So, if it's happened sometime since the beginning of the planet, it's a situation we shouldn't worry about? Wrong. For the first 4 billion years, the planet was pretty primitive, and no state to support human life. In the remaining half-billion years there have been numerous extinction events.. Five of them have been labelled major extinction events where 50 to 80 percent of all macroscopic genera went extinct. If we screw up this planet sufficiently, we might well be looking at the so-called "sixth extinction" which could be worse than any of them.
No big deal? We depend on other species to get clean water and eat. Or do you think food and clean water is made in factories?
Of course, shit happens, and humanity will probably go extinct eventually. But this looks to be happening in the next century or so. Maybe you don't care whether your species outlives you, but some of do.
Who's desperate? Not the people who base their decisions on evidence and logic, Now, the guy who resorts to name calling and insults when he runs out of weird illogical arguments, that is desperate.
So, anybody who tries to get money out of somebody else for any purpose is a gangster? As the anarchists used to say, Property is Theft? Whatever. I don't think that's a concept that's going to catch on.
Revolutionary? It was stupid. It took forever to do the simplest things. And although you didn't have to remember commands, you did have to find your way around the command tree.
Menus appeared not long after the command line — they're trivial to implement — and never caught on in any place where I worked. Simple menus still have their uses, but a complete user interface paradigm? Get real.
I stand corrected, About 18 months ago, I was writing the installation docs for a Java application that had to run on Mac, and I went to rather a lot of trouble to find out how to configure Java on the Mac. (The main reason I got the job: they'd had bad experiences with users on various platforms who didn't understand Java runtime idiosyncrasies.) I was actually quite impressed by the way OS X support for Java worked — very elegant and carefully thought out,
Now I suppose my work will have to be thrown out and replaced by the cruder procedures Oracle uses. Oh well.
You're not paying the copyright overlords. You're paying the video distribution system. If you're using the system for free, you can't expect them to take the lawsuit risk for you, so you shouldn't complain if they impose a stupid filter robot. So pay a fee (which probably gets rid of those ads people love to complain about) and show them you have permission to use the material you're broadcasting, so they can safely turn off the filter.
This is nothing new. "Clearance" has always been a major part of making movies and TV shows. (You know why the little kid in E.T. ate Reese's Pieces? They couldn't get permission to use Skittles.) Creative people have to work with the system, in part because it's the same system that allows them to profit from their work.
Mind you, I'm not defending the copyright overlords, with the legal sledgehammers and retroactive copyright extensions. But as fucked up as the system is, it's the one we've got, and the problems of dealing with it are nothing new.
I'm sure he'll get right on it. All he has to do is get repeal past the Republican majority in the House and the permanent Republican fillibuster in the Senate.
The Hugo Awards, he said, were not using the paid “pro” version of Ustream’s live streaming service. The paid version of Ustream does not use Vobile.
“The Hugo Awards were using the free ad-supported capability,” Hunstable said. “And unfortunately Ustream was not contacted ahead of the time about their use of the platform.”
I think the lesson we should take from that is this: if you're broadcasting copyrighted material, you need to contact the streaming vendor and work with them to make sure there's no interruption.
Which is not to defend the interruption. It seems pretty unfair to automatically take down a live stream just because it might have unauthorized content. Though one can't really complain about it when you're using a free ad-supported version of the service. Next time, the Hugo people will presumably do their homework, maybe spend a little money, and avoid this kind of glitch.
Well, IANAL, but I think that's right. They might be able to force you to stop distributing the software, and they could sue all the people who use it.
Of course, that's a good basis for extortion. So maybe Mightymartian was right about Oracles motives, even if he was wrong about their being able to assess licensing fees.
It occurs to me that somebody with your mindset would probably never use Oracle's RDBMS in the first place. People buy it for all the fancy features that come with it. If you use the engine through an abstraction layer, you're paying for a lot of stuff you're not using.
Which is definitely not a criticism of your mindset! Modularity is good. But not everybody can be bothered with it.
Remember that Simpsons ep where Smithers and Burns have to enter their top secret command post? They pass through a dozen high-tech security portals worthy of a James Bond movie to get there. Unexplained is why they didn't just use the other entrance, which consists of a broken screen door.
Then there's the ISP I used to work for that advertises "Biometric security access". What is means is that a server room in an office building has a lock that can be opened by employee fingerprint. Of course, it can also be opened by an ordinary key, which is what building security uses.
People buy security tech, and they think they've solved a security problem. Once again I quote Bruce Schneier: security is a process, not a product.
It's not different, that's whole point. Bargaining involves human thought processes. Most human thought processes are poorly understood. If you can create a well-defined procedure that replicates a mysterious human thought process, you've clearly done something innovative.
Which is not to say I'm happy about businesses finding another way to gouge me,...
You know, I'm grateful to all the people who want to correct my ignorance about "junk" DNA. But I wish the ones who've joined the conversation late would read the previous comments,.
But Oracle wasn't suing phone manufacturers. They were suing Google. And in the end, the suit wasn't even about patents, it was about copyrights on APIs.
Next time, think things through before you get snarky.
Fine. Except Google doesn't ship any phones. They're all made by manufacturers who download and use Android, and aren't even obligated to ask permission first.
Well, maybe those Nexus phones count as "shipped by Google". So they'd owe a per-unit charge on the the 500 or so of those they've managed to sell.:)
Who said anything about hardware? Oracle DBMS is software. But I guess what you meant to say is "who the fuck designs a system around a specific backend database?"
Well, if you start out with vendor agnostic training and your boss tell you not to get locked into a particular DBMS, then no, you don't. But suppose you have legacy systems that were first designed 35 years ago when Oracle was the only relational DBMS on the market? Or suppose you work for a company where PL/SQL is the preferred tool for building database applications, and getting everybody to switch to something more modern would be as disastrous as throwing out all the QWERTY keyboards and making everybody use DVORAK.
Big complicated platforms create lockin. Maybe you think that's stupid, but it's the kind of stupidity that's a lot easier to avoid on hindsight.
Sigh. If you cherry pick Obama's statements and interpret them to suit yourself, you can get him to say anything you need him to say.
This particular statement can be read two ways. You prefer, "Go sit in the back and STFU." I see "We want you to be part of the process, but you no longer control it." I think the latter reading is consistent with with his actions during the first two years in office, and also his writings before he was elected. (He talked a lot about the need for all sides to be involved in the process; this is the main reason I preferred him to Hilary.)
Now, I could be wrong about this, and maybe your reading is the right one. But if you want to convince me of this, you have to look at the whole guy and what he's done, not just pick some quote whose nastier interpretation seems obvious to you.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if it's happened sometime since the beginning of the planet, it's a situation we shouldn't worry about? Wrong. For the first 4 billion years, the planet was pretty primitive, and no state to support human life. In the remaining half-billion years there have been numerous extinction events.. Five of them have been labelled major extinction events where 50 to 80 percent of all macroscopic genera went extinct. If we screw up this planet sufficiently, we might well be looking at the so-called "sixth extinction" which could be worse than any of them.
No big deal? We depend on other species to get clean water and eat. Or do you think food and clean water is made in factories?
Of course, shit happens, and humanity will probably go extinct eventually. But this looks to be happening in the next century or so. Maybe you don't care whether your species outlives you, but some of do.
Who's desperate? Not the people who base their decisions on evidence and logic, Now, the guy who resorts to name calling and insults when he runs out of weird illogical arguments, that is desperate.
I'm sorry, I can't always remember to use a smiley when I make a joke.
So, anybody who tries to get money out of somebody else for any purpose is a gangster? As the anarchists used to say, Property is Theft? Whatever. I don't think that's a concept that's going to catch on.
It depends on whether you think the rights were fairly granted or not. Perhaps blackmail would be a better word.
Revolutionary? It was stupid. It took forever to do the simplest things. And although you didn't have to remember commands, you did have to find your way around the command tree.
Menus appeared not long after the command line — they're trivial to implement — and never caught on in any place where I worked. Simple menus still have their uses, but a complete user interface paradigm? Get real.
I stand corrected, About 18 months ago, I was writing the installation docs for a Java application that had to run on Mac, and I went to rather a lot of trouble to find out how to configure Java on the Mac. (The main reason I got the job: they'd had bad experiences with users on various platforms who didn't understand Java runtime idiosyncrasies.) I was actually quite impressed by the way OS X support for Java worked — very elegant and carefully thought out,
Now I suppose my work will have to be thrown out and replaced by the cruder procedures Oracle uses. Oh well.
You're not paying the copyright overlords. You're paying the video distribution system. If you're using the system for free, you can't expect them to take the lawsuit risk for you, so you shouldn't complain if they impose a stupid filter robot. So pay a fee (which probably gets rid of those ads people love to complain about) and show them you have permission to use the material you're broadcasting, so they can safely turn off the filter.
This is nothing new. "Clearance" has always been a major part of making movies and TV shows. (You know why the little kid in E.T. ate Reese's Pieces? They couldn't get permission to use Skittles.) Creative people have to work with the system, in part because it's the same system that allows them to profit from their work.
Mind you, I'm not defending the copyright overlords, with the legal sledgehammers and retroactive copyright extensions. But as fucked up as the system is, it's the one we've got, and the problems of dealing with it are nothing new.
Well then, any machine that replicates human activity is unpatentable? That eliminates most mechanical technology.
I'm sure he'll get right on it. All he has to do is get repeal past the Republican majority in the House and the permanent Republican fillibuster in the Senate.
The Hugo Awards, he said, were not using the paid “pro” version of Ustream’s live streaming service. The paid version of Ustream does not use Vobile.
“The Hugo Awards were using the free ad-supported capability,” Hunstable said. “And unfortunately Ustream was not contacted ahead of the time about their use of the platform.”
I think the lesson we should take from that is this: if you're broadcasting copyrighted material, you need to contact the streaming vendor and work with them to make sure there's no interruption.
Which is not to defend the interruption. It seems pretty unfair to automatically take down a live stream just because it might have unauthorized content. Though one can't really complain about it when you're using a free ad-supported version of the service. Next time, the Hugo people will presumably do their homework, maybe spend a little money, and avoid this kind of glitch.
You can't take advantage of the vulnerability if you can't run any applets
Not true.
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/tech/index-jsp-136112.html
Not sure what you mean by "kicked to the curb", but OS X Java is still maintained by Apple.
Well, IANAL, but I think that's right. They might be able to force you to stop distributing the software, and they could sue all the people who use it.
Of course, that's a good basis for extortion. So maybe Mightymartian was right about Oracles motives, even if he was wrong about their being able to assess licensing fees.
when the market place is the internet, and a company causes other companies to not be allowed to inform the customer,...
OK, you lost me already. How does analyzing customer data "cause other companies to not be alllowed to inform the user"?
It occurs to me that somebody with your mindset would probably never use Oracle's RDBMS in the first place. People buy it for all the fancy features that come with it. If you use the engine through an abstraction layer, you're paying for a lot of stuff you're not using.
Which is definitely not a criticism of your mindset! Modularity is good. But not everybody can be bothered with it.
OK, it's different in that it's better. Again, sounds like innovation.
Remember that Simpsons ep where Smithers and Burns have to enter their top secret command post? They pass through a dozen high-tech security portals worthy of a James Bond movie to get there. Unexplained is why they didn't just use the other entrance, which consists of a broken screen door.
Then there's the ISP I used to work for that advertises "Biometric security access". What is means is that a server room in an office building has a lock that can be opened by employee fingerprint. Of course, it can also be opened by an ordinary key, which is what building security uses.
People buy security tech, and they think they've solved a security problem. Once again I quote Bruce Schneier: security is a process, not a product.
It's not different, that's whole point. Bargaining involves human thought processes. Most human thought processes are poorly understood. If you can create a well-defined procedure that replicates a mysterious human thought process, you've clearly done something innovative.
Which is not to say I'm happy about businesses finding another way to gouge me,...
Huh? Antitrust is about eliminating competition. It has nothing to do with competing more effectively.
You know, I'm grateful to all the people who want to correct my ignorance about "junk" DNA. But I wish the ones who've joined the conversation late would read the previous comments,.
But Oracle wasn't suing phone manufacturers. They were suing Google. And in the end, the suit wasn't even about patents, it was about copyrights on APIs.
Next time, think things through before you get snarky.
Fine. Except Google doesn't ship any phones. They're all made by manufacturers who download and use Android, and aren't even obligated to ask permission first.
Well, maybe those Nexus phones count as "shipped by Google". So they'd owe a per-unit charge on the the 500 or so of those they've managed to sell. :)
Who said anything about hardware? Oracle DBMS is software. But I guess what you meant to say is "who the fuck designs a system around a specific backend database?"
Well, if you start out with vendor agnostic training and your boss tell you not to get locked into a particular DBMS, then no, you don't. But suppose you have legacy systems that were first designed 35 years ago when Oracle was the only relational DBMS on the market? Or suppose you work for a company where PL/SQL is the preferred tool for building database applications, and getting everybody to switch to something more modern would be as disastrous as throwing out all the QWERTY keyboards and making everybody use DVORAK.
Big complicated platforms create lockin. Maybe you think that's stupid, but it's the kind of stupidity that's a lot easier to avoid on hindsight.
Sigh. If you cherry pick Obama's statements and interpret them to suit yourself, you can get him to say anything you need him to say.
This particular statement can be read two ways. You prefer, "Go sit in the back and STFU." I see "We want you to be part of the process, but you no longer control it." I think the latter reading is consistent with with his actions during the first two years in office, and also his writings before he was elected. (He talked a lot about the need for all sides to be involved in the process; this is the main reason I preferred him to Hilary.)
Now, I could be wrong about this, and maybe your reading is the right one. But if you want to convince me of this, you have to look at the whole guy and what he's done, not just pick some quote whose nastier interpretation seems obvious to you.