Why any of this should matter to you isn't my concern.
It's your concern as long as I am paying for the research. When your funding gets cut, you'll be begging to tell us why it's important to the rest of us. I'm sure that this project was sold as having some benefit for all of us, and not an ego boost for a small group of scientists. Why should I care about the scientists' sense of what's fair? You're doing a job for which you are receiving what you consider fair compensation (or you wouldn't be doing it). Beyond the contract you've agreed to, what you feel is none of my concern.
I'm not an amateur astronomer myself, so I don't have any particular interest in the images. However, I think discovery is more likely the more eyes are looking at the data. Since we're talking about publicly funded projects, it is appropriate that the we get the maximum return on our investement whether or not that makes you happy.
I've already established why being the first to make a press release or to publish is important. You haven't counter-argued that, just avoided it.
You've established why you being the first to publish is important to you, you haven't established that it is important to me. Your assertion that open access to data will drive scientists out of research isn't supported by the only data point I have access to: you. But, if closed access to data is so valuable to you, why isn't it in your contract?
Why do you think that the general public is entitled to beat the scientists to the results? Are you also prepared to argue that you're entitled to a ride on Air Force One or to look at the CIA's current data?
I don't think anyone's entitled to much of anything, except I think that the taxpayers are entitled to the output of projects they fund. Of course this means that the taxpayers can choose to fund things like the CIA that won't give direct access to all data. Next project you want funded, why don't you put in the proposal that the information must be reserved for you to have first publication rights, and see how far it gets. That's what private funding is for.
A ride in Air Force One, or a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, are scarce resources, and allowing me to have one would impose a cost on society to benefit a single individual. This is a bad thing. Freely disseminating probe data creates a benefit to society, and only imposes a cost on a few individuals like you. This is a good thing. So, your analogy nicely proves my point.
If your version of the discovery, or your analysis, is somehow better, more reliable, more thorough, more useful, etc, then you shouldn't be worried about press releases from amateurs. If the main stream media won't carry your stories because they are "old news" that sounds like an issue you need to work out with them. OTOH, if the stuff you publish isn't inherently more valuable than the stuff the amateurs put out, then I want my money back.
Yeah, why should the people who didn't devote years of their lives and continue to devote 60-80 hours a week running the instrument be at a disadvantage?
What would that disadvantage be? Missing the opportunity to be the first to write about something? Do you really believe that you are entitled to that?
Since you are the one who knows WTF you are talking about, why would anyone care what joe shmo who's up at 3AM thinks about the pictures? Obviously he's too stupid to make any interesting discoveries anyway. So, is it about scientific discovery, or is about your ego? If it's the former, it benefits us all, and I couldn't care less who makes the discovery. If it's the latter, I'm certainly going to ask my Congressman to defund your little ego boost operation, and you can pay for it yourself.
Scienists take a severe hit to their careers to PI an instrument like this
I would think that scientists would also take a severe hit to their careers but not being able to spell "scientist".
Ok, I'll bite. How? What's wrong with "what's left of this planet" that could be fixed for a few million dollars? Could you end world hunger? Cure AIDS? Prevent the inevitable extinction (again) of most life on the planet?
Your anti-Sony crusade will be much more effective if you stop making shit up. Hiding files on someone else's machine doesn't meet anyone's definition of a backdoor.
No, it isn't. A backdoor is by definition something that allows access to a system. That's the "door" part. Otherwise, "attrib +h" would be a backdoor.
Floppy disks were write protected by covering the notch with tape. To "circumvent" the write protection, you would remove the tape, or cut a notch. But I can't think of a reason why write protection is something that needs to be circumvented.
Yes, but you forgot that this project will also help the "growing interest for the EU based mirror manufacturer's business worldwide." Won't you please think of the mirrors?
The only reason it matters at all is the fact that copyright hawks keep using the term "theft" for PR purposes.
So you're saying that Zonk and the submitter are "copyright hawks"? Too many people are hawks when it is their property being stolen, and doves when it is someone else's.
Nope, I'm saying that he has the same rights. Jon wrote code that was designed and widely used for copyright infringement[0]. Of course, this was justified under the claim that copyright infrigement isn't theft, and that "information wants to be free." I just think it's terribly ironic to now see a headline on slashdot alledging, "some stolen GPL'd code in Sony's rootkit."
It makes me chuckle.
[0} Yeah, fair use and all that. The fact remains that like Jon, who published his code under certain terms, people who buy DVD's do so under certain terms (including use on licensed players). Either the publisher has a right to expect users to honor those terms, or he doesn't.
This is because there are nanometre-sized particles of iron present on nearly every grain of lunar soil and microwaves cause the iron particles to couple together.
How did such an ignorant post get modded Interesting?
No seizures would have to take place. The gov't's or any other interested parties would simply have to convince ISP's and everyone else running a recursive nameserver to use the UN's version of the root hints.
Ah yes, flee UK ID cards and 90-day detention without trial for the balmy shores of the United States, with REAL ID, and, umm... indefini... aaw fuck.
What's your problem with REAL ID? You think illegal aliens should be able to get Driver's licenses? I guess you think they should be able to vote, too.
IANAL, but the lady I got this from is a Circuit Court Judge...
I sure hope not. Malice is only a requirement if the plaintiff is a celebrity or public official. Also, falsity is not necessarily an element of libel, although truth is a defense.
Unfortunately for this woman, she'll have to prove that her statements were true, otherwise, she will probably lose.
If main power fails in an AC data center, the UPS systems need to take the DC from the batteries and convert to AC, then distribute, then each machine needs to convert back to DC. That's terribly wasteful, since neither of these conversions is anywhere near perfect efficiency. In a DC data center, the UPS systems are just the batteries, so they can hold much longer.
Regardless of incoming power status, almost all large UPS's are always in the electricity path, so there is always AC-->DC-->AC-->DC.
And I dont know that it is clear that they were working from the assumption that it was trademarkable, they might have been working from the assumption that as a small fry, it might be too expensive to attempt to litigate, or not worth the bother.
I think it's fair to conclude that Microsoft operates under the assumption that "Windows" is trademarkable given that they in fact have a trademark on it. I would go so far as to say it's idiotic to come to any other conclusion. I'm sure they have a contingency plan for if the trademark is thrown out, but they don't have to rely on that until such a contingency occurs.
And how does the Australian trademark matter to US companies?
You should reread the article. And, FWIW, they have a trademark on Windows in the US, too.
You are working from the assumption that that is a trademarkable name.
My assumptions don't matter since I'm not one of the parties. Microsoft was clearly operating from the assumption that it is a trademarkable name since they actually hold a trademark on the name in the jursidiction in question. The programmer seems to have been operating from the same assumption since he didn't demand licensing fees.
Can you show where Microsoft can legally claim "Windows" as a trademark?
Slashdot Mirror
Why any of this should matter to you isn't my concern.
It's your concern as long as I am paying for the research. When your funding gets cut, you'll be begging to tell us why it's important to the rest of us. I'm sure that this project was sold as having some benefit for all of us, and not an ego boost for a small group of scientists. Why should I care about the scientists' sense of what's fair? You're doing a job for which you are receiving what you consider fair compensation (or you wouldn't be doing it). Beyond the contract you've agreed to, what you feel is none of my concern.
I'm not an amateur astronomer myself, so I don't have any particular interest in the images. However, I think discovery is more likely the more eyes are looking at the data. Since we're talking about publicly funded projects, it is appropriate that the we get the maximum return on our investement whether or not that makes you happy.
I get the point just fine.
I've already established why being the first to make a press release or to publish is important. You haven't counter-argued that, just avoided it.
You've established why you being the first to publish is important to you, you haven't established that it is important to me. Your assertion that open access to data will drive scientists out of research isn't supported by the only data point I have access to: you. But, if closed access to data is so valuable to you, why isn't it in your contract?
Why do you think that the general public is entitled to beat the scientists to the results? Are you also prepared to argue that you're entitled to a ride on Air Force One or to look at the CIA's current data?
I don't think anyone's entitled to much of anything, except I think that the taxpayers are entitled to the output of projects they fund. Of course this means that the taxpayers can choose to fund things like the CIA that won't give direct access to all data. Next project you want funded, why don't you put in the proposal that the information must be reserved for you to have first publication rights, and see how far it gets. That's what private funding is for.
A ride in Air Force One, or a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, are scarce resources, and allowing me to have one would impose a cost on society to benefit a single individual. This is a bad thing. Freely disseminating probe data creates a benefit to society, and only imposes a cost on a few individuals like you. This is a good thing. So, your analogy nicely proves my point.
If your version of the discovery, or your analysis, is somehow better, more reliable, more thorough, more useful, etc, then you shouldn't be worried about press releases from amateurs. If the main stream media won't carry your stories because they are "old news" that sounds like an issue you need to work out with them. OTOH, if the stuff you publish isn't inherently more valuable than the stuff the amateurs put out, then I want my money back.
What would the "public" be giving up? Do these domains have some intrinsic value that is currently vested in the "public"?
Yeah, why should the people who didn't devote years of their lives and continue to devote 60-80 hours a week running the instrument be at a disadvantage?
What would that disadvantage be? Missing the opportunity to be the first to write about something? Do you really believe that you are entitled to that?
Since you are the one who knows WTF you are talking about, why would anyone care what joe shmo who's up at 3AM thinks about the pictures? Obviously he's too stupid to make any interesting discoveries anyway. So, is it about scientific discovery, or is about your ego? If it's the former, it benefits us all, and I couldn't care less who makes the discovery. If it's the latter, I'm certainly going to ask my Congressman to defund your little ego boost operation, and you can pay for it yourself.
Scienists take a severe hit to their careers to PI an instrument like this
I would think that scientists would also take a severe hit to their careers but not being able to spell "scientist".
Ok, I'll bite. How? What's wrong with "what's left of this planet" that could be fixed for a few million dollars? Could you end world hunger? Cure AIDS? Prevent the inevitable extinction (again) of most life on the planet?
Your anti-Sony crusade will be much more effective if you stop making shit up. Hiding files on someone else's machine doesn't meet anyone's definition of a backdoor.
No, it isn't. A backdoor is by definition something that allows access to a system. That's the "door" part. Otherwise, "attrib +h" would be a backdoor.
Wikipedia
Jargon File
BTW, when explaining the Sony CD fiasco to non-techie folk, using the term "installs a backdoor" seems to be very effective.
Effective at what? Not effective at explaining what the DRM does, since it most certainly doesn't install a backdoor.
Floppy disks were write protected by covering the notch with tape. To "circumvent" the write protection, you would remove the tape, or cut a notch. But I can't think of a reason why write protection is something that needs to be circumvented.
Yes, but you forgot that this project will also help the "growing interest for the EU based mirror manufacturer's business worldwide." Won't you please think of the mirrors?
The only reason it matters at all is the fact that copyright hawks keep using the term "theft" for PR purposes.
So you're saying that Zonk and the submitter are "copyright hawks"? Too many people are hawks when it is their property being stolen, and doves when it is someone else's.
Nope, I'm saying that he has the same rights. Jon wrote code that was designed and widely used for copyright infringement[0]. Of course, this was justified under the claim that copyright infrigement isn't theft, and that "information wants to be free." I just think it's terribly ironic to now see a headline on slashdot alledging, "some stolen GPL'd code in Sony's rootkit."
It makes me chuckle.
[0} Yeah, fair use and all that. The fact remains that like Jon, who published his code under certain terms, people who buy DVD's do so under certain terms (including use on licensed players). Either the publisher has a right to expect users to honor those terms, or he doesn't.
More like struck back at. What could DVD Jon have to be pissed about? After all, copyright infringement isn't theft, right?
In the American system of Government that's what the cabinet does. It advises the President.
And of course, they are in line for the Presidency.
According to more complete information approxmately 29 of the over 100 clusters are in the US.
Of course all of this is moot, since this was never about controlling servers, it's about DNS zonefiles.
How did such an ignorant post get modded Interesting?
No seizures would have to take place. The gov't's or any other interested parties would simply have to convince ISP's and everyone else running a recursive nameserver to use the UN's version of the root hints.
Something like this.
Ah yes, flee UK ID cards and 90-day detention without trial for the balmy shores of the United States, with REAL ID, and, umm... indefini... aaw fuck.
What's your problem with REAL ID? You think illegal aliens should be able to get Driver's licenses? I guess you think they should be able to vote, too.
Posted by a dork with a broken .sig
IANAL, but the lady I got this from is a Circuit Court Judge...
I sure hope not. Malice is only a requirement if the plaintiff is a celebrity or public official. Also, falsity is not necessarily an element of libel, although truth is a defense.
Unfortunately for this woman, she'll have to prove that her statements were true, otherwise, she will probably lose.
If main power fails in an AC data center, the UPS systems need to take the DC from the batteries and convert to AC, then distribute, then each machine needs to convert back to DC. That's terribly wasteful, since neither of these conversions is anywhere near perfect efficiency. In a DC data center, the UPS systems are just the batteries, so they can hold much longer.
Regardless of incoming power status, almost all large UPS's are always in the electricity path, so there is always AC-->DC-->AC-->DC.
And I dont know that it is clear that they were working from the assumption that it was trademarkable, they might have been working from the assumption that as a small fry, it might be too expensive to attempt to litigate, or not worth the bother.
I think it's fair to conclude that Microsoft operates under the assumption that "Windows" is trademarkable given that they in fact have a trademark on it. I would go so far as to say it's idiotic to come to any other conclusion. I'm sure they have a contingency plan for if the trademark is thrown out, but they don't have to rely on that until such a contingency occurs.
And how does the Australian trademark matter to US companies?
You should reread the article. And, FWIW, they have a trademark on Windows in the US, too.
You are working from the assumption that that is a trademarkable name.
My assumptions don't matter since I'm not one of the parties. Microsoft was clearly operating from the assumption that it is a trademarkable name since they actually hold a trademark on the name in the jursidiction in question. The programmer seems to have been operating from the same assumption since he didn't demand licensing fees.
Can you show where Microsoft can legally claim "Windows" as a trademark?
They hold Austrailian trademark number 576996.
Why should they pay him to give up a name he isn't legally entitled to use? That would be a silly waste of shareholder assets.