I honestly would like a good explanation of how the GPL is more beneficial to the programmer than a license such as BSD.
YMMV, but:
The Programmer may fear the "tragedy of the commons" is not offset enough by his sharing alone.
The Programmer may not believe in the socialist "gift culture" implied by the "take without reciprical costs" BSD-style license.
The Programmer may be working on a project with intricate, long term, social and/or legal ramifications (e.g. anti-DRM), where knowlege itself is more important than mere action.
I would fully agree that the GPL is not for everyone, but it is also not without its' place in the scheme of things.
That means they already lost in the lower court, and were refused a rehearing. Hell, Lexmark lost at every step of the way! This means the monopoly has ended; action has been taken, or at least handed down pending the end of appeals (e.g. now).
How long have you been not reading the articles? (Hell, not reading the summary, either!)
I'm sorry, but your argument is the real strawman.
Flemming discovered penicillin via experimental contamination; neuroscience was a chance discovery by Galvani; Roentgen discovered Xrays by coincidence too. The history books don't list many coincidental discoveries and yet the transistor was just the that. (FYI, the scientists were doing 'pure' research into crystal surfaces.)
REAL (e.g. directed, purposeful) scientific research is slow, halting, and sometimes seems 'backwards' -- case in point, Einstein didn't like quantum physics. But just because some (or one, or many) people don't like something doesn't mean that it hasn't improved. Again, relativity was an improvement over Newtonian gravitation, but most contemporary scientists didn't like that, either. Immediate benefits aren't a requirement; you may not see the use of whatever esoteric research Google may be doing into improving PageRank again, but doesn't make it any less important. We probably won't really understand it until we all have billions and billions of (personal, business, and family) documents we need to organize: then, and only then, will the benefits become immediately visible.
What made Bell Labs great wasn't the (practical) things that came out of it. That was just a side effect; what made Bell Labs wonderful was the atmosphere that was open to coincidental discovery. I'd like to believe Google has that -- but I'd sure agree they haven't shown it practically, yet.
What fundamental research is this? All I see from Google is web applications that have been done a million times before, but with slightly different interfaces.
Oh, you mean to tell me you don't think HCI (Human/Computer Interfaces) is a vital "fundamanetal research" topic? You seriously think that the computer itself is a signifigant enough tool to handle massive amounts of data??
Alright, boys, this man has just asked to have DOS and QBASIC again; it seems all the advancements since are of no value to him. "We don't need no stinkin' interfaces", eh?
The problem isn't really the restrictions now -- I will gladly grand the copyright holder the right to control the (re-)distrobution of their product. Copyright doesn't, and shouldn't, control or limit use, which a lot of DRM/copy protection does, and that I do object to. But having iTMS want to limit P2P reproduction -- to me, that's fair.
To me, the issue is instead what happens 150 years from now -- they copyright has expired, but Rights Manglement never dies....
Quit whining about Lucas raping your childhood. Just don't go. I didn't like Jar-Jar either. Get over it. Because it's based in space, many techie types feel they own the franchise more that Lucas and the public he is hawking it to.
No, I feel that Lucas is "raping my childhood" because he says that the 1977 "cut" of Star Wars doesn't exist anymore -- see here for one quote by an offical LucasArts blurb saying "those movies don't exist anymore" (last paragraph).
News flash to Georgie: You didn't earn an Oscar for the 1997 re-release (although the 1977 original earned seven and four additional nominations). In fact, in the very year you re-released your movies, "Titanic" took its' spot as #1 all-time grossing film! What you may consider horrible and unworthy of the world, that very world loves -- and what you love, the world has scorned.
To me, "history" be it factual or for amusement is all of equal weight. Would you have so cavalier an attitude about alterations if the documents in question were related to the Holocaust, or Stalin's purges? That's the same category in which I stack this or Spielberg's reedit of ET -- just because any little step like this brings us that much closer to the Ministry of Truth.
IMDB.org can really help with that "knowing past projects" thing.
For example, how many people can honestly say they knew (before this) that The Great Whedon worked on "Toy Story"?
Re:Google: Fix the top post reply method
on
Gmail Goes Public
·
· Score: 1
That's a straw man, and you know it.
Bottom-posting several past e-mails is as stupid as top-posting the same. If you really need that much history, look in archives.
First off, since I explicitly stated it was a joke I thought that I wouldn't be rebuffed. Do I need to buy you a Frink Faultless Sarcasm Detector?
To reply to your "argument" -- I don't see a straw man. The only "argument" made is that "top posting reverses the flow of the conversation" -- something I'm sure you won't argue with. Granted, this isn't important for much more than archival purposes, but it is important. I will agree that including more than (about) two emails in the past history is unnessary. I don't normally do that -- but because the joke requires so many question / reply pairs, that rule had to be broken.
Re:Google: Fix the top post reply method
on
Gmail Goes Public
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Actually, the joke goes:
YES!!!
> Is it really that irritating?
>> It reverses the flow of conversation and makes relating
>> reponses to their originating comments difficult.
>>> Why? Outlook and so many other clients default to that.
>>>> Top posting; it's absolute email heresy.
>>>>> What is the worst faux pas to commit in email?
YES!!!
> Is it really all that irritating?
>> It reverses the flow of conversation and makes relating
>> parts of the message to the reply difficult.
>>> Why? Outlook and most other email clients top post.
>>>> Top posting.
>>>>> What is the biggest email sin/heresy/faux pas?
After all, it's the high end of that curve -- e.g. the anybody-to-anybody connection of the 'net -- that brings us things like wikipedia and Linux. IMO, when you start reaching scales "beyond mortal comprehension" (or at least everyday life) the growth isn't as much being able to connect to more individuals, but being able to have more specialized groupings and network those.
Even if the average person doesn't get very connected into the network, the value can still be quite high. Never forget the "Kevin Bacon" effect.
Almost but not quite. US regulations say no marketing calls to those who pay to receive.
I'm just waiting for these "free to our customers" plans to get wide enough that its' economical for the marketers to have a set of Sprint/Nextel/US Cellular/etc phones so they can call those numbers, too....
IANAL, but I've heard three separate, clear and reasoned arguments for EULAs not being binding:
Timing of Presentation -- Boilerplate contracts like EULAs are legally valid, under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, "enforced" presentation (one such condition) of shrinkwrap EULAs is after I buy the program -- at which case First Sale doctrine can override an awful lot of the language (like their transfer clauses or the "don't reverse engineer" clause). Other EULAs like online "click-wrap" are not invalidated with this theory.
No "Quid pro Quo" -- It can be argued that very few (if any) EULAs actually provide new rights (above copyright law) to the end user. For example, in the U.S., copyright law (Title 17 Section 1 Para. 117(a)1) grants the ability to make copies of a program "as an essential step" in its' use -- and, one could argue, that includes installation of a program designed not to run from its' distrobution media. If this is true, the EULA is thus invalidated.
Non-Agreement -- If, as suggested above, you are allowed by copyright law to install (and run -- something much more clear) a program, then such an act cannot be used as a method for determining assent to the EULA. This would be akin to GM deciding they don't want to sell car keys without an OnStar agreement. "You may own that new car, but we still own the key that starts it! Mwuhahaha!"
In summary, I see EULAs being as binding on me as chains made from spaghetti.
According to the CIA WorldFactbook, the per capita GDP ("puchasing power parity" figure) of China is $5K and India is $2.9K; The U.K., Japan, and U.S. are at $27.7K, $28.2K, and $37.8K each.
That's the best measurement I can come up with for economic development, and its' quite damning. Do you have one better?
Otherwise, it's a sham that unfairly targets the [developed world]. Either the whole world is in it, or it's a no-go.
I decided to make your comment less... well, self-centered. Now read it again and think about this: only the developed world has any chance of discovering low-polluting technologies.
This isn't some sort of targeted wealth-redistrobution UN program -- but a simple and open way to help push developed nations into working on renewable energy while not punishing developing ones.
Hey you, you are copying my work from your hard drive to ram. That is illegal, only I have rights to make copies of my work.
Not in the USA. According to US code Title 17, Chapter 1, Paragraph 117(a)1, a copy made "as an essential step" in running a program is not a violation of copyright.
Now, obviously this covers the copies to RAM, processor, and so on. IANAL, but I would argue that this also covers installation of the program to hard drive, IF it was engineered not to run from the original media. (I.e. Doom3 has files too large to run from CD, so installing it to your hard drive is an "essential step" in operating the program.) Surprisingly, what exactly "essential" means isn't covered later in the law (although they define computer "maintenance" and "repair")....
Set-uid works by changing the user ID of the program to that of its' owner; thus a program like passwd (which must have root privledges to write to the password/shadow file) has suid. Scripts which use suid have a few particular security concerns; since they inherit the PATH environment variable (and a few other particulars) from their calling user, you want to ALWAYS use the full path to commands. Thus, your script should look like:
#!/bin/bash /sbin/insmod foobar1
and:
#!/bin/bash /sbin/rmmod foobar1
since a user adding a malicious insmod or rmmod to their path could gain privledges. (There are other, more subtle, security issues with suid, but this is the easiest to understand.)Nevertheless, having a suid script is far preferable to idiots logging in as root for ordinary work!
Slashdot Mirror
- The Programmer may fear the "tragedy of the commons" is not offset enough by his sharing alone.
- The Programmer may not believe in the socialist "gift culture" implied by the "take without reciprical costs" BSD-style license.
- The Programmer may be working on a project with intricate, long term, social and/or legal ramifications (e.g. anti-DRM), where knowlege itself is more important than mere action.
I would fully agree that the GPL is not for everyone, but it is also not without its' place in the scheme of things.That means they already lost in the lower court, and were refused a rehearing. Hell, Lexmark lost at every step of the way! This means the monopoly has ended; action has been taken, or at least handed down pending the end of appeals (e.g. now).
How long have you been not reading the articles? (Hell, not reading the summary, either!)Flemming discovered penicillin via experimental contamination; neuroscience was a chance discovery by Galvani; Roentgen discovered Xrays by coincidence too. The history books don't list many coincidental discoveries and yet the transistor was just the that. (FYI, the scientists were doing 'pure' research into crystal surfaces.)
REAL (e.g. directed, purposeful) scientific research is slow, halting, and sometimes seems 'backwards' -- case in point, Einstein didn't like quantum physics. But just because some (or one, or many) people don't like something doesn't mean that it hasn't improved. Again, relativity was an improvement over Newtonian gravitation, but most contemporary scientists didn't like that, either. Immediate benefits aren't a requirement; you may not see the use of whatever esoteric research Google may be doing into improving PageRank again, but doesn't make it any less important. We probably won't really understand it until we all have billions and billions of (personal, business, and family) documents we need to organize: then, and only then, will the benefits become immediately visible.
What made Bell Labs great wasn't the (practical) things that came out of it. That was just a side effect; what made Bell Labs wonderful was the atmosphere that was open to coincidental discovery. I'd like to believe Google has that -- but I'd sure agree they haven't shown it practically, yet.The problem isn't really the restrictions now -- I will gladly grand the copyright holder the right to control the (re-)distrobution of their product. Copyright doesn't, and shouldn't, control or limit use, which a lot of DRM/copy protection does, and that I do object to. But having iTMS want to limit P2P reproduction -- to me, that's fair.
To me, the issue is instead what happens 150 years from now -- they copyright has expired, but Rights Manglement never dies....Yes but that's a problem that they seem to have nipped in the bud....
News flash to Georgie: You didn't earn an Oscar for the 1997 re-release (although the 1977 original earned seven and four additional nominations). In fact, in the very year you re-released your movies, "Titanic" took its' spot as #1 all-time grossing film! What you may consider horrible and unworthy of the world, that very world loves -- and what you love, the world has scorned.
To me, "history" be it factual or for amusement is all of equal weight. Would you have so cavalier an attitude about alterations if the documents in question were related to the Holocaust, or Stalin's purges? That's the same category in which I stack this or Spielberg's reedit of ET -- just because any little step like this brings us that much closer to the Ministry of Truth.Liberty.
IMDB.org can really help with that "knowing past projects" thing.
For example, how many people can honestly say they knew (before this) that The Great Whedon worked on "Toy Story"?
To reply to your "argument" -- I don't see a straw man. The only "argument" made is that "top posting reverses the flow of the conversation" -- something I'm sure you won't argue with. Granted, this isn't important for much more than archival purposes, but it is important. I will agree that including more than (about) two emails in the past history is unnessary. I don't normally do that -- but because the joke requires so many question / reply pairs, that rule had to be broken.
Actually, the joke goes:
YES!!!
> Is it really that irritating?
>> It reverses the flow of conversation and makes relating
>> reponses to their originating comments difficult.
>>> Why? Outlook and so many other clients default to that.
>>>> Top posting; it's absolute email heresy.
>>>>> What is the worst faux pas to commit in email?
YES!!! > Is it really all that irritating? >> It reverses the flow of conversation and makes relating >> parts of the message to the reply difficult. >>> Why? Outlook and most other email clients top post. >>>> Top posting. >>>>> What is the biggest email sin/heresy/faux pas?
After all, it's the high end of that curve -- e.g. the anybody-to-anybody connection of the 'net -- that brings us things like wikipedia and Linux. IMO, when you start reaching scales "beyond mortal comprehension" (or at least everyday life) the growth isn't as much being able to connect to more individuals, but being able to have more specialized groupings and network those.
Even if the average person doesn't get very connected into the network, the value can still be quite high. Never forget the "Kevin Bacon" effect.Almost but not quite. US regulations say no marketing calls to those who pay to receive.
I'm just waiting for these "free to our customers" plans to get wide enough that its' economical for the marketers to have a set of Sprint/Nextel/US Cellular/etc phones so they can call those numbers, too....
Yeah, I can see some technical hurdles here ... like storing all old variable/register contents, jump addresses, etc.
How in the world did they pull this off?
Aha! It's intelligent life! They must have engineered millions of Dyson Spheres over all the stars of their galaxy!
- Timing of Presentation -- Boilerplate contracts like EULAs are legally valid, under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, "enforced" presentation (one such condition) of shrinkwrap EULAs is after I buy the program -- at which case First Sale doctrine can override an awful lot of the language (like their transfer clauses or the "don't reverse engineer" clause). Other EULAs like online "click-wrap" are not invalidated with this theory.
- No "Quid pro Quo" -- It can be argued that very few (if any) EULAs actually provide new rights (above copyright law) to the end user. For example, in the U.S., copyright law (Title 17 Section 1 Para. 117(a)1) grants the ability to make copies of a program "as an essential step" in its' use -- and, one could argue, that includes installation of a program designed not to run from its' distrobution media. If this is true, the EULA is thus invalidated.
- Non-Agreement -- If, as suggested above, you are allowed by copyright law to install (and run -- something much more clear) a program, then such an act cannot be used as a method for determining assent to the EULA. This would be akin to GM deciding they don't want to sell car keys without an OnStar agreement. "You may own that new car, but we still own the key that starts it! Mwuhahaha!"
In summary, I see EULAs being as binding on me as chains made from spaghetti.According to the CIA WorldFactbook, the per capita GDP ("puchasing power parity" figure) of China is $5K and India is $2.9K; The U.K., Japan, and U.S. are at $27.7K, $28.2K, and $37.8K each.
That's the best measurement I can come up with for economic development, and its' quite damning. Do you have one better?I decided to make your comment less ... well, self-centered. Now read it again and think about this: only the developed world has any chance of discovering low-polluting technologies.
This isn't some sort of targeted wealth-redistrobution UN program -- but a simple and open way to help push developed nations into working on renewable energy while not punishing developing ones.I can tell you've never studied the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.
Fair play is the way to go, every time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon What was admitted into or excluded from Biblical canon is a fascinating topic for religious discussion.
Hey! I thought intelligence was signified by digital wristwatches! Oh, yeah, and deriving happiness from green paper!
Now, obviously this covers the copies to RAM, processor, and so on. IANAL, but I would argue that this also covers installation of the program to hard drive, IF it was engineered not to run from the original media. (I.e. Doom3 has files too large to run from CD, so installing it to your hard drive is an "essential step" in operating the program.) Surprisingly, what exactly "essential" means isn't covered later in the law (although they define computer "maintenance" and "repair")....
Set-uid works by changing the user ID of the program to that of its' owner; thus a program like passwd (which must have root privledges to write to the password/shadow file) has suid. Scripts which use suid have a few particular security concerns; since they inherit the PATH environment variable (and a few other particulars) from their calling user, you want to ALWAYS use the full path to commands. Thus, your script should look like:
and:since a user adding a malicious insmod or rmmod to their path could gain privledges. (There are other, more subtle, security issues with suid, but this is the easiest to understand.)Nevertheless, having a suid script is far preferable to idiots logging in as root for ordinary work!