Do we drive around town in Hummers, getting 8 miles per gallon...
Your rhetorical question contains a lie. The Hummer H2 (the $50k one, based off a Chevrolet Suburban) gets 11mpg city, 14mpg highway. The H1 (the $100k one, engineered specifically for military duty), gets 14mpg city, and 17mpg highway (due to it having a diesel engine).
The only way you're going to see 8mpg in a Hummer is by towing or taking it off road. which you have in no way suggested. If you don't like vehicles that average 14mpg, well, then say so. But making up statistics reduces the credibility of your statement.
A bunch of web pages do not constitute a legally binding contract.
IANAL, but in the case of Sun making these statements regarding open source Java and J2EE implementations, I believe those who make investments (both in time and/or money) do have a fairly solid guarantee that Sun will be held accountable for these statements even if they decide to "go back on their word."
I'm very curious to know whether these pages could constitute a legal contract. They have consideration, in that Sun receives more developers and more implementations of its frameworks in exchange for more liberal licensing. The pages makes an offer that is accepted by parties developing implementations. The documents are official and exist for the purpose of informing developers of their rights.
As far as I'm concerned, both Sun and Microsoft are greedy and untrustworthy, and the open source community would be foolish to throw their lot in with either company.
I don't think any open-source developer in his right mind would "throw their lot in with either company." However, open-source developers are more than willing to support open technologies, even if they are backed by big mean corporations whose executives vacation at retreats where they club baby seals, if they know they are developing on an open platform and they can develop software to provide benefit to themselves and others.
We do? I suppose in things like bank robberies, and so on, the criminals have guns
My point was simply that disallowing the public to bear arms does not actually reduce gun related crime. The issue is that when you make the possession of weapons illegal, only criminals have weapons. This is great news for criminals, as they are guaranteed that their prey are defenseless.
We do draw the line somewhere... all the things you mention are over the line. What bugs me is when people attack the items that are legal but "near the line" and can't come up with any real reason for doing so. People who deliberately want to cause harm, will. Attempting to legally take away the means of committing crime has a distrubing track record of failing to do so.
With regard to your other comment, well, I personally think the "war on drugs" is a real bad idea. Just my dumb opinion...but it seems to me this "war" simply enforces a profitable and more dangerous drug economy. I, like every other American, don't by any stretch of imagination think that the United States is perfect.
"Assault rifles" are not illegal in most places in the United States. While I don't personally own one, I have several friends that do. My favorite type is the AR-15, which is the civilian variant of the military M-16. The legal, generally available variant is semiautomatic (it does not have 3-round burst or a fully automatic mode). The AR-15 is really quite a lot of fun to shoot. It has very little kick, and is extremely accurate.
Assault rifles are not practical criminal weapons. They are expensive (an AR-15 costs $1,000 to $1,500). They are not easy to conceal. They are unweidly to operate in confined indoor spaces. These features make them very undesireable to most criminals. Hence, you don't hear about people robbing a convenience store with an AR-15 very often.
Make no mistake about it, if someone has real criminal intent, a gun law will do nothing to prevent them from carrying out their actions. You can get any gun you want (legal or illegal) into this country, or any other, if you have a strong enough desire to. No law will prevent that. If you don't believe me, then why does Britain have problems with gun violence?
The reason behind the second amendment is that the government is truly putting its trust in the people, and hence, they have the right to be armed if they so desire. It's not about your right to hunt ducks, or even your right to defend your home against criminals. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some crazed revolutionary idiot--I love this country, flaws and all--but this really is the reason behind the second amendment.
if you stopped that quickly on a bike you would either flip over the handle bars or wipe out.
First, please note my slashdot username. It's well earned.:)
A mountain bike with decent brakes will in fact outstop darn near anything. You just have to know how to do it.
You have to get your ass behind the seat with your CG as low as possible and modulate the front brake if your pitch angle begins to become a problem. Directional control in a full-out stop is accomplished as much with weight shifting as it is with handlebar angle. In reality this procedure takes practice to get right, and most people who don't really enjoy riding will never bother to learn.
You obviously don't understand the principle behind lawsuits very well.
Allow me to rephrase my first question from "Which of these do they have the right to sue?", to "Which of these do they have a reasonable legal basis to bring suit against?". Yes, I am well aware of the fact that anyone can sue anyone for any reason. MS probably isn't one to avoid filing purely harassing lawsuits. The issue with doing so is that it can undermine your credibility with (and seriously piss off) judges, resulting in a more "uphill" battle for your more legitimate claims. I was referring to this with my second question: "who would they most likely sue?"
I'm just curious. Let's say MS finds an IP "violation" in the Linux kernel, in some fairly core area. Which of these do they have the right to sue, and who would they most likely sue?
1. Linus. 2. Developers who wrote IP violating code. 3. Red Hat / SuSE / Debian / Mandrake / other distros. 4. Companies selling Linux-based devices e.g. Tivo. 5. Companies deploying Linux in their workplaces. 6. Cowboyneal.
Basically what I'm asking here is this: If Linux were found to be in violation of someone's (MS's) IP, would it be illegal to sell/distribute Linux or just to "consume" it?
Your argument is flawed because your premise is false. What evidence is there that patents on software and software methods affect industry and innovation any differently than any other sort of patents? Not "Tim O'Reilly said," mind you, but rather actual evidence? (As much as I respect Tim, his opinion is still just that: an opinion.)
Every one of these concepts is certainly more novel that 1-click. Everything you see today in computer software was at one time a new idea. A great portion of what you see in software today was invented less than seventeen years ago. It's my personal opinion that having to negotiate a license for every line of source code might be somewhat detrimental to progress.
I am not stating software patents are illegal, as such an assertion would be incorrect. My argument is that they should not be granted, because the net effect is not congruent the intentions of the patent system: software patents do not promote innovation.
If "one-click" shopping carts were as obvious as some people say they are, there should have been a rich library of prior art.
Being the first to implement does not make something not obvious. I believe prior art must be shown to have existed one year before the date of the patent application. Given that this patent was filed September 12, 1997, it is somewhat understandable that when it was first "noticed" in early 2000, it was difficult to find any implementation of it from three years prior. E-Commerce barely existed in 1996.
Consider Amazon's one-click patent. Clearly their innovation was not obvious before they created it, but it's pretty obvious now.
"One click", is in my opinion, and I believe the vast majority of the software development community, representative of the exact type of software patent that should not be granted. I'll defer to Tim O'Reilly as to exactly why, as he composed a well-written piece offering a tidy explanation:
I've read this thread and I generally agree with your position on pantents. The patent system was conceived to protect and foster invention.
However, I personally believe that software, algorithmic, and business process patents should not be granted. Patents in these disciplines are already protected from outright theft via copyright law (and in many cases, by the compiler). Reimplementation from scratch or reverse engineering requires tremendous expense by competitors, and therefore patent-based protection is not required.
The vast majority of software patents are evolutionary. By evolutionary, I mean that they would eventually be discovered by any competent developer who was faced with a similar situation. One can argue that this extends to other fields of innovation as well, but in the case of software, it is of exponentially greater concern due to the pace of the industry.
It is my belief that the above statements, which I take to be facts, coupled with the rampant abuse of the patent system and the 17+ year duration of patents will have the eventual effect of stifling innovation in software rather than encouraging it.
Your example of Mr. Film-Stretcher-Inventor goes a bit differently in my opinion in the case of software. He won't bother trying to invent the film stretching machine, beacuse if he does, he'll get sued in the process by a company that just invented a "method for removing steam from a closed barn", otherwise known as a hole in the roof.
I'd no sooner buy a copy protected CD than light a $20 bill on fire. Right now, I buy most of the music I listen to. But if I can't make compilations, keep the original in my 200-disc carousel, and listen to copies on my computer and car, I have no inclination to purchase the music, and will retrieve it using a P2P client.
It also isn't going to take the majority of labels to start copy protecting music to cause me to stop buying CDs. If I happen to purchase just one unmarked copy protected CD from a sizable label, I imagine it will be the last CD I purchase for quite some time, until I am 100% confident that future purchases will not be copy protected.
I think that most people will feel the same way. As the old addage goes,"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." People don't like getting screwed on their purchases, and when they do, they are very unlikely to make the same mistake again.
Of course, as this happens, the RIAA will notice the increase in piracy, and phrase it in a manner to support further digital restrictions. They will deliberately remain ignorant of the cause, as they have done for so long now.
If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, then the invalid or unenforceable provision will be stricken from this Agreement without affecting the validity or enforceability of any other provision.
IANAL, but this is pretty much your standard severability clause. Any contract worth a damn will have one.
I don't dare question Subaru or Mitsubishi's performance in a rally. These cars are absolutely superb in that respect. Some people do like other types of racing, and I'm not just talking about cars that only make left turns. A Corvette may not be well suited to the rally, but it certainly will eat a WRX's lunch on a road course. The different types of performance in which these cars each excel is a product of differing design goals, not because one or the other is a piece of shit. I simply found your comment regarding the Corvette being front-heavy to be laughable.
The numbers you claim regarding your car are very impressive. You've also modified the hell out of it, which I entirely respect, but we need to compare apples to apples here. For starters, you're going to be breaking quite a number of drivetrain and motor parts, while a stock C5 Vette won't. If you're into modfiying your car, I can understand that this is not a problem. A Chevy small block V8 will easily make double the power of your car with the mods you have described (blower, cam, exhaust, headers, chip).
Corvettes are not for everyone. Some people don't like rear wheel drive. I can understand that. I just find your argument to be silly in that you have somehow determined that front-engine rear-wheel-drive cars are a ridiculous configuration and have offerred no real argument to back it up. Having AWD myself, I can sing its praises all day long. But AWD does not automatically equate to better handling in all circumstances, hence the reason that most types of racing use other configurations.
P.S. ~20hp is a ridiculously low figure for the amount of HP loss you'll see before the power hits the pavement, especially with an AWD drivetrain.
How does "World Rally Sport" define the term "front-heavy?" The C5 Corvette has a 50/50 weight distribution, thanks in part to the fact that the transmission is located immediately forward of the rear axle. The WRX (which is in my opinion, also an awesome car with fantastic handling) is at best 55/45.
Are you a member of this supposed majority of Americans who are entirely ignorant?
At my university, they once had a guest speaker talk to the engineering students about the advantages of starting your own business. Two friends and I did just that, and it did quite well.
So well, in fact, that shortly thereafter we all dropped out.
PCs can get into the $200 price range. Systems can be found for as little as $200 at Walmart (sans $99 15" monitor).
Based on what I've seen here, I imagine it would have been possible to develop a system in the $200 hardware price range with a 13" monitor. I'm curious to know why they didn't choose a larger form factor for the machine. The advantages of the PDA-style design are portability, power consumption, and a pen-based interface. The cost is a tremendous restriction in capability, and the requirement of developing properietary hardware. I imagine that portablility will also often be a negative, as the device is a handheld and its a fact of life that people drop things (of course, I'd be much less likely to drop my PDA if it cost me a year's salary).
These devices sound like a remarkable achievement, and I wish them nothing but success. But I am curious as to why they didn't go with a bit bigger of a box.
Red Hat 8 appears to have most of this set up from the factory, with the exception of the MS fonts.
There is an unbelievably irritating aspect of anti-alised fonts I've found with RH8 (and in previous experiences with Gnome2): GTK+2 apps will insist on using Anti-alised fonts for EVERYTHING, and there seems to be no way to turn it off. While I think anti-aliased fonts are wonderful most of the time, I believe most developers will agree they are not so great in terminal windows or when viewing source code.
If you change your font preferences to "monochrome", you can then set source code editor/terminal fonts to non-anti-aliasable ones, like LucidaTypewriter. Then switch the font prefs back to your previous anti-aliased setting, and the modified programs will retain the non-antialiased font setting.
I don't know whose fault it is that this workaround is required (GTK, Red Hat, the apps themselves, etc), but it would be most appreciated if non-antialiasable fonts appeared in the font-selection dialogs even when antialiasing is enabled.
Slashdot Mirror
Do we drive around town in Hummers, getting 8 miles per gallon...
Your rhetorical question contains a lie. The Hummer H2 (the $50k one, based off a Chevrolet Suburban) gets 11mpg city, 14mpg highway. The H1 (the $100k one, engineered specifically for military duty), gets 14mpg city, and 17mpg highway (due to it having a diesel engine).
The only way you're going to see 8mpg in a Hummer is by towing or taking it off road. which you have in no way suggested. If you don't like vehicles that average 14mpg, well, then say so. But making up statistics reduces the credibility of your statement.
And no, I don't own one.
A bunch of web pages do not constitute a legally binding contract.
IANAL, but in the case of Sun making these statements regarding open source Java and J2EE implementations, I believe those who make investments (both in time and/or money) do have a fairly solid guarantee that Sun will be held accountable for these statements even if they decide to "go back on their word."
I'm very curious to know whether these pages could constitute a legal contract. They have consideration, in that Sun receives more developers and more implementations of its frameworks in exchange for more liberal licensing. The pages makes an offer that is accepted by parties developing implementations. The documents are official and exist for the purpose of informing developers of their rights.
As far as I'm concerned, both Sun and Microsoft are greedy and untrustworthy, and the open source community would be foolish to throw their lot in with either company.
I don't think any open-source developer in his right mind would "throw their lot in with either company." However, open-source developers are more than willing to support open technologies, even if they are backed by big mean corporations whose executives vacation at retreats where they club baby seals, if they know they are developing on an open platform and they can develop software to provide benefit to themselves and others.
Better yet, do something similar to what MSN did. Give the computer away for free (with a monitor and modem), with a two-year contract with AOL.
23.90/month for AOL service * 24 months = $573.
We do? I suppose in things like bank robberies, and so on, the criminals have guns
My point was simply that disallowing the public to bear arms does not actually reduce gun related crime. The issue is that when you make the possession of weapons illegal, only criminals have weapons. This is great news for criminals, as they are guaranteed that their prey are defenseless.
We do draw the line somewhere... all the things you mention are over the line. What bugs me is when people attack the items that are legal but "near the line" and can't come up with any real reason for doing so. People who deliberately want to cause harm, will. Attempting to legally take away the means of committing crime has a distrubing track record of failing to do so.
With regard to your other comment, well, I personally think the "war on drugs" is a real bad idea. Just my dumb opinion...but it seems to me this "war" simply enforces a profitable and more dangerous drug economy. I, like every other American, don't by any stretch of imagination think that the United States is perfect.
"Assault rifles" are not illegal in most places in the United States. While I don't personally own one, I have several friends that do. My favorite type is the AR-15, which is the civilian variant of the military M-16. The legal, generally available variant is semiautomatic (it does not have 3-round burst or a fully automatic mode). The AR-15 is really quite a lot of fun to shoot. It has very little kick, and is extremely accurate.
Assault rifles are not practical criminal weapons. They are expensive (an AR-15 costs $1,000 to $1,500). They are not easy to conceal. They are unweidly to operate in confined indoor spaces. These features make them very undesireable to most criminals. Hence, you don't hear about people robbing a convenience store with an AR-15 very often.
Make no mistake about it, if someone has real criminal intent, a gun law will do nothing to prevent them from carrying out their actions. You can get any gun you want (legal or illegal) into this country, or any other, if you have a strong enough desire to. No law will prevent that. If you don't believe me, then why does Britain have problems with gun violence?
The reason behind the second amendment is that the government is truly putting its trust in the people, and hence, they have the right to be armed if they so desire. It's not about your right to hunt ducks, or even your right to defend your home against criminals. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some crazed revolutionary idiot--I love this country, flaws and all--but this really is the reason behind the second amendment.
each pound of it weighs over 10,000 pounds.
:))
(Yes, this comment is a rip-off, but it's my favorite Farnsworth quote
Micro$oft will just sue them into oblivion
They already did and lost
Did they acutally lose the case or just their request for injunctive relief?
if you stopped that quickly on a bike you would either flip over the handle bars or wipe out.
:)
First, please note my slashdot username. It's well earned.
A mountain bike with decent brakes will in fact outstop darn near anything. You just have to know how to do it.
You have to get your ass behind the seat with your CG as low as possible and modulate the front brake if your pitch angle begins to become a problem. Directional control in a full-out stop is accomplished as much with weight shifting as it is with handlebar angle. In reality this procedure takes practice to get right, and most people who don't really enjoy riding will never bother to learn.
Are there any Microsoft Windows-based systems that qualify as supercomputers?
(This is a serious question, I have no idea if they do or do not.)
You obviously don't understand the principle behind lawsuits very well.
Allow me to rephrase my first question from "Which of these do they have the right to sue?", to "Which of these do they have a reasonable legal basis to bring suit against?". Yes, I am well aware of the fact that anyone can sue anyone for any reason. MS probably isn't one to avoid filing purely harassing lawsuits. The issue with doing so is that it can undermine your credibility with (and seriously piss off) judges, resulting in a more "uphill" battle for your more legitimate claims. I was referring to this with my second question: "who would they most likely sue?"
I'm just curious. Let's say MS finds an IP "violation" in the Linux kernel, in some fairly core area. Which of these do they have the right to sue, and who would they most likely sue?
1. Linus.
2. Developers who wrote IP violating code.
3. Red Hat / SuSE / Debian / Mandrake / other distros.
4. Companies selling Linux-based devices e.g. Tivo.
5. Companies deploying Linux in their workplaces.
6. Cowboyneal.
Basically what I'm asking here is this: If Linux were found to be in violation of someone's (MS's) IP, would it be illegal to sell/distribute Linux or just to "consume" it?
Your argument is flawed because your premise is false. What evidence is there that patents on software and software methods affect industry and innovation any differently than any other sort of patents? Not "Tim O'Reilly said," mind you, but rather actual evidence? (As much as I respect Tim, his opinion is still just that: an opinion.)
E-commerce. Hyperlinks. Multitasking. Listboxes. E-mail. DNS. Command line completion. Bubble sort.
Every one of these concepts is certainly more novel that 1-click. Everything you see today in computer software was at one time a new idea. A great portion of what you see in software today was invented less than seventeen years ago. It's my personal opinion that having to negotiate a license for every line of source code might be somewhat detrimental to progress.
I am not stating software patents are illegal, as such an assertion would be incorrect. My argument is that they should not be granted, because the net effect is not congruent the intentions of the patent system: software patents do not promote innovation.
If "one-click" shopping carts were as obvious as some people say they are, there should have been a rich library of prior art.
Being the first to implement does not make something not obvious. I believe prior art must be shown to have existed one year before the date of the patent application. Given that this patent was filed September 12, 1997, it is somewhat understandable that when it was first "noticed" in early 2000, it was difficult to find any implementation of it from three years prior. E-Commerce barely existed in 1996.
Consider Amazon's one-click patent. Clearly their innovation was not obvious before they created it, but it's pretty obvious now.
"One click", is in my opinion, and I believe the vast majority of the software development community, representative of the exact type of software patent that should not be granted. I'll defer to Tim O'Reilly as to exactly why, as he composed a well-written piece offering a tidy explanation:
http://www.oreilly.com/ask_tim/amazon_patent.html
I've read this thread and I generally agree with your position on pantents. The patent system was conceived to protect and foster invention.
However, I personally believe that software, algorithmic, and business process patents should not be granted. Patents in these disciplines are already protected from outright theft via copyright law (and in many cases, by the compiler). Reimplementation from scratch or reverse engineering requires tremendous expense by competitors, and therefore patent-based protection is not required.
The vast majority of software patents are evolutionary. By evolutionary, I mean that they would eventually be discovered by any competent developer who was faced with a similar situation. One can argue that this extends to other fields of innovation as well, but in the case of software, it is of exponentially greater concern due to the pace of the industry.
It is my belief that the above statements, which I take to be facts, coupled with the rampant abuse of the patent system and the 17+ year duration of patents will have the eventual effect of stifling innovation in software rather than encouraging it.
Your example of Mr. Film-Stretcher-Inventor goes a bit differently in my opinion in the case of software. He won't bother trying to invent the film stretching machine, beacuse if he does, he'll get sued in the process by a company that just invented a "method for removing steam from a closed barn", otherwise known as a hole in the roof.
I'd no sooner buy a copy protected CD than light a $20 bill on fire. Right now, I buy most of the music I listen to. But if I can't make compilations, keep the original in my 200-disc carousel, and listen to copies on my computer and car, I have no inclination to purchase the music, and will retrieve it using a P2P client.
It also isn't going to take the majority of labels to start copy protecting music to cause me to stop buying CDs. If I happen to purchase just one unmarked copy protected CD from a sizable label, I imagine it will be the last CD I purchase for quite some time, until I am 100% confident that future purchases will not be copy protected.
I think that most people will feel the same way. As the old addage goes,"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." People don't like getting screwed on their purchases, and when they do, they are very unlikely to make the same mistake again.
Of course, as this happens, the RIAA will notice the increase in piracy, and phrase it in a manner to support further digital restrictions. They will deliberately remain ignorant of the cause, as they have done for so long now.
If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, then the invalid or unenforceable provision will be stricken from this Agreement without affecting the validity or enforceability of any other provision.
IANAL, but this is pretty much your standard severability clause. Any contract worth a damn will have one.
I don't dare question Subaru or Mitsubishi's performance in a rally. These cars are absolutely superb in that respect. Some people do like other types of racing, and I'm not just talking about cars that only make left turns. A Corvette may not be well suited to the rally, but it certainly will eat a WRX's lunch on a road course. The different types of performance in which these cars each excel is a product of differing design goals, not because one or the other is a piece of shit. I simply found your comment regarding the Corvette being front-heavy to be laughable.
The numbers you claim regarding your car are very impressive. You've also modified the hell out of it, which I entirely respect, but we need to compare apples to apples here. For starters, you're going to be breaking quite a number of drivetrain and motor parts, while a stock C5 Vette won't. If you're into modfiying your car, I can understand that this is not a problem. A Chevy small block V8 will easily make double the power of your car with the mods you have described (blower, cam, exhaust, headers, chip).
Corvettes are not for everyone. Some people don't like rear wheel drive. I can understand that. I just find your argument to be silly in that you have somehow determined that front-engine rear-wheel-drive cars are a ridiculous configuration and have offerred no real argument to back it up. Having AWD myself, I can sing its praises all day long. But AWD does not automatically equate to better handling in all circumstances, hence the reason that most types of racing use other configurations.
P.S. ~20hp is a ridiculously low figure for the amount of HP loss you'll see before the power hits the pavement, especially with an AWD drivetrain.
I know so many people in the 1% that I'm starting to think the people who made up the 1% figure might be full of shit.
How does "World Rally Sport" define the term "front-heavy?" The C5 Corvette has a 50/50 weight distribution, thanks in part to the fact that the transmission is located immediately forward of the rear axle. The WRX (which is in my opinion, also an awesome car with fantastic handling) is at best 55/45.
Are you a member of this supposed majority of Americans who are entirely ignorant?
At my university, they once had a guest speaker talk to the engineering students about the advantages of starting your own business. Two friends and I did just that, and it did quite well.
So well, in fact, that shortly thereafter we all dropped out.
99.99% of citizens do want to pay taxes, when properly informed of the alternative.
PCs can get into the $200 price range. Systems can be found for as little as $200 at Walmart (sans $99 15" monitor).
Based on what I've seen here, I imagine it would have been possible to develop a system in the $200 hardware price range with a 13" monitor. I'm curious to know why they didn't choose a larger form factor for the machine. The advantages of the PDA-style design are portability, power consumption, and a pen-based interface. The cost is a tremendous restriction in capability, and the requirement of developing properietary hardware. I imagine that portablility will also often be a negative, as the device is a handheld and its a fact of life that people drop things (of course, I'd be much less likely to drop my PDA if it cost me a year's salary).
These devices sound like a remarkable achievement, and I wish them nothing but success. But I am curious as to why they didn't go with a bit bigger of a box.
Red Hat 8 appears to have most of this set up from the factory, with the exception of the MS fonts.
There is an unbelievably irritating aspect of anti-alised fonts I've found with RH8 (and in previous experiences with Gnome2): GTK+2 apps will insist on using Anti-alised fonts for EVERYTHING, and there seems to be no way to turn it off. While I think anti-aliased fonts are wonderful most of the time, I believe most developers will agree they are not so great in terminal windows or when viewing source code.
If you change your font preferences to "monochrome", you can then set source code editor/terminal fonts to non-anti-aliasable ones, like LucidaTypewriter. Then switch the font prefs back to your previous anti-aliased setting, and the modified programs will retain the non-antialiased font setting.
I don't know whose fault it is that this workaround is required (GTK, Red Hat, the apps themselves, etc), but it would be most appreciated if non-antialiasable fonts appeared in the font-selection dialogs even when antialiasing is enabled.