Seriously though, what's with all these people saying that Torvalds is some kind of shill for not adopting GPLv3? There would *be* no meaningful open source movement without Torvalds.
That makes as much sense as saying there would be no meaningful open source movement without RMS.
The open source movement's roots go back before the GPL, let alone Linux. Freely redistributable compilers and operating systems, editors and shells, applications and utilities, go back to the '70s. By the early '80s the whatever-you-want-to-call-it movement was already in full swing. Without RMS or Linus things might have been different, but not enormously so. It's like saying that James Watt was needed for the steam engine to succeed, or Ford for the automobile. When it's steam engine time, you get steam engines. This is open source time.
If Flickr were serious about preventing copyright infringement, they'd disable Right-Click "Save Image As..."
How? By magic? It's up to the user's browser to let scripts disable or replace context menus. Any gecko-based browser leaves that decision up to the user... you can disable Javascript completely, or just disable that capability. Look at dom.event.contextmenu.enabled in about:config...
What, you don't use a gecko-based browser? I'm sorry to hear that.
These guys have been pushing the boundaries - and not in a good way - for 15 years now. Hijacking, overcharging, slamming, spamming, and scamming. They've preemptively locked domain names well before their registration expired, and held them to ransom for an extra year's overpriced fees. They've claimed ownership of.com, they've wildcarded the top level to make all typos go to their advertising page, they've sent out fraudulent "renewal notices" to con people into transferring domains registered with other registrars, if there's a plausible way to monetize bad behavior, they've tried it...
Due to no fault of registrars, Front Runners purchase search data from Internet Service Providers and/or registries and then taste those names. Some folks may not agree with our approach, but we are trying to prevent this malicious activity from impacting our customers.
Um, explain to me how anyone but NSI would be responsible for providing search results from their whois service to front runners? And how exactly does that make them "your" customers anyway? And why didn't you announce this instead of waiting for it to leak out?
Actually, Microsoft has made a number of presentations at SIGGRAPH over the years without any condemnation or other unpleasantness. Why would you think otherwise? This kind of thing is what SIGGRAPH is for.
You want free GPL drivers to run your $1500 keyboard on Linux?
No, I want that FAQ to contain a link saying "here's the API, write your own driver" with a link to the USB HID spec for the keyboard all the way down to interfaces and end-points and packets.
I haven't read the whole patent on the Apple keyboard, but it seems to me that there is at least one significant difference between the Lebedev device and the Apple concept, and that is that the keyboard would change dynamically, in real time, i.e. to present contextual controls based on what you are working on.
That's not a function of the keyboard, that's a function of the software in the computer driving the keyboard. It's also obvious... why would anyone pay fifteen hundred bucks for a programmable keyboard if it couldn't change in real time based on software in the computer? That's the whole point of programmable buttons in the first place!
I agree, I had a dual-boot FreeBSD/Windows box for my "real computer" and got a Mac, and now that big box is my "wintendo"... only used for games. I would still like to have a "Mini Pro", a headless Mac comparable to the iMac, with a full size hard drive, a larger case that allows for better cooling, full power USB and firewire ports (my mini can't even charge my iPod shuffle!), because you can't run game software in a VM so I still need that KVM switch compatibility.
Apple has gone from being the art-nerd computer, to being the full-metal-nerd computer, UNIX for the rational brain and the great user interface and applications for the emotional brain.
An open copy protection scheme is a contradiction in terms. There's basically two ways to make copy protection work: create a closed system that prevents users from running their own software as a peer to the copy protection scheme, or use obfuscation to keep attackers from figuring out where the keys are stored.
Microsoft's DRM depends on Windows Media Player using obfuscation to hide the keys, and on the OS (as of Windows Media Player 9, in Windows XP, and more so in Vista) preventing users from interfering with the DRM software. third-party Windows Media hardware is pretty much required by Microsoft to be closed.
Apple's DRM is more on the "honor system", but it still depends on obfuscation in iTunes and the iPod and the iPod being a closed system.
If the design would be for entertainment purposes, they would fake it in certain points, which would appear to us as inconsistent physical laws.
From the paper: For perhaps the first time in the history of any science, the scholars of physics simply don't personally believe what the reigning theories of their discipline are saying. They accept them as mathematical statements that give correct answers, but not as literal world reality descriptions.
That sure sounds like a universe where a lot of simplifying assumptions have been made.
And the large scale behavior of the universe doesn't seem to quite match the behavior expected by looking at local physics. There have been various hacks to explain it... dark matter, dark energy, the cosmological constant... or maybe they used a simpler model for simulating objects outside the experimental region.
It's even more unlikely than that: pathogens have absolutely been part of the ecosystem since the days of single-celled life forms. There are organelles in a modern animal or plant cell, including mitochondria and chloroplasts, that are believed to have evolved from symbiotic organisms. These almost certainly started out as pathogens back when the whole multicellular complex organism schtick was just starting up.
I have Windows 2000 too, and Microsoft still has 2 years of "legacy mode" support for Windows 2000 to go. Of course, given the speed Microsoft operates it could well be 2 years before they turn this thing up.
Not to mention that it's going to be hard to get support for Office on the Mac.
* Get a WMA license from Microsoft.
* Pay Microsoft a license fee.
* License the WMA (software) codec from Microsoft.
* Adjust their player design to suit Microsoft extremely odious licensing requirements (e.g DRM).
Don't forget:
* Abandon Mac support for the iPod.
* Abandon iTunes support for the iPod.
* Make iTunes dependent on Windows Media Player.
* Switch to the NT kernel for OS X so they can satisfy Microsoft's licensing requirements for iTunes.
I'm pretty sure they'd end up having to do one of the four, because there's no WM DRM support on the Mac, and given that Microsoft had already implemented kernel support for DRM in Windows Media 9.1 a couple of months before the iTunes Music Store opened it's pretty unlikely that Apple's ever been in a position to support Windows Media on the iPod without joining the Redmond collective.
Re:I'm sorry, I don't get your point.
on
RTF Vs. OOXML
·
· Score: 1
Output on different devices is what a word processor does. Other wise its "process" step wouldn't be anything at all.
A word processor is an editor, what it primarily does is modify a structured document according to the user's commands. A given document may never be output in a printed form, anywhere. What you seem to be describing is a text processor, like *roff or TeX, which really does convert user input containing markup commands directly to formatted output.
Personally I prefer the text processor approach, myself.
I'm not projecting, I'm sticking to the point: I'm just talking about the hardware.
The arguments for expandability, reliability, etc., that you use against all-in-ones apply to laptops.
Yes. They do. That's one reason why I said, a couple messages back, *maybe* a laptop. I don't like tying up $2000 in a laptop to get a Macbook Pro when a Thinkpad for less than $1000 satisfies my hardware requirements. The only reason that I'd even consider it is the overwhelming advantage of portability.
There is no such overwhelming advantage for an all-on-one. You don't even reduce the number of boxes on and around your desk by getting an all-in-one: you actually have to make space for two and possibly three more boxes (the iMac power supply, your external drive, and its power supply if it's not bus-powered) than you would if you'd been able to get an Apple desktop comparable to a Mini-ITX box.
Unless you're a really unusual Mac buyer, it's not the fact that it's an all-in-one that makes it perfect, it's the software that's running on it. If you were buying a Windows box, I really really doubt you would have bought an iMac and used Bootcamp to set it up exclusively for Windows, because you'd almost certainly have ended up with more available desk space with a separate monitor and a little box on the floor somewhere around it.
And if Apple still made something like the Cube, are you ABSOLUTELY sure you wouldn't have ended up with one?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously though, what's with all these people saying that Torvalds is some kind of shill for not adopting GPLv3? There would *be* no meaningful open source movement without Torvalds.
That makes as much sense as saying there would be no meaningful open source movement without RMS.
The open source movement's roots go back before the GPL, let alone Linux. Freely redistributable compilers and operating systems, editors and shells, applications and utilities, go back to the '70s. By the early '80s the whatever-you-want-to-call-it movement was already in full swing. Without RMS or Linus things might have been different, but not enormously so. It's like saying that James Watt was needed for the steam engine to succeed, or Ford for the automobile. When it's steam engine time, you get steam engines. This is open source time.
If Flickr were serious about preventing copyright infringement, they'd disable Right-Click "Save Image As..."
How? By magic? It's up to the user's browser to let scripts disable or replace context menus. Any gecko-based browser leaves that decision up to the user... you can disable Javascript completely, or just disable that capability. Look at dom.event.contextmenu.enabled in about:config...
What, you don't use a gecko-based browser? I'm sorry to hear that.
These guys have been pushing the boundaries - and not in a good way - for 15 years now. Hijacking, overcharging, slamming, spamming, and scamming. They've preemptively locked domain names well before their registration expired, and held them to ransom for an extra year's overpriced fees. They've claimed ownership of .com, they've wildcarded the top level to make all typos go to their advertising page, they've sent out fraudulent "renewal notices" to con people into transferring domains registered with other registrars, if there's a plausible way to monetize bad behavior, they've tried it...
Due to no fault of registrars, Front Runners purchase search data from Internet Service Providers and/or registries and then taste those names. Some folks may not agree with our approach, but we are trying to prevent this malicious activity from impacting our customers.
Um, explain to me how anyone but NSI would be responsible for providing search results from their whois service to front runners? And how exactly does that make them "your" customers anyway? And why didn't you announce this instead of waiting for it to leak out?
That's "changing in response to software in the computer".
...then I clean my glasses.
Actually, Microsoft has made a number of presentations at SIGGRAPH over the years without any condemnation or other unpleasantness. Why would you think otherwise? This kind of thing is what SIGGRAPH is for.
"Use it or lose it" doesn't mean "make it or lose it", it can also mean "actively promote or license it" as well.
"why would anyone pay for a programmable keyboard if it couldn't change in real time based on software in the computer?"
You want free GPL drivers to run your $1500 keyboard on Linux?
No, I want that FAQ to contain a link saying "here's the API, write your own driver" with a link to the USB HID spec for the keyboard all the way down to interfaces and end-points and packets.
I haven't read the whole patent on the Apple keyboard, but it seems to me that there is at least one significant difference between the Lebedev device and the Apple concept, and that is that the keyboard would change dynamically, in real time, i.e. to present contextual controls based on what you are working on.
That's not a function of the keyboard, that's a function of the software in the computer driving the keyboard. It's also obvious... why would anyone pay fifteen hundred bucks for a programmable keyboard if it couldn't change in real time based on software in the computer? That's the whole point of programmable buttons in the first place!
I agree, I had a dual-boot FreeBSD/Windows box for my "real computer" and got a Mac, and now that big box is my "wintendo"... only used for games. I would still like to have a "Mini Pro", a headless Mac comparable to the iMac, with a full size hard drive, a larger case that allows for better cooling, full power USB and firewire ports (my mini can't even charge my iPod shuffle!), because you can't run game software in a VM so I still need that KVM switch compatibility.
Apple has gone from being the art-nerd computer, to being the full-metal-nerd computer, UNIX for the rational brain and the great user interface and applications for the emotional brain.
http://scarydevil.com/~peter/io/drm2.html
An open copy protection scheme is a contradiction in terms. There's basically two ways to make copy protection work: create a closed system that prevents users from running their own software as a peer to the copy protection scheme, or use obfuscation to keep attackers from figuring out where the keys are stored.
Microsoft's DRM depends on Windows Media Player using obfuscation to hide the keys, and on the OS (as of Windows Media Player 9, in Windows XP, and more so in Vista) preventing users from interfering with the DRM software. third-party Windows Media hardware is pretty much required by Microsoft to be closed.
Apple's DRM is more on the "honor system", but it still depends on obfuscation in iTunes and the iPod and the iPod being a closed system.
If the design would be for entertainment purposes, they would fake it in certain points, which would appear to us as inconsistent physical laws.
From the paper: For perhaps the first time in the history of any science, the scholars of physics simply don't
personally believe what the reigning theories of their discipline are saying. They accept them as
mathematical statements that give correct answers, but not as literal world reality descriptions.
That sure sounds like a universe where a lot of simplifying assumptions have been made.
And the large scale behavior of the universe doesn't seem to quite match the behavior expected by looking at local physics. There have been various hacks to explain it... dark matter, dark energy, the cosmological constant... or maybe they used a simpler model for simulating objects outside the experimental region.
That's the problem. Many of these systems don't have an option to break out of the phone tree.
It's even more unlikely than that: pathogens have absolutely been part of the ecosystem since the days of single-celled life forms. There are organelles in a modern animal or plant cell, including mitochondria and chloroplasts, that are believed to have evolved from symbiotic organisms. These almost certainly started out as pathogens back when the whole multicellular complex organism schtick was just starting up.
Shouldn't they have removed that link from their page by now?
This is the first time I've gone to post a Brin/Transparent society reference on an appropriate /. story and found someone had beaten me to it.
Too bad Brin seems to have decided to jump on the software patent cart in his new venture...
I have Windows 2000 too, and Microsoft still has 2 years of "legacy mode" support for Windows 2000 to go. Of course, given the speed Microsoft operates it could well be 2 years before they turn this thing up.
Not to mention that it's going to be hard to get support for Office on the Mac.
The iMac has an internal power supply.
OK, so you're down to the same number of boxes as me. You're still not saving much space.
Unless I want to get a tower (which I don't), I'm going to need external hard drives anyway.
Um, there's a huge space between "a tower" and "an all in one". Including boxes that are in the same ballpark as the cube.
It's my first Mac, my first all-on-one.
Ah, I see. I had the impression that you had long term experience with all-in-ones. Pardon me.
I have had that experience... both desktops and laptops. I do hope yours is better than mine.
* Abandon Mac support for the iPod.
* Abandon iTunes support for the iPod.
* Make iTunes dependent on Windows Media Player.
* Switch to the NT kernel for OS X so they can satisfy Microsoft's licensing requirements for iTunes.
I'm pretty sure they'd end up having to do one of the four, because there's no WM DRM support on the Mac, and given that Microsoft had already implemented kernel support for DRM in Windows Media 9.1 a couple of months before the iTunes Music Store opened it's pretty unlikely that Apple's ever been in a position to support Windows Media on the iPod without joining the Redmond collective.
Output on different devices is what a word processor does. Other wise its "process" step wouldn't be anything at all.
A word processor is an editor, what it primarily does is modify a structured document according to the user's commands. A given document may never be output in a printed form, anywhere. What you seem to be describing is a text processor, like *roff or TeX, which really does convert user input containing markup commands directly to formatted output.
Personally I prefer the text processor approach, myself.
I'm not projecting, I'm sticking to the point: I'm just talking about the hardware.
The arguments for expandability, reliability, etc., that you use against all-in-ones apply to laptops.
Yes. They do. That's one reason why I said, a couple messages back, *maybe* a laptop. I don't like tying up $2000 in a laptop to get a Macbook Pro when a Thinkpad for less than $1000 satisfies my hardware requirements. The only reason that I'd even consider it is the overwhelming advantage of portability.
There is no such overwhelming advantage for an all-on-one. You don't even reduce the number of boxes on and around your desk by getting an all-in-one: you actually have to make space for two and possibly three more boxes (the iMac power supply, your external drive, and its power supply if it's not bus-powered) than you would if you'd been able to get an Apple desktop comparable to a Mini-ITX box.
Unless you're a really unusual Mac buyer, it's not the fact that it's an all-in-one that makes it perfect, it's the software that's running on it. If you were buying a Windows box, I really really doubt you would have bought an iMac and used Bootcamp to set it up exclusively for Windows, because you'd almost certainly have ended up with more available desk space with a separate monitor and a little box on the floor somewhere around it.
And if Apple still made something like the Cube, are you ABSOLUTELY sure you wouldn't have ended up with one?