First they claim that open source developers could not possibly be smart enough to make Linux as good as it is, and then they expect people to accept their obscene NDA.
What was the point? All I saw was a claim against "the USA" for which I can provide contradicting evidence. That evidence is that I gave money to the ACLU today to fight such awful practices, and that the ACLU *exists*. In itself it is evidence that "the USA" does not want to become the xenophobic state as was claimed by TerryAtWork. TerryAtWork was merely trolling, and his post happened to be the top post when I read the article. False claims against my country as a whole, and thus against me as a citizen of that country should be fought, so I responded by calling out the nature of the post.
What's wrong with getting inspiration for research from dreams? It's just another source of input, and is often fairly creative compared to what we can do while concious.
For example, reference the funny story of benzene.
http://www.chem.tue.nl/kekule/inventing_benzene.ht m
P.S. Proverbs havent been around for 'thousands of years', more like 16 to 17 hundred.
It's interesting that you would say so. As much of proverbs is ascribed to King Solomon, I think the "thousands of years" is more correct since it it would have to be more than two thousand years old.
Paul in the Epistle to the Romans even mentions Proverbs as a "Book of Wisdom", which means that even in very early Christian times, the book was around. This lends even more credence to the "thousands of years" view.*
If you have anything to support the 1600 to 1700 years view, please let me know.
* Source: Notes in my copy of _The_New_American_Bible_
If the infrasounds were switched at different times, that might provide interesting additional data. However, the article did not say that, AND it still would not be an actual control group. The control group must not experience the modified input at all.
It would be an interesting experiment if they had a control group. The end of the story mentions some things they want to try, but if there was any type of control group, I didn't see it mentioned in the story.
This article talks to people who are doing mostly or solely bottom-up work to emulate brain activities, and poo-poos the work that has been done on top-down approaches. While I don't think anyone can refute the need to do low-level bottom-up reverse-engineering to understand how our brains work, I agree with Hofstadter, et al. in _Fluid_Concepts_&_Creative_Analogies_ that there needs to be a fundamental change in the direction of top-down approaches.
I am intrigued by his work in combining the top-down and bottom-up work with his "codelets" design which relies on probabalistic results from a bottom-up approach that are weighted and driven in a more top-down manner. This higher-level approach is meant to simulate "mind" rather than "brain", but I'm eager to see just how far towards "mind" the neural approach in the article can be taken.
[youmaynotcare]It's cool to see McCormick in an AI article. My first course from him was AI, and it fascinated me.[/youmaynotcare]
That was the stupidest reply I've seen yet. (Probably because it's rated so highly.) The issue is not that Amazon is requiring something in return from their affiliates, but that they're inadvertently destroying their affiliates with a broken web-spider design.
The author of the story didn't seem to think to even try to get a quote from anyone with a different point of view. What this means is that this "news" is only a press release.
It's very sad to me. I would at least have expected a quote from *somebody* in the open source community---perhaps someone from RedHat, but there's nothing.
I think DRRM, or Digital Rights Restrictions Management, is a more appropriate term. It addresses the fact that it involves the users' (which most people are rather than creators) rights, but only as a method of restricting them.
If the fuel used to produce the corn is itself bio-fuel (e.g. ethanol or biodeisel), then, no, the carbon put in the atmosphere is just like that of other vehicles burning bio-fuel, not from fossil fuel.
I agree that agricultural interests would mostly likely support a requirement for ethanol in gasoline, but claiming that anything the government does creates a subsidy that destroys free markets does not follow.
I could similarly claim that
obviously since the government requires that schools be built, it's subsidizing the construction industry, and that obviously because the government requires that there be power in school buildings, it is subsidizing the energy industry.
I think the measure of market freedom would involve whether there were competition in the hypothetical market. The ethanol requirement would create a new market for corn products, and the creation of the market would not ipso facto determine whether that market were "free."
What do you think is obvious about the creation of the market that would make it "unfree?" Maybe we are not both talking about the corn products market. What types of government-inspired demand are part of a free market or not part of a free market? In this case, I think the demand is at least as real as that for fire trucks and ambulances---the demand is for real products that can be supplied by a competetive market, and it is not like the government is simply paying the corn producers whether or not they produce corn, which is what I would consider a subsidy.
Yes, but the Passport account is "free" since it does not require uses to pay, so Amazon or other sites would simply coerce users to sign up for their "free" passport accounts. This way Microsoft becomes the gatekeeper for more and more Web services and gets everyone's information, which is part of the actual cost of the "free" service.
It's much easier for them to dictate the standards for the Web when they've got everyone registered for their services.
The Chapter 11 filing was part of the deal to sell to BMG. It protects Napster from its creditors since I presume BMG didn't want to buy Napster only to have people taking pieces of it while they work towards a transition.
If you recall, K-Mart has also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to protect them from their creditors while they attemp to reorganize into a profitable company.
Filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy does not mean that the company is gone or is no longer operating. In the case of Napster, the great levels of piracy ended long before today.
I'm sorry, I should have said "activation" instead. Microsoft's latest software licenses require activation of the product for it to be useful. I hope that's clear now. If not, do a search on "windows xp activation" to get an idea about that of which I am writing.
"You seem to suggest that people will pirate software more when they have access to source code..."
Yes, you are correct. Lest you think I claim this without reference to reality, I do claim access to the source code would make a lot of copy-protected software much easier to copy and pirate because source code availability makes it easier to copy and distribute usable binaries. It allows easier removal of copy-protection compared to doing the same work with a hex-editor or a decompiler.
With the source available, the extra copy-protection code can be bypassed, and an unprotected binary can be compiled. This can then be copied and distributed. "The genie is out of the bottle," is the metaphor recently used with respect to copy protections on audio and video. The analog of source would be the "master" versions of the recordings.
There are some software companies that put a little more trust in their users. They don't pay for the extra cost of adding copy protection, because they figure it will not significantly affect their income, or they're stupid.
I'm guessing Microsoft thinks it should be different because Microsoft sells software. IBM was selling hardware and support. It wasn't likely that someone would take the mainframe source code and run it on another mainframe she had around. After all, all the mainframes came with the software.
If Microsoft started giving away their source code, it would allow people to take out the licensing code, which means it could more easily distributed with no money going back to Microsoft, so, basically, Microsoft thinks it should be different because that's the only way to hold onto control of the product that gives them money.
Time Warner cable has a someone better (IMO) strategy. Because network traffic is typically bursty, they didnt'/don't charge for extra megabytes. However, when the local network is saturated, they throttle the connections (to 128Mbps dl) of everyone on that subnet so no one person hogs all the bandwidth. I don't think I've ever seen this happen so I don't know how it would feel.
It seems like my provider is interested in dealing with those who abuse our shared resource (which expands beyond the local subnet, despite what the DLS commercials claim) to keep the overal QoS high for the rest of the users.
I wouldn't be surprised if I download a gigabyte or more per month. I also occasionally work from home, (but please don't tell Time Warner, they'll want to double my fees for a "business" connection). I don't think that I cause a problem for the network; one of my neighbors also works with me, and he provides just as much traffic as I do, but I've not noticed degraded performace locally for years (except when my modem needed to be replaced.)
I much prefer this method of controlling usage. Bandwidth needs have been increasing. Downloads keep getting bigger. As long as we have competition, service should improve. Those who want to consume the more of the service while degrading the QoS for other should expect to pay a bit more.
"[The] law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly[.]" 1 Tim 1:9
If you don't like the above because Paul said it, here's a similar theme: As always, with the power of broadband come responsibility. Are you using yours responsibly?
The above post is not a troll, silly. According to Craig Mundie, "It will require [...] business practices that ensure accountability and high-quality service." He also states, "we must build trust into these systems from the ground up." It seems like he's painting targets that he will claim Microsoft can address as a big company rather than as a group of programmers hacking the kernel across the globe.
I'm not buying it, but then I can read C. Those who cannot read C can trust in Red Hat and SuSE to keep tabs on the kernel hackers, but Red Hat and SuSE probably do not wish to spend their marketing dollars attacking such a target, and they cannot spend as much as Microsoft can. Plus Linux vendors cannot claim the "ground-up";-) stance that Microsoft claims it is using to ensure trustworthiness (not security.)
I am glad Michael was there to point out what anyone editing incoming Reuters "science" stories should have done. It's clear that their current screening system could use some improvement.
One could instead state that "They can't control your kids, so now we have to get the government to do it for them." I can still remember what it was like to be an unsupervised adolescent, and I remember that I did a lot of things of which my mother would not approve, and of which I would not now approve, either.
Many of the stupid things that people do are done to impress others, so I disagree that these kids must be bad "to start out," for stupidity is amplified in a group of aimless kids.* Unfortunately, you are correct that many parents aren't doing all that you and I think they should do.** Whether they're bad people or have some other reason for not providing the direction the kids need is unknown to me.
Apparently, they're not all focusing their possible violence on the games.
Many kids have no responsibilities, and their little group leaders are chosen from this group with little or no responsiblities, so it's not surprising when they don't act responsibly. This law appears to be trying to address a group of irresponsible kids causing trouble at Internet cafes. However, it might be a better thing to have more of these cafes to thin out the ranks of kids loitering at any particular cafe.
* Well, at least a lot of stupid things I did were done because some one person in the group said it would be "cool." Not everyone is not as easily influenced as I, but I'm sure there are still some who are.
** I don't have any children, but that doesn't mean I can have an opinion.;-)
Okay, video-in might require "minimal retrofitting" according to Microsoft, but guide data is available via the Internet to the XBox's ethernet connection.
I'll leave the IR blaster and serial controller control systems as exercises to some company who can make USB devices, which can be controlled by the XBox, which is a computer after all.
Whether or not IE took away funding gained from NS sales, Netscape's browser really started to stink when it released version 4. I remember trying to submit bug reports to Netscape's own site, and I would have to load Netscape 3 because their bug report form would cause Netscape 4 to crash (on Solaris.)
At the time, Microsoft also had IE version 4 out for Solaris, but it wasn't very good either. Even the Windows versions were not stable. I started using IE because Netscape (4.06?) would often encounter an apparent thread deadlock when the Java VM started.
Netscape's versions 4.7x are decent, and I still use 4.76 to read email when I boot to Windows. A bad browser will discourage most people from continuing to use it, especially if a more functional and less buggy alternative is available for free.
I personally hope that our post office or other government offices, such as maybe the FBI or IRS, start placing advertisements and "demo" bags of my favorite tea. I don't really see it as the government supporting their brand of tea but simply as a good way for the East India Tea company to advertise it's tea, which as far as I can tell is legal for them to do.
How can anyone argue with this simple expression of capitalism?
Slashdot Mirror
First they claim that open source developers could not possibly be smart enough to make Linux as good as it is, and then they expect people to accept their obscene NDA.
What was the point? All I saw was a claim against "the USA" for which I can provide contradicting evidence. That evidence is that I gave money to the ACLU today to fight such awful practices, and that the ACLU *exists*. In itself it is evidence that "the USA" does not want to become the xenophobic state as was claimed by TerryAtWork. TerryAtWork was merely trolling, and his post happened to be the top post when I read the article. False claims against my country as a whole, and thus against me as a citizen of that country should be fought, so I responded by calling out the nature of the post.
It must be nice to the spokesperson for "the USA." Go home, troll.
What's wrong with getting inspiration for research from dreams? It's just another source of input, and is often fairly creative compared to what we can do while concious. For example, reference the funny story of benzene. http://www.chem.tue.nl/kekule/inventing_benzene.ht m
Paul in the Epistle to the Romans even mentions Proverbs as a "Book of Wisdom", which means that even in very early Christian times, the book was around. This lends even more credence to the "thousands of years" view.*
If you have anything to support the 1600 to 1700 years view, please let me know.
* Source: Notes in my copy of _The_New_American_Bible_
If the infrasounds were switched at different times, that might provide interesting additional data. However, the article did not say that, AND it still would not be an actual control group. The control group must not experience the modified input at all.
It would be an interesting experiment if they had a control group. The end of the story mentions some things they want to try, but if there was any type of control group, I didn't see it mentioned in the story.
I am intrigued by his work in combining the top-down and bottom-up work with his "codelets" design which relies on probabalistic results from a bottom-up approach that are weighted and driven in a more top-down manner. This higher-level approach is meant to simulate "mind" rather than "brain", but I'm eager to see just how far towards "mind" the neural approach in the article can be taken.
[youmaynotcare]It's cool to see McCormick in an AI article. My first course from him was AI, and it fascinated me.[/youmaynotcare]
That was the stupidest reply I've seen yet. (Probably because it's rated so highly.) The issue is not that Amazon is requiring something in return from their affiliates, but that they're inadvertently destroying their affiliates with a broken web-spider design.
The author of the story didn't seem to think to even try to get a quote from anyone with a different point of view. What this means is that this "news" is only a press release. It's very sad to me. I would at least have expected a quote from *somebody* in the open source community---perhaps someone from RedHat, but there's nothing.
I think DRRM, or Digital Rights Restrictions Management, is a more appropriate term. It addresses the fact that it involves the users' (which most people are rather than creators) rights, but only as a method of restricting them.
If the fuel used to produce the corn is itself bio-fuel (e.g. ethanol or biodeisel), then, no, the carbon put in the atmosphere is just like that of other vehicles burning bio-fuel, not from fossil fuel.
I could similarly claim that obviously since the government requires that schools be built, it's subsidizing the construction industry, and that obviously because the government requires that there be power in school buildings, it is subsidizing the energy industry.
I think the measure of market freedom would involve whether there were competition in the hypothetical market. The ethanol requirement would create a new market for corn products, and the creation of the market would not ipso facto determine whether that market were "free."
What do you think is obvious about the creation of the market that would make it "unfree?" Maybe we are not both talking about the corn products market. What types of government-inspired demand are part of a free market or not part of a free market? In this case, I think the demand is at least as real as that for fire trucks and ambulances---the demand is for real products that can be supplied by a competetive market, and it is not like the government is simply paying the corn producers whether or not they produce corn, which is what I would consider a subsidy.
It's much easier for them to dictate the standards for the Web when they've got everyone registered for their services.
If you recall, K-Mart has also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to protect them from their creditors while they attemp to reorganize into a profitable company.
Filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy does not mean that the company is gone or is no longer operating. In the case of Napster, the great levels of piracy ended long before today.
With the source available, the extra copy-protection code can be bypassed, and an unprotected binary can be compiled. This can then be copied and distributed. "The genie is out of the bottle," is the metaphor recently used with respect to copy protections on audio and video. The analog of source would be the "master" versions of the recordings.
There are some software companies that put a little more trust in their users. They don't pay for the extra cost of adding copy protection, because they figure it will not significantly affect their income, or they're stupid.
If Microsoft started giving away their source code, it would allow people to take out the licensing code, which means it could more easily distributed with no money going back to Microsoft, so, basically, Microsoft thinks it should be different because that's the only way to hold onto control of the product that gives them money.
It seems like my provider is interested in dealing with those who abuse our shared resource (which expands beyond the local subnet, despite what the DLS commercials claim) to keep the overal QoS high for the rest of the users.
I wouldn't be surprised if I download a gigabyte or more per month. I also occasionally work from home, (but please don't tell Time Warner, they'll want to double my fees for a "business" connection). I don't think that I cause a problem for the network; one of my neighbors also works with me, and he provides just as much traffic as I do, but I've not noticed degraded performace locally for years (except when my modem needed to be replaced.)
I much prefer this method of controlling usage. Bandwidth needs have been increasing. Downloads keep getting bigger. As long as we have competition, service should improve. Those who want to consume the more of the service while degrading the QoS for other should expect to pay a bit more.
"[The] law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly[.]" 1 Tim 1:9
If you don't like the above because Paul said it, here's a similar theme: As always, with the power of broadband come responsibility. Are you using yours responsibly?
I'm not buying it, but then I can read C. Those who cannot read C can trust in Red Hat and SuSE to keep tabs on the kernel hackers, but Red Hat and SuSE probably do not wish to spend their marketing dollars attacking such a target, and they cannot spend as much as Microsoft can. Plus Linux vendors cannot claim the "ground-up" ;-) stance that Microsoft claims it is using to ensure trustworthiness (not security.)
I am glad Michael was there to point out what anyone editing incoming Reuters "science" stories should have done. It's clear that their current screening system could use some improvement.
Many of the stupid things that people do are done to impress others, so I disagree that these kids must be bad "to start out," for stupidity is amplified in a group of aimless kids.* Unfortunately, you are correct that many parents aren't doing all that you and I think they should do.** Whether they're bad people or have some other reason for not providing the direction the kids need is unknown to me.
Apparently, they're not all focusing their possible violence on the games.
Many kids have no responsibilities, and their little group leaders are chosen from this group with little or no responsiblities, so it's not surprising when they don't act responsibly. This law appears to be trying to address a group of irresponsible kids causing trouble at Internet cafes. However, it might be a better thing to have more of these cafes to thin out the ranks of kids loitering at any particular cafe.
* Well, at least a lot of stupid things I did were done because some one person in the group said it would be "cool." Not everyone is not as easily influenced as I, but I'm sure there are still some who are.
** I don't have any children, but that doesn't mean I can have an opinion. ;-)
I'll leave the IR blaster and serial controller control systems as exercises to some company who can make USB devices, which can be controlled by the XBox, which is a computer after all.
"Computers can do that?!?" - Homer Simpson
At the time, Microsoft also had IE version 4 out for Solaris, but it wasn't very good either. Even the Windows versions were not stable. I started using IE because Netscape (4.06?) would often encounter an apparent thread deadlock when the Java VM started.
Netscape's versions 4.7x are decent, and I still use 4.76 to read email when I boot to Windows. A bad browser will discourage most people from continuing to use it, especially if a more functional and less buggy alternative is available for free.
How can anyone argue with this simple expression of capitalism?