Now, I'm pretty scared of people who might accidentally or without thinking, shoot other people.
Drunk macho types with guns? Yes, that could obviously develop into a dangerous situation.
You and/or your dad got shot at by a hunter? Clearly a mistake, perhaps caused by criminal negligence on the part of the shooter (if it happened because he was too drunk to be hunting). The hunter was probably horrified if he actually hit someone, which admittedly wouldn't undo the damage. If someone were to get killed in a situation like this, it would be a tragic reminder of the results of irresponsible gun use, and hopefully one which would lead the hunters of the area to rethink drinking and hunting, perhaps even pass a law against it (though it might not be necessary).
But government agents with guns, sober or not, representing controversial viewpoints such as "you can't possess this type of low power FM transmitter" and backing those viewpoints up by pointing a gun in my face?
That is quite a lot more scary than a handful of drunk hicks on a deer hunting excursion.
In general, the value of a number "(D2)(D1)(D0)" where Dx is a digit and B is the base is:
D2(B^2) + D1(B^1) + D0(B^0)
This is the same with tally marks. Tally marks really are "unary" -- each digit that exists at all contains a tally mark (there are no "un-tallied" digits in a row of tally marks). What really makes "tally marks" a non-standard numbering system is that there is no "0" -- the only allowed digit is "1" and the "empty number" represents no tallies. Actually, the tally mark counting system was invented long before the number zero. Nowadays, the values of the digits in a numbering system range from 0 to (1-Base). Which means that general base-converson algorithms only work right for bases of 2 or more.
Tally marks is not binary: The number 5 (decimal) is 101 in binary but it's 11111 in unary/tally.
Ahem, you don't know what you're talking about. If I write something and copyright it, by default nobody can distribute it. If I write a license granting certain rights to distribute my work, and I give you a copy of the work with rights contingent on the license, you *MUST* abide by the restrictions outlined in the license or you must not distribute my work.
If the license contains some internal contradiction, portions of it may be re-interpreted by a judge. If it contains some hidden agenda deep within the fine print that is totally unreasonable (for a fine example, see paragraph eighty-six of the Microsoft Windows 2000 EULA saying you "...be required to act as Bill Gates' personal towel boy for a period not to exceed 18 months"), a judge may require that the offending portion be removed and the license stand.
There are no such unreasonable hidden clauses in the GPL. In fact, the summary at the top describes the license unambiguously and no judge would really believe that someone was misled by it.
... but your house is a private domain, not only privately held, but requiring invitation to enter.
eBay is a public web site, in essence it is privately owned but may be viewed by anyone. As another poster stated, if I paint a message on the side of my house facing the street, can I get an injunction to stop someone from reading it?
If you're an internet access provider, more hits just cost you more money. Publicity is nice, but he only makes money when ppl buy services from him. In this case, some of his clients were prematurely sent harsh messages that led some of them to consider terminating their service, and the curiosity-seekers generating those zillions of hits most likely were not purchasing web hosting space.
okay, now, Mary Kay's death, tragic and all, yep, but I bet if she were watching, she'd laugh at this. Some may say this type of reference to suicide is somewhat insensitive (regardless of the kindly "r.i.p."), others may say it is calloused, perhaps as a self-defense mechanism. Some would say it was funny.
But our moderators seem to think it's flamebait. Sheesh, some people...
(to offset the other responses on this thread) Some users are never going to click through on the ads, and try to avoid looking at them entirely (or use junkbuster). This behavior, while not particularly surprising or excessively uncommon, qualifies as extremist.
I don't usually click through on advertisements (espescially the annoying/dumb kind that don't have the name of the company they're advertising for) but I have clicked through several well-targeted ads on/. and a couple of times I've purchased the advertised product as well. I like advertising, actually. There's cool stuff out there to be had, and I want to hear about it! I can glance at tons of ads, but I don't have to think about the ad unless it catches my attention want to.
Of course, this is slightly off topic, since we don't even know if the querant would like to run ads.
RedHat's "own business strategy" includes buying tech companies like Cygnus and they would be a perfect fit. There is no implication of lack of confidance. If this rumor is true, they are confidantly following through on their growth plans.
The benefits for the public are: continued availability of free high quality compiler and embedded OS software, better support for RH, growing value of RHAT stock (I guess you don't own any -- a little bitter about that, perhaps?), and who knows, maybe they'll GPL some of the cool Cygnus development tools and stay focused on support.
Let's try again without your deceptive omissions, shall we?
#1: Here is the rest of the quote... "Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping [sic] and murdering the people on them. If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''" -- I agree, illegally copying work is not the same as stealing gold, sinking ships, taking hostages and killing.
#2: You did not include or link to the text of "The Manifesto: Piracy is Your Friend", but you imply that it's a document promoting software piracy. The document does not even mention software and talks about music publishers, radio, mp3s, etc. Music piracy is a much different issue than software freedom.
#3: "Note that the GNU Project recommends avoiding the term piracy since it implies sharing copies [of software] is somehow illegitimate." -- I think you got a big lost on this one. You claim that "it" is "*still* illegal". But, since when is sharing copies illegal? It may or may not be, depending on the terms of the particular program's license. And what the FSF is saying with this statement, is that they don't want the word "piracy" to be used as a synonym for "sharing copies" because they want to share copies (but legally).
So. Where does RMS or the FSF advocate breaking the law?
This is one of my favorite probability theory problems, and the answer as given is completely correct.
Look at it this way:
Q1: When you make your first choice, what is the probability that you are incorrect?
A1: 2/3
Q2: Does the fact that the host did something after the fact change that probability?
A2: No.
Q3: Did the host actually give you information about which door DOES have a car behind it?
A3: Two out of three times, the host is TELLING you which door has a car behind it, by showing you which door does NOT have a car behind it. The exception, the 1/3 chance, is that you picked the right door in the first place -- which is not usually the case.
And yes, you probably are "infected with the Ghost Not". But don't feel bad. I ask people this question very frequently (because I don't really know any good riddles). I have never seen someone get it right the first time, including myself. It is a very common problem that people who don't yet fully understand events often believe that they do understand event probability.
An NDA is *not* the same thing as an EULA. There's even a different number of letters in the acronym!
Signing an employment contract with the company stating that you will not give away their trade secrets is very much different than signing a beta agreement that says you will not redistribute the product. Some special software licenses (like OEM agreements, for instance) might be an NDA and a software license (OEM agreement: you MAY have this under these terms and you MAY distribute it if you pay us this much *license*, and you MAY NOT distribute proprietary portions *NDA*) That's NOT what we're talking about.
The GPL does not directly conflict with (most) employment NDA's, because the NDA won't say anything about relicensing and distributing software. It typically just says you won't tell/give anyone any proprietary company information (read it!) and does NOT grant you a license to have access to any proprietary information in the first place (meaning it is NOT an IP license).
The *license* that we are discussing here is a different matter. It grants an entity that is **NOT the copyright holder** the right to have and use a copy of the copyrighted work with certain restrictions.
If the beta testers were Corel employees, and hence authorized representatives of the company, they (the testers) would BE the copyright holders of all proprietary Corel products and hence would *not need a license* to have a copy of the Linux product or any other Corel product. You can't "pirate" software if you (or the entity you represent) own the copyright on that software already. This would be a major headache for Corel, they'd have to pay minimum wage and deal with incredible amounts of paperwork, etc.
Beta testers, regardless of whether money changes hands, are not employees. They are customers.
> If mr Ugh is making money selling is wheels, > he will be pissed of when mr duh start doing > the same.
Only if Mr. Ugh happens to be a monopolist would he be "pissed off" when someone starts competing.
If he's not a monopolist, let's say he's a free market capitalist, he'll try to compete with Mr. Duh on the merits of his wheel and his market placement. He'll advertise the new UghWheel-2000, he'll get an OEM agreement with Flintstone Cars, Inc., he'll guarantee his wheels against defects, and include a coupon worth 5 rocks towards your next UW2K purchase, and all the time he'll be developing and manufacturing new UghWheelLight (lighter and stronger!) in his private guarded cave so that when the time comes, he'll have inventory ready to ship before the competition has ever seen it.
If he can patent it, why bother? Let someone else do the work, play throw-the-stone with his lawyer, and just let the royalties flow in... but I don't see that as a "free market". Sounds like a "pay-to-enter market" to me.
1. If I have to sign a license agreement to get the software, that software has been licensed to me.
2. If Corel licenses software to me, they must either own the copyright on that software or have the right to sublicense the software. For most of the distribution, they do not own the software and must therefore distribute it under the terms of the GPL. Are they distributing it? Let's see..
3. If the license that Corel holds the software under (GPL) puts restrictions on how the product may be sublicensed, those restrictions must be obeyed.
4. Corel is **licensing** products which they recieved under the GPL to their beta testers.
5. The beta testers are not the same as employees, and a public beta test is not the same as internal use. Here's why: Corel's beta testers had to agree to a **license** to get the beta. When companies do *internal* testing, the QA people get a copy of the pre-release product without agreeing to a license.
6. So if there is a license involved, we are talking about distribution. Allowable distribution terms are very well defined in the GPL.
so definitions of filter categories/"keywords" have to be written to say unambigous things like "displays frontal nudity" (which includes quite a bit of art, and is still not clear on the subject of partially transparent bikinis), and the like.
Not entirely correct. Sure, you might be able to (rather pretentiously) state "this is not-art!" when looking at pr0n. And you might be able to say "this is art!" when looking at artistic nude images. But.. what about some horndog wankin' off to artistic nude images?
So artistic nude images might still be wankin' material, and someone's trying to censor people who are producing wank-inducing content... now they see some very erotic art that turns them on, well, they basically have to put it in the same category as pr0n.
Java's slowness is only partially due to problems with the JVM implementation. Mostly it's because Java is inherently slow 'cause it's interpreted bytecode. Which is fine for a lot of things but not particularly great for arcade style games. Basically, to get acceptable performance in, say, an FPS, you need a hardware specific implementation of the rendering engine, if for no other reason than it's the *fastest* kind.
All that said, this type of game might lend itself nicely to a Java implementation. I haven't played it yet but it looks like 2D graphics and text. The mild Java slowdown ought to be acceptable for things like language parsing.
I have UNIX Network Programming and will soon be getting his IPC book. Don't know much about the man, but his writing style is/was clear and easy to understand. I guess what I'm saying is, bummer about losing a good author, espescially since most of 'em suck.
As for the troll, it is not a huge tragedy that someone is going around saying not-nice things about Stevens. It is just an occasion for liberal use of moderation. So before getting angry and "never using/. again" and proclaiming the "downfall of anonymous posting" and complaining about the existing moderation system, try using it -- raise your reading threshold to 1 point or so. If the trolls upset you or you just don't like to read them, you don't have to.
Wrong. You have a choice with both. If I pick applications based on feature sets, without looking at the whole picture (hardware + OS + application = total solution), I am likely to have problems down the road. In this case, one of the first concerns is stability and reliability. Since experience shows that Windows-based POS solutions do not exhibit this quality no matter what application software they are running, all solutions which require Windows are out of the running.
This leaves DOS, UNIX (BSD/other) Mac and Linux as viable choices. Mac platform mostly hasn't had this type of software developed recently. DOS applications are often very reliable and proven, but they frequently lack necessary functionality because development has slowed to almost a halt on that platform. This leaves UNIX and Linux. Non-free UNIX is too expensive to use and get support for a small business. This leaves *BSD and Linux, both stable and affordable (TCO) operating systems. Don't know why *BSD was left out, but it is clear that OS choice _is_ relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I'm pretty scared of people who might accidentally or without thinking, shoot other people.
Drunk macho types with guns? Yes, that could obviously develop into a dangerous situation.
You and/or your dad got shot at by a hunter? Clearly a mistake, perhaps caused by criminal negligence on the part of the shooter (if it happened because he was too drunk to be hunting). The hunter was probably horrified if he actually hit someone, which admittedly wouldn't undo the damage. If someone were to get killed in a situation like this, it would be a tragic reminder of the results of irresponsible gun use, and hopefully one which would lead the hunters of the area to rethink drinking and hunting, perhaps even pass a law against it (though it might not be necessary).
But government agents with guns, sober or not, representing controversial viewpoints such as "you can't possess this type of low power FM transmitter" and backing those viewpoints up by pointing a gun in my face?
That is quite a lot more scary than a handful of drunk hicks on a deer hunting excursion.
> values of the digits in a numbering system
> range from 0 to (1-Base).
Except that's supposed to be 0 to (Base-1). (blush)
In general, the value of a number "(D2)(D1)(D0)" where Dx is a digit and B is the base is:
D2(B^2) + D1(B^1) + D0(B^0)
This is the same with tally marks. Tally marks really are "unary" -- each digit that exists at all contains a tally mark (there are no "un-tallied" digits in a row of tally marks). What really makes "tally marks" a non-standard numbering system is that there is no "0" -- the only allowed digit is "1" and the "empty number" represents no tallies. Actually, the tally mark counting system was invented long before the number zero. Nowadays, the values of the digits in a numbering system range from 0 to (1-Base). Which means that general base-converson algorithms only work right for bases of 2 or more.
Tally marks is not binary: The number 5 (decimal) is 101 in binary but it's 11111 in unary/tally.
Ahem, you don't know what you're talking about. If I write something and copyright it, by default nobody can distribute it. If I write a license granting certain rights to distribute my work, and I give you a copy of the work with rights contingent on the license, you *MUST* abide by the restrictions outlined in the license or you must not distribute my work.
If the license contains some internal contradiction, portions of it may be re-interpreted by a judge. If it contains some hidden agenda deep within the fine print that is totally unreasonable (for a fine example, see paragraph eighty-six of the Microsoft Windows 2000 EULA saying you "...be required to act as Bill Gates' personal towel boy for a period not to exceed 18 months"), a judge may require that the offending portion be removed and the license stand.
There are no such unreasonable hidden clauses in the GPL. In fact, the summary at the top describes the license unambiguously and no judge would really believe that someone was misled by it.
We're talking about a trademark.
Not a patent, or copyright.
A trademark.
A couple of forgetful acquaintances of mine would reluctantly disagree with that statement...
... but your house is a private domain, not only privately held, but requiring invitation to enter.
eBay is a public web site, in essence it is privately owned but may be viewed by anyone. As another poster stated, if I paint a message on the side of my house facing the street, can I get an injunction to stop someone from reading it?
actually he's referring to scanned images.
(look at the title of your message, eh..)
If you're an internet access provider, more hits just cost you more money. Publicity is nice, but he only makes money when ppl buy services from him. In this case, some of his clients were prematurely sent harsh messages that led some of them to consider terminating their service, and the curiosity-seekers generating those zillions of hits most likely were not purchasing web hosting space.
okay, now, Mary Kay's death, tragic and all, yep, but I bet if she were watching, she'd laugh at this. Some may say this type of reference to suicide is somewhat insensitive (regardless of the kindly "r.i.p."), others may say it is calloused, perhaps as a self-defense mechanism. Some would say it was funny.
But our moderators seem to think it's flamebait. Sheesh, some people...
(to offset the other responses on this thread)
/. and a couple of times I've purchased the advertised product as well. I like advertising, actually. There's cool stuff out there to be had, and I want to hear about it! I can glance at tons of ads, but I don't have to think about the ad unless it catches my attention want to.
Some users are never going to click through on the ads, and try to avoid looking at them entirely (or use junkbuster). This behavior, while not particularly surprising or excessively uncommon, qualifies as extremist.
I don't usually click through on advertisements (espescially the annoying/dumb kind that don't have the name of the company they're advertising for) but I have clicked through several well-targeted ads on
Of course, this is slightly off topic, since we don't even know if the querant would like to run ads.
(that post got "insightful?!" more like troll..)
RedHat's "own business strategy" includes buying tech companies like Cygnus and they would be a perfect fit. There is no implication of lack of confidance. If this rumor is true, they are confidantly following through on their growth plans.
The benefits for the public are: continued availability of free high quality compiler and embedded OS software, better support for RH, growing value of RHAT stock (I guess you don't own any -- a little bitter about that, perhaps?), and who knows, maybe they'll GPL some of the cool Cygnus development tools and stay focused on support.
/. is a legitimate meta-news site. :)
Let's try again without your deceptive omissions, shall we?
#1: Here is the rest of the quote... "Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping [sic] and murdering the people on them. If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''" -- I agree, illegally copying work is not the same as stealing gold, sinking ships, taking hostages and killing.
#2: You did not include or link to the text of "The Manifesto: Piracy is Your Friend" , but you imply that it's a document promoting software piracy. The document does not even mention software and talks about music publishers, radio, mp3s, etc. Music piracy is a much different issue than software freedom.
#3: "Note that the GNU Project recommends avoiding the term piracy since it implies sharing copies [of software] is somehow illegitimate." -- I think you got a big lost on this one. You claim that "it" is "*still* illegal". But, since when is sharing copies illegal? It may or may not be, depending on the terms of the particular program's license. And what the FSF is saying with this statement, is that they don't want the word "piracy" to be used as a synonym for "sharing copies" because they want to share copies (but legally).
So. Where does RMS or the FSF advocate breaking the law?
This is one of my favorite probability theory problems, and the answer as given is completely correct.
Look at it this way:
Q1: When you make your first choice, what is the probability that you are incorrect?
A1: 2/3
Q2: Does the fact that the host did something after the fact change that probability?
A2: No.
Q3: Did the host actually give you information about which door DOES have a car behind it?
A3: Two out of three times, the host is TELLING you which door has a car behind it, by showing you which door does NOT have a car behind it. The exception, the 1/3 chance, is that you picked the right door in the first place -- which is not usually the case.
And yes, you probably are "infected with the Ghost Not". But don't feel bad. I ask people this question very frequently (because I don't really know any good riddles). I have never seen someone get it right the first time, including myself. It is a very common problem that people who don't yet fully understand events often believe that they do understand event probability.
Another great PC and Console gaming site is Game Revolution. GR is probably the largest independant online game review magazine out there.
An NDA is *not* the same thing as an EULA. There's even a different number of letters in the acronym!
Signing an employment contract with the company stating that you will not give away their trade secrets is very much different than signing a beta agreement that says you will not redistribute the product. Some special software licenses (like OEM agreements, for instance) might be an NDA and a software license (OEM agreement: you MAY have this under these terms and you MAY distribute it if you pay us this much *license*, and you MAY NOT distribute proprietary portions *NDA*) That's NOT what we're talking about.
The GPL does not directly conflict with (most) employment NDA's, because the NDA won't say anything about relicensing and distributing software. It typically just says you won't tell/give anyone any proprietary company information (read it!) and does NOT grant you a license to have access to any proprietary information in the first place (meaning it is NOT an IP license).
The *license* that we are discussing here is a different matter. It grants an entity that is **NOT the copyright holder** the right to have and use a copy of the copyrighted work with certain restrictions.
If the beta testers were Corel employees, and hence authorized representatives of the company, they (the testers) would BE the copyright holders of all proprietary Corel products and hence would *not need a license* to have a copy of the Linux product or any other Corel product. You can't "pirate" software if you (or the entity you represent) own the copyright on that software already. This would be a major headache for Corel, they'd have to pay minimum wage and deal with incredible amounts of paperwork, etc.
Beta testers, regardless of whether money changes hands, are not employees. They are customers.
> If mr Ugh is making money selling is wheels,
> he will be pissed of when mr duh start doing
> the same.
Only if Mr. Ugh happens to be a monopolist would he be "pissed off" when someone starts competing.
If he's not a monopolist, let's say he's a free market capitalist, he'll try to compete with Mr. Duh on the merits of his wheel and his market placement. He'll advertise the new UghWheel-2000, he'll get an OEM agreement with Flintstone Cars, Inc., he'll guarantee his wheels against defects, and include a coupon worth 5 rocks towards your next UW2K purchase, and all the time he'll be developing and manufacturing new UghWheelLight (lighter and stronger!) in his private guarded cave so that when the time comes, he'll have inventory ready to ship before the competition has ever seen it.
If he can patent it, why bother? Let someone else do the work, play throw-the-stone with his lawyer, and just let the royalties flow in... but I don't see that as a "free market". Sounds like a "pay-to-enter market" to me.
Enh. Wrong.
1. If I have to sign a license agreement to get the software, that software has been licensed to me.
2. If Corel licenses software to me, they must either own the copyright on that software or have the right to sublicense the software. For most of the distribution, they do not own the software and must therefore distribute it under the terms of the GPL. Are they distributing it? Let's see..
3. If the license that Corel holds the software under (GPL) puts restrictions on how the product may be sublicensed, those restrictions must be obeyed.
4. Corel is **licensing** products which they recieved under the GPL to their beta testers.
5. The beta testers are not the same as employees, and a public beta test is not the same as internal use. Here's why: Corel's beta testers had to agree to a **license** to get the beta. When companies do *internal* testing, the QA people get a copy of the pre-release product without agreeing to a license.
6. So if there is a license involved, we are talking about distribution. Allowable distribution terms are very well defined in the GPL.
Actually, I don't think they sold BSI. IIRC they just sold Slashdot.org and in fact are investing some of their newfound riches into BSI on the side.
(meant to add this)
so definitions of filter categories/"keywords" have to be written to say unambigous things like "displays frontal nudity" (which includes quite a bit of art, and is still not clear on the subject of partially transparent bikinis), and the like.
Not entirely correct. Sure, you might be able to (rather pretentiously) state "this is not-art!" when looking at pr0n. And you might be able to say "this is art!" when looking at artistic nude images. But.. what about some horndog wankin' off to artistic nude images?
So artistic nude images might still be wankin' material, and someone's trying to censor people who are producing wank-inducing content... now they see some very erotic art that turns them on, well, they basically have to put it in the same category as pr0n.
Java's slowness is only partially due to problems with the JVM implementation. Mostly it's because Java is inherently slow 'cause it's interpreted bytecode. Which is fine for a lot of things but not particularly great for arcade style games. Basically, to get acceptable performance in, say, an FPS, you need a hardware specific implementation of the rendering engine, if for no other reason than it's the *fastest* kind.
All that said, this type of game might lend itself nicely to a Java implementation. I haven't played it yet but it looks like 2D graphics and text. The mild Java slowdown ought to be acceptable for things like language parsing.
I have UNIX Network Programming and will soon be getting his IPC book. Don't know much about the man, but his writing style is/was clear and easy to understand. I guess what I'm saying is, bummer about losing a good author, espescially since most of 'em suck.
/. again" and proclaiming the "downfall of anonymous posting" and complaining about the existing moderation system, try using it -- raise your reading threshold to 1 point or so. If the trolls upset you or you just don't like to read them, you don't have to.
As for the troll, it is not a huge tragedy that someone is going around saying not-nice things about Stevens. It is just an occasion for liberal use of moderation. So before getting angry and "never using
Wrong. You have a choice with both. If I pick applications based on feature sets, without looking at the whole picture (hardware + OS + application = total solution), I am likely to have problems down the road. In this case, one of the first concerns is stability and reliability. Since experience shows that Windows-based POS solutions do not exhibit this quality no matter what application software they are running, all solutions which require Windows are out of the running.
This leaves DOS, UNIX (BSD/other) Mac and Linux as viable choices. Mac platform mostly hasn't had this type of software developed recently. DOS applications are often very reliable and proven, but they frequently lack necessary functionality because development has slowed to almost a halt on that platform. This leaves UNIX and Linux. Non-free UNIX is too expensive to use and get support for a small business. This leaves *BSD and Linux, both stable and affordable (TCO) operating systems. Don't know why *BSD was left out, but it is clear that OS choice _is_ relevant.