That true? I got the idea the photographic imagery (read satellite photos) is under a different license considering it falls under a different section of their TOS and includes words like "dissassemble", "decompile" and "reverse engineer" I just assumed they didn't have full rights to the stuff to pass on fully even if they wanted to. (decompile and reverse engineer seem really out of place when it comes to photographs...)
However, if we dock the.01% the artist gets until it's paid for the losses that should do the trick, provided they move several infinities of units. Hmm... better run that one by the math consultants again.
No. No. No. I don't think you understand how "the system" works. The artists get their cut (.01%) and from that cut is deducted all expenses they incur. Now, if the numbers add to more than 100%, obviously that's an expense incurred by the artist so they pay it. It all makes great mathematical sense, all the numbers add up, and the artists signed the contract in the first place so they're really getting exactly what they bargained for.
(Just don't let them find out their adjusted net income is -89.2% until *after* pen goes to paper...)
With a caveat...that author chooses to have his books in digital format to give for free. Again, he *chooses*. Each author/publisher should have the right to choose.
Agreed, as long as you're not using the word "right" in a misleading fashion and confusing a fair and balanced system of copyright with fundamental human rights...
In this case, I don't see where Google has obtained re-publishing rights to match what it is about to do. However, the only "legal right" the authors/publishers etc have (or will have once it happens) is to sue google for infringement. And sue they should, at around $250k per work you'd think the bill would add up rather quickly.
I'm sitting here imagining an army of lawyers slathering at the mere thought of all that well documented infringement by a wealthy public corporation...
I'm trying to figure out how working with sleazy characters is similar to posting the home address of someone's mother. (Except maybe that working with wackos causes an occupational hazard of becoming one.)
Saying "I'm gonna kill ya!" online is somewhat rude. Stalking out personal info and posting pictures (with or without the explicit threat) is just plain chilling. Especially coming from a "professional journalist". *shivers*
Well ya, allowing for the presence of a single enzyme certainly seems reasonable, of course without knowing how complex that enzyme is that could be akin to allowing for a sea of those little blocks from the video. Not really sure where I'd put that on the scale of self-replication, but a lot higher than when "jump frames" are used to give the cycle a hand every so often.
Glad I asked. I was thinking you were referring to RNA viruses or retro viruses which rely on existing cell mechanisms for their replication. I didn't realize RNA really could replicate 100% on its own. (Well, aside from knowing ribosomes are built from RNA and that they are a crucial part of protein synthesis in cells.)
Self replicating in what sense? Even a virus doesn't replicate "by itself". It requires existing (hopefully common) systems to do the actual replication for it, and merely commandeers their normal operation. Some certainly consider virii on the boundary of what we consider life, but clearly they are far more simple than stand alone life like bacteria or single celled organisms which rely on... wait for it... nothing more than raw materials.
Basically if a "self-replicator" relies on something more complex than itself to replicate, it seems incorrect to call it a "self" replicator. The trick of course being we don't have good ways of measuring (or at least agreeing on) levels of complexity in a quantitative sense.
(Note: One could easily argue animals need plants to replicate and therefore aren't self-replicating, but the fats, sugars and protiens we animals actually require appear far less complex than our bodies...)
Actually... when you consider some programmers are 10 times more efficient than "average/very employable" others. It isn't a stretch at all to think one programmer working half the time could outperform another. But either would still probably be another 5 times as effective without the drugs...
Well... Even if all you do is introduce an element of randomness, things get a lock trickier to exploit. It's really easy to overwrite the return address and execute your malicious code if you know its right off the end of data you have access to. It's a lot tougher if the address you have to overwrite is moved around every compile, or better yet based on program execution up to the point where you're trying to exploit.
I'm not saying the gain is necessarily worth all that effort, but it's certainly an interesting area to pursue.
Here's a novel question: Why even put the stack and heap in the same virtual page on modern operating systems?
I mean, there were a lot of design decisions that made sense back in the day, but I'm always wondering if a fresh ground-up processor design might not have some advantages...
Retail sales of operating systems fell. Only pre-installed OEM licensed sales grew (and that resulted in overall growth of only 2%). The question is whether retail sales lead the OEM market or not. I would think so in most cases, but with Windows the Retail tax is so onerous no one wants to pay it, so maybe not.
Or, it could just be the money market like MS claims.
Except with Apple having a market cap of only 30 billion, and Google's only being 60 billion (as opposed to Microsoft's 274 billion) there's a lot more room to grow.
Actually... I'm surprised Google's market cap is 60 billion considering the apparent size of their market (4 billion in revenues which I'm not sure is a whole year vs Microsoft's 40 billion), but hey, they are a company in vogue right now, and that always takes its tole.
Of course the Price/Revenue numbers tell a different story (These are based on somewhat stale stock-values, but you get the idea...): MSFT: 7 AAPL: 2.67 GOOG: 16? (not sure I did this right, since they're less than a year old)
Of course, none of this is even taking into acount future expected growth or even past history of growth...
Well... I suppose I could have said "He harmed a whole lot of individuals in a small way, which collectively added up to quite a bit of harm." It just seamed easier to say "He's damages society" (Boy I need a spell-checker).
In any case, I don't think I was using "society" in your "bullshit manner" in this case. If you can show where I'm wrong here I'm all ears. I really don't see how spamming is any different than releasing a virus on the internet. Writing a virus is not harming any individual but many members of a community or "society". If your argument holds in one case (spamming) but not the other (virus proliferation) please explain.
Was the point that searching isn't always the best method of finding data completely lost on you?
Basically, yeah
Replacing file-trees with search and removing the ability to keep file-trees
Who said anything about removing anything?
Searching is "the" method and at the same time you're not advocating removing existing functionality. Ri-ight.
You're talking in meaningless and nonsensical abstractions. I'm talking about an actual computer program.
I'm trying to have a conversation about useability, you seem to be looking for an "ooh that's cool" and a pat on your back for finding some useless(to me) search tool.
first time I sat down at an OS-X workstation I couldn't even find the web-browser let alone documents.
Hm. I'm having a hard time coming up with an explanation for this that doesn't involve massive, almost comma-cal, stupidity on your part.
Your opinions about my intelligence might carry more weight if properly punctuated.
in light of what you said about not having much use for Mac OS X. You asked, "Why can't I just grab the contents of my 'programs' directory and move it to a new machine?"
Well... I don't use MAC's, and until I see this in action I doubt it really is that simple despite all claims to the contrary. I've heard a lot of similar claims and they've all been bunk. In every environment I've ever worked in, nothing ever is "that simple". In fact I have a co-worker who regularly tells me to try some new program because it works great and does all these things and doesn't break. So I download it and run it and without fail and within 10 minutes I break it in a way he has no idea how to fix, so I throw it away and move on to something else. (I reserve my time for programs that take me at least 30 minutes to break, or have some really nifty feature I can't get elsewhere...)
If you want information related to scuba diving, you shouldn't have to go looking with lots of clicky-clicky-clicky.... See what I mean? The computer goes from being a big shoebox full of paper to a machine that actually knows things and that can answer questions. This is good. This is important.
No I don't. This is a pipedream. Computers are nothing more than stupid automatons doing exactly as they are told no matter what the user intended. Maybe someday in the distant future this might change, but we're a long ways from there. If you know the words "scuba diving" and how to quote it as a string, searching is just fine. But what if you're interested in methods of breathing underwater and don't know the name, or can't remember it? Trying to find this kind of information via a generically-indexed database or search engine can be painful at best. Also, as the dataset grows and changes the results for any given set of keywords changes over time. This might be great for entertainment, but it hardly fills the bill when you need to keep track of important information, none of which can fall through the cracks.
To reiterate (and no matter how cool you think some app or class of apps is): Searching is a part, but not all, of the equation. The drawback of searching is that I have to find keywords, remember them, worry about varied results and go through complete and sometimes slow iterations to refine what I'm after. The drawback of file-trees is I have to take the time to organize, go clickety-clickety and remember something about how I organize. In either case I'd hate to have to go without tools or force someone off of a methodology that works for them...
I'm afraid I don't agree with you. LGPL does not include the explicit patent grant that the MPL includes, nor does it establish ground rules for maintaining a patent peace, and thus does not serve as the archetype for MPL licenses and their (many) derivatives.
Well, I consider the patent clauses to be more or less refinements to deal with the deteriorating patent system in the US rather than core features, but I digress.
Instead it includes an exception to the scope of the GPL which depends on the language and architecture of the software in use and makes assumptions on how dynamic linking will take place
That's true, it isn't quite "file by file" it's more "module by module". (Which I think is a better model, but may be too difficult to nail down properly. I do agree that the LGPL certainly falls apart when stretched too far beyond its homeground of C/C++ on UNIX-like OS's.)
In all other respects it is the same as my third license category, GPL licenses.
These differences are enough that when I see a GPL'ed program I know I can't use it as any part of a production release at work, but when I see LGPL'ed code, I know I can make use of it if I'm sure to follow the guidelines.
I can certainly agree that LGPL may fall somewhere between MPL and GPL in actual license grant, but I definitely felt like a mention of the LGPL was suspiciously absent from your article. (And I would still guess that the MPL was very much inspired by the LGPL in many regards... Well, that and even earlier "vanity" licenses.)
In any case. Here's hoping the CDDL (or some other derivitive) becomes a common standard useful for both commercial entities and the community that helps bring an end to this "license du jour" nonsense.
Was the point that searching isn't always the best method of finding data completely lost on you? Do you leave your room a mess thinking "oh, I have a great search tool"?
Is 30+ years of computer science a design flaw? Is the fact cars don't stop instantly when you hit the brakes (inertia) a design flaw? What about physics and information theory in general? Heck engineers used to talk about "essence" and "accident" in terms of design costs. Am I expected to believe everything is an accident, essence doesn't exist and creating such a seperation is a waste of time? (Yes, they blur and we're never sure, but that hardly makes the distinctinction unimportant)
My entire point was that different != better when it comes to user interfaces. Replacing file-trees with search and removing the ability to keep file-trees is worse than doing nothing in most environments.
For the record: The first time I sat down at an OS-X workstation I couldn't even find the web-browser let alone documents. That was having already seen screen-shots with the big-ugly toolbar at the bottom. (Silly me thinking there was an easy alternative to the darned thing...) In theory I think OS-X is really cool, but in practice I don't have much use for anything except the command line.
What the author of "Failed as in succeeded wildly." meant was LGPL-style licenses. LGPL has been around a lot longer than MPL and actually fits what he describes.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you even LIVE in a house?
Muwahahaha!! That's hands down the funniest AC post I've ever seen.
They own the map data...
That true? I got the idea the photographic imagery (read satellite photos) is under a different license considering it falls under a different section of their TOS and includes words like "dissassemble", "decompile" and "reverse engineer" I just assumed they didn't have full rights to the stuff to pass on fully even if they wanted to. (decompile and reverse engineer seem really out of place when it comes to photographs...)
It's not:
int main(char *argc, int argv) {
printf("Hello '%s'", argc[1]);
}
It's:
int main(char *argc, int argv) {
printf("Hello World");
}
Not much room for errors in specifiers you don't use...
However, if we dock the .01% the artist gets until it's paid for the losses that should do the trick, provided they move several infinities of units. Hmm... better run that one by the math consultants again.
No. No. No. I don't think you understand how "the system" works. The artists get their cut (.01%) and from that cut is deducted all expenses they incur. Now, if the numbers add to more than 100%, obviously that's an expense incurred by the artist so they pay it. It all makes great mathematical sense, all the numbers add up, and the artists signed the contract in the first place so they're really getting exactly what they bargained for.
(Just don't let them find out their adjusted net income is -89.2% until *after* pen goes to paper...)
With a caveat...that author chooses to have his books in digital format to give for free. Again, he *chooses*. Each author/publisher should have the right to choose.
Agreed, as long as you're not using the word "right" in a misleading fashion and confusing a fair and balanced system of copyright with fundamental human rights...
In this case, I don't see where Google has obtained re-publishing rights to match what it is about to do. However, the only "legal right" the authors/publishers etc have (or will have once it happens) is to sue google for infringement. And sue they should, at around $250k per work you'd think the bill would add up rather quickly.
I'm sitting here imagining an army of lawyers slathering at the mere thought of all that well documented infringement by a wealthy public corporation...
I'm trying to figure out how working with sleazy characters is similar to posting the home address of someone's mother. (Except maybe that working with wackos causes an occupational hazard of becoming one.)
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Saying "I'm gonna kill ya!" online is somewhat rude. Stalking out personal info and posting pictures (with or without the explicit threat) is just plain chilling. Especially coming from a "professional journalist". *shivers*
Well ya, allowing for the presence of a single enzyme certainly seems reasonable, of course without knowing how complex that enzyme is that could be akin to allowing for a sea of those little blocks from the video. Not really sure where I'd put that on the scale of self-replication, but a lot higher than when "jump frames" are used to give the cycle a hand every so often.
Glad I asked. I was thinking you were referring to RNA viruses or retro viruses which rely on existing cell mechanisms for their replication. I didn't realize RNA really could replicate 100% on its own. (Well, aside from knowing ribosomes are built from RNA and that they are a crucial part of protein synthesis in cells.)
There are self replicating RNA strands out there
... wait for it ... nothing more than raw materials.
Self replicating in what sense? Even a virus doesn't replicate "by itself". It requires existing (hopefully common) systems to do the actual replication for it, and merely commandeers their normal operation. Some certainly consider virii on the boundary of what we consider life, but clearly they are far more simple than stand alone life like bacteria or single celled organisms which rely on
Basically if a "self-replicator" relies on something more complex than itself to replicate, it seems incorrect to call it a "self" replicator. The trick of course being we don't have good ways of measuring (or at least agreeing on) levels of complexity in a quantitative sense.
(Note: One could easily argue animals need plants to replicate and therefore aren't self-replicating, but the fats, sugars and protiens we animals actually require appear far less complex than our bodies...)
Actually... when you consider some programmers are 10 times more efficient than "average/very employable" others. It isn't a stretch at all to think one programmer working half the time could outperform another. But either would still probably be another 5 times as effective without the drugs...
Ya vi and coke. That's what Real Programmers run on.
Illegal monopolies aside, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too.
Illegal monopolies aside??!! Illegal monopolies were the whole reason IE was an issue.
Well... Even if all you do is introduce an element of randomness, things get a lock trickier to exploit. It's really easy to overwrite the return address and execute your malicious code if you know its right off the end of data you have access to. It's a lot tougher if the address you have to overwrite is moved around every compile, or better yet based on program execution up to the point where you're trying to exploit.
I'm not saying the gain is necessarily worth all that effort, but it's certainly an interesting area to pursue.
Here's a novel question: Why even put the stack and heap in the same virtual page on modern operating systems?
I mean, there were a lot of design decisions that made sense back in the day, but I'm always wondering if a fresh ground-up processor design might not have some advantages...
Retail sales of operating systems fell. Only pre-installed OEM licensed sales grew (and that resulted in overall growth of only 2%). The question is whether retail sales lead the OEM market or not. I would think so in most cases, but with Windows the Retail tax is so onerous no one wants to pay it, so maybe not.
Or, it could just be the money market like MS claims.
Whare have we heard that before?
Except with Apple having a market cap of only 30 billion, and Google's only being 60 billion (as opposed to Microsoft's 274 billion) there's a lot more room to grow.
Actually... I'm surprised Google's market cap is 60 billion considering the apparent size of their market (4 billion in revenues which I'm not sure is a whole year vs Microsoft's 40 billion), but hey, they are a company in vogue right now, and that always takes its tole.
Of course the Price/Revenue numbers tell a different story (These are based on somewhat stale stock-values, but you get the idea...):
MSFT: 7
AAPL: 2.67
GOOG: 16? (not sure I did this right, since they're less than a year old)
Of course, none of this is even taking into acount future expected growth or even past history of growth...
You have contributed nothing, and served only to make yourself look like a fool.
Ah good. I'll consider us equals in this endeavor.
Cheers.
Well... I suppose I could have said "He harmed a whole lot of individuals in a small way, which collectively added up to quite a bit of harm." It just seamed easier to say "He's damages society" (Boy I need a spell-checker).
In any case, I don't think I was using "society" in your "bullshit manner" in this case. If you can show where I'm wrong here I'm all ears. I really don't see how spamming is any different than releasing a virus on the internet. Writing a virus is not harming any individual but many members of a community or "society". If your argument holds in one case (spamming) but not the other (virus proliferation) please explain.
Searching is "the" method and at the same time you're not advocating removing existing functionality. Ri-ight.
You're talking in meaningless and nonsensical abstractions. I'm talking about an actual computer program.
I'm trying to have a conversation about useability, you seem to be looking for an "ooh that's cool" and a pat on your back for finding some useless(to me) search tool. Hm. I'm having a hard time coming up with an explanation for this that doesn't involve massive, almost comma-cal, stupidity on your part.
Your opinions about my intelligence might carry more weight if properly punctuated.
in light of what you said about not having much use for Mac OS X. You asked, "Why can't I just grab the contents of my 'programs' directory and move it to a new machine?"
Well... I don't use MAC's, and until I see this in action I doubt it really is that simple despite all claims to the contrary. I've heard a lot of similar claims and they've all been bunk. In every environment I've ever worked in, nothing ever is "that simple". In fact I have a co-worker who regularly tells me to try some new program because it works great and does all these things and doesn't break. So I download it and run it and without fail and within 10 minutes I break it in a way he has no idea how to fix, so I throw it away and move on to something else. (I reserve my time for programs that take me at least 30 minutes to break, or have some really nifty feature I can't get elsewhere...)
If you want information related to scuba diving, you shouldn't have to go looking with lots of clicky-clicky-clicky.
See what I mean? The computer goes from being a big shoebox full of paper to a machine that actually knows things and that can answer questions. This is good. This is important.
No I don't. This is a pipedream. Computers are nothing more than stupid automatons doing exactly as they are told no matter what the user intended. Maybe someday in the distant future this might change, but we're a long ways from there. If you know the words "scuba diving" and how to quote it as a string, searching is just fine. But what if you're interested in methods of breathing underwater and don't know the name, or can't remember it? Trying to find this kind of information via a generically-indexed database or search engine can be painful at best. Also, as the dataset grows and changes the results for any given set of keywords changes over time. This might be great for entertainment, but it hardly fills the bill when you need to keep track of important information, none of which can fall through the cracks.
To reiterate (and no matter how cool you think some app or class of apps is): Searching is a part, but not all, of the equation. The drawback of searching is that I have to find keywords, remember them, worry about varied results and go through complete and sometimes slow iterations to refine what I'm after. The drawback of file-trees is I have to take the time to organize, go clickety-clickety and remember something about how I organize. In either case I'd hate to have to go without tools or force someone off of a methodology that works for them...
Assuming you are referring to my blog entry
That's the one.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you. LGPL does not include the explicit patent grant that the MPL includes, nor does it establish ground rules for maintaining a patent peace, and thus does not serve as the archetype for MPL licenses and their (many) derivatives.
Well, I consider the patent clauses to be more or less refinements to deal with the deteriorating patent system in the US rather than core features, but I digress.
Instead it includes an exception to the scope of the GPL which depends on the language and architecture of the software in use and makes assumptions on how dynamic linking will take place
That's true, it isn't quite "file by file" it's more "module by module". (Which I think is a better model, but may be too difficult to nail down properly. I do agree that the LGPL certainly falls apart when stretched too far beyond its homeground of C/C++ on UNIX-like OS's.)
In all other respects it is the same as my third license category, GPL licenses.
These differences are enough that when I see a GPL'ed program I know I can't use it as any part of a production release at work, but when I see LGPL'ed code, I know I can make use of it if I'm sure to follow the guidelines.
I can certainly agree that LGPL may fall somewhere between MPL and GPL in actual license grant, but I definitely felt like a mention of the LGPL was suspiciously absent from your article. (And I would still guess that the MPL was very much inspired by the LGPL in many regards... Well, that and even earlier "vanity" licenses.)
In any case. Here's hoping the CDDL (or some other derivitive) becomes a common standard useful for both commercial entities and the community that helps bring an end to this "license du jour" nonsense.
Ouch my tummy! That's funny. Too bad I have no +1 for ya.
Was the point that searching isn't always the best method of finding data completely lost on you? Do you leave your room a mess thinking "oh, I have a great search tool"?
Is 30+ years of computer science a design flaw? Is the fact cars don't stop instantly when you hit the brakes (inertia) a design flaw? What about physics and information theory in general? Heck engineers used to talk about "essence" and "accident" in terms of design costs. Am I expected to believe everything is an accident, essence doesn't exist and creating such a seperation is a waste of time? (Yes, they blur and we're never sure, but that hardly makes the distinctinction unimportant)
My entire point was that different != better when it comes to user interfaces. Replacing file-trees with search and removing the ability to keep file-trees is worse than doing nothing in most environments.
For the record: The first time I sat down at an OS-X workstation I couldn't even find the web-browser let alone documents. That was having already seen screen-shots with the big-ugly toolbar at the bottom. (Silly me thinking there was an easy alternative to the darned thing...) In theory I think OS-X is really cool, but in practice I don't have much use for anything except the command line.
What the author of "Failed as in succeeded wildly." meant was LGPL-style licenses. LGPL has been around a lot longer than MPL and actually fits what he describes.