Why would you lose faith in a product with a long track record because of one bad / too early release? That's just being silly. It is going to get fixed. Yes it was mistake on their part to release as they did. Yes they should support distributions better. But there is no evidence of a deep structural permanent problem.
I think it is a little unfair to blame Ubuntu and Fedora. Don't call a product 4.0 if it isn't ready for release. If KDE 4.0 were called Alpha-4.0 and KDE 4.1 were called Beta-4.0 there wouldn't have been the confusion. By calling the product 4.0 they were indicating a state of readiness. And yes I understand they said the opposite, so what? The conventions in software regarding version numbering are clear.
IE shipping with windows is a problem because Microsoft has not allowed 3rd parties to replace the browser and they integrated it.
A pdf reader is not integrated nor is it a profit center for anyone. Microsoft could ask Adobe's permission to ship theirs bundled. They could ship several and ask at install time which you want. Etc... The only way they would get in trouble is by releasing a "microsoft pdf reader" which had specific features and then trying to use the OS to push that product.
He doesn't own copyright to the notes. The notes most likely contain her language. What he does have is a license to create (but not distribute) a derived work from her lectures. Neither of them has copyright to those notes.
Which changes things a lot since loco parentis issues come into play. If he is a minor then he doesn't have the same property rights they revert to his parents who have yielded them to the school.... The whole situation is entirely different.
I agree it is like a transcript of a performance. And he doesn't have the rights to redistribution. The question is whether he has the rights to the original. In the case of the performance you can argue the transcript was made under false pretenses, that's not the case of the notes she saw them being constructed.
Here is the most likely situation. You created the notes and own the notebook so the actual copy you made was yours. Your notes contain, most likely, her language and not just her ideas; so they are a derived work of her presentation which means you don't own license to your notes free and clear. Making copies would be a copyright violation. So all the comments about "you wrote them so they are yours" are incorrect. She has some rights to them.
Now the question is whether you were licensed to create a derived work from her presentation. Given that she was presenting in an environment where people were taking notes, she was aware of this and it seemed like the intent I'd say you were. So the question is whether the syllabus had an explicit surrender clause, or better yet if she had sign a surrender clause. Without that it is hard to argue she has any rights to your derived work (your notes).
So, no legally she was in the wrong. You could have refused and if she attempted to take them by force after you refused that's robbery. Now I doubt anyone would prosecute but she was in the wrong. If she didn't force you but rather applied a penalty, for refusing to surrender the notes, like failing you, I doubt the courts would see that as outside her legitimate powers.
I think you should put a note on "rate my professor" so other people know and don't bring their notes.
You probably should get an account. Those were insightful and detailed claims. I'm not sure if I quite follow the general theme you were trying to make. I doubt you were defending GP comment.
For people reading this. In Lisp's hayday, Lisps were really compiled down to Lisp primitives (byte code essentially, except it was in Lisp) and that was executed on dedicated hardware.
That isn't really much different than what most JVMs or Parrot do except the bytecode language and the primary language are closer.
In a modern operating system its very difficult for any program to manage memory.
1) The CPU uses memory pages 2) The OS pops things from ram to disk 3) Applications are virtualized and not running on physical memory 4) Applications are protected so apps don't actually know how much memory is availabl.e 4) Threading is not under the application's specific control but under the OSes so garbage collection routines run at times the application can't predict
Memory management is an OS/hardware not an application function given this sort of architecture.
I agree that has the policy but it is loaded with wikipedia knowledge. It is hard for people to understand. A much shorter much simpler doc explaining to primary sources that they should create a primary published source is what is needed.
Funny I've done that exercise of following instructions in languages I don't speak. The issue there is that prepositions don't translate literally.
Anyway I assume you were being a bit less literal. Click on your start folder, hit run and in the "command line box" type cmd.exe) You should see a black window with nothing but text inside which looks like (picture) now click on that window and type....
OED still has a huge lead on Wiktionary in terms of quantity of information, much less quality. They are where Britannica was 5 years ago when they still clearly had the better product. As an OED user I'll will thrilled when Wiktionary has the information in the OED with full hyperlinks. There are a lot of references in the OED I'd like to check the context of but am not willing to spend a day at a University library to do it.
It doesn't need to be rebellious they are the standard now. The Linux server market was rebellious when it was in 5th place. Now that it outsells all other Unixes servers combined....
I think you are correct but their problem they had is web created content was a classic example of a Disruptive innovation for Britannica.
The problem Britannica had was that the early adopters of web enabled reference materials wanted things that Britannica users didn't or didn't care much about:
-- strong web connectivity
-- user created content
-- lots of specialized topics
-- a focus on geek culture issues
It didn't look like a threat at all until it became a major threat and then they only had a year or two to respond before they were just wiped out. Encarta and Americana drove them into a "flight to quality" and wikipedia drove them out of the market all together (essentially).
During that year I though they if they wanted to stay with that model was they didn't keep the barrier high enough. As WSJ.com showed will pay for information that is substantially better than what is available for free. Britannica while very good was net better enough than Americana and later Wikipedia in the early days.
Had they partnered with all the specialized encyclopedias they would had an online encylopedia with say 2000 volumes and the barrier would have been much too high for wikipedia and for that matter for google. The web would have been a very different place.
Where they can really function well now is doing reference works on specialized topics that there is no general interest in but still a market. For example legal encylopedias.
The information is back. Once he put the information on his blog then it was in an external verifiable source. I think it is annoying and wikipedia should have a FAQ for "insider knowledge" where people can go on record.
I for example had Every Nation (a denomination) go on record at their website to give verifiable information.
Back in the earlier day of the web encylopedia Americana was free. Britannica was a pay site. Then Britannica went free and it was dominant. But for most of this decade Britannica has not been a free site, which means links are low value.
Further:
1) Wikipedia has vastly more articles than Britannica. It isn't even close.
2) Wikipedia covers a wider range of topics.
3) Wikipedia articles are longer and more detailed
4) Wikipedia articles are much more web friendly with their "see also" web references.... In many ways playing the role yahoo used to play
5) Wikipedia articles offer history and talk pages which can provide tons of additional information
I can't see why Britannica would even think that in 2009 they should rank above Wikipedia. Wikipedia vs. Britannica discussions were interesting in 2005/6 and you could make a case. Today they aren't even close. Wikipedia functions reasonably well against specialized encyclopedias in their specialties.
I have always been a strong supporter of Britannica. I've bought lots of their products over the years and still use their encyclopedia on my laptop as a mobile solution. But they really aren't in the same league anymore as reference works. I think Columbia Encyclopedia makes a fantastic one volume reference work but I wouldn't rate it not to Britannica. Quantity matters.
__________
Even assuming they started to get a flood of content I don't see how they would deal with it. Are they really ready to fact check say 1000 pages of new content a day? If they want to do what they are talking about they need to do something like partner with http://en.citizendium.org/ Britannica could create a distinctive advantage for citizendium and at the same time Singer has put in place enough people to help with content additions.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you lose faith in a product with a long track record because of one bad / too early release? That's just being silly. It is going to get fixed. Yes it was mistake on their part to release as they did. Yes they should support distributions better. But there is no evidence of a deep structural permanent problem.
I think it is a little unfair to blame Ubuntu and Fedora. Don't call a product 4.0 if it isn't ready for release. If KDE 4.0 were called Alpha-4.0 and KDE 4.1 were called Beta-4.0 there wouldn't have been the confusion. By calling the product 4.0 they were indicating a state of readiness. And yes I understand they said the opposite, so what? The conventions in software regarding version numbering are clear.
IE shipping with windows is a problem because Microsoft has not allowed 3rd parties to replace the browser and they integrated it.
A pdf reader is not integrated nor is it a profit center for anyone. Microsoft could ask Adobe's permission to ship theirs bundled. They could ship several and ask at install time which you want. Etc... The only way they would get in trouble is by releasing a "microsoft pdf reader" which had specific features and then trying to use the OS to push that product.
He doesn't own copyright to the notes. The notes most likely contain her language. What he does have is a license to create (but not distribute) a derived work from her lectures. Neither of them has copyright to those notes.
Which changes things a lot since loco parentis issues come into play. If he is a minor then he doesn't have the same property rights they revert to his parents who have yielded them to the school.... The whole situation is entirely different.
I agree it is like a transcript of a performance. And he doesn't have the rights to redistribution. The question is whether he has the rights to the original. In the case of the performance you can argue the transcript was made under false pretenses, that's not the case of the notes she saw them being constructed.
I agree with your analogy.
Exactly correct.
Here is the most likely situation. You created the notes and own the notebook so the actual copy you made was yours. Your notes contain, most likely, her language and not just her ideas; so they are a derived work of her presentation which means you don't own license to your notes free and clear. Making copies would be a copyright violation. So all the comments about "you wrote them so they are yours" are incorrect. She has some rights to them.
Now the question is whether you were licensed to create a derived work from her presentation. Given that she was presenting in an environment where people were taking notes, she was aware of this and it seemed like the intent I'd say you were. So the question is whether the syllabus had an explicit surrender clause, or better yet if she had sign a surrender clause. Without that it is hard to argue she has any rights to your derived work (your notes).
So, no legally she was in the wrong. You could have refused and if she attempted to take them by force after you refused that's robbery. Now I doubt anyone would prosecute but she was in the wrong. If she didn't force you but rather applied a penalty, for refusing to surrender the notes, like failing you, I doubt the courts would see that as outside her legitimate powers.
I think you should put a note on "rate my professor" so other people know and don't bring their notes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine
You probably should get an account. Those were insightful and detailed claims. I'm not sure if I quite follow the general theme you were trying to make. I doubt you were defending GP comment.
Well it has been done in Haskell.
http://programatica.cs.pdx.edu/House/
Perl, Ruby and Python don't have direct access to machine pointers.
For people reading this. In Lisp's hayday, Lisps were really compiled down to Lisp primitives (byte code essentially, except it was in Lisp) and that was executed on dedicated hardware.
That isn't really much different than what most JVMs or Parrot do except the bytecode language and the primary language are closer.
In a modern operating system its very difficult for any program to manage memory.
1) The CPU uses memory pages
2) The OS pops things from ram to disk
3) Applications are virtualized and not running on physical memory
4) Applications are protected so apps don't actually know how much memory is availabl.e
4) Threading is not under the application's specific control but under the OSes so garbage collection routines run at times the application can't predict
Memory management is an OS/hardware not an application function given this sort of architecture.
I'm going with a stream (which is similar to the pointer).
C is an overloaded object for a stream
C++ is basically the pop i.e. move the head down one on the stream safe for empty streams.
!= equality test either:
1) tests the heads to verify they are not equal
2) checks stream length. So for example this would be the same as (isEmpty(C) || isInfinite(C++))
I agree that has the policy but it is loaded with wikipedia knowledge. It is hard for people to understand. A much shorter much simpler doc explaining to primary sources that they should create a primary published source is what is needed.
Funny I've done that exercise of following instructions in languages I don't speak. The issue there is that prepositions don't translate literally.
Anyway I assume you were being a bit less literal. Click on your start folder, hit run and in the "command line box" type cmd.exe) ....
You should see a black window with nothing but text inside which looks like (picture)
now click on that window and type
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/snowleopard/
OED still has a huge lead on Wiktionary in terms of quantity of information, much less quality. They are where Britannica was 5 years ago when they still clearly had the better product. As an OED user I'll will thrilled when Wiktionary has the information in the OED with full hyperlinks. There are a lot of references in the OED I'd like to check the context of but am not willing to spend a day at a University library to do it.
It doesn't need to be rebellious they are the standard now. The Linux server market was rebellious when it was in 5th place. Now that it outsells all other Unixes servers combined....
Actually number is 16g. The vast vast majority of articles are stubs.
I think you are correct but their problem they had is web created content was a classic example of a Disruptive innovation for Britannica.
The problem Britannica had was that the early adopters of web enabled reference materials wanted things that Britannica users didn't or didn't care much about:
-- strong web connectivity
-- user created content
-- lots of specialized topics
-- a focus on geek culture issues
It didn't look like a threat at all until it became a major threat and then they only had a year or two to respond before they were just wiped out. Encarta and Americana drove them into a "flight to quality" and wikipedia drove them out of the market all together (essentially).
During that year I though they if they wanted to stay with that model was they didn't keep the barrier high enough. As WSJ.com showed will pay for information that is substantially better than what is available for free. Britannica while very good was net better enough than Americana and later Wikipedia in the early days.
Had they partnered with all the specialized encyclopedias they would had an online encylopedia with say 2000 volumes and the barrier would have been much too high for wikipedia and for that matter for google. The web would have been a very different place.
Where they can really function well now is doing reference works on specialized topics that there is no general interest in but still a market. For example legal encylopedias.
You could get it for about $8. You used to get a year of online access when you bought Britannica Almanac which retailed for $11 and was 25% off....
When was Lynx the only web browser available? Mosaic came out in 1993. Unless you were in Kansas Lynx wasn't out until 1995.
The information is back. Once he put the information on his blog then it was in an external verifiable source. I think it is annoying and wikipedia should have a FAQ for "insider knowledge" where people can go on record.
I for example had Every Nation (a denomination) go on record at their website to give verifiable information.
Back in the earlier day of the web encylopedia Americana was free. Britannica was a pay site. Then Britannica went free and it was dominant. But for most of this decade Britannica has not been a free site, which means links are low value.
Further:
1) Wikipedia has vastly more articles than Britannica. It isn't even close.
2) Wikipedia covers a wider range of topics.
3) Wikipedia articles are longer and more detailed
4) Wikipedia articles are much more web friendly with their "see also" web references.... In many ways playing the role yahoo used to play
5) Wikipedia articles offer history and talk pages which can provide tons of additional information
I can't see why Britannica would even think that in 2009 they should rank above Wikipedia. Wikipedia vs. Britannica discussions were interesting in 2005/6 and you could make a case. Today they aren't even close. Wikipedia functions reasonably well against specialized encyclopedias in their specialties.
I have always been a strong supporter of Britannica. I've bought lots of their products over the years and still use their encyclopedia on my laptop as a mobile solution. But they really aren't in the same league anymore as reference works. I think Columbia Encyclopedia makes a fantastic one volume reference work but I wouldn't rate it not to Britannica. Quantity matters.
__________
Even assuming they started to get a flood of content I don't see how they would deal with it. Are they really ready to fact check say 1000 pages of new content a day? If they want to do what they are talking about they need to do something like partner with http://en.citizendium.org/
Britannica could create a distinctive advantage for citizendium and at the same time Singer has put in place enough people to help with content additions.