I have a thought. Something that might be very useful is to make some adjustments to the DMCA and copyright law that accomodate for the nature of open source. The fact of the matter is that most open source projects are done by an individual or a small group and do not have the money to fight legal battles. This makes them ripe targets for larger corporations to sue them and get their way since these people can't afford the legal fees.
So what I'm thinking is that a statue is added that provides the possibility to get legal fees compensated in the even that an open source developer gets taken to court. This way, if the claim is blatantly unjustified, such as in this case, the developer can bring on top notch legal counsel because the lawyer can be assured that they will get paid.
Seems like Vivendi's lawyers are really screwing up here. The evidence of a direct violation of copyright is non-existant. The only possible violation from their list that might stand up in court would be if bnetd included battle.net code, and I seriously doubt that this is the case.
My guess is that Vivendi's lawyers thought that if they fired off a real lawsuit, even if totally unsubstantiated, the bnetd people would back down. We'll see what happens, but since the EFF is already involved I get the sense that the bnetd folks are intending to fight this. So Vivendi is actually risking legitimizing bnetd in the courts.
To assume that you will never die because up until today you have not, is a fallacy because of other extraneous facts. You are, I'm assuming, human. Humans eventually die, and there is a long history indicating this to be pretty conclusive. You might live a long time, but eventually you will die.
Now, by the same token to assume you are going to live today based on your history of living makes good sense. Eventually you'll die, but barring some outside influence, odds are that it won't be today.
Certainly to accept anything as a fact, requires some faith. Are my eyes seeing light coming from the screen in front of me? Am I really typing on a keyboard? There's some faith involved in that. This may all be illusion, and I could be misinterpreting what is happening. Really, our concept of reality is completely based on faith that what we've observed in the past will continue to remain true in the future.
To hold that a physical principal is a law, is somewhat of a simplification of reality. We hold that entropy increases in a closed system for example. I'd be willing to say that's a law because time and time again it has been proven true (the neatness of my office is a perfect example of this:). It may not in fact be true in all cases, but until we come accros a case that proves it wrong, it's simpler to accept it as a law.
With physical laws, as well as judicial laws, one should question them routinely. Law is not fact or truth, but simply a consensus of people on what is most probably true. One should be willing to consider the possibilty that the law was wrong and not blind oneself to evidence that obviously contradicts the law. Faith is a vital part of existence, but blind unquestioning faith is just as counterproductive in science as it is anywhere else.
Doesn't mean it's right...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
Just because there is a simpler explanation doesn't mean that the more complex answer isn't correct. Theories suggest that time travel is possible though likely VERY difficult to accomplish. Let's not write the guy off because he MIGHT be a crack pot, let's wait and see what he does.
As for the implications of parallel universes, if it does imply a meta-universe, I have one question for you: so what?
Facts and Theories
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomenon
You cannot base a fact on a theory, but rather it's the other way around, basing a theory on a fact. Superstring theory is just that, a theory We have, at this point, no practical way to determine the results of time travel since we have no way to time travel (with the possible exception of sitting here and waiting a while).
While I tend to think superstring theory, from what I understand of it, makes sense, lets not go suggesting that it is in any way a fact. Hopefully in time we will find enough facts to suggest whether it is the correct theory or not.
Completely Explainable...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
If you read the article, he explains why this wouldn't necessarily be possible. See his future self may very well have gone back in time to today to tell him how to build the thing. Problem is that when he came back he ended up in a parallel time line. So, it's entirely possible that he does succeed and that he does go back in time to tell himself how, but it wouldn't impact this timeline.
From the lead in it said that it was a lawsuit filed in federal court, thus New York's anti-SLAPP statutes would not be applicable (to the best of my knowledge).
See the thing is that Sun, being the wise company it is has taken java to a new level by adding the JSAPI (Java Sex API). Some of the new packages include:
javax.sex.bondage
javax.sex.beastiality
javax.sex.toys
javax.sex.masturbation
Fortunately the Java sandbox makes the sex API's perfectly safe. It explicitly blocks execution of the getPregnant() method of the Woman class which is a definite plus. It's this sort of well thought out architecture that really puts Java light years ahead of Microsoft's initatives, despite Microsoft's long history of screwing people.
I don't see what could possibly make them not want to write back. It's not like I run a website where I'm constantly talking about what idiots we have in congress... oh.... nevermind...:)
I was wondering about this the other day. Does it really make a difference to the politicians when you customize some comments for them. I've participated in innumerable fax spamming operations when some controversial bill has been introduced. I'll usually spend some time putting some thoughtful commentary into it, but I wonder whether it's of any value.
I've never received any sort of direct response to any of my customized messages. I've only on rare occasions received a "this is how I stand" form letter form a politician. Do they seriously consider any of the messages? Is it really worth the time I put into it? Anybody out there who had worked for a politician that cares to comment on how such faxes were handled?
Actually, in evolution they have the option to not view images in HTML to avoid people tracking your reading. So, it's entirely possible that there won't be a record of it.
Okay, not quite ALL the rights, allow me to clarify. Originally corporations operated under charters which narrowly defined the ground rules for their operation. During the 19th century, the power of corporations grew substantially, and in 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that a corporation was deemed a "natural person" under the US Constitution. This effectively extended all constitutional protections to a corporation as thought it were a citizen.
It is this Supreme Court ruling that set up the basis for the campaign finance mess we are in today. Since corporations have the right of free expression, and since spending money is a form of expression, there's not a whole lot that can be done to limit their political influence. We'll see what happens with the new campaign finance law that looks to be passed shortly, but it's likely much of it can get struck down in court.
No, clearly corporations don't have EVERY right of a citizen. As you point out, they cannot vote, and clearly, since they are owned by people, they could be considered slaves. But where it counts they've been given a lot of constitutional protection that was never intended for them.
As for being bound by the limitations of the constitution, I disagree. Through contracts, a corporation can require it's employees or other contract signers to waive just about any right. While a contract cannot directly violate the law, they can limit the free speech of citizens quite readily. Most of the rights we traditionally think of can easily be signed away to a corporation, but a government agency has no such power over us.
The problem is that the constitution is only a limit on the power of the government over its citizens. The government cannot enact laws or contractually obligate the citizenry in such a way that the constitution is violated. This doesn't apply to corporations.
Corporations, unfortunately, have been endowed with all the rights of a citizen. The Supreme Court ruling that established this is possibly the greatest ongoing threat to the rights of individuals. Because of this ruling these corporations can engage in contracts as any citizen would but of course they have substantially more power. They are not boun by the limitations of the constitution. As the power shifts out of the hands of government and in to the hands of corporations, this situation only looks to get worse.
A constitution doesn't mean jack to people if the chief influence on their lives ceases to be government.
I've found that CVS works well as a document repository. Any sort of version control system is well suited to the task of keeping documents. The only trick beyond that is establishing an organizational structure for it.
As far as organizational structure, base it on the development process you use. So in each phase of development, you have the documents needed for that phase seperate from everything else. If you have deliverable documents, put those in a directory and then have subdirectories for any supporting material.
That's a suggestion. I would highly recommend sitting down and formally structuring this. If everybody knows where the documents are, and where to put new documents as they generate them you'll have a lot easier time of things.
Perhaps the difference here is simply that they've gotten the technology to the point that it can be efficiently implemented. Any number of technologies have been created and then taken decades to go from prototype to actually being a practical solution.
To quote from the article: In a telephone interview after the appearance, Heckenkamp's father, Thomas Heckenkamp, said his son is only trying to protect his rights . "They've overstepped their bounds, and they're keeping him from defending himself," he said.
I think this commentary speaks volumes about why this kid is there in the first place. Btw, yes, he's 22, and I say "kid" because he's acting like a child. But anyhow, if your child is acting like a tremendous idiot in the courtroom and your instinct is to criticize the court, you may have to accept that you are part of the problem. I'm not going to sit here and suggest that somehow this kid is blameless because his dad is apparently an idiot. Just pointing out that Darwinian evolution should smite this particular mutation fast:).
I'm just hoping that we aren't going to get some stupid campaign trying to fight for this kids rights as though he's some hero of the Internet.
Tell all the people who were playing games that they were immediately being hired by Sony. Have people sign up for 1 hour "shifts". You can play whatever you want but are required to play for the full hour. Then pay everybody who plays $50 for their trouble. Then they are "employees" and it's all good.
Basically the GPL, as you point out, provides a good way to get developers to put source code out into the world. The advantage that it has over some other options is that it also forces other people to do the same for you. It's not so much you don't want people to make money off your code, rather that you want to have equal opportunity to make money off that code. It prevents situations where you write 10,000 lines of code, some other guy adds 5 and then he packages the whole thing to sell and you get nothing. You could turn around, take his 5 lines, and do the same thing.
First of all you need to meet certain usability constraints before anybody will use your software in the first place. Second, if you don't make it usable and relatively bug free, somebody else can come along and hijack your software and fix it (or write something new from scratch that is better).
Remember that a corporation doesn't pay for software under the assumption that it's going to be a pain to use and buggy. They assume it's going to work well and yet they still pay for support contracts as insurance. It's risk aversion and has almost nothing to do with the inherent quality of the product. I worked at one company where they actually forced Microsoft to sell them copies of IE (yes, SELL, for money) so that they could feel they had some leverage in seeking support if something went wrong with it. Corporations will always buy support contracts for the same reason that people get health insurance. You don't buy health insurance because you plan to get sick, you do it just in case.
Now, assuming that corporations are going to get support contracts anyhow, the underyling financial model of support contracts becomes important. If you pay me $50 and it costs me $25/hour to support any problems you have, then I need to keep it under 2 hours in support calls or I'm losing money. Companies don't want to get into open ended time and materials contracts, so you have a strong incentive to get rid of bugs because they cost you money.
Having said all that, I grant that if you could write a piece of software that was:
1) instantly intuitive for everybody to learn and use 2) completely bug free
Then the service models would cease to be viable. Furthermore, I'd personally open a church to honor your name since you are clearly a God of some sort.
This is yet another case of trying to quantify something that is qualitiative. It's is pointless to try to measure somebody's quality as a programmer (or as anything else for that matter) by using some numerical assessment. The examples above demonstrate that clearly, but here's a couple more examples:
Which is more valuable, a programmer who churns out 1000 lines of code/day but very reclusive or the one that does 500 but is also good at communicating project directions with others?
Which is more valuable, an inexperienced programmer who learns quickly or an experienced programmer who doesn't?
if you want to know how good a programmer is to ask them the right questions. I'm not sure exactly what those questions are, it depends on what you want out of them. But I've been on many interviews and it's amazed me the vast differences in interview quality. People who are trying to measure the quality of a programmer by "lines of code" are setting themselves for lots of problems.
I think I was asked once to estimate lines of code I've written and I had NO idea. Frankly if somebody did know the answer to that question I'd be concerned. It sounds like somebody who's too busy keep track of the metrics that imply their skill rather than actually doing good work. These are likely the same people who are staring at the clock for the last 15 minutes of the day, constantly estimating the minimum amount they need to do to get by.
If you look at the competition Intel had at the time when they had their problems, it was nearly non-existant. All the other chip manufacturers were making products that barely kept up with Intel. Now it's a little different with AMD giving them some real competition, but overall it was a very different playing field for Intel.
In this instance IBM is competing against a number of manufacturers in a market where it's very hard to distinguish your product. Nobody really has a substantial lead in drive technology so the only thing to compete on is brand. Will I buy a Seagate, or a Maxtor, or a Western Digital or an IBM? Well, since they all offer fairly similar products, it comes down to prive and brand.
Also, keep in mind that with Intel's problems the FDIV bug effected very few people in an obvious way. The box I use as a router still has a genuine Intel P60 with an FDIV bug and it's never caused me a problem. On the other hand, these hard drive failures create a much more obvious problem because of the potential for data loss.
While I'm not normally one to accept anecdotal evidence, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of it for these drives. I mean, name me one other hard drive that has had these sorts of problems? Certainly there are people who have had various problems with various drives from various manufacturers. But I'm hard pressed to recall a story of any one drive model becoming such a routine problem for so many.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a thought. Something that might be very useful is to make some adjustments to the DMCA and copyright law that accomodate for the nature of open source. The fact of the matter is that most open source projects are done by an individual or a small group and do not have the money to fight legal battles. This makes them ripe targets for larger corporations to sue them and get their way since these people can't afford the legal fees.
So what I'm thinking is that a statue is added that provides the possibility to get legal fees compensated in the even that an open source developer gets taken to court. This way, if the claim is blatantly unjustified, such as in this case, the developer can bring on top notch legal counsel because the lawyer can be assured that they will get paid.
Seems like Vivendi's lawyers are really screwing up here. The evidence of a direct violation of copyright is non-existant. The only possible violation from their list that might stand up in court would be if bnetd included battle.net code, and I seriously doubt that this is the case.
My guess is that Vivendi's lawyers thought that if they fired off a real lawsuit, even if totally unsubstantiated, the bnetd people would back down. We'll see what happens, but since the EFF is already involved I get the sense that the bnetd folks are intending to fight this. So Vivendi is actually risking legitimizing bnetd in the courts.
To assume that you will never die because up until today you have not, is a fallacy because of other extraneous facts. You are, I'm assuming, human. Humans eventually die, and there is a long history indicating this to be pretty conclusive. You might live a long time, but eventually you will die.
Now, by the same token to assume you are going to live today based on your history of living makes good sense. Eventually you'll die, but barring some outside influence, odds are that it won't be today.
Certainly to accept anything as a fact, requires some faith. Are my eyes seeing light coming from the screen in front of me? Am I really typing on a keyboard? There's some faith involved in that. This may all be illusion, and I could be misinterpreting what is happening. Really, our concept of reality is completely based on faith that what we've observed in the past will continue to remain true in the future.
:). It may not in fact be true in all cases, but until we come accros a case that proves it wrong, it's simpler to accept it as a law.
To hold that a physical principal is a law, is somewhat of a simplification of reality. We hold that entropy increases in a closed system for example. I'd be willing to say that's a law because time and time again it has been proven true (the neatness of my office is a perfect example of this
With physical laws, as well as judicial laws, one should question them routinely. Law is not fact or truth, but simply a consensus of people on what is most probably true. One should be willing to consider the possibilty that the law was wrong and not blind oneself to evidence that obviously contradicts the law. Faith is a vital part of existence, but blind unquestioning faith is just as counterproductive in science as it is anywhere else.
Just because there is a simpler explanation doesn't mean that the more complex answer isn't correct. Theories suggest that time travel is possible though likely VERY difficult to accomplish. Let's not write the guy off because he MIGHT be a crack pot, let's wait and see what he does.
As for the implications of parallel universes, if it does imply a meta-universe, I have one question for you: so what?
Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomenon
You cannot base a fact on a theory, but rather it's the other way around, basing a theory on a fact. Superstring theory is just that, a theory We have, at this point, no practical way to determine the results of time travel since we have no way to time travel (with the possible exception of sitting here and waiting a while).
While I tend to think superstring theory, from what I understand of it, makes sense, lets not go suggesting that it is in any way a fact. Hopefully in time we will find enough facts to suggest whether it is the correct theory or not.
If you read the article, he explains why this wouldn't necessarily be possible. See his future self may very well have gone back in time to today to tell him how to build the thing. Problem is that when he came back he ended up in a parallel time line. So, it's entirely possible that he does succeed and that he does go back in time to tell himself how, but it wouldn't impact this timeline.
:)
Convenient non?
From the lead in it said that it was a lawsuit filed in federal court, thus New York's anti-SLAPP statutes would not be applicable (to the best of my knowledge).
Fortunately the Java sandbox makes the sex API's perfectly safe. It explicitly blocks execution of the getPregnant() method of the Woman class which is a definite plus. It's this sort of well thought out architecture that really puts Java light years ahead of Microsoft's initatives, despite Microsoft's long history of screwing people.
I don't see what could possibly make them not want to write back. It's not like I run a website where I'm constantly talking about what idiots we have in congress... oh.... nevermind... :)
I was wondering about this the other day. Does it really make a difference to the politicians when you customize some comments for them. I've participated in innumerable fax spamming operations when some controversial bill has been introduced. I'll usually spend some time putting some thoughtful commentary into it, but I wonder whether it's of any value.
I've never received any sort of direct response to any of my customized messages. I've only on rare occasions received a "this is how I stand" form letter form a politician. Do they seriously consider any of the messages? Is it really worth the time I put into it? Anybody out there who had worked for a politician that cares to comment on how such faxes were handled?
Actually, in evolution they have the option to not view images in HTML to avoid people tracking your reading. So, it's entirely possible that there won't be a record of it.
Okay, not quite ALL the rights, allow me to clarify. Originally corporations operated under charters which narrowly defined the ground rules for their operation. During the 19th century, the power of corporations grew substantially, and in 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that a corporation was deemed a "natural person" under the US Constitution. This effectively extended all constitutional protections to a corporation as thought it were a citizen.
It is this Supreme Court ruling that set up the basis for the campaign finance mess we are in today. Since corporations have the right of free expression, and since spending money is a form of expression, there's not a whole lot that can be done to limit their political influence. We'll see what happens with the new campaign finance law that looks to be passed shortly, but it's likely much of it can get struck down in court.
No, clearly corporations don't have EVERY right of a citizen. As you point out, they cannot vote, and clearly, since they are owned by people, they could be considered slaves. But where it counts they've been given a lot of constitutional protection that was never intended for them.
As for being bound by the limitations of the constitution, I disagree. Through contracts, a corporation can require it's employees or other contract signers to waive just about any right. While a contract cannot directly violate the law, they can limit the free speech of citizens quite readily. Most of the rights we traditionally think of can easily be signed away to a corporation, but a government agency has no such power over us.
The problem is that the constitution is only a limit on the power of the government over its citizens. The government cannot enact laws or contractually obligate the citizenry in such a way that the constitution is violated. This doesn't apply to corporations.
Corporations, unfortunately, have been endowed with all the rights of a citizen. The Supreme Court ruling that established this is possibly the greatest ongoing threat to the rights of individuals. Because of this ruling these corporations can engage in contracts as any citizen would but of course they have substantially more power. They are not boun by the limitations of the constitution. As the power shifts out of the hands of government and in to the hands of corporations, this situation only looks to get worse.
A constitution doesn't mean jack to people if the chief influence on their lives ceases to be government.
I've found that CVS works well as a document repository. Any sort of version control system is well suited to the task of keeping documents. The only trick beyond that is establishing an organizational structure for it.
As far as organizational structure, base it on the development process you use. So in each phase of development, you have the documents needed for that phase seperate from everything else. If you have deliverable documents, put those in a directory and then have subdirectories for any supporting material.
That's a suggestion. I would highly recommend sitting down and formally structuring this. If everybody knows where the documents are, and where to put new documents as they generate them you'll have a lot easier time of things.
Perhaps the difference here is simply that they've gotten the technology to the point that it can be efficiently implemented. Any number of technologies have been created and then taken decades to go from prototype to actually being a practical solution.
To quote from the article:
:).
In a telephone interview after the appearance, Heckenkamp's father, Thomas Heckenkamp, said his son is only trying to protect his rights . "They've overstepped their bounds, and they're keeping him from defending himself," he said.
I think this commentary speaks volumes about why this kid is there in the first place. Btw, yes, he's 22, and I say "kid" because he's acting like a child. But anyhow, if your child is acting like a tremendous idiot in the courtroom and your instinct is to criticize the court, you may have to accept that you are part of the problem. I'm not going to sit here and suggest that somehow this kid is blameless because his dad
is apparently an idiot. Just pointing out that Darwinian evolution should smite this particular mutation fast
I'm just hoping that we aren't going to get some stupid campaign trying to fight for this kids rights as though he's some hero of the Internet.
Tell all the people who were playing games that they were immediately being hired by Sony. Have people sign up for 1 hour "shifts". You can play whatever you want but are required to play for the full hour. Then pay everybody who plays $50 for their trouble. Then they are "employees" and it's all good.
Microsoft makes it REALLY easy :)
Basically the GPL, as you point out, provides a good way to get developers to put source code out into the world. The advantage that it has over some other options is that it also forces other people to do the same for you. It's not so much you don't want people to make money off your code, rather that you want to have equal opportunity to make money off that code. It prevents situations where you write 10,000 lines of code, some other guy adds 5 and then he packages the whole thing to sell and you get nothing. You could turn around, take his 5 lines, and do the same thing.
First of all you need to meet certain usability constraints before anybody will use your software in the first place. Second, if you don't make it usable and relatively bug free, somebody else can come along and hijack your software and fix it (or write something new from scratch that is better).
Remember that a corporation doesn't pay for software under the assumption that it's going to be a pain to use and buggy. They assume it's going to work well and yet they still pay for support contracts as insurance. It's risk aversion and has almost nothing to do with the inherent quality of the product. I worked at one company where they actually forced Microsoft to sell them copies of IE (yes, SELL, for money) so that they could feel they had some leverage in seeking support if something went wrong with it. Corporations will always buy support contracts for the same reason that people get health insurance. You don't buy health insurance because you plan to get sick, you do it just in case.
Now, assuming that corporations are going to get support contracts anyhow, the underyling financial model of support contracts becomes important. If you pay me $50 and it costs me $25/hour to support any problems you have, then I need to keep it under 2 hours in support calls or I'm losing money. Companies don't want to get into open ended time and materials contracts, so you have a strong incentive to get rid of bugs because they cost you money.
Having said all that, I grant that if you could write a piece of software that was:
1) instantly intuitive for everybody to learn and use
2) completely bug free
Then the service models would cease to be viable. Furthermore, I'd personally open a church to honor your name since you are clearly a God of some sort.
Subject covers it, you can stop reading now :)
This is yet another case of trying to quantify something that is qualitiative. It's is pointless to try to measure somebody's quality as a programmer (or as anything else for that matter) by using some numerical assessment. The examples above demonstrate that clearly, but here's a couple more examples:
Which is more valuable, a programmer who churns out 1000 lines of code/day but very reclusive or the one that does 500 but is also good at communicating project directions with others?
Which is more valuable, an inexperienced programmer who learns quickly or an experienced programmer who doesn't?
if you want to know how good a programmer is to ask them the right questions. I'm not sure exactly what those questions are, it depends on what you want out of them. But I've been on many interviews and it's amazed me the vast differences in interview quality. People who are trying to measure the quality of a programmer by "lines of code" are setting themselves for lots of problems.
I think I was asked once to estimate lines of code I've written and I had NO idea. Frankly if somebody did know the answer to that question I'd be concerned. It sounds like somebody who's too busy keep track of the metrics that imply their skill rather than actually doing good work. These are likely the same people who are staring at the clock for the last 15 minutes of the day, constantly estimating the minimum amount they need to do to get by.
If you look at the competition Intel had at the time when they had their problems, it was nearly non-existant. All the other chip manufacturers were making products that barely kept up with Intel. Now it's a little different with AMD giving them some real competition, but overall it was a very different playing field for Intel.
In this instance IBM is competing against a number of manufacturers in a market where it's very hard to distinguish your product. Nobody really has a substantial lead in drive technology so the only thing to compete on is brand. Will I buy a Seagate, or a Maxtor, or a Western Digital or an IBM? Well, since they all offer fairly similar products, it comes down to prive and brand.
Also, keep in mind that with Intel's problems the FDIV bug effected very few people in an obvious way. The box I use as a router still has a genuine Intel P60 with an FDIV bug and it's never caused me a problem. On the other hand, these hard drive failures create a much more obvious problem because of the potential for data loss.
While I'm not normally one to accept anecdotal evidence, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of it for these drives. I mean, name me one other hard drive that has had these sorts of problems? Certainly there are people who have had various problems with various drives from various manufacturers. But I'm hard pressed to recall a story of any one drive model becoming such a routine problem for so many.