When were people turned towards libranet? Libranet doesn't have a huge following- the big question is will this alienate their audience? I don't know; does anyone here actually use libranet? Does this piss you off?
To tell you the truth, I'd never even heard of Libranet. I generally spend an hour or so a day killing time at work on Slashdot, too.
Yeah, but then you'd get a law that excludes that situation. Companies both want the non-compete contracts, and they'd want their lobbyists with inside information, and I'm sure they're willing to pay for those two.
Man, I'm at Georgia Tech, and even though it's all Java for the first two semesters, I've already had to implement Linked lists, binary trees, hash tables, and a bunch of other crap that you haven't mentioned. Just because you use a language that provides them doesn't mean you have to use them. And I hate my professors for not letting me use java.util.Vector, such a timesaver.
You wanna know what else? This thing has been on at Tech for a couple of years too. Blame it on the high-horse alumni that are responsible for the magazine. I swear, one of the worst aspects of going there is dealing with people who take too much pride in being a Ga. Tech alumni.
You wanna know what else? This thing has been on at Tech for a couple of years too. Blame it on the high-horse alumni that are responsible for the magazine. I swear, one of the worst aspects of going there is dealing with people who take too much pride in being a Ga. Tech alumni.
You wanna know what else? This thing has been on at Tech for a couple of years too. Blame it on the high-horse alumni that are responsible for the magazine. I swear, one of the worst aspects of going there is dealing with people who take too much pride in being a Ga. Tech alumni.
Hey, Nomar Garciaparra and Kevin Brown didn't graduate from Georgia Tech for nothin'. Of course, if Nomar was really smart, he'd drop this lousy 10 million dollar a year gig and become an architect, right? Not a fucking chance.
I'm a third year computer engineering student at georgia tech.
This is what it looks like to me:
CS = dotcom whore. You'll probably go into IT or be a code monkey
CmpE = Digital Design, things like pipelining, cache, etc etc etc. The intro Cmp E classes are digital design (intro to digital logic etc)
I think a computer engineering degree is more robust (esp. if you get a P.E.). A Computer engineer could easily go into programming if so inclined.
Word. I'm a second year Comp. Sci. student at Tech and I can attest to the fact that they train you t o be a code monkey. The first two CS classes you'd take here easily have 1300 people in them, which sucks in terms of personal attention, believe me. They have lots of help, but only 2 actual professors, and the TAs don't have much authority to help you. I'm personally getting fed up with the College of Computing here, such that I might become CompE later, but it remains to be seen whether I get mad enough to switch. It's easy to be a brute force programmer, and that's what an untrained CompE person could be. The point of going into Computer Science instead is to learn data manipulation and algorithms. The Computer Scientists (ideally) write eficient code because of their training, but right now, it just seems like I'm going to learn about linked lists another 12 times before I graduate.
> when I release software I right I am sure to use not only a BSD style license but my own language which specifies what I consider fair use.
Perhaps you didn't mean that exactly the way you said it, but if you did mean what you said then you should be aware that the doctrine of "fair use" is a matter of law and legal precedent, not a courtesy extended by publishers. In the latter case the doctrine would not exist at all.
What I'm getting at is this: If your license has a "fair use" clause that limits what kind of "fair use" you would like to grant people, then you're SOL, because the courts are going to support their notion of "fair use" rather than yours.
No, I definitely think that you can tell people not to do things with your program that you don't want them to. Maybe that's not a legal definition of fair use, but they do have English language meanings too. As in, "it's not fair for you to put your name on my code and rerelease it, so you can't do that"
Just like a contract, whoever writes it up decides what they want in it, and, just like a contract, can be negociated.
If you don't like it because it's different than a 'standard' license, then don't use the code; nobody's forcing you.
I think the upshot of the post you're replying to is that it makes it easier to engage in a couple hundred contracts if they're all the same. Suppose someone's license has a conflicting clause with another. Then those programs cannot interact without violating one of the two licenses, or both. Consequently, you have a problem like a code fork, you can't make sense of the system having to focus so much attention on minutiae.
This seems like a good time to bring up the flat earth society.
From the FAQ:
18) Does this explain Fortean phenomena, such as frog-falls?
Perhaps. One is tempted to believe that the frogs, fish and other beings are somehow expelled into space off the edge of the Earth. However, this conflicts with the long-established Mad Fishmonger theory, which states that showers of fish are the work of a deranged fishmonger and his cohorts. See _The Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy_ by Robert Anton Wilson for more details.)
Mad Fishmonger theory? At least they could've come up with more respectable names like actual scientists.
If you're interested in a history lesson of all things leading up to and including the atom bomb in WW2
You seem to imply the myth that E = mc^2 was necessary or useful in the design of the atom bomb. It was neither.
That must be why there's a chapter called "8:16 -- Over Japan". Or did the author chain up a bunch of monkeys to typewriters until they strung together a couple of words that made sense?
Or, the media people could just let all the content be free, and charge people not for the information, but for meatspace goods.
Don't know about the rest of you, but if I had full access to all the books ever published & all the music ever played, I'd _still_ go out and buy the 'officially released' meatspace versions.
Hell, how many times have you taped a movie off the TV and then gone out and bought it on video as
well? More than a few I bet. And not just for the quality increase either.
Never. Ever. Not even one. For real.
There's something nice about having a real book in my hands. Something about having the proper CD with the liner notes printed on paper. I reckon people will still buy that stuff, no matter what.
There's also something nice about not having 30 cubic feet of space in a dorm room taken up by VHS tapes, cds, encyclopedia volumes, DVDs and other so called meatspace products. I doubt that you can accurately say that everyone or at least a critical number of people value a jewel case that's 5x the thickness of a cd taking up so much room. I'd rather that album take up.5% of some huge hard drive.
It might become a little bit more of a luxury item, and perhaps sales will drop some, but it's probably cheaper than all those lawyers they're hiring at the moment:)
Also, if downloading stuff aint illegal anymore, and a lot of it's freely available, people won't really be able to have those 'my dick's bigger than yours cos I've got more ripped MP3s that you' competitions. Hell, they might go back to having 'My dick's bigger than yours because I've got a bigger real CD collection than you' competitions, restimulating the market.
You can't be serious. I don't think I've ever heard people arguing over having more mp3s than someone else. Maybe on IRC somewhere in history, but even if this were true, it has no bearing of how right or wrong any of this is. Because there will be less childish arguing over the size of a collection isn't going to make or break a solution, in anyone's eyes.
Not to mention all the 'I'd never have bought that if I'd not heard it for free first' arguments....
Yeah, I think that's a real cop out, trying to justify it like that. Just because it's effort effective to get it now more than before doesn't make it ok to not pay for what you download.
I didn't see anyone talking about paying today's middle men. The middle men of tomorrow are the same people as the middle men of today, no matter how you pronounce tomato. I saw an article about paying tommorrow's middle men.. the ISP's and the collection agency. If you want to get a philosophical point from the article it should be that middle are needed for artists to get paid.
But we are talking about paying the middle man. The upside of this solution or any other solution that is likely to be implemented is that the big record companies get all the loot that they want. If you actually thing that they are fighting on the behalf of musicians, you've got something coming. Under no circumstances do the labels want the ISPs to profit from the distribution of their content any more than the standard ISP charge.
In fact, I'd bet that they are decidedly against the ISPs making any money at all off of the solution, just look at my.mp3.com, a rather innocuous service that got bombed into oblivion, what, because they made money off of the ad banner at the top of the screen? Shameless. The record companies want to be the only ones who make money off of music and will go to great lengths to make sure that you don't too.
It seems to me that Congress could use some version control. CVS anyone?
Nah, this is more like taking AIM and making it work with MSN Messenger. They both start from roughly scratch, and have to iron out the details. What troubles me is that the ironing out procedure, which has the potential to make unintended changes to a bill, is done on rather informal terms.
Also, consider the case where a rep votes for a bill but would have voted against the Senate version of it because of some such provision in their version. If the committee to unify the bills decides on the senate version of that provision, it's a tacit acceptance of the provision, even though the representative had no intention of voting for it.
--Xantho
Re:Nevertheless, it's not too different from ...
on
A Pair of Google Bits
·
· Score: 1
guess what, an algorithm. Attacking patented algorithms is one of the favorite past times of slashdot and company. While I realize some readers only specifically object to actual abuses, a great many go beyond that by attacking whole classes of patents and people. I simply use this opportunity to illuminate some of the ignorance and fundamental inconsistency of those people. Thats all.
One thing I don't think people realize is that slashdot is composed of a couple hundred thousand users. Just because there's a vocal minority against patents and a vocal minority that praises Google for patenting PageRank doesn't mean they're the same vocal minority. In actuality, there might not be a single person that thinks that way, so I don't think it's fair to call slashdot readers hypocritical (there's another reason for that, too, it's called an overbroad generalization) just because two conflicting viewpoints come out on such a large scale. How would you like it if non-citizens of the United States ridiculed us for being indecisive and hypocritical over any of the national issues simply because there are conflicting oppositions?
Mirrors of the screenshots are here, here, here, and here.
Man, this reminds me of the "Not Without My Anus" episode of South Park, where the delivery man tells Terrence (or is it Philip) "Sign hnyah, and hnyah, and hnyah, and hnyah........ and hnyah."
OK, so none of you guys care about that anyway... umm, nevermind.
I'm sorry, but you implicitly give permission to do this when you configure your browser settings. Trouble is, life gets hard when you disable all cookies.. you can't even log in to slashdot.
Next time we meet on the sidewalk, I'll punch you in the stomach. It's your own damn fault, you weren't wearing your cast iron chest protector.
The chaff is finally being weeded out.. Scour SUCKED. I hope the whole website tanks, it used to be usable, but as soon as they hooked up with i-drive, it went straight to hell.
Whoa, I've been able to completely recreate my brother's stolen 65 cd collection in 5 days, solely with Scour Exchange. I've found it to be just as easy and effective as Napster, if not more. Now I hate flashy, worthless web pages as much as the next guy, but this article is about Scour Exchange, not the company itself, and I can say from personal experience that Scour Exchange is an acceptable program for file sharing.
Re:I don't trust it & never will
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Elections are far too important to go all digital & networked this way. Not everything needs to be fast & technological. A lot of countries spend much more times with elections than we do -- three days, a week, etc. That would be a far better way to improve things.
The most obvious problem with your system is that it leaves no paper trail . In a rare situation like this one where a recount is needed, I would never trust a computer system alone. The database can be corrupted or compromised. The network connections, though relatively secure, are not invulnerable. Admittedly, traditional old or non tech methods are open to compromise too, of course, but they have the trump card of tangible evidence of the vote in the form of some paper ballot.
It leaves a paper trail if you make it leave a paper trail. It seems like a lot of people here are acting exactly like other cynics acted when people started using computers for things like record keeping and publishing. I've seen countless people say that is can never be done, that you can never do a recount if there are no little pieces of paper that physically record your vote.
Why do these people think that we can't have both? Why is it necessarily impossible for a computer to make an electronic and a physical copy of information. Does your computer delete your document as soon as you print it? Does your paper document disappear out of thin air when you scan it into your computer? Of course not!
And why is it impossible to do a recount with only electronic records? Do you think that because you can't see the people poring over big stacks of ballots or you can't hear the big, rumbling mechanical machine furiously counting votes that a recount isn't being done? You can spell check a document, and then spell check it again; isn't that a recount?
I don't see why some of us have to be so resistant to change that we make such foolish assumptions that data can only exist in one place. You sound like my grandparents, the ones who refuse to use computers at all because they've gotten along just fine without them.
Note: Not you, "you". Just those people that I was referring to above. I could have picked any of 20 messages to respond to, yours was just where the pot boiled over.
--Xantho
Then the local democratic elections administrator shouldn't have signed off on approving the ballot, which she did - thus officially endorsing the design on behalf of the Democrat party.
That assumes that she would have considered exactly this case, that people would be confused by this design. For that to happen, she would have to have considered exactly the extent of the people's ability to understand the ballot. I'd say that oversteps the expected duties, doesn't it? Having to gauge exactly how smart or dumb (not dumb, I really mean some other adjective) must be to understand the ballot. She shouldn't be expected to have such a knowledge of the people.
--Xantho
(A Palm Beach County resident who understands the ballot just fine.)
Slashdot Mirror
To tell you the truth, I'd never even heard of Libranet. I generally spend an hour or so a day killing time at work on Slashdot, too.
--Xantho
--Xantho
--Xantho
--Xantho
--Xantho
--Xantho
--Xantho
--Xantho
No, I definitely think that you can tell people not to do things with your program that you don't want them to. Maybe that's not a legal definition of fair use, but they do have English language meanings too. As in, "it's not fair for you to put your name on my code and rerelease it, so you can't do that"
--Xantho
I think the upshot of the post you're replying to is that it makes it easier to engage in a couple hundred contracts if they're all the same. Suppose someone's license has a conflicting clause with another. Then those programs cannot interact without violating one of the two licenses, or both. Consequently, you have a problem like a code fork, you can't make sense of the system having to focus so much attention on minutiae.
--Xantho
From the FAQ:
Mad Fishmonger theory? At least they could've come up with more respectable names like actual scientists.
--Xantho
likewise.
You seem to imply the myth that E = mc^2 was necessary or useful in the design of the atom bomb. It was neither.
That must be why there's a chapter called "8:16 -- Over Japan". Or did the author chain up a bunch of monkeys to typewriters until they strung together a couple of words that made sense?
--Xantho
I think it's probably the other way around. Didn't you go to college?
--Xantho
Never. Ever. Not even one. For real.
There's something nice about having a real book in my hands. Something about having the proper CD with the liner notes printed on paper. I reckon people will still buy that stuff, no matter what.
There's also something nice about not having 30 cubic feet of space in a dorm room taken up by VHS tapes, cds, encyclopedia volumes, DVDs and other so called meatspace products. I doubt that you can accurately say that everyone or at least a critical number of people value a jewel case that's 5x the thickness of a cd taking up so much room. I'd rather that album take up .5% of some huge hard drive.
It might become a little bit more of a luxury item, and perhaps sales will drop some, but it's probably cheaper than all those lawyers they're hiring at the moment :)
Also, if downloading stuff aint illegal anymore, and a lot of it's freely available, people won't really be able to have those 'my dick's bigger than yours cos I've got more ripped MP3s that you' competitions. Hell, they might go back to having 'My dick's bigger than yours because I've got a bigger real CD collection than you' competitions, restimulating the market.
You can't be serious. I don't think I've ever heard people arguing over having more mp3s than someone else. Maybe on IRC somewhere in history, but even if this were true, it has no bearing of how right or wrong any of this is. Because there will be less childish arguing over the size of a collection isn't going to make or break a solution, in anyone's eyes.
Not to mention all the 'I'd never have bought that if I'd not heard it for free first' arguments....
Yeah, I think that's a real cop out, trying to justify it like that. Just because it's effort effective to get it now more than before doesn't make it ok to not pay for what you download.
--xantho
But we are talking about paying the middle man. The upside of this solution or any other solution that is likely to be implemented is that the big record companies get all the loot that they want. If you actually thing that they are fighting on the behalf of musicians, you've got something coming. Under no circumstances do the labels want the ISPs to profit from the distribution of their content any more than the standard ISP charge.
In fact, I'd bet that they are decidedly against the ISPs making any money at all off of the solution, just look at my.mp3.com, a rather innocuous service that got bombed into oblivion, what, because they made money off of the ad banner at the top of the screen? Shameless. The record companies want to be the only ones who make money off of music and will go to great lengths to make sure that you don't too.
--xantho
I dunno, the minimum salary in the NFL is around $400k, I think that's pretty fucking obscene.
--Xantho
Nah, this is more like taking AIM and making it work with MSN Messenger. They both start from roughly scratch, and have to iron out the details. What troubles me is that the ironing out procedure, which has the potential to make unintended changes to a bill, is done on rather informal terms.
Also, consider the case where a rep votes for a bill but would have voted against the Senate version of it because of some such provision in their version. If the committee to unify the bills decides on the senate version of that provision, it's a tacit acceptance of the provision, even though the representative had no intention of voting for it.
--Xantho
One thing I don't think people realize is that slashdot is composed of a couple hundred thousand users. Just because there's a vocal minority against patents and a vocal minority that praises Google for patenting PageRank doesn't mean they're the same vocal minority. In actuality, there might not be a single person that thinks that way, so I don't think it's fair to call slashdot readers hypocritical (there's another reason for that, too, it's called an overbroad generalization) just because two conflicting viewpoints come out on such a large scale. How would you like it if non-citizens of the United States ridiculed us for being indecisive and hypocritical over any of the national issues simply because there are conflicting oppositions?
--Xantho
P.S. Oh wait, they already do...
Man, this reminds me of the "Not Without My Anus" episode of South Park, where the delivery man tells Terrence (or is it Philip) "Sign hnyah, and hnyah, and hnyah, and hnyah........ and hnyah."
OK, so none of you guys care about that anyway... umm, nevermind.
--Xantho
Next time we meet on the sidewalk, I'll punch you in the stomach. It's your own damn fault, you weren't wearing your cast iron chest protector.
--Xantho
Whoa, I've been able to completely recreate my brother's stolen 65 cd collection in 5 days, solely with Scour Exchange. I've found it to be just as easy and effective as Napster, if not more. Now I hate flashy, worthless web pages as much as the next guy, but this article is about Scour Exchange, not the company itself, and I can say from personal experience that Scour Exchange is an acceptable program for file sharing.
--Xantho
Amen. I'm on camera upwards of 30 times a day...
You want cameras? I got your freakin' cameras.
--Xantho
The most obvious problem with your system is that it leaves no paper trail . In a rare situation like this one where a recount is needed, I would never trust a computer system alone. The database can be corrupted or compromised. The network connections, though relatively secure, are not invulnerable. Admittedly, traditional old or non tech methods are open to compromise too, of course, but they have the trump card of tangible evidence of the vote in the form of some paper ballot.
It leaves a paper trail if you make it leave a paper trail. It seems like a lot of people here are acting exactly like other cynics acted when people started using computers for things like record keeping and publishing. I've seen countless people say that is can never be done, that you can never do a recount if there are no little pieces of paper that physically record your vote.
Why do these people think that we can't have both? Why is it necessarily impossible for a computer to make an electronic and a physical copy of information. Does your computer delete your document as soon as you print it? Does your paper document disappear out of thin air when you scan it into your computer? Of course not!
And why is it impossible to do a recount with only electronic records? Do you think that because you can't see the people poring over big stacks of ballots or you can't hear the big, rumbling mechanical machine furiously counting votes that a recount isn't being done? You can spell check a document, and then spell check it again; isn't that a recount?
I don't see why some of us have to be so resistant to change that we make such foolish assumptions that data can only exist in one place. You sound like my grandparents, the ones who refuse to use computers at all because they've gotten along just fine without them.
Note: Not you, "you". Just those people that I was referring to above. I could have picked any of 20 messages to respond to, yours was just where the pot boiled over. --Xantho
That assumes that she would have considered exactly this case, that people would be confused by this design. For that to happen, she would have to have considered exactly the extent of the people's ability to understand the ballot. I'd say that oversteps the expected duties, doesn't it? Having to gauge exactly how smart or dumb (not dumb, I really mean some other adjective) must be to understand the ballot. She shouldn't be expected to have such a knowledge of the people.
--Xantho
(A Palm Beach County resident who understands the ballot just fine.)