If by alpha-geek, you mean the most skilled, you are becoming correct.
However, we still have plenty of real-live trolls that consider themselves alpha-geeks. They don't know anything, I'm shocked that they can tie their shoelaces, but when they walk by the iBook in my cube, they say, "Why would you want such a stupid computer. It looks girly and it only has one mouse button."
So when I see that stuff online, I chomp at my bit. For no good reason, of course, but it drives me crazy.
Firewire has been about to double its speed since it was invented.
The more relevant point is that 400mbit firewire already transfers much faster than 480mbit USB 2.0, simply because it stays closer to its capacity longer.
The reason that USB On-the-Go will be more desireable than firewire is that manufacturers can be sure that their customers will be able to use the USB On-the-Go devices. With firewire they will not. For the near term at least, I'm sure this will trump any speed concerns.
You might feel that would mean curtailing intake of foreign grad students. You'll have to explain that position very very well. The two statements are completely unrelated.
You'll also have to explain why US universities should be beholden to US citizens. US universities should work to become the best universities that they can.
After you show that, you'll have to prove that admitting fantastic foreign students does not improve the quality of education for the American students.
It's disappointing to see that some writers may have such a poor understanding of the economic effects that get them paid.
When your publisher decides the amount of money they are willing to pay you, the current length of copyright plays no role in their decision whatsoever. There are a number of ways to explain this, and I have time for none of them right now. I might follow up after work.
I would like to suggest that your relative poverty is completely independent of the duration of copyright, so long as it lasts at least 20 years.
Also, you're not going to get very far on a geek new site by denegrating the creativity involved in writing computer code. Computer code is a copyrightable product. Of course some computer code does not require artistic ability, just as some writing requires no artistic ability. Since there is no objective distinction between artistic and inartistic writing/coding, there should be no legal distinction.
You may think lowly of computer code. Do not assume that we do, or that we think lowly of other writings.
I say this as if I know it. I don't. This is just what I've heard.
Anyway, the pirated version of WinXP cannot be patched. At all.
The pirated version of Win2k can be patched easily via auto-update.
Once a healthy Win2k worm is developed, UCSB is going to have a lot of hurt due to unpatchable student machines. I did univ tech support with Win2k, and it was cake. XP might have some new dilemmas.
Oh, give them time. This is just the first rev of the Dragon chip. In a couple generations, they might easily have technologies in the chip and in Red Flag Linux that allow the government to detect and control seditious speech.
Previous respondents' posts about tank- and gun-based control bear notice as well.
Question: Is there a way to use VNC (or other) to access the main X session (I guess tty0 in rh 7.3) and share it similar to how it is shared in windows?
I believe this is in their FAQ. The answer is yes, kindof. You can run the vncserver with the same.Xsession file as your regular X server, and then run a framebuffer VNC client instead of an X server. You can turn off all the compression, and then it shouldn't be a performance hit at all. I don't know if OpenGL stuff would work.
As other folks have pointed out, there are award limits in the bill. So it wouldn't be *that* expensive for them.
But more importantly, in order to find that they used the law improperly, and are liable, you must show that they had no reason to suspect that you were sharing files that contained their copyright.
I don't understand the specific definitions for the language in the bill, so I don't know how you go about proving something like that. Seems all but impossible to me.
Huh. So you do CAD work on a laptop trackpad with two buttons? I thought those things were unusable for web browsing, let alone CAD design.
You do realize that no laptop manufacturers include a five button mouse as a standard option, right? We were talking about laptops, right?
Mice, on Apple machines, like mice on all machines, are typically an option. When you buy a dell, you can get it with a crappy mouse, or with a good mouse. When you order an Apple, you also have to choose a mouse. It's on a different page of the order form, which may be confusing. It might *seem* like Apple is only selling single button mice.
But you're a computer expert. Apple was concerned with making this less confusing for computer novices. Their mouse input concept is perfect. Admit it.
Eh. Kindof. Yes, you can use almost all open source software while in MacOS X. However.
Getting the source is not even close to good enough. Right now, you cannot install Darwin underneath MacOS X. 'Till that's possible, you cannot make a change to the source, recompile, and see the effects. For a serious programmer (which I'm not) I'd imagine that could be pretty frustrating.
Apple has managed a perfect balance, where they get all the benefits of open source, and none of the potential financial pitfalls. It'll be very hard for other folks to make/sell something like MacOS.
It might be the single best example of the difference between free/open source software. Yes, open source has made Apple's OS a great platform. Changing it for your own purposes is difficult.
Um, I don't get it. All of the FSF's points stem from one belief: Proprietary software is necessarily bad (perhaps immoral) and should be destroyed. Everything that RMS/the FSF does makes perfect sense, and is perfectly defensible based on that truth.
If you do not believe that to be true, you will disagree with everything they do. This is fair. But you seem to attack their conclusions without addressing the fact that you have completely different core beliefs.
RMS was not interested in helping you create proprietary software. At all. If you were creating open source or free software, or if you were trying to create anything but proprietary software, he might have been much more willing to help you. It wasn't necesarily because he doubted his code. He didn't want you to succeed. He believed you were in the process of doing something immoral.
Of course, MOSX is never running on commodity hardware. But Windows runs on an accepted standard set of hardware, right?
Imagine, for a moment, MacOS X86, with QuartzGL on high-end Apple-branded hardware. Given Apple's nice play with BSD/LGPL licensed software, what feature could they add to their operating system? Wouldn't they be able to port WINE? Apple could have it's very own Win32 runtime, without making consumers buy WinXP.
It didn't work well for OS/2, and it might not be the best idea for Apple, but they've got an existing user base and (lately) a cohesive corporate vision. Apple would have to burn that bridge when they crossed it. Not like IBM.
This is needless slander of the Linux kernel, and I'm shocked that you would imply that the Linux kernel is in direct contrast to diversity. Look what Linux kernel developement affirmative action has brought us! In 1835, who would have predicted that by 2002 we'd be letting a Finn run such a crucial developement effort!
I realize that this is a lame nit for me to pick, and it has nothing to do with the current software situation, but:
Look at QuartzGL. Next generation *2D* compositing can use much more than the standard framebuffer. Folks have posted evidence here on/. that MS might move to a similar system in future operating systems.
Of course, this isn't a reason to go with a 128 card over a 64 necessarily. On the mac it's a reason to go with a 32MB card rather than a 16 or an 8MB card. At some point, however, they might figure out how to suck up a ton of RAM and accelerate scrolling of composited windows (which I understand they haven't done yet in QuartzGL) and all of a sudden you might want massive amounts of VRAM in your next windows machine.
Right. Your school couldn't *publish* those books. So they don't. Just like CleanFlicks, your school is exercising it's fair use rights to modify and sell its physical posessions.
Are you out of your mind? That is the *worst* example you could have come up with. The TV station you discuss had to PURCHASE rights to the film. I guarantee you, the owner of the copyright on The Breakfast Club was *ecstatic* that some TV station removed all the curse words. Why? Because they got paid!
In this situation, too, the owner is getting paid. It's just not through the channel they desire. To which, I say, tough luck. They sold someone a DVD, they sold them the DVD.
I do not believe you. You say, "What you describe is exactly what copyright is designed to prevent. Modifieing a copyrighted work for profit."
Where did you come up with this? I always understood that copyright was designed to compensate creators. Please tell me why you are right and I am wrong.
Man, it is *so* upsetting to read all these complete misconceptions of copyright's purpose and its effect.
You say: "Cutting a work up and making something else out of it, even if you own the copy you cut up, is, in law, creating a derivative work, and may violate copyright as much as making a copy does."
To which I say: Yes! That is a derivative work! It is *not* illegal to create a derivative work! The only thing "derivative work" means is that the copyright STILL BELONGS TO THE ORIGINAL ARTIST. No laws were broken.
So, Steven Spielberg still owns the copyright to the cleaned up version of Jaws. What does this mean? This means that CleanFlicks can't just start printing DVDs of the cleaned up Jaws. They *can*, however, keep buying copies of Jaws, and removing the parts they don't like. This is distinctly different from publication. This is exactly the strict (smaller) definition of fair use.
Creating a derivative work is totally legal. You just don't get publication rights to your work.
Alright, someone's already jumped on you and said that they hated Nausicaa. There's really no way I can argue that it's terrible. I liked it a lot, and I'm very picky about anime. Still, it had serious pacing flaws as a movie.
The theme of progressing technology causing nature to revolt is very very common in anime. It is interesting, but it is not all that's required for a good movie. The animation and styling of Nausicaa (which may or may not have been copied from the manga. It doesn't matter.) was *fantastic*. Some modern anime fans may not like it, but I felt like I was watching a direct screen adaptation of the Airtight Garage.
However, the movie dragged. It also (like many anime movies) telegraphed all of the discoveries, and as a result felt repetitive.
You're going to have to say more than you already have to explain why Nausicaa is a better movie than Spirited Away. I'd say that Nausicaa is one of the few peices of anime that transcends the genre and is an excellent movie. But I'd say that Spirited Away is possibly the best children's movie ever made. I felt like every moment was conceived perfectly with a small child veiwer's well being in mind. The rhythm of the movie was also incredibly well orchestrated.
You're going to have to explain what makes Nausicaa a better movie than Spirited Away... 'cause I certainly don't see it.
Slashdot Mirror
If by alpha-geek, you mean the most skilled, you are becoming correct.
However, we still have plenty of real-live trolls that consider themselves alpha-geeks. They don't know anything, I'm shocked that they can tie their shoelaces, but when they walk by the iBook in my cube, they say, "Why would you want such a stupid computer. It looks girly and it only has one mouse button."
So when I see that stuff online, I chomp at my bit. For no good reason, of course, but it drives me crazy.
Firewire has been about to double its speed since it was invented.
The more relevant point is that 400mbit firewire already transfers much faster than 480mbit USB 2.0, simply because it stays closer to its capacity longer.
The reason that USB On-the-Go will be more desireable than firewire is that manufacturers can be sure that their customers will be able to use the USB On-the-Go devices. With firewire they will not. For the near term at least, I'm sure this will trump any speed concerns.
"Select honest people" is a great mandate.
You might feel that would mean curtailing intake of foreign grad students. You'll have to explain that position very very well. The two statements are completely unrelated.
You'll also have to explain why US universities should be beholden to US citizens. US universities should work to become the best universities that they can.
After you show that, you'll have to prove that admitting fantastic foreign students does not improve the quality of education for the American students.
I'm curious... could the HURD give certain devices to something like Userland Linux?
Could Userland Linux be configured to give capabilities back to the HURD?
I feel like some type of linux-like client to the HURD kernel could give the HURD the ability to use Linux drivers.
Does anyone know if this is a design goal? If it's possible? If it's desireable?
It's disappointing to see that some writers may have such a poor understanding of the economic effects that get them paid.
When your publisher decides the amount of money they are willing to pay you, the current length of copyright plays no role in their decision whatsoever. There are a number of ways to explain this, and I have time for none of them right now. I might follow up after work.
I would like to suggest that your relative poverty is completely independent of the duration of copyright, so long as it lasts at least 20 years.
Also, you're not going to get very far on a geek new site by denegrating the creativity involved in writing computer code. Computer code is a copyrightable product. Of course some computer code does not require artistic ability, just as some writing requires no artistic ability. Since there is no objective distinction between artistic and inartistic writing/coding, there should be no legal distinction.
You may think lowly of computer code. Do not assume that we do, or that we think lowly of other writings.
I say this as if I know it. I don't. This is just what I've heard.
Anyway, the pirated version of WinXP cannot be patched. At all.
The pirated version of Win2k can be patched easily via auto-update.
Once a healthy Win2k worm is developed, UCSB is going to have a lot of hurt due to unpatchable student machines. I did univ tech support with Win2k, and it was cake. XP might have some new dilemmas.
Oh, give them time. This is just the first rev of the Dragon chip. In a couple generations, they might easily have technologies in the chip and in Red Flag Linux that allow the government to detect and control seditious speech.
Previous respondents' posts about tank- and gun-based control bear notice as well.
Question: Is there a way to use VNC (or other) to access the main X session (I guess tty0 in rh 7.3) and share it similar to how it is shared in windows?
.Xsession file as your regular X server, and then run a framebuffer VNC client instead of an X server. You can turn off all the compression, and then it shouldn't be a performance hit at all. I don't know if OpenGL stuff would work.
I believe this is in their FAQ. The answer is yes, kindof. You can run the vncserver with the same
Somehow I imagine they might be able to say, "we got your name in this list of people that might be sharing files."
Which would mean they'd have a reason to suspect. The law was *really* *really* vague in terms of the cause that they'd need.
Embarassing? Priorities? I'm sorry, but I have *no* idea why you're acting like this is the dumbest thing on /.
That's right. I don't care. I also don't care when they misspell articles. My priorities are fine.
As other folks have pointed out, there are award limits in the bill. So it wouldn't be *that* expensive for them.
But more importantly, in order to find that they used the law improperly, and are liable, you must show that they had no reason to suspect that you were sharing files that contained their copyright.
I don't understand the specific definitions for the language in the bill, so I don't know how you go about proving something like that. Seems all but impossible to me.
Huh. So you do CAD work on a laptop trackpad with two buttons? I thought those things were unusable for web browsing, let alone CAD design.
You do realize that no laptop manufacturers include a five button mouse as a standard option, right? We were talking about laptops, right?
Mice, on Apple machines, like mice on all machines, are typically an option. When you buy a dell, you can get it with a crappy mouse, or with a good mouse. When you order an Apple, you also have to choose a mouse. It's on a different page of the order form, which may be confusing. It might *seem* like Apple is only selling single button mice.
But you're a computer expert. Apple was concerned with making this less confusing for computer novices. Their mouse input concept is perfect. Admit it.
Yeah, I'm kindof shocked that I'm not seeing many highly modded comments about free software...
I thought a significant minority of Linux users really cared about freedom. I know *I* did. And I still do. But I still run MacOS X on an iBook....
Eh. Kindof. Yes, you can use almost all open source software while in MacOS X. However.
Getting the source is not even close to good enough. Right now, you cannot install Darwin underneath MacOS X. 'Till that's possible, you cannot make a change to the source, recompile, and see the effects. For a serious programmer (which I'm not) I'd imagine that could be pretty frustrating.
Apple has managed a perfect balance, where they get all the benefits of open source, and none of the potential financial pitfalls. It'll be very hard for other folks to make/sell something like MacOS.
It might be the single best example of the difference between free/open source software. Yes, open source has made Apple's OS a great platform. Changing it for your own purposes is difficult.
Um, I don't get it. All of the FSF's points stem from one belief: Proprietary software is necessarily bad (perhaps immoral) and should be destroyed. Everything that RMS/the FSF does makes perfect sense, and is perfectly defensible based on that truth.
If you do not believe that to be true, you will disagree with everything they do. This is fair. But you seem to attack their conclusions without addressing the fact that you have completely different core beliefs.
RMS was not interested in helping you create proprietary software. At all. If you were creating open source or free software, or if you were trying to create anything but proprietary software, he might have been much more willing to help you. It wasn't necesarily because he doubted his code. He didn't want you to succeed. He believed you were in the process of doing something immoral.
People typically give away the sourcecode to their books. Somehow, they maintain copyright on the books.
Of course, MOSX is never running on commodity hardware. But Windows runs on an accepted standard set of hardware, right?
Imagine, for a moment, MacOS X86, with QuartzGL on high-end Apple-branded hardware. Given Apple's nice play with BSD/LGPL licensed software, what feature could they add to their operating system? Wouldn't they be able to port WINE? Apple could have it's very own Win32 runtime, without making consumers buy WinXP.
It didn't work well for OS/2, and it might not be the best idea for Apple, but they've got an existing user base and (lately) a cohesive corporate vision. Apple would have to burn that bridge when they crossed it. Not like IBM.
Diversity be good. Monolithism be bad.
This is needless slander of the Linux kernel, and I'm shocked that you would imply that the Linux kernel is in direct contrast to diversity. Look what Linux kernel developement affirmative action has brought us! In 1835, who would have predicted that by 2002 we'd be letting a Finn run such a crucial developement effort!
I realize that this is a lame nit for me to pick, and it has nothing to do with the current software situation, but:
/. that MS might move to a similar system in future operating systems.
Look at QuartzGL. Next generation *2D* compositing can use much more than the standard framebuffer. Folks have posted evidence here on
Of course, this isn't a reason to go with a 128 card over a 64 necessarily. On the mac it's a reason to go with a 32MB card rather than a 16 or an 8MB card. At some point, however, they might figure out how to suck up a ton of RAM and accelerate scrolling of composited windows (which I understand they haven't done yet in QuartzGL) and all of a sudden you might want massive amounts of VRAM in your next windows machine.
Right. Your school couldn't *publish* those books. So they don't. Just like CleanFlicks, your school is exercising it's fair use rights to modify and sell its physical posessions.
Are you out of your mind? That is the *worst* example you could have come up with. The TV station you discuss had to PURCHASE rights to the film. I guarantee you, the owner of the copyright on The Breakfast Club was *ecstatic* that some TV station removed all the curse words. Why? Because they got paid!
In this situation, too, the owner is getting paid. It's just not through the channel they desire. To which, I say, tough luck. They sold someone a DVD, they sold them the DVD.
I do not believe you. You say, "What you describe is exactly what copyright is designed to prevent. Modifieing a copyrighted work for profit."
Where did you come up with this? I always understood that copyright was designed to compensate creators. Please tell me why you are right and I am wrong.
Man, it is *so* upsetting to read all these complete misconceptions of copyright's purpose and its effect.
You say: "Cutting a work up and making something else out of it, even if you own the copy you cut up, is, in law, creating a derivative work, and may violate copyright as much as making a copy does."
To which I say:
Yes! That is a derivative work! It is *not* illegal to create a derivative work! The only thing "derivative work" means is that the copyright STILL BELONGS TO THE ORIGINAL ARTIST. No laws were broken.
So, Steven Spielberg still owns the copyright to the cleaned up version of Jaws. What does this mean? This means that CleanFlicks can't just start printing DVDs of the cleaned up Jaws. They *can*, however, keep buying copies of Jaws, and removing the parts they don't like. This is distinctly different from publication. This is exactly the strict (smaller) definition of fair use.
Creating a derivative work is totally legal. You just don't get publication rights to your work.
I'm sorry, that wasn't meant to be a serious criticism. My problems with the movie were that it's repetitive and it drags in places.
Alright, someone's already jumped on you and said that they hated Nausicaa. There's really no way I can argue that it's terrible. I liked it a lot, and I'm very picky about anime. Still, it had serious pacing flaws as a movie.
The theme of progressing technology causing nature to revolt is very very common in anime. It is interesting, but it is not all that's required for a good movie. The animation and styling of Nausicaa (which may or may not have been copied from the manga. It doesn't matter.) was *fantastic*. Some modern anime fans may not like it, but I felt like I was watching a direct screen adaptation of the Airtight Garage.
However, the movie dragged. It also (like many anime movies) telegraphed all of the discoveries, and as a result felt repetitive.
You're going to have to say more than you already have to explain why Nausicaa is a better movie than Spirited Away. I'd say that Nausicaa is one of the few peices of anime that transcends the genre and is an excellent movie. But I'd say that Spirited Away is possibly the best children's movie ever made. I felt like every moment was conceived perfectly with a small child veiwer's well being in mind. The rhythm of the movie was also incredibly well orchestrated.
You're going to have to explain what makes Nausicaa a better movie than Spirited Away... 'cause I certainly don't see it.