The guy who originally wrote the code that generated the CDDB data gave the code away. He later asserted property rights to the data and today it is not free. Are you going to leap in and defend him also?
Idiot
Those who are ignorant [that would be you] of history are doomed to repeat it. I never said that the webmaster in question was not dedicated to opensource, I simply pointed out that the comment above was indistinguishable from what one might hear from a person trying to build a proprietary database. I guess you are disagreeing with that?
Everything I've said has been fact. Everything you've said has been opinion.
It's nice of you to conveniently ignore the rest of my sentence
don't be a jerk: the rest of your sentence had nothing to do with the issue at hand.
However, you might be interested to note this update... so that the
database can be redistributed.
That is interesting, and cause for celebration. I never said he wasn't in favor of doing it, but that what you quoted him saying previously was exactly what a person making an excuse would say.
the reason his database isn't publicly available is because he got a lot of seed data for it from a third-party
source with the agreement that the entire DB wouldn't be made publicly available. (No evil closed-source-ness
conspiracies here
This would be a convenient excuse for a person who did not believe in open-source. Therefore, it is worthless. I'm not saying it's not true, but that we can't tell that it is: it looks just like the excuse any "proprietor" would offer.
The modern market-driven, global corporation is the most advanced technology our civilization (or any) has created for bringing together vast resources (physical, human, intellectual, etc.), creating from that mix value-added products, and selling huge quantities of them to consumers around the globe.
Katz hates this technology, calling it "corporatist". Katz is therefore, by his own definition, a neo-Luddite.
calling me an idiot is completely unjustified. You are the one who cannot follow an analogy which is what I was offering. I was simply stating the logical extension of the argument made by that AC in stark terms so that you could see how stupid the argument was. If you work on it a little longer perhaps you'll see the fallacy.
There is no way that that post deserves to be modded all the way to the top.
More than one supreme court justice made the choice not to advance the case.
I do not think that Judge Rehnquist influenced all of them.
but perhaps the Chief Justice would have attempted to influence them to advance the case in other circumstances, and you have no idea how close they were to the fence. Situations like this need to be evaluated on principle, not outcome.
Anyway, don't you think it would have been worse... if he
had gotten the case to the Supreme Court and tried to influence the decsion on that level?
what?! Better that a judge is corrupt in dropping a case rather than hearing it and really being corrupt? This is just nuts!
actually, you are both wrong. Splitting the company is *not* slapping them hard, completely separate from whether they deserve to be slapped hard or not. Consider a simpler case like Standard Oil. If you split the company in two and give shares in each to the former shareholders of the old, those shareholders still own all of the assets that they owned before, all of the oil wells, all of the gas pumps, all of the trucks, etc. The assets are simply organized as two companies instead of one. The only loss of value occurs in erasing the monopoly benefit, and that's a benefit that is considered by the law to be illegitimate.
That's why the breakup is called a "remedy", not a punishment, because it fixes the problem for the future. The punishing slap comes from other fines.
well, I think describing the front bumper as "riddled with bugs" would be an accurate description.
but if you want to persist with yours, bug finding has been described as a poisson process with the likelihood of when the next bug will be found most accurately described by the mean arrival time of the last few bugs. The more fresh kill on that bumper, the worse off you are.
Were you saying that this does not occur or that it will occur regardless of whether or not there is an official language?
Both and neither?:)
It certainly occurs whenever people live side-by-side and are culturally different, and especially when they speak different languages. And, having two official languages does not solve the problem as we see everywhere there are two languages. The most familiar examples of bilingual countries have clear historical reasons. The open question is, can multiple official languages cause a permanent problem where there is none.
What I was referring to (by my use of persistent) was that our experience in the US and for "yours" for non-French Canadians is that 2nd and 3rd generation assimilation erases any problem that exists with foreign language speakers, so long as the door is open to assimilation.
I believe multiple official languages will create the "Quebecois problem" in the US with Hispanics. It has to do with expectations. If Hispanics come here and are led to expect that Spanish will be coddled, we will get a divided population, making a what should be a temporary problem worse and permanent.
The likely abuse of a language standard is similar to that of a religious standard - if you're not one of us, you are not
good for our society.
You are calling "likely" something that is entirely hypothetical, and not really supported by what facts there are. The history of persistent discrimination the US is entirely racial and not at all linguistic. Compare that to many parts of the world that are officially bilingual and suffer persistent and long-term strife as a result.
Having an official language does not mean persecution of minorities. It means the government need publish only in English and need teach only in English. That was the de facto policy for a long time and it served us well. Your scare scenarios are simply that.
You want to see racism? travel south of the US border, travel through country after country and witness racism as part of the fabric of society. It's routine. They are racist up and down, and every day. You'll hear bigotry directed at anglos, and at indios. Makes perfect sense when you consider the social status of white Hipanics who exercise political and economic domination over dark.
There is racism all over the world, actually, but you'd be hard pressed to find less than exists in the US. Here, large numbers of people of many races live and work together and minority rights are protected not only by law, but in the hearts of the average citizen. We're not perfect, of course, but it's such a good place that many poor Hispanics, Asians, and blacks are willing to risk their lives to get here. Rich ones content themselves with paying bribes. But come they do, and it makes sense: the places they come from are generally hellholes, where individual rights are not respected.
historical tip: the founders of the US were also very careful to make slavery legal and to deny women the right to vote. So what? And there was absolutely zero chance that they'd make German the national language. It's OK to quote the founding fathers, but do so to point out how prescient they were when they were right, not to prove that some position of yours is right.
Over the years, I've met quite a few Indians who speak English extremely well. But in the past year I've met dozens who can speak it, but can barely communicate. There is a real frustration people have that you are unfairly dismissing.
The original poster equated "communication skills" with "speaking English with native skill". That is racist, period.
How do you know the person making the statement was of a different race than the person s/he was speaking about? You didn't know, you just assumed, demonstrating your incredible bigotry.
I promise you, I have more close friends from more places in the world than you do, even including your relatives. But, in the workplace communicating in the language of the workplace is important. I would expect in other countries that people would find it frustrating working with me: so you think they are racists, too?
Poor communication skills goes beyond simply poor English: many in the current wave of immigration come from highly hierarchical societies and they totally "yes" you to death, despite the fact that they don't have clue what you are talking about. Ever had this interaction: "yes, your code works, but it is fragile. If there is a bug..." "I don't have bug"
"no, I said IF there is" "No bug. this code work" At that point, just give up. There is apparently no known translation of the word "if" into a number of foreign languages.
However, they are smart people (oooh, isn't that racist) and in the long run they and their children will make a very positive contribution to our economy. If we manage to skim them from their home countries and get them to stay here, we'll continue to nurture our high tech advantage. But they are still frustrating as hell to try to communicate with in the short run.
period... thank you
yeah, period. and you're welcome.
Re:It is nice to get back to "grass roots"
on
Think Unix
·
· Score: 1
so what? vfstab instead of fstab? slice instead of partition? Do you find that confusing? I don't.
Dude, I configured my first unix back before there was a Solaris, or a SUNOS.
But, I have configured a few Solaris boxes. Can't teach an old doggo new tricks? Try this: next time you need to configure a Solaris box, make life easy on yourself and go to rpm.org first. pull it down and install the gnu tools via RPM. It's a breeze.
I agree, this book sounds good to me. I'd like to see the underlying similarities in the *nixes.
I thought you just said they're not similar? make up your mind:)
Seems to me that Godwin's Law gets used as a form of censorship
reminds me of my pet favorite: the accusation of "McCarthyism" is itself a form of McCarthyism, an attempt to smear simply by labelling.
I'd phrase the Godwin's law point as: Nazism is to morality as the "universal set" is to boolean algebra. (see: I just used Nazism in a comparison, but Godwin's law should not apply). You can't conduct a "discussion" in boolean algebra without a universal set. Invoking comparison to the Nazis is often an attempt to get agreement, not enflame passions. "You must agree with me that Nazis loved their own children, but were capable of horrific acts against other people's children, therefore can't you see..."
Re:It is nice to get back to "grass roots"
on
Think Unix
·
· Score: 1
Linux is a lot better as far as the included toolset
you can run the same toolset under any unix.
Re:It is nice to get back to "grass roots"
on
Think Unix
·
· Score: 1
huh? how can you be a linux enthusiast without a core set of unix skills? what linux skills are not portable to other unixalikes anyway? linux is unix, as are the BSDs.
start charging for them with no warning whatsoever is questionable
complain about charging, ok, but a warning? You demand a warning and that would make it ok? so you could start saving up the $20? Had you made "plans" about how free it was going to be?
you cannot claim that econ 101 fails to take into account "greedy self interest": the premises explicitly include self-interest where more-is-better. The same self-interest and greed that bring socialism to its knees, econ101 says "hey, we can harness this for the good of all". It is a lame business plan indeed that fails to take it into account.
but what doesn't make sense about your post: if you like redhat so much, and are so knowledgable about locking down a box, why don't you use redhat on the net? It takes about 30 minutes to configure ipchains and ntsysv and hosts.allow, and you're secure. I too wish that RedHat would ship in a more protected configuration, but I don't let it stop me.
but you do go on like you have some information that we dont
I do do go on because I'm trying to be very explicit and clear, overexplaining, because some people keep imagining that that article said something about anonymity. It did not.
It is clear that many people confuse privacy and anonymity.
BTW, it is not true that the credit rating agencies have nothing to to with this. They are entitled to be informed whenever credit is extended. That's exactly what they keep track of.
If the merchant does not authenticate the purchaser, they are leaving themselves wide open to purchasers denying that the transaction ever took place.
Slashdot Mirror
Idiot
Those who are ignorant [that would be you] of history are doomed to repeat it. I never said that the webmaster in question was not dedicated to opensource, I simply pointed out that the comment above was indistinguishable from what one might hear from a person trying to build a proprietary database. I guess you are disagreeing with that?
Everything I've said has been fact. Everything you've said has been opinion.
don't be a jerk: the rest of your sentence had nothing to do with the issue at hand.
However, you might be interested to note this update ... so that the
database can be redistributed.
That is interesting, and cause for celebration. I never said he wasn't in favor of doing it, but that what you quoted him saying previously was exactly what a person making an excuse would say.
This would be a convenient excuse for a person who did not believe in open-source. Therefore, it is worthless. I'm not saying it's not true, but that we can't tell that it is: it looks just like the excuse any "proprietor" would offer.
Katz hates this technology, calling it "corporatist". Katz is therefore, by his own definition, a neo-Luddite.
There is no way that that post deserves to be modded all the way to the top.
but perhaps the Chief Justice would have attempted to influence them to advance the case in other circumstances, and you have no idea how close they were to the fence. Situations like this need to be evaluated on principle, not outcome.
Anyway, don't you think it would have been worse ... if he
had gotten the case to the Supreme Court and tried to influence the decsion on that level?
what?! Better that a judge is corrupt in dropping a case rather than hearing it and really being corrupt? This is just nuts!
actually, you are both wrong. Splitting the company is *not* slapping them hard, completely separate from whether they deserve to be slapped hard or not. Consider a simpler case like Standard Oil. If you split the company in two and give shares in each to the former shareholders of the old, those shareholders still own all of the assets that they owned before, all of the oil wells, all of the gas pumps, all of the trucks, etc. The assets are simply organized as two companies instead of one. The only loss of value occurs in erasing the monopoly benefit, and that's a benefit that is considered by the law to be illegitimate.
That's why the breakup is called a "remedy", not a punishment, because it fixes the problem for the future. The punishing slap comes from other fines.
turn on javascript and reload.
well, I think describing the front bumper as "riddled with bugs" would be an accurate description.
but if you want to persist with yours, bug finding has been described as a poisson process with the likelihood of when the next bug will be found most accurately described by the mean arrival time of the last few bugs. The more fresh kill on that bumper, the worse off you are.
at a minimum, tomorrow you'll get to hear their first-hand accounts of the actually definition of "hack" from their new and unique perspective.
Both and neither? :)
It certainly occurs whenever people live side-by-side and are culturally different, and especially when they speak different languages. And, having two official languages does not solve the problem as we see everywhere there are two languages. The most familiar examples of bilingual countries have clear historical reasons. The open question is, can multiple official languages cause a permanent problem where there is none.
What I was referring to (by my use of persistent) was that our experience in the US and for "yours" for non-French Canadians is that 2nd and 3rd generation assimilation erases any problem that exists with foreign language speakers, so long as the door is open to assimilation. I believe multiple official languages will create the "Quebecois problem" in the US with Hispanics. It has to do with expectations. If Hispanics come here and are led to expect that Spanish will be coddled, we will get a divided population, making a what should be a temporary problem worse and permanent.
You are calling "likely" something that is entirely hypothetical, and not really supported by what facts there are. The history of persistent discrimination the US is entirely racial and not at all linguistic. Compare that to many parts of the world that are officially bilingual and suffer persistent and long-term strife as a result. Having an official language does not mean persecution of minorities. It means the government need publish only in English and need teach only in English. That was the de facto policy for a long time and it served us well. Your scare scenarios are simply that.
There is racism all over the world, actually, but you'd be hard pressed to find less than exists in the US. Here, large numbers of people of many races live and work together and minority rights are protected not only by law, but in the hearts of the average citizen. We're not perfect, of course, but it's such a good place that many poor Hispanics, Asians, and blacks are willing to risk their lives to get here. Rich ones content themselves with paying bribes. But come they do, and it makes sense: the places they come from are generally hellholes, where individual rights are not respected.
Over the years, I've met quite a few Indians who speak English extremely well. But in the past year I've met dozens who can speak it, but can barely communicate. There is a real frustration people have that you are unfairly dismissing.
How do you know the person making the statement was of a different race than the person s/he was speaking about? You didn't know, you just assumed, demonstrating your incredible bigotry.
I promise you, I have more close friends from more places in the world than you do, even including your relatives. But, in the workplace communicating in the language of the workplace is important. I would expect in other countries that people would find it frustrating working with me: so you think they are racists, too?
Poor communication skills goes beyond simply poor English: many in the current wave of immigration come from highly hierarchical societies and they totally "yes" you to death, despite the fact that they don't have clue what you are talking about. Ever had this interaction: "yes, your code works, but it is fragile. If there is a bug..." "I don't have bug" "no, I said IF there is" "No bug. this code work" At that point, just give up. There is apparently no known translation of the word "if" into a number of foreign languages.
However, they are smart people (oooh, isn't that racist) and in the long run they and their children will make a very positive contribution to our economy. If we manage to skim them from their home countries and get them to stay here, we'll continue to nurture our high tech advantage. But they are still frustrating as hell to try to communicate with in the short run.
period... thank you
yeah, period. and you're welcome.
Dude, I configured my first unix back before there was a Solaris, or a SUNOS. But, I have configured a few Solaris boxes. Can't teach an old doggo new tricks? Try this: next time you need to configure a Solaris box, make life easy on yourself and go to rpm.org first. pull it down and install the gnu tools via RPM. It's a breeze.
I agree, this book sounds good to me. I'd like to see the underlying similarities in the *nixes.
I thought you just said they're not similar? make up your mind :)
reminds me of my pet favorite: the accusation of "McCarthyism" is itself a form of McCarthyism, an attempt to smear simply by labelling.
I'd phrase the Godwin's law point as: Nazism is to morality as the "universal set" is to boolean algebra. (see: I just used Nazism in a comparison, but Godwin's law should not apply). You can't conduct a "discussion" in boolean algebra without a universal set. Invoking comparison to the Nazis is often an attempt to get agreement, not enflame passions. "You must agree with me that Nazis loved their own children, but were capable of horrific acts against other people's children, therefore can't you see..."
you can run the same toolset under any unix.
huh? how can you be a linux enthusiast without a core set of unix skills? what linux skills are not portable to other unixalikes anyway? linux is unix, as are the BSDs.
how does switching from free to charging $20 leave anybody out in the cold?
complain about charging, ok, but a warning? You demand a warning and that would make it ok? so you could start saving up the $20? Had you made "plans" about how free it was going to be?
you cannot claim that econ 101 fails to take into account "greedy self interest": the premises explicitly include self-interest where more-is-better. The same self-interest and greed that bring socialism to its knees, econ101 says "hey, we can harness this for the good of all". It is a lame business plan indeed that fails to take it into account.
so: build in the opposite of steadi-cam. small movements of the head result in large movements of the virtual display.
but what doesn't make sense about your post: if you like redhat so much, and are so knowledgable about locking down a box, why don't you use redhat on the net? It takes about 30 minutes to configure ipchains and ntsysv and hosts.allow, and you're secure. I too wish that RedHat would ship in a more protected configuration, but I don't let it stop me.
I do do go on because I'm trying to be very explicit and clear, overexplaining, because some people keep imagining that that article said something about anonymity. It did not.
It is clear that many people confuse privacy and anonymity.
BTW, it is not true that the credit rating agencies have nothing to to with this. They are entitled to be informed whenever credit is extended. That's exactly what they keep track of. If the merchant does not authenticate the purchaser, they are leaving themselves wide open to purchasers denying that the transaction ever took place.