much more.
I humbly suggest that we try to use the phrase "reissue the software under a different license" rather than "change the license".
It is more accurate. The original copyright owner can re-issue software and/or derivative rights under LGPL (or even a 'closed' license, to a commercial entity) without affecting the version issued under GPL. This is analogous to an author releasing a book in CD-ROM without affecting the rights of the hardcover purchasers. It's a 'reissue' of the existing work
Of course, traditionally, this distinction was less important, but in UCITA states, like VA, the copyright owner has the right to *change* the license retroactively at will.
We need the distinction between 're-issuing under a different license' and 'changing the (existing) license' if we are to fight the latter, or talk intelligently about either case.
"Changing the license" is simply too misleading
__________
Old technologies - a devil's advocate
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 2
First off, I love books. I love a lot of things that are no longer 'state of the art', and I strongly support "appropriate technology" -- a long-standing movement that basically argues that a magnifying glass is better in many cases than a PC hooked up to a video microscope (to cite a poor example -- but one I had to argue this weekend when a friend got a video microscope for his kids instead of the $20 cast iron jobbies *we* grew up with)
However, I must point out in the interests of fairness, that things like books, and the laws and customs surrounding them were purely products of the old technology and its limitations. Books were portable objects and were controlled in only such a manner as the technology of the time permitted. If you think that Gutenberg didn't smack Western Civ in the face with a 2x4, you haven't read history. but we adjusted, and now the very concept of a 'book' -- a codified standardized treatise -- in integral to our society
New techs will also breed new rules and will hist world Civ in the face with another 2x4. I find much to admire in the 'book' paradigm [contrast with the volatile webpage, e-book, etc.] but I realize that's because my society, its values and laws, and printed matter have grown up together for centuries.
This note is intended to remind others to constantly challenge themselves to re-examine the relationship between the medium, the content (which is influenced by the medium -- news papers are very different than books), the functions they have performed, and most difficult of all the function they may perform in the furture.
Prediction is a futile task, doomed to failure -- but essential to the insight and analysis that may help us guide our choices.
__________
When is a topic Slashdot fodder? Some ideas:
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 3
I like the idea of 'Topic moderation', but primarily because I think it's a more objective methoid of giving feedback to the editors about what actually interests us. Subjective appraisals are fraught with error. Still, it should only be part of the decision when choosing future topics.
If we are going to do this, I'd suggest discrete guidelines. Though I often quibble with the categories in the/. "posting moderation", I think it was overall, a brilliant stroke
Here are a few guidelines off the top of my head
1) If the Slashdot readership might have some unique insight of viewpoint.
In my fields of expertise (like medicine), I often seen discussions of limited values (or potentially harmful) in various Internet fora. I also see some sites where the discussion is far from what I may have learned in medical school, but which are of some significant value nonetheless (e.g. patient support groups, which may massacre the science or circulate dubious treatments are nonetheless often invaluable resources to many patients)
On the other hand, I think most slashdotters have little to add to the subject of a market-wide drop (except for anecdotes and insights into *their* companies, and I see very little of that) It would be difficult for our readers to be unaware of the market decline, and those ho care will go where the level of coverage/discussion is probably higher.
C'mon, we're geeks. We're not tied helplessly to some AOL (or i-Open) keyboard hotbutton. we have choices.
2) If a topic bears directly on a subject that has been of great interest to the Slashdot readership in the past
Privacy, Crypto, closed source fubars (even if they are merely listed under "It's funny, laugh"), cool gadgets, and many other topics fall into this category. If you didn't like most of them, tou wouldn't spend much time at/.
On the other hand, I wonder a little about people who post at length about a topic being "off-topic" If I'm not interested in an article, I may glance at the source material site, but I won't enter into the discussion. Then again, I believe that the guy who walks up to a conversation at a party, just to say it's boring is himself a boor (and bore). I'd rather find an interesting conversation or leave the party.
3) if Slashdot decides editorially to bring a subject to the attention of the readers
This isn't abuse or conspiracy. It's the function of an editor. Yes,/. is a bully pulpit, but that is part of why we like it.
However, it is true that there can be abuses, but most of the genuine abuses under this type of system involve *misrepresentation*, not just the choice of topic. Why? Because/. is just one (relatively modest and specialized) media outlet. Every one of us knows dozens more. We even have a home page customization that gives us one-click access to many other sites.
4) if an item in a core topic is noteworthy and/or interesting
Not everything that fits into one of/.'s core areas is necessarily a good article. I don't come here for Linux config tips, or primary science coverage, or many other subjects that may legitimately occur in some posts or articles
The editor's choices are what made/. interesting (even if the reader responses are what make it valuable)
5) I sure hope you all are a lot more polite when one of your friends raises an item s/he finds interesting, but you don't
I've got one on my desk right now. I just got it from someone who didn't want to support a Sun anymore, and I won't have any time to familiarize myself with it for a few months... but it seems to run fine indoors.
I hear it can give you a nasty burn, but the screen isn't all that bright. What's the deal? Is it due to CRT X-ray emissions? (Mommy always warned us not to sit to close to the TV) Probably -- my friends always seem to have them when they come back from underdeveloped places, like St. Kitts or Mexico. I imagine they have a lot of older surplus monitors in those places.
"Backdoors aren't always a bad thing. Hypothetical situation...
Say due to some "bug" in the software, you get locked out of your mission critical system...
Yup, and if your users don't upgrade as quickly as your marketing plan demands (They lose an entire cycle of revenue and a chink of marketing numbers if you skip from v.1 to v.3)...
and in a couple of year the backdoor might be leaked^h^h^h^h^h^h^h discovered, and many users of your existing products will upgrade. After all, it is the fastest and simplest way to quick-fix this problem (and others that may come later)
Pretty soon, you'll have them trained: BUY THE NEW VERSION ON RELEASE. True, they may not want to install it yet (until the 'gamma testing' is over -- v2.1 or 2.2), but at least they'll have it on hand when v1.x goes up in smoke.
In this case, InterDev 1.0 *requires* the affected DLL (so the MS official fix won't work for InterDev users) and a lot of people will move to Frontpage 2000, when FP 98 (or 97) met their needs quite well until now.
If a licit and deliberate 'front door' password and verification scheme were compromised, MS would clearly be legally liable for failing to protect the password (just as you are liable if you let your corporate password get into the wrong hands) -- but if a "back door" is discovered, then they can blame it on 'evil hackers', even if their own service engineers use it routinely.
BTW, a legal front door would demand that they do more work -- e.g. verify EngineerID by modem to MS HQ or time-varying encryption -- while a back door can be a simple password, since it is never acknowledged. Any company that deliberately uses a password backdoor is guilty of negligence in today's corporate/legal environment. Do they think no service engineer will ever quit or be fired?.
1) Kids should have free and open access to computers for familiarity and because they are generally useful tools. Eventually, many will develop an interest in hardware or software, or user interface design, -- or just learn that a good script can *really* help you work faster, better, smarter... and one hopes, learn the benefits of sharing custom scripts and respecting the author. Most will simply go on to use the tool with no more concern than we use a desk -- but they will at least have had computers/digital tech in their *culture* growing up.
For some reason, I am reminded of the ban on pens my school had. We used them at home, but only 4th grade and up were allowed to use them in school. Why? because they leak, are indelible, and were generally a pain. Of course, by 6th-8th grade, 'ink' was mandatory for major assignments - pencil was unacceptable)
It's the same with computers. They are a pain and an interference - until they're essential. And kids *can* wait until the age when they're ready to get them in the schools. It doesn't have to be from birth.
2) Computers in school is no different than nature studies, art, (non-spectator) sports, or any number of other "generally good things" we expose our kids to. I wish we could offer more active exposure, but there simply isn't time, and we can't expect to shotgun all our values into all kids uniformly.
Exposure is good. Farm kids rarely grow up to be rabid vegetariam PETA maniacs, they aren't disconnected fromthe facts of life. If they decide to hold such views, they do so with a more reasonable outlook. Similarly, we see anti-art reactionism (Tell me Jesse Helms wouldn't be lambasting the painting of nudes, if the majority of Americans hadn't already learned that this was a staple in the developemnt of art] and anti-science and anti-tech luddites.
Our kids grow up to be voters (and shopping mall petitioners, and state house lobbyists) FAST. If you have kids, you know: ten uears from the times tables to the legal vote! So much to learn (so little of it in curriculum) so little time.
3) Over-integration is bad. While a generally open approach that permits and hints at the general interconnectedness of all subjects and skills is useful, I think we go way to far sometimes. Any systems analyst can tell you how fast complexity builds in interrelated systems.
So I don't want to see 'computers in art' class -- 1-2 class days a year is plenty. Same for computers in Social Studies, language, home ec, etc. Either the kids will form those associations or they won't. Many won't care about the underlying subject(french, home ec) anyway. Don't steal learning time from the ones who do care about a subject trying to 'enlighten' the ones who don't, about "computers in X"
...swimmers may shave their bodies (or heads) to cut down on resistance. ...cyclists walk around town wearing clothes that could have gotten them arrested in Alabama not so long ago (helmets that look like dinosaur skulls, shorts that let you count pubic hairs, and colors that blind drivers is you whiz by them in traffic on a sunny day). ...physics-impaired yuppies frequent oxygen bars, and guzzled bermuda grass smart drinks (yeah, catch their pick-up lines if you want to see how well *that* works) ...the average american drinks more beers on a single weekend than s/he reads books in a year ...if my brain were on, I could come up with far more diverse and colorful examples...
... and *I'm* counterculture for changing a few BIOS settings and using a non-factory cooler on my PC?
doodz... in ten years, they'll look back, and we'll be pop culture. In fifty we'll be the culture, while those other freakazoids will just be considered 'fellow riders' on the subway
I bet they wished they'd never mentioned MP3, but I suppose they had to, since it was bound to be the first question in the reader's mind.
As I see it, the "free" (as beer) feature doesn't offer enough advantage to sell it in the marketplace of ideas, however, I don't read that they meant to go head-to-head against MP3. They simply felt proud of the job they'd done in that arena.
Regrettably, while Ogg Vorbis was specifically designed to do well at low bandwidth, they haven't implemented that code yet. The modem is going to be with us for a long time, and a streaming solution that let you listen as you surf could have fair appeal. It would also have some real commercial potential.
Overall, it's a testbed, and I applaud the notion, though I do not know if other similar initiatives exist. Years ago, I was grumbling that no one supported wavelet and freq/time domain components simultaneously in the same audio file, and last I checked, the major formats still don't. Vorbis at least supports this, though (again) they haven't implemented it.
Still... I can help but think their project name was just the first audible output from pre-alpha code (Who knows what the input was?)
Don't get me wrong, I'd be as happy as a jumpin' toad [1] to know I could get even rudimentary but properly functioning Linux drivers for any pice of hardware my heart desires.
However (and herein lies the rub) would that simply decrease the pressure to produce high-performance full-function drivers? I just don't know the culture of the Linux driver development sector well enough to judge. Worse, would it pread out and dilute the existing driver development talent, which currently focusses in depth on fewer 'supported' driver and projects.
Will we be dooming ourselves to a sea o' crappola in the interest of 'just get it done' ? [How many Win install are done every second because the end user wants a out-of-box experience, even if they know it's a crappy one? Will we fall into that same trap?] Will this make Linux look bad?
Factors to consider:
a) Many users are not satisfied with the rate at which quality divers are being written at present
b) Most users won't pitch in and write drivers. They just whine and complain. They should each buy a developer a keg for doing yeoman's work (Of course, then we'd never get any drivers written)
c) While many programmers specialize in drivers and find it very rewarding, others will seek projects that are more 'pressing in the sense of providing 'new', rather than 'improved' functionality
d) Crappy drivers can be a good starting place for respectable drivers.
e) Linux users will tend to buy more disparate hardware if they know they can at least get it to run (vaguely). Now they quickly learn to limit themselves to the supported devices (and hence are more likely to limit themselves to the *well* supported devices)
[1] Grenouille, IM and Crapaud, LS "Remarkable Surges in beta endorphin levels in Rana pipiens during programmed exercise" J. Bestial. Phys. 17:245-7 (1998)
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't seem that the seller is OpenGroup (I can't confirm this, my whois is crapping out, but the DNS is CAIS and SILKROAD), but any commercial owner (or computer-related owner) will have to negotiate with OpenGroup to use the domain at all.
__________
One moderate advantage of manuals is the ability to jot notes on the margins.
I'm not a big fan of this practice in many situations, but sometimes it can be a lifesaver. A reference manual that's been annotated for your particular system(s) and setup(s) can be a lifesaver that *grows* in value with use.
Try doing that on a CD-ROM. There are annotation schemes that write to the HDD, but they don't 'follow the CD' from computer to computer. It's easy to write an efficient, informative note when you know the ref text will be right there beside it.
I love the 6502. I learned machine code on it as a teenager in the late 70's. But I don't believe any 6502 version was ever space qualified. [I do recall a lot of talk about it in the 80's, though] Maybe there is a "6502-like" CPU, but I'll leave that determination to the CPU experts.
Space Technology ia an area of special interest for me. Here are the CPUs that I use in "back-of-the-envelope" speculation and planning.
AFAIK, the most powerful fully space-qualified CPU is the RAD-6000 SC (rad-hardened IBM/6000 single chip RISC computer akin to a R6000 workstation) used on the Mars pathfinder, the IMAGE satellite (Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration) and several other projects. As a guess, the GNU CC-supported MIL-SPEC 1750A (16 bit PDP-11-like CPU ca. 1979) is the most popular CPU in use right now for 'power apps', and 80C85 and 80C86 are quite common among NASA craft currently in space.
I had some links to lists of space qualified CPUs (don't know if they were comprehensive) but they are all dead now. If anyone has the link to the space-qualified hardware list, please post them here.
Someone ought to tell his county sheriff that he's an easy catch now. Alternatively, maybe residents of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin should be worried.
/. karma but often a small effort is all it takes.
Seriously though, I'm the same age, and I've seen so many of my 1962 cohort die over the years that I don't even have the words anymore. Med students driving home after a long night on-call; a 16-year-old early admission BA/JD student in a 'freak' amusement park accident, enjoying her final weeks before she left for college; more than one suicide...
A lot of talent and promise gone. A lot of suffering we couldn't heal.
I hope I don't sound hokey if I urge you... if you have a friend who drinks too much, or who seems depressed... please find out what you can do to help. There may not be much you can do, and it may not add to your
On his his DWI rap sheet alone, The warning signs were clear. I hope someone at least tried to help.
Requiescat In Pace, Phillip Walter Katz
Mixed population bacterial genetics may be a far better anology than eukayotic (nuclear) genetics for explaining the distribution and prevalence of mitochondrial populations
First, some much simplified background (I have a degree in molecular biology): Mitochondria are self-reproducing organelles (= cell 'organs') that many people believe were once independent organisms that entered into a symbiotic relationship with a host cell, and eventually became utterly dependent on the cell. They now function as the primary site for the production of ATP, the main cellular fuel. There may be hundreds or thousands in a single cell
Mitochondria reproduce (to some degree) independently of the cell, and contain their own DNA. The DNA for everything else is in the nucleus (the cell's brain) but the mitochondria 'live' and reproduce in cytoplasm (cell body). When we breed, the nuclear DNA does the whole dance of meiosis/mitosis we learned in school, but the mitochondria fission like bacteria. Most (if not all) of the mitochondria is from the mother because a) the egg has thousands of times as much cytoplasm as the sperm; and b) after first contact with the egg, the sperm's mitochondria go into hyperdrive ("the acrosome reaction") and burn themselves out.
Now for the Original Contributions
1. In the billions of years of symbiosis since the development of eukaryotes, many genes that are useful or essential to the mitochondria have 'migrated' into the nucleus.
2. Though the mitchondrial 'support' genes are fairly cosistent from person to person, they aren't identical in everyone. Those genes only got to the nucleus by accident (mutation, adaptation by mitochondria to the available cell resources, etc) and therefore not all strains may be able to live in all people, or certain strains may enjoy a competititve advantage in a given person
3. Some individuals are known to have multiple strains of mitochondria, due to the various flukes and accidents of biological history. I know of no study that states that *most* humans have only one strain, and doubt its the case. It's actually a good idea to have multiple strains, since anything that kills (or impedes the reproduction of) a solo strain would kill (or prevent the reproduction of) its host. Multistrain individuals should be slightly hardier.
4. Mitochondria became part of the cell when we were single celled organisms. The mitochondrial DNA variation we measure is presumed to be 'nonessential' because mitochondria have very little DNA, and most of it was largely fixed long ago. We presume we're sorting mitochondria by 'eye color', but we may not be.
4) Mitochondria must adapt to their host as the host changes. A cow's mitochondria is much less similar to ours than you'd expect, considering that cows and men didn't diverge very long ago on a mitchondrial timescale.
5) Suppose a type mitochondria in a remote tribe requires the (nucleus) gene PII'ase. This is fine if the tribe all carries the (nuclear) gene for PII'ase. However, this mitochondrial line may die out when interbred because outside populations may not carry the gene PII'ase.
6) I can think of a dozen other mechanisms, but let's not go overboard.
Conclusion:
Mitochondria are subject to many of the evolutionary and selection pressures as independent bacteria, symbiotes, etc. the finding that there are seven major strains of mitochondria in modern man simply suggests that seven mitochondrial strains are widespread and well-adapted to the core genome of humans
It doesn't mean there were only seven 'original women'
It may mean that there were only seven (mitochondrially) *undemanding* women [ducks!] and the truth may be far more complicated. (lesser strains may coexist with the support of the major strains, etc.) and probably are.
As irritated as I am when generally mainstream scientific theories like dinosaur warm-bloodedness are touted as breaking news decades too late (and as annoyed as I am when stuff shows up in my slashboxes days before it makes the main topic) I'll leave those issues to others.
Instead I'd like to suggest that as you read the many intelligent postings (I hope you're filtering at +2, I'd be afraid to go any lower on *this* topic), you think about man.
The ancient reptile line seems to have had one (or a relatively small number) line that exploded into the panoply of mainstream dinosaurian lines we all know and love so well.
Mankind has similarly exploded into a marked predominance of the earth's biosphere in it's own peculiar sense [But never forget that the ants under your yard may exceeed your family's total biomass -- let's not get too carried away with ourselves). I find it fascinating, whenever I read any new evolutionary tale, to ask what this might mean for man (or his technologies) evolution in 1-100 million years. Pure speculation for a species that has only been around a fraction of a single million, but we monkey men are so fascinated by colorful ideas and sparkly concepts.
For example, it's very odd to think of ourselves diversifying as the proto-dinosaurids must have done, to fill countless niches. But that *IS* the hallmark of biological success throughout the known fossil record.
The hallmark of biological failure, on the other hand, is well known and easily envisioned. Fortunately that doesn't make it any more likely.
[1] since evolution does not 'select' or 'optimize' with a purpose, all evolutionary narratives are simply intelligible "Just so" stories, a la Kipling
__________
However, as someone who has always lusted after the vast intellectual ocean of the Library of Congress, I've been following his work, not closely, but at least enough to instantly recognize his name...
Anyway, this particular "National Librarian" (a title I find distasteful, and of questionable provenance) is a reform librarian. He's one of the good guys, folks. [Well, at least as far as this office goes -- let's not forget, only twelve men have held the post in 200 years and it didn't open it's doors to the public until almost 1900. It's not a hotbed of change.]
Back in the late 80's I recall being very excited by his intent to increase access to the Library's many collections, and his ideas for updating the Library (including electronic access) I also recall that his publicity has tended to go in cycles -- often beginning with what seemed like a almost Luddite conservative stance (that always disappointed me) and refining and clarifying it in succesive articles and interviews until I had to admit he was pretty sensible (albeit on the conservative end of sensible)
A few times he made some public-pleasing comments that were almost startlingly progressive, but was forced to back down. I have to admit (from my experience in professional organizations) that it is much more painful to have to back off on a promise (due to politics or finance) than it is to be criticized as stodgy for years, and accomplish more than you promised.
Anyway, while I was infuriated by the article linked to this story, I give Billington the benefit of a doubt, based on past experience. He has spent many millions of dollars each year (and raised an equal amount from the private sector) for electronic initiatives, test beds, local library electronic archival/publication projects, and national and intenational 'digital library' initiatives and contests. That may not seem like much, but when you consider how tightly strained the LoC's budget is, it's really pretty good.
"The unleased, unlimited pursuit of truth may be the last frontier and the ultimate proving ground for our American ideal of freedom. In a world of increasing physical restraints and limitations, it is only in the life of the mind and spirit that the horizons of freedom can remain truly infinite. We must rediscover what we should have known all along, that the pursuit of truth is the noblest part of Jefferson's legacy."
- James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress
Here are a few of his writings on the subject of 'digital libraries', while in his current office. They aren't the best ones, but alas, I don't have time to dig up and scan the printed articles I have on file (ironic, eh?):
Some AT&T corporate PR outlining a few of the Library's Digital initiatives
and to be fair, there have been some embarrassing episodes:
__________
1. That's outside the Terms and Conditions, so it's not real clear that would have any actual legal force if the rest of the T&C had been followed to the letter.
2. "Incorporating your program into proprietary programs" has not been clearly defined within the License. It is conceivable that a court of law would rule that dynamic linking is not incorporating a GPL program into a proprietary program.
Thanks! Those are useful insights.
For the record, I have no intention of linking GPL libraries to proprietary software. I just want us to keep our eyes open, and not listen to our own echos when it comes to the weight of GPL.
It's a remarkable document, but in a certain sense it's still in 'gamma testing' (released to the public but the real-world shakeout isn't over) I'd like to think that we could be prepared for GPL2 (if needed) without lots of bug-patched GPLs (1.012a , etc) What a nightmare that would be! Even 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 would be no joy for us.
__________
I hardly get any spam on my
I guess they think we're poor students and not worth the effort.
Now, on my
Let me tell you, they aren't at all reasonable. I get tons of spam for addresses at my domain that haven't been active for five years or more (I've been around a while), even though those addresses are set to 'bounce' all incoming as undeliverable
I also get "shotgun" mail. That's mail sent to addresses that *never* existed on my site [e.g. they send mail to admin@, charles@, and even porn@ at a long list of domains, hoping someone 'lives' there]
I can only imagine how many 'not even close' (shotgun, dead) spams clog any typical ISP. What do they care? They forge their return address -- it's fire and forget.
__________
People see their 'to-do' lists and feel it's too much trouble to actually do, while simultaneously feeling 'protected under the law'. In essence, they imply it's *you're* fault for not being diligent.
Furthermore, two minutes of inspection will show you that their advice is flawed. often the very first suggestions on each page are ineffective.
Take their 'script' for dealing with telemarketers, which begins:
So if my sister calls, and I ask this question, and she answer "No", I can sue her?
I love checklists, but his one seems designed to grind you down so you eventually stop asserting your rights. It asks you to do a *lot* more work than is required by law, and adds nothing to your privacy (9 questions if you *don't* want to sue, when all you legally have to do is tell them to put you one their company-wide "do not call" list. 20 steps (not all bulleted) per call if you want to sue) It makes every marketing call exactly the sort of interuption you're trying to avoid. Result: you think it's more prudent to hang up, and your name stays on the list.
Another flawed strategy, the first suggestion on the main page, is to contact the DMA. Compliance with the Direct Marketing Association 'Don't call' list is purely voluntary. Few telemarketers check it (even if they're members of the DMA) and more importantly, it *does not* 'start the clock' on the more stringent actions allowed by law [like suing in small claims].
__________
I was responding to a previous post that cited a passage [which they termed the "infamous viral" clause] as being the basis for disallowing linkage by proprietary programs. That post was incorrect. On purusing the GPl itself, I found an explicit prohibition. My argument is therefore invalid.
From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html :
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License.
__________
Be has a reponsibility to scrutinize the licenses of such code, not hope someone spots it and tells them [1]. you can bet that if a similar mistake occurred with a proprietary lib, heads would roll.
I'm not anti-Be, but everyone has to realize that it's *their* job to respect the GPL. this *is* the high road, compared to the standard corporate solution: a lawsuit.
[1]
IANAL, but AFAIK Copyright law does not have quite the same 'defense' requirement that Trademark law has. [A trademark must be defended or it may weaken or lapse]
Even if it did, Bruce would have even more reason to bring each infringement into the open. Since he might not catch every infringement, he could at least show he vigorously pursued the ones he caught
__________
I respectfully submit my objections for comment.
*IF* I linked a proprietary program to a GPL library, *and* I were hauled into court, I think it would be relatively easy to demonstrate that my whole program didn't fall under GPL.
1) Write a small program that links a GPL library. [or write your own demo library and GPL it]
2) Write an alternate non-GPL library (same functions, different code) to show that a program simply requires *a* library with the correct functions, not any specific library, and hence not the GPL'ed library in question.
3) Since a calling program can run with any library containing the correct functions, then calling programs are an "identifiable section of that work" that is "not derived from the Program" (capital-P Program, meaning the GPL'd library, quoting the GPL itself) "and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves"
4) Some will argue that my program isn't a 'separate work' if distributed together with the GPL library, but proprietary software can co-exist on the same CD as GPL software, and still be proprietary even if the proprietary software requires the GPL software to run! Corel ships its Linux software with a Linux distro. That Corel software won't run without Linux. Does that make Corel automatically GPL?
In other words: if I ship Fords with Michellin GPL tires, I don't GPL my Fords, because they could also use (in theory) Goodyears. If the Michellin GPL tire had a *patented* feature that my Fords needed, then it would be an entirely different matter, because Goodyear would be precluded from making such tires. Copyrights, unlike patents don't preclude you from "rolling your own".
This is simply a demonstration of principle. I don't actually need to write any more libraries, as long as programs are independent in principle.
Look at the other side: If I have a GPL program that calls a PROPRIETARY library, I obviously have no right to pull that library into GPL -- and there is nothing to keep me from making my program GPL. The library is independent of the program, and can be used in many programs, even if it can't 'run' by itself. Similarly a program could run with an alternate library, and is independent.
Note: some may consider this a bug, but it's there in the language of the GPL. Proprietary licenses for library code apply different restrictions.
Submitted in response to:
It is in condition #2 of the GPL, which reads (in part): "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
__________
2) You can buy licenses [to use the patented idea in a specified way] or the patent itself [acquiring all the *created* rights the original owner had]. Since companies generally negotiate the license that they buy, that than buy 'take-it-or-leave-it' deals like a shrinkwrap licenses, the extent of a license can vary dramatically. Many commercial licenses, for example, allow the buyer to 'sub-license' the technology to others (with conditions)
3) One right that cannot genuinely be sold is the right to a place in the history books (though it is not incredibly uncommon for patent purchases to include language that pushes the seller to imply the patent was the original property of the buyer)
The PTO generally retains the original patent owner in its public records. [I vaguely recall that there have been exceptions, especially after lawsuits. Can anyone offer us the details?]
MS likes to claim they 'innovated' technology when they simply purchased the full copyright rights to a product that embodies or utilizes a principle. We could be charitable and assume that, since they didn't create it, they did not understand the extent or limits of the innovation they purchased, and the meaning of 'buying a patent.
That would be an *extremely* charitable concession to MS, but excessively 'free and easy' sales of patents could increase the number of legitimate misunderstanding or disagreement over what was bought or sold. HOTLINE's license is an example, IIRC
4) Patent rights are not *that* dissimilar to many property rights in other types of property, so while it's possible to make arguments that make patent rights seem bizarre, they often aren't. You can buy a piece of land, for example, even though the 'original owner' obtained it by homestead or other grant of rights by the government (and not by actual purchase from the native Americans). Most private real estate in the US falls into this category
5) Many of the arguments made in this discussion are illusory (one must obtain a patent from the PTO before selling it) But other seemingly silly sounding arguments are not (it is possible to buy 'rights' in a patent before it is granted, but those rights can't be exercised with full weight until they actually materialize -- when the patent granted) In between is a vast grey area that is the realm of the courts -- it's often worthwhile to take a shot. Then again, in the current legal environment, what isn't that way?
6) You can build a device for personal use even if it is directly based on an existing patent. Just don't expect to ever sell it. I'll repeat that: YOU CAN COPY AND USE A PATENTED IDEA FOR YOUR OWN USE WITHOUT A LICENSE. IANAL, but that's been a longstanding principle (the cotton gin was an example: plantations often had a factory or blacksmith make them a private custom unit, rather than buy McCormick's commercial version) Don't count on the courts to stand beside you if a cyber-company targets you, though.
7) The problem with the "e-bay" analogy is that patent sales are not simple purchases with a large body of consostent prior law behind it. Patent and License sales (between companies) are usually custom negotiations.
A lot of companies have faltered when the critical patent belonged to one of the principles, and not the company itself. A lot of inventors have been unhappy to learn they no longer controlled the patent that belonged to their company -- including rights to derivative development.
__________
However buying patent rights or licenses is definitely not something you want to do without a patent lawyer not merely approving, but preferably managing the process, to make sure you are buying the rights you need, now and in the future. Of course, if you're buying a patent or license, you'll want a lawyer to do a full patent search for any other applicable patents (at the PTO) anyway.
This may put a different gloss on the breezy image of an 'ebay for patents'. This will be a place where entrepreneurs may want to rubberneck, but the serious business is transacted between lawyers.
__________
I humbly suggest that we try to use the phrase "reissue the software under a different license" rather than "change the license".
It is more accurate. The original copyright owner can re-issue software and/or derivative rights under LGPL (or even a 'closed' license, to a commercial entity) without affecting the version issued under GPL. This is analogous to an author releasing a book in CD-ROM without affecting the rights of the hardcover purchasers. It's a 'reissue' of the existing work
Of course, traditionally, this distinction was less important, but in UCITA states, like VA, the copyright owner has the right to *change* the license retroactively at will.
We need the distinction between 're-issuing under a different license' and 'changing the (existing) license' if we are to fight the latter, or talk intelligently about either case.
"Changing the license" is simply too misleading
__________
However, I must point out in the interests of fairness, that things like books, and the laws and customs surrounding them were purely products of the old technology and its limitations. Books were portable objects and were controlled in only such a manner as the technology of the time permitted. If you think that Gutenberg didn't smack Western Civ in the face with a 2x4, you haven't read history. but we adjusted, and now the very concept of a 'book' -- a codified standardized treatise -- in integral to our society
New techs will also breed new rules and will hist world Civ in the face with another 2x4. I find much to admire in the 'book' paradigm [contrast with the volatile webpage, e-book, etc.] but I realize that's because my society, its values and laws, and printed matter have grown up together for centuries.
This note is intended to remind others to constantly challenge themselves to re-examine the relationship between the medium, the content (which is influenced by the medium -- news papers are very different than books), the functions they have performed, and most difficult of all the function they may perform in the furture.
Prediction is a futile task, doomed to failure -- but essential to the insight and analysis that may help us guide our choices.
__________
If we are going to do this, I'd suggest discrete guidelines. Though I often quibble with the categories in the
Here are a few guidelines off the top of my head
1) If the Slashdot readership might have some unique insight of viewpoint.
In my fields of expertise (like medicine), I often seen discussions of limited values (or potentially harmful) in various Internet fora. I also see some sites where the discussion is far from what I may have learned in medical school, but which are of some significant value nonetheless (e.g. patient support groups, which may massacre the science or circulate dubious treatments are nonetheless often invaluable resources to many patients)
On the other hand, I think most slashdotters have little to add to the subject of a market-wide drop (except for anecdotes and insights into *their* companies, and I see very little of that) It would be difficult for our readers to be unaware of the market decline, and those ho care will go where the level of coverage/discussion is probably higher.
C'mon, we're geeks. We're not tied helplessly to some AOL (or i-Open) keyboard hotbutton. we have choices.
2) If a topic bears directly on a subject that has been of great interest to the Slashdot readership in the past
Privacy, Crypto, closed source fubars (even if they are merely listed under "It's funny, laugh"), cool gadgets, and many other topics fall into this category. If you didn't like most of them, tou wouldn't spend much time at
On the other hand, I wonder a little about people who post at length about a topic being "off-topic" If I'm not interested in an article, I may glance at the source material site, but I won't enter into the discussion. Then again, I believe that the guy who walks up to a conversation at a party, just to say it's boring is himself a boor (and bore). I'd rather find an interesting conversation or leave the party.
3) if Slashdot decides editorially to bring a subject to the attention of the readers
This isn't abuse or conspiracy. It's the function of an editor. Yes,
However, it is true that there can be abuses, but most of the genuine abuses under this type of system involve *misrepresentation*, not just the choice of topic. Why? Because
4) if an item in a core topic is noteworthy and/or interesting
Not everything that fits into one of
The editor's choices are what made
5) I sure hope you all are a lot more polite when one of your friends raises an item s/he finds interesting, but you don't
__________
I thought it's a games OS."
-- Comment in '02
__________
I hear it can give you a nasty burn, but the screen isn't all that bright. What's the deal? Is it due to CRT X-ray emissions? (Mommy always warned us not to sit to close to the TV) Probably -- my friends always seem to have them when they come back from underdeveloped places, like St. Kitts or Mexico. I imagine they have a lot of older surplus monitors in those places.
My Sun does seem to run as hot as everyone says.
__________
Say due to some "bug" in the software, you get locked out of your mission critical system...
Yup, and if your users don't upgrade as quickly as your marketing plan demands (They lose an entire cycle of revenue and a chink of marketing numbers if you skip from v.1 to v.3)...
and in a couple of year the backdoor might be leaked^h^h^h^h^h^h^h discovered, and many users of your existing products will upgrade. After all, it is the fastest and simplest way to quick-fix this problem (and others that may come later)
Pretty soon, you'll have them trained: BUY THE NEW VERSION ON RELEASE. True, they may not want to install it yet (until the 'gamma testing' is over -- v2.1 or 2.2), but at least they'll have it on hand when v1.x goes up in smoke.
In this case, InterDev 1.0 *requires* the affected DLL (so the MS official fix won't work for InterDev users) and a lot of people will move to Frontpage 2000, when FP 98 (or 97) met their needs quite well until now.
If a licit and deliberate 'front door' password and verification scheme were compromised, MS would clearly be legally liable for failing to protect the password (just as you are liable if you let your corporate password get into the wrong hands) -- but if a "back door" is discovered, then they can blame it on 'evil hackers', even if their own service engineers use it routinely.
BTW, a legal front door would demand that they do more work -- e.g. verify EngineerID by modem to MS HQ or time-varying encryption -- while a back door can be a simple password, since it is never acknowledged. Any company that deliberately uses a password backdoor is guilty of negligence in today's corporate/legal environment. Do they think no service engineer will ever quit or be fired?.
__________
For some reason, I am reminded of the ban on pens my school had. We used them at home, but only 4th grade and up were allowed to use them in school. Why? because they leak, are indelible, and were generally a pain. Of course, by 6th-8th grade, 'ink' was mandatory for major assignments - pencil was unacceptable)
It's the same with computers. They are a pain and an interference - until they're essential. And kids *can* wait until the age when they're ready to get them in the schools. It doesn't have to be from birth.
2) Computers in school is no different than nature studies, art, (non-spectator) sports, or any number of other "generally good things" we expose our kids to. I wish we could offer more active exposure, but there simply isn't time, and we can't expect to shotgun all our values into all kids uniformly.
Exposure is good. Farm kids rarely grow up to be rabid vegetariam PETA maniacs, they aren't disconnected fromthe facts of life. If they decide to hold such views, they do so with a more reasonable outlook. Similarly, we see anti-art reactionism (Tell me Jesse Helms wouldn't be lambasting the painting of nudes, if the majority of Americans hadn't already learned that this was a staple in the developemnt of art] and anti-science and anti-tech luddites.
Our kids grow up to be voters (and shopping mall petitioners, and state house lobbyists) FAST. If you have kids, you know: ten uears from the times tables to the legal vote! So much to learn (so little of it in curriculum) so little time.
3) Over-integration is bad. While a generally open approach that permits and hints at the general interconnectedness of all subjects and skills is useful, I think we go way to far sometimes. Any systems analyst can tell you how fast complexity builds in interrelated systems.
So I don't want to see 'computers in art' class -- 1-2 class days a year is plenty. Same for computers in Social Studies, language, home ec, etc. Either the kids will form those associations or they won't. Many won't care about the underlying subject(french, home ec) anyway. Don't steal learning time from the ones who do care about a subject trying to 'enlighten' the ones who don't, about "computers in X"
__________
...swimmers may shave their bodies (or heads) to cut down on resistance.
...cyclists walk around town wearing clothes that could have gotten them arrested in Alabama not so long ago (helmets that look like dinosaur skulls, shorts that let you count pubic hairs, and colors that blind drivers is you whiz by them in traffic on a sunny day).
...physics-impaired yuppies frequent oxygen bars, and guzzled bermuda grass smart drinks (yeah, catch their pick-up lines if you want to see how well *that* works)
...the average american drinks more beers on a single weekend than s/he reads books in a year
...if my brain were on, I could come up with far more diverse and colorful examples...
... and *I'm* counterculture for changing a few BIOS settings and using a non-factory cooler on my PC?
doodz... in ten years, they'll look back, and we'll be pop culture. In fifty we'll be the culture, while those other freakazoids will just be considered 'fellow riders' on the subway
... and *I'm* part of a counter culture
__________
As I see it, the "free" (as beer) feature doesn't offer enough advantage to sell it in the marketplace of ideas, however, I don't read that they meant to go head-to-head against MP3. They simply felt proud of the job they'd done in that arena.
Regrettably, while Ogg Vorbis was specifically designed to do well at low bandwidth, they haven't implemented that code yet. The modem is going to be with us for a long time, and a streaming solution that let you listen as you surf could have fair appeal. It would also have some real commercial potential.
Overall, it's a testbed, and I applaud the notion, though I do not know if other similar initiatives exist. Years ago, I was grumbling that no one supported wavelet and freq/time domain components simultaneously in the same audio file, and last I checked, the major formats still don't. Vorbis at least supports this, though (again) they haven't implemented it.
Still... I can help but think their project name was just the first audible output from pre-alpha code (Who knows what the input was?)
__________
However (and herein lies the rub) would that simply decrease the pressure to produce high-performance full-function drivers? I just don't know the culture of the Linux driver development sector well enough to judge. Worse, would it pread out and dilute the existing driver development talent, which currently focusses in depth on fewer 'supported' driver and projects.
Will we be dooming ourselves to a sea o' crappola in the interest of 'just get it done' ? [How many Win install are done every second because the end user wants a out-of-box experience, even if they know it's a crappy one? Will we fall into that same trap?] Will this make Linux look bad?
Factors to consider:
a) Many users are not satisfied with the rate at which quality divers are being written at present
b) Most users won't pitch in and write drivers. They just whine and complain. They should each buy a developer a keg for doing yeoman's work (Of course, then we'd never get any drivers written)
c) While many programmers specialize in drivers and find it very rewarding, others will seek projects that are more 'pressing in the sense of providing 'new', rather than 'improved' functionality
d) Crappy drivers can be a good starting place for respectable drivers.
e) Linux users will tend to buy more disparate hardware if they know they can at least get it to run (vaguely). Now they quickly learn to limit themselves to the supported devices (and hence are more likely to limit themselves to the *well* supported devices)
[1] Grenouille, IM and Crapaud, LS "Remarkable Surges in beta endorphin levels in Rana pipiens during programmed exercise" J. Bestial. Phys. 17:245-7 (1998)
__________