That doesn't necessarily imply corruption. It may just be absence of a welfare state plus a puritan understanding of justice.
Many of the European policies towards criminal offenses simply wouldn't fly in the US. They may be rational and effective in reducing crime and prison population, but they run counter to what the people want. They run counter to what the people want even in Europe.
If there is ever a proposal to increase the authority one human has over another,
Seems to me this decreases the authority of guards. Right now, they can basically charge anybody with anything, and have a wide array of abuses and punishments at their disposal. With this kind of technology, everything they observe and do is recorded and subject to review. If they zap someone too much, it will get reviewed.
Why do you think police hate being filmed so much?
Many, many psychological experiments have shown this to be the case. In fact, some of them are among the most famous psychology experiments that have ever been conducted. Perhaps you should look them up?
You're probably referring to the Milgram study. It did not show that people abuse power, it showed that authority (represented by experimenters) could override the moral inhibitions of normal people (subjects). Go look it up. If you have any other studies you're thinking of, cite them.
Jobs like police and prison guards may attract people who want the power to abuse others, but that is not the normal human condition. Furthermore, those people can already abuse others in much more creative and legally safe ways than by zapping them remotely. Keep in mind that with such electronic monitoring, everything is recorded in minute detail and can be reviewed afterwards. It's a lot harder for a guard to get away with zapping someone wrongly than to drag them into a dark corner and beat them up.
The Milgram experiment did NOT show that "people in power will often abuse their authority unless they will get caught". The operators in the Milgram subject zapped people because the experimenter told them to, and they were extremely uncomfortable doing it. What the experiment showed was that normal people could be induced to follow orders despite their own inhibitions if the person giving the orders appeared sufficiently authoritative. The authority giving the orders was one of the experimenters, not the subjects.
It is a sad fact that the ONLY rehabilitation that works on criminals is a bullet through the brain.
Funny you should mention that, because American revolutionaries also believed that that is the only thing that works against people who want to destroy our democracy...
So not open source = George Orwell? Are you really that much of a blind zealot?
Are you so stupid not to recognize that if the printing presses (e-book formats, video formats, etc.) are entirely controlled by a few big corporations, we can kiss our democracy goodbye?
Is there efficient transcoding from h.264 to WebM? The two codecs are so similar that it may be possible to transcode without decompression and the associated quality loss.
If there is efficient transcoding, that would greatly reduce the problem.
Two reasons. (1) You're reusing text or images because they are better than the authoritative source (cite both). (2) You got the idea from a non-authoritative source but you prove it yourself.
Oh, sure the initial steps in the web's client/server model may have had resembled the dumb terminals and mainframes of the days of yore but with HTML5 my generation is bringing in a new original and fresh way of computing where worker threads [w3.org] and local storage [w3.org] give us the ability to distribute...
Yeah, just like in the 1980's (e.g., DisplayPostscript, BLIT, Distributed Smalltalk) and 1990's (e.g., Java applets), only with even more overhead and even worse syntax.
Of course, it's nice that there's a market for these things now, but calling it "a new original and fresh way of computing" is ridiculous.
Nonsense. It's perfectly fine to use materials from non-authoritative sources (including Wikipedia) as long as you establish somewhere that the content you use is correct.
You don't cite Wikipedia because it's not a primary source.
While you shouldn't cite Wikipedia to establish facts, you must cite it if you quote from it, use its graphics, or use ideas from it. For example, "Jones [1] has given a proof of this; the result is elegantly stated in Wikipedia [2] as '...'."
Honestly, anything could make it as a source for Wikipedia, which doesn't make the source any more credible. A source needs to be peer reviewed at the least.
Citations serve several purposes. The two main ones are (1) establishing facts, and (2) documenting and acknowledging where ideas or materials came from.
An authoritative source needs to be peer reviewed (or have some other reasonable quality control). Such a citation looks something like "As Jones [3] has shown,..." or "Since we know that $\sigma(x)=0$ [17], we can infer..."
But you also need to cite any other source that contributed to your paper, authoritative or not. E.g. "The idea behind this work comes from Jones [4]. In this paper, we show that Jones' idea actually works." or "Figure 3 was taken from [19]." People often cite "personal communication", newspaper articles, internal memos, patent applications, and all sorts of other non-authoritative sources for this second purpose. If you fail to cite sources for any significant idea or materials in your paper, you are committing plagiarism.
You need to cite authoritative sources when required in support of your arguments. And, yes, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.
In addition, you need to cite Wikipedia if you use materials from Wikipedia, even if those materials are not authoritative. While not authoritative, Wikipedia is a decent source for illustrations and quotations of facts established by other sources. If you fail to cite Wikipedia in those circumstances, you commit plagiarism.
You mean like they do for DLP? I'm not sure that works for these kinds of displays. Furthermore, even if it does, you end up using a lot more power then.
Microsoft has been using open source software under the BSD license for many years (e.g., networking related software); they like the BSD license. So, open source has been "bailing them out" for years. They hate the GPL. Their marketing doesn't make such fine distinctions and they simply like to portray FOSS as inferior and dangerous in general. You see a similar disconnect with Apple, saying one thing to geeks, another to business types (Apple has to tread more lightly in that regard because they obviously use tons more FOSS).
Maybe five years ago, it would still have made a difference. These days, the damage is done: Office alternatives are compatible enough, and people don't need to replicate Microsoft's idiosyncrasies precisely anymore because nobody expects them to work always (they don't even work consistently between Windows and Mac, or different Windows versions).
Microsoft and Apple marketing tell you that their proprietary software is supposedly superior, and Microsoft marketing tells you that using open source software contaminates your software. Obviously, if both Apple and Microsoft use FreeType for key products, in preference to software that they would only have to port, that shows that their marketing is lying. This may not be news to nerds, but it is certainly a good argument to use when negotiating the use of FOSS with management.
You do understand what the term "open source" means right? And you do understand that "open" does not mean "open source" right?
Yes, but you apparently don't.
An open standard is a standard that anybody can implement, without known licensing requirements, mandatory compatibility tests, or any of that other b.s. That used to be Sun's own view, until they started playing games with the term.
Open source implies, among other things, that you can make incompatible forks. Since you can't make incompatible forks of Java, Java is not open source. You can't redistribute Java under the GPL because you can't meet the terms of the GPL.
Java is a proprietary platforms, more restricted and more encumbered than a lot of commercial software. If you use it, either for open source or for your business, you're a fool But, then, you're obviously a fool based on your attempts to redefine the term "open".
If they could get certified as a conforming implementation then they would covered under the patent grant.
The problem with certification is that Sun/Oracle refuses to let them certify.
so they've never got to stage where they have any users to sue
And that's no coincidence; Sun/Oracle has made sure that the only Java implementation that anybody can use is theirs. That ensures that they stay in control and get licensing revenue from mobile and server implementations.
The entire crux of your argument has been: "Sun is evil therefore MS is excused from anything they did."
Bullshit. My argument is the opposite: "What Microsoft did is something one can legitimately do with an open platform without getting sued. Since Sun had the legal means of suing them successfully, Java isn't an open platform."
Legally they had an agreement with Sun; they broke it. And you still refuse to acknowledge that.
Yes, Microsoft had a restrictive agreement with Sun. Microsoft is also evil, but making a proprietary derivative of a supposedly open platform is not an example of that.
All of that is not relevant to me or the argument. The fact remains that Java is not an open platform and that Sun was (also) evil.
At the time, Java was not open source and Sun did not claim it to be.
No, but at the time, Sun claimed Java to be an open platform (which is what I wrote).
So what you are saying is the Microsoft dealings with Sun should be influenced by Sun's dealings with an open source implementation nearly a decade later.
No, I'm saying that Sun has been dishonest from almost day one. Their run-in with Microsoft is just one of many incidents. Sun threatened Danger, they threatened people who as much as looked at their downloadable source code, they killed all third party commercial implementations, they threatened open source Java implementations, they pulled out of standards processes and reneged on their promise of standardization, and they broke promises about facilities they were going to add to Java. The current meltdown has been coming for over a decade.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't necessarily imply corruption. It may just be absence of a welfare state plus a puritan understanding of justice.
Many of the European policies towards criminal offenses simply wouldn't fly in the US. They may be rational and effective in reducing crime and prison population, but they run counter to what the people want. They run counter to what the people want even in Europe.
If there is ever a proposal to increase the authority one human has over another,
Seems to me this decreases the authority of guards. Right now, they can basically charge anybody with anything, and have a wide array of abuses and punishments at their disposal. With this kind of technology, everything they observe and do is recorded and subject to review. If they zap someone too much, it will get reviewed.
Why do you think police hate being filmed so much?
Many, many psychological experiments have shown this to be the case. In fact, some of them are among the most famous psychology experiments that have ever been conducted. Perhaps you should look them up?
You're probably referring to the Milgram study. It did not show that people abuse power, it showed that authority (represented by experimenters) could override the moral inhibitions of normal people (subjects). Go look it up. If you have any other studies you're thinking of, cite them.
Jobs like police and prison guards may attract people who want the power to abuse others, but that is not the normal human condition. Furthermore, those people can already abuse others in much more creative and legally safe ways than by zapping them remotely. Keep in mind that with such electronic monitoring, everything is recorded in minute detail and can be reviewed afterwards. It's a lot harder for a guard to get away with zapping someone wrongly than to drag them into a dark corner and beat them up.
The Milgram experiment did NOT show that "people in power will often abuse their authority unless they will get caught". The operators in the Milgram subject zapped people because the experimenter told them to, and they were extremely uncomfortable doing it. What the experiment showed was that normal people could be induced to follow orders despite their own inhibitions if the person giving the orders appeared sufficiently authoritative. The authority giving the orders was one of the experimenters, not the subjects.
It is a sad fact that the ONLY rehabilitation that works on criminals is a bullet through the brain.
Funny you should mention that, because American revolutionaries also believed that that is the only thing that works against people who want to destroy our democracy...
So not open source = George Orwell? Are you really that much of a blind zealot?
Are you so stupid not to recognize that if the printing presses (e-book formats, video formats, etc.) are entirely controlled by a few big corporations, we can kiss our democracy goodbye?
Is there efficient transcoding from h.264 to WebM? The two codecs are so similar that it may be possible to transcode without decompression and the associated quality loss.
If there is efficient transcoding, that would greatly reduce the problem.
Larger than what? You're still much more likely to die from the trip or radiation-induced cancer.
Two reasons. (1) You're reusing text or images because they are better than the authoritative source (cite both). (2) You got the idea from a non-authoritative source but you prove it yourself.
Oh, sure the initial steps in the web's client/server model may have had resembled the dumb terminals and mainframes of the days of yore but with HTML5 my generation is bringing in a new original and fresh way of computing where worker threads [w3.org] and local storage [w3.org] give us the ability to distribute ...
Yeah, just like in the 1980's (e.g., DisplayPostscript, BLIT, Distributed Smalltalk) and 1990's (e.g., Java applets), only with even more overhead and even worse syntax.
Of course, it's nice that there's a market for these things now, but calling it "a new original and fresh way of computing" is ridiculous.
Says who? URL/citation?
(The unfinished native port may use ATSUI, but that doesn't mean the choice was made based on quality.)
Nonsense. It's perfectly fine to use materials from non-authoritative sources (including Wikipedia) as long as you establish somewhere that the content you use is correct.
You don't cite Wikipedia because it's not a primary source.
While you shouldn't cite Wikipedia to establish facts, you must cite it if you quote from it, use its graphics, or use ideas from it. For example, "Jones [1] has given a proof of this; the result is elegantly stated in Wikipedia [2] as '...'."
Honestly, anything could make it as a source for Wikipedia, which doesn't make the source any more credible. A source needs to be peer reviewed at the least.
Citations serve several purposes. The two main ones are (1) establishing facts, and (2) documenting and acknowledging where ideas or materials came from.
An authoritative source needs to be peer reviewed (or have some other reasonable quality control). Such a citation looks something like "As Jones [3] has shown, ..." or "Since we know that $\sigma(x)=0$ [17], we can infer..."
But you also need to cite any other source that contributed to your paper, authoritative or not. E.g. "The idea behind this work comes from Jones [4]. In this paper, we show that Jones' idea actually works." or "Figure 3 was taken from [19]." People often cite "personal communication", newspaper articles, internal memos, patent applications, and all sorts of other non-authoritative sources for this second purpose. If you fail to cite sources for any significant idea or materials in your paper, you are committing plagiarism.
You need to cite authoritative sources when required in support of your arguments. And, yes, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.
In addition, you need to cite Wikipedia if you use materials from Wikipedia, even if those materials are not authoritative. While not authoritative, Wikipedia is a decent source for illustrations and quotations of facts established by other sources. If you fail to cite Wikipedia in those circumstances, you commit plagiarism.
You mean like they do for DLP? I'm not sure that works for these kinds of displays. Furthermore, even if it does, you end up using a lot more power then.
Microsoft has been using open source software under the BSD license for many years (e.g., networking related software); they like the BSD license. So, open source has been "bailing them out" for years. They hate the GPL. Their marketing doesn't make such fine distinctions and they simply like to portray FOSS as inferior and dangerous in general. You see a similar disconnect with Apple, saying one thing to geeks, another to business types (Apple has to tread more lightly in that regard because they obviously use tons more FOSS).
Maybe five years ago, it would still have made a difference. These days, the damage is done: Office alternatives are compatible enough, and people don't need to replicate Microsoft's idiosyncrasies precisely anymore because nobody expects them to work always (they don't even work consistently between Windows and Mac, or different Windows versions).
Microsoft and Apple marketing tell you that their proprietary software is supposedly superior, and Microsoft marketing tells you that using open source software contaminates your software. Obviously, if both Apple and Microsoft use FreeType for key products, in preference to software that they would only have to port, that shows that their marketing is lying. This may not be news to nerds, but it is certainly a good argument to use when negotiating the use of FOSS with management.
ATSUI is more akin to Pango than FreeType; Microsoft probably has their own Pango-like functionality in Office.
Last I looked, the Mac platform was technically significantly behind Pango in rendering complex scripts.
Klingon is supposedly the most frequently spoken artificial language. Never underestimate the power of nerddom.
You do understand what the term "open source" means right? And you do understand that "open" does not mean "open source" right?
Yes, but you apparently don't.
An open standard is a standard that anybody can implement, without known licensing requirements, mandatory compatibility tests, or any of that other b.s. That used to be Sun's own view, until they started playing games with the term.
Open source implies, among other things, that you can make incompatible forks. Since you can't make incompatible forks of Java, Java is not open source. You can't redistribute Java under the GPL because you can't meet the terms of the GPL.
Java is a proprietary platforms, more restricted and more encumbered than a lot of commercial software. If you use it, either for open source or for your business, you're a fool But, then, you're obviously a fool based on your attempts to redefine the term "open".
If they could get certified as a conforming implementation then they would covered under the patent grant.
The problem with certification is that Sun/Oracle refuses to let them certify.
so they've never got to stage where they have any users to sue
And that's no coincidence; Sun/Oracle has made sure that the only Java implementation that anybody can use is theirs. That ensures that they stay in control and get licensing revenue from mobile and server implementations.
The entire crux of your argument has been: "Sun is evil therefore MS is excused from anything they did."
Bullshit. My argument is the opposite: "What Microsoft did is something one can legitimately do with an open platform without getting sued. Since Sun had the legal means of suing them successfully, Java isn't an open platform."
Legally they had an agreement with Sun; they broke it. And you still refuse to acknowledge that.
Yes, Microsoft had a restrictive agreement with Sun. Microsoft is also evil, but making a proprietary derivative of a supposedly open platform is not an example of that.
All of that is not relevant to me or the argument. The fact remains that Java is not an open platform and that Sun was (also) evil.
At the time, Java was not open source and Sun did not claim it to be.
No, but at the time, Sun claimed Java to be an open platform (which is what I wrote).
So what you are saying is the Microsoft dealings with Sun should be influenced by Sun's dealings with an open source implementation nearly a decade later.
No, I'm saying that Sun has been dishonest from almost day one. Their run-in with Microsoft is just one of many incidents. Sun threatened Danger, they threatened people who as much as looked at their downloadable source code, they killed all third party commercial implementations, they threatened open source Java implementations, they pulled out of standards processes and reneged on their promise of standardization, and they broke promises about facilities they were going to add to Java. The current meltdown has been coming for over a decade.