You published your work on a webpage and it was therefore public and anyone could have stumbled upon it and copied it.
SCO didn't make its source code public and therefore it is more like if you had your work on a webpage on your company's private LAN protected by passwords. That makes it less likely that the Encyclopedia copied you and did not create it on their own.
Fair enough, there is enough place in the world for contrary beliefs.
We'll just have to see for ourselves when such games come to market (and I hope you are right that the tech is good enough, no use having bad games if we can have good one directly).
The guy does get it, you just don't get his point.
He isn't saying that voice chat in virtual worlds will never be a good idea, he is saying that the technology to make it an integral part of the virtual world (as opposed to a sore audio wound) is not there yet.
He also addressed the tabletop roleplaying argument by saying that they use the imagination foremost to create the world (you've also got to imagine your friend to LOOK like a troll) whereas virtual worlds use the senses foremost to create the world (you don't have to imagine your coplayer to look like a troll, you can see his avatar look like one).
In other word, in tabletop roleplaying you don't have a discrepancy between the way the player looks (real) and how he sounds (real too, unless you are playing with stephen Hawking) and when voice speech gets mature enough in computer games you won't have that problem either because your avatar will look fake but real in the context of the virtual world and he will sound fake (because I never heard a troll in real life) but real in the context of the virtual world.
His problem is that at this point in time the voice will sound real but fake in the context of the virtual world, which isn't a problem in FPS but would be in a MMORPG (in his opinion).
Do you still disagree with his point?
Personally I agree with him except that the best way to have the technology improve is probably to have a few games including it when it isn't mature and improved in subsequent games; just as long as you can turn the voices off.
Not really. He isn't flat out against voice in virtual worlds, he just think that the technology is too premature to make it fit with the kind of immersion currently present in these worlds (i.e. your Avatar will sound differently than it looks).
"So does tht mean that Big Blue will get to screw $699 out of al the Linux users? Who's gonna stop them?"
The fact that in such a situation IBM would acquire SCO's assets because SCO lost its suit, meaning SCO doesn't have any legal recourse against Linux with respect to what is claimed in the suit (SMP, RCU, NUMA, JFS...)
Furthermore you could apply IBM own affirmative defence to them should they choose to pursue any legal action with respect to any proprietary right claimed by SCO but not resolved in the SCO-IBM lawsuit. Wether you can make them stick is another thing but IBM having won with these arguments once should make it easier.
You can look on Groklaw about estoppel. There are two kinds, one (collateral estoppel) in which you cannot argue that something is false if it was proven true in another lawsuit (or true if proven false) and would prevent IBM from suing you for copyright infringement for Linux from SysV Unix if it successfully proved that it did not happen in the current case and the second kind of setoppel (equitable estoppel) prevent you from arguing one position in one lawsuit and, having been proved right arguing the opposite in another; so IBM cannot argue that SCO licensed its code under the GPL and (if the court buys their argument) then acquire the code and sue you because they now think that the GPL doesn't apply.
In other word, after resolution of the lawsuit there may still be issues not resolved by it but they would be on much shakier grounds.
Sorry, rereading my post I realise it isn't written properly to convey my meaning.
The difference is that a reseller (Compaq, HP, IBM, IT shop at the corner) can modify KDE and replace Konqueror and the media players whereas as was shown during the anti-trust trial MS pressured the OEMs with its monopolistic muscle so they wouldn't install Netscape.
If OEMs were free to install Netscape and IE still won because people preferred IE over Netscape enough to go to the trouble of installing it over Netscape then I wouldn't have a beef against MS but given that they used their Windows monopoly to make sure that users only would have IE installed on a new machine and would have to go to the trouble of installing another browser in order not to use IE then I have a problem.
I suppose that the EU must have a similar problem with WMP and Real/Quicktime.
"I didn't say "... to believe that the claim is false until you can get proof."
I said, and note the difference, "...to act as if the claim is false...""
But you shouldn't act like the claim is false, you should act like the claim is undecided.
In my halting problem example the guy acted like the claim was false whereas it was undecided and that was a mistake.
For example personally, I believe in God for various small and big reasons and things that happened throughout my life. However, I refuse to let my life be guided strictly by the Bible or any other sacred text or religion.
Why? Because I think that somebody that does the right thing for the wrong reason (because he is bound to by faith, not because he believes and understand that it it the right thing) is worse than the guy that makes the wrong thing for the right reason (makes a mistake because he thought it was the right thing to do) because the latter is probably more willing to change and amend when you explain to him that he was wrong than the former that even if he is wrong will cling to his religious belief no matter what.
In other word, there are many religions and I make my own decisions so that if I am damned then at least it is for my own mistakes, not because I blindly follow somebody else's.
I don't act like God doesn't exist and I don't act like God's existence is a given. I act like it doesn't matter wether he exist or not, like it is undecided.
Sorry for the long rant, I hope you understand my point of view: For me, acting like God doesn't exist is just another religious belief; acting like it is undecided (and therefore not caring given that you can't prove one way or another) is refusing to follow a religious belief.
Actually, there is not just one object but several dozens, found in many different rooms.
I do not wish to disclose what these objects are and where they are because otherwise you would just remove them from your house.
Since I just found the receipts to these objects anybody that in anyway uses you house -family, guests, contractors, pets...- need to purchase a license for the use of your house or may be subject to lawsuits concerning their unlawful use of my property.
Thanks, I just mailed them that letter and thought it may interest people wanting an example of what to ask (but don't copy it, you probably can do better than me anyway):
"In recent months SCO claimed that some of its IP was leaked into the Linux kernel and contributed to Linux's emterprise capabilities.
More recently SCO started a licensing scheme for Linux on the server, on the desktop and on embedded systems.
Notwithstanding the dubious claim on servers I do not understand what kind of logic can SCO follow to ask for a license fee on desktops and embedded systems. Are these systems infringing on SMP, NUMA, RCU or JFS. Especially for embedded systems that generally only have one CPU if any (some use microcontrollers although they are unlikely to use Linux in such a case), so no SMP or RCU, have little memory, so no NUMA and often don't have any filesystems (so no JFS).
I am really intrigued what argument SCO can make to claim they are due a fee for such systems and look forward to hearing these arguments."
The switch reverting Bob from his evil personality to his normal personality remind me of the switch on the back of the Krusty doll that was turned on evil when Homer bought it for Bart.
This would look like an admission that SCO was right.
What needs to be done when the allegedly infringed code is known is to research who contributed it and communicate with them to see if there was any possible contamination by SCO code and only replace the parts that you cannot say for sure don't come from SCO code (can'tcontact original author, author works at a company that had a source license with SCO...).
Of course it would be wise to prepare some replacement code for everything put in doubt just in case but if for a particular code extract you can provide evidence that you could reasonably believe that it didn't come from SCO and if you replaced it otherwise then it should go a long way toward showing due diligence in resolving the matter.
Did anybody else understand the last sentence BTW?
I think in Europe we use feet for altitude and nautical miles for distances at sea, it was just the presence of both so close that made me smile.
Use it to power gravity altering nanobots
on
Powered by Blood
·
· Score: 1
Then with some brain-nanobots interface you can use the nanobots for some parlor tricks and impress the chicks or to change the place where your fat hangs so you have a V shape with the fat shaped as muscles instead of a pear shape (thanks to Vladimir for the idea with the fat).
"We don't recall the MPAA saying that the VCR would spell the death knell for the movie industry."
What about the Jack Valenti saying: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone".
"The only reasonable action to take is to act as if a claim like this isn't true unless you can get proof."
No, it's not. It is merely an undecidable matter (at least until such a proof or proof of the opposite exist, but we might have to wait for one of these for a while).
If you were adopting the same approach to computer science then you would treat the hating problem as such:
halts (program) 1 I can prove it halts so I return true. 2 I can prove it doesn't halts so I return false. 3 I can't prove it halts so it isn't true it halts so it doesn't halt so I return false.
And if you did that you would be laughed in the face by any clueful computer scientist.
Slashdot Mirror
There is one difference:
You published your work on a webpage and it was therefore public and anyone could have stumbled upon it and copied it.
SCO didn't make its source code public and therefore it is more like if you had your work on a webpage on your company's private LAN protected by passwords. That makes it less likely that the Encyclopedia copied you and did not create it on their own.
Fair enough, there is enough place in the world for contrary beliefs.
We'll just have to see for ourselves when such games come to market (and I hope you are right that the tech is good enough, no use having bad games if we can have good one directly).
The guy does get it, you just don't get his point.
He isn't saying that voice chat in virtual worlds will never be a good idea, he is saying that the technology to make it an integral part of the virtual world (as opposed to a sore audio wound) is not there yet.
He also addressed the tabletop roleplaying argument by saying that they use the imagination foremost to create the world (you've also got to imagine your friend to LOOK like a troll) whereas virtual worlds use the senses foremost to create the world (you don't have to imagine your coplayer to look like a troll, you can see his avatar look like one).
In other word, in tabletop roleplaying you don't have a discrepancy between the way the player looks (real) and how he sounds (real too, unless you are playing with stephen Hawking) and when voice speech gets mature enough in computer games you won't have that problem either because your avatar will look fake but real in the context of the virtual world and he will sound fake (because I never heard a troll in real life) but real in the context of the virtual world.
His problem is that at this point in time the voice will sound real but fake in the context of the virtual world, which isn't a problem in FPS but would be in a MMORPG (in his opinion).
Do you still disagree with his point?
Personally I agree with him except that the best way to have the technology improve is probably to have a few games including it when it isn't mature and improved in subsequent games; just as long as you can turn the voices off.
Not really. He isn't flat out against voice in virtual worlds, he just think that the technology is too premature to make it fit with the kind of immersion currently present in these worlds (i.e. your Avatar will sound differently than it looks).
"So does tht mean that Big Blue will get to screw $699 out of al the Linux users? Who's gonna stop them?"
The fact that in such a situation IBM would acquire SCO's assets because SCO lost its suit, meaning SCO doesn't have any legal recourse against Linux with respect to what is claimed in the suit (SMP, RCU, NUMA, JFS...)
Furthermore you could apply IBM own affirmative defence to them should they choose to pursue any legal action with respect to any proprietary right claimed by SCO but not resolved in the SCO-IBM lawsuit. Wether you can make them stick is another thing but IBM having won with these arguments once should make it easier.
You can look on Groklaw about estoppel. There are two kinds, one (collateral estoppel) in which you cannot argue that something is false if it was proven true in another lawsuit (or true if proven false) and would prevent IBM from suing you for copyright infringement for Linux from SysV Unix if it successfully proved that it did not happen in the current case and the second kind of setoppel (equitable estoppel) prevent you from arguing one position in one lawsuit and, having been proved right arguing the opposite in another; so IBM cannot argue that SCO licensed its code under the GPL and (if the court buys their argument) then acquire the code and sue you because they now think that the GPL doesn't apply.
In other word, after resolution of the lawsuit there may still be issues not resolved by it but they would be on much shakier grounds.
No, you've got to do it properly, Simpsons style:
In Apu's voice: Sir, I asked you nicely to move away from the GPL. You leave me no choice but to ask you nicely again.
"That doesn't sound like such a wise idea. I'd bet SCO bites."
Yeah, but they also suck pretty hard.
Sorry, rereading my post I realise it isn't written properly to convey my meaning.
The difference is that a reseller (Compaq, HP, IBM, IT shop at the corner) can modify KDE and replace Konqueror and the media players whereas as was shown during the anti-trust trial MS pressured the OEMs with its monopolistic muscle so they wouldn't install Netscape.
If OEMs were free to install Netscape and IE still won because people preferred IE over Netscape enough to go to the trouble of installing it over Netscape then I wouldn't have a beef against MS but given that they used their Windows monopoly to make sure that users only would have IE installed on a new machine and would have to go to the trouble of installing another browser in order not to use IE then I have a problem.
I suppose that the EU must have a similar problem with WMP and Real/Quicktime.
Do you understand the difference now?
"I didn't say "... to believe that the claim is false until you can get proof."
I said, and note the difference, "...to act as if the claim is false...""
But you shouldn't act like the claim is false, you should act like the claim is undecided.
In my halting problem example the guy acted like the claim was false whereas it was undecided and that was a mistake.
For example personally, I believe in God for various small and big reasons and things that happened throughout my life. However, I refuse to let my life be guided strictly by the Bible or any other sacred text or religion.
Why? Because I think that somebody that does the right thing for the wrong reason (because he is bound to by faith, not because he believes and understand that it it the right thing) is worse than the guy that makes the wrong thing for the right reason (makes a mistake because he thought it was the right thing to do) because the latter is probably more willing to change and amend when you explain to him that he was wrong than the former that even if he is wrong will cling to his religious belief no matter what.
In other word, there are many religions and I make my own decisions so that if I am damned then at least it is for my own mistakes, not because I blindly follow somebody else's.
I don't act like God doesn't exist and I don't act like God's existence is a given. I act like it doesn't matter wether he exist or not, like it is undecided.
Sorry for the long rant, I hope you understand my point of view: For me, acting like God doesn't exist is just another religious belief; acting like it is undecided (and therefore not caring given that you can't prove one way or another) is refusing to follow a religious belief.
Bye
"More per attendee if any attendee has two heads, three arms, or other 'enterprise' features."
What if I have three legs? In the industry I am in it definitely is a high end enterprise feature.
(pretending to be Gleng):
Actually, there is not just one object but several dozens, found in many different rooms.
I do not wish to disclose what these objects are and where they are because otherwise you would just remove them from your house.
Since I just found the receipts to these objects anybody that in anyway uses you house -family, guests, contractors, pets...- need to purchase a license for the use of your house or may be subject to lawsuits concerning their unlawful use of my property.
Thanks, I just mailed them that letter and thought it may interest people wanting an example of what to ask (but don't copy it, you probably can do better than me anyway):
"In recent months SCO claimed that some of its IP was leaked into the Linux kernel and contributed to Linux's emterprise capabilities.
More recently SCO started a licensing scheme for Linux on the server, on the desktop and on embedded systems.
Notwithstanding the dubious claim on servers I do not understand what kind of logic can SCO follow to ask for a license fee on desktops and embedded systems. Are these systems infringing on SMP, NUMA, RCU or JFS. Especially for embedded systems that generally only have one CPU if any (some use microcontrollers although they are unlikely to use Linux in such a case), so no SMP or RCU, have little memory, so no NUMA and often don't have any filesystems (so no JFS).
I am really intrigued what argument SCO can make to claim they are due a fee for such systems and look forward to hearing these arguments."
The switch reverting Bob from his evil personality to his normal personality remind me of the switch on the back of the Krusty doll that was turned on evil when Homer bought it for Bart.
"Should KDE be forced to remove Konquerer or its various KDE-installed media players?"
The difference is I can remove Konqueror and replace it with Mozilla or replace the various KDE-installed media players with xine or mplayer...
MS probably won't let me do it in their license, THIS is the problem (when combined with the fact that they have a monopoly anyway).
Yes, the EU says that there are a great number of WMP that can be launched 45 minutes after clicking its icon.
Some specialists even claim that the launch of MS's WMP could be performed in only a few seconds but nobody seems to think their claim believable.
"Would they use the SuSEplex move on SCO?"
Yes, a german SuSEplex, of course.
Because if you buy a license the joke is at your expense.
"and perhaps criminal charges when the fit hits the shan"
You seem to suffer from xydlesia.
No!
This would look like an admission that SCO was right.
What needs to be done when the allegedly infringed code is known is to research who contributed it and communicate with them to see if there was any possible contamination by SCO code and only replace the parts that you cannot say for sure don't come from SCO code (can'tcontact original author, author works at a company that had a source license with SCO...).
Of course it would be wise to prepare some replacement code for everything put in doubt just in case but if for a particular code extract you can provide evidence that you could reasonably believe that it didn't come from SCO and if you replaced it otherwise then it should go a long way toward showing due diligence in resolving the matter.
Did anybody else understand the last sentence BTW?
I think in Europe we use feet for altitude and nautical miles for distances at sea, it was just the presence of both so close that made me smile.
Then with some brain-nanobots interface you can use the nanobots for some parlor tricks and impress the chicks or to change the place where your fat hangs so you have a V shape with the fat shaped as muscles instead of a pear shape (thanks to Vladimir for the idea with the fat).
Good post but:
"We don't recall the MPAA saying that the VCR would spell the death knell for the movie industry."
What about the Jack Valenti saying: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone".
It seems we recall them swaying it quite well.
"nad punching is still a growing activity" said one source. "and it appeals to all age groups". ...irrespective of gender.
"The only reasonable action to take is to act as if a claim like this isn't true unless you can get proof."
No, it's not. It is merely an undecidable matter (at least until such a proof or proof of the opposite exist, but we might have to wait for one of these for a while).
If you were adopting the same approach to computer science then you would treat the hating problem as such:
halts (program)
1 I can prove it halts so I return true.
2 I can prove it doesn't halts so I return false.
3 I can't prove it halts so it isn't true it halts so it doesn't halt so I return false.
And if you did that you would be laughed in the face by any clueful computer scientist.
Yeah, but I also want a reproductive couple of these turtles. at 5m/s they are gonna make a killing in turtle only races.