So, if I understand the context correctly, the following is true:
Since the copyright of lesson plans, work products of public school employees, are by definition owned by the public, the teachers, being members of the public, are free to sell them, in the same way that I can sell copies of any public records produced by my government, (even though they may be already available for "free"). Thanks, got it.
No, its still about politeness. Mccabe doesn't want royalties or anything like that, he doesn't want legal nonsense either - he just wants them to respect the fact that he created a language before them that has the same name.
Its not even about that, but the need to disambiguate the languages, Even I checked the '99 bottles of beer' website to see if anyone had already posted in Go, and found Go! already there.
Its not about whether the language is updated in years or not, or they could call their language Algol and get the same amount of criticism:)
Google should change the name, then thank their lucky stars for the massive publicity!
So, if I understand what you're saying, it is, in fact, about politeness. It would be the Right Thing to do for Google to change the name of their language; they may well do so. However, it's McCabe who should be thanking his lucky stars for the publicity. His language was extremely unlikely to have received this much attention without this Goof by Google.
Here's one way a reckless lawbreaker could probably find out:
1. He would find a known speed trap where he believes LIDAR is being used. 2. Every time he approached the area where a cop is monitoring traffic speed and there are no cars in front of him, he would accelerate to at least 10mph above the posted speed limit, until he passed the speed trap. (He would probably repeat this step until he received a citation for exceeding the speed limit.) 3. He would then contest the speeding ticket in court on the basis of the fallibility of the LIDAR device.
Of course, I would encourage anyone to avoid this type of experiment, because it would be very dangerous, regardless of how interesting it would be interesting to see the results of such an legal experiment.
Advertising works? Geico has some of the best commercials (the gecko, the cavemen, the pile of money), but I've never, ever, ever, ever, ever considered buying their goods/services. I know a bunch of their customers and I know enough bad stuff about them that all the funny commercials in the world can't fix.
Bad experiences of folks you know notwithstanding, the numbers say Geico's advertising is working great.
Hmm? According to 2005 data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), New Jersey is actually one of the safest states to drive in. New Jersey is number 10 on this list, behind Utah, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky,Idaho, Nebraska,West Virginia, Indiana, and Maine.
Also interesting, but not directly related to New Jersey drivers, is an Allstate study of driver safety by city.
It's not quite as bad as most crackpots. I looked it up on Wikipedia and it looks like his big mistake is writing a blog about it. That's the difference between a controversial (or perhaps flat out incorrect) theory and a crackpot theory; the blog about it. His paper has sparked much debate over it's validity which makes it a valuable contribution. Even if it's incorrect, it has enough merit to provoke criticism, not dismissal.
You're allowed to be wrong in science; being wrong is still more useful than saying nothing. Just don't blog about it.
Erm... It's a crackpot hypothesis, not a crackpot theory. If I understand correctly, there are no experimental results that support his idea.
Well, in this case, they (DHS) are saying it's irrational to expect the government to be able to regulate the internet in the event of a public health emergency, which I happen to agree with.
As to getting rid of DHS, that's would likely entail just breaking the DHS back into the separate agencies from which it was formed. There could be some benefit, but based on what I can discern, I'm not sure what would be gained in making that change. Any thoughts?
With a modest amount of money, you can put together a new system that provides a slick, fully-supported experience using Ubuntu Linux as the OS.
The problem is that, like Windows, Linux distros that try to serve the mass market have the almost impossible task of supporting everything. It simply doesn't work in all cases.
Apple solved this problem by packaging a very limited, controlled set of hardware with their OS. If a computer vendor does that with a Linux distro, they can provide a similar "it just works" kind of experience.
For example, if you buy a Dell system with Ubuntu preinstalled, I think you will find it will "just work".
On the other hand, if you install Ubuntu on your system made from parts that you might think "ought to just work", you're gambling.
Why should these companies choose a different strategy for Android-based phones than they do for any other phones? A very quick glance at their websites reveals the total number of mobile phone products they produce:
So, in answer to your question of "why", these companies are doing the same thing with Android that they do with other mobile platforms. Is it a good idea to make a huge number of different phones? I think Steve Jobs would agree with you that it isn't. However, HTC, Samsung, and Motorola are not doing anything new. This is their "tried and true" business model. In fact, it would be strange to expect them to do something different just because their new mobile OS of choice is Android.
No, the GP was implying that people who read DC Comics are all children of the same mother, and that they live in a multitude of basements that she owns. That mother must be one amazing woman.
The real unintended consequence is, that gay rights activists can come to your place of employment, or to your home, and picket. Signing a petition is very similar to voting - it's no one's business how I mark a ballot, nor is it anyone's business that I signed the petition.
Really? It's nobody's business that you're trying to influence legislators to do things that may affect the rights of people other than yourself?
Okay, these folks aren't medicine or public health experts, but doesn't The Fine Article explicitly say that this a list of people providing input specifically in the Internet "enforcement procedures"? I didn't understand this to be the sum total of folks who provided input on ACTA. The article on Ars Technica certainly indicated nothing of the sort.
I don't see how consideration of Internet enforcement issues would particularly need public health expertise. I assume is why there is nobody, corporate or otherwise, who represents medical, pharmaceutical, or public health policy interests on the list in the article.
They have been getting input from a good, broad selection of people? The corporate interests listed have legitimate interests, whether we like them or not. Others, such as the three representatives from PublicKnowledge, are EXACTLY who I would want representing various other interests.
My impression is that the solution to the mobile-unfriendly tooling that some companies have chosen is to create an iPhone app for their sites, which I assume is cheaper than retooling their real Web sites to actually work well for mobile platforms. Do you think this is an accurate assessment?
I agree with your assertion that FOSS development is fundamentally a meritocracy. Those who produce good code are respected, and even so, from time to time they all have to put up with a lot of crap/hazing regardless of their gender.
However, if I understand correctly, you are saying there are few, if any, women in software development. In my experience, this is simply not true. I regularly work with female software developers in the US, China, India, and Germany.
Where I am, I haven't seen discrimination against women that prevents them from being hired, though I suppose it is very likely to happen in some places.
Apparently you either agree that there's rampant sexism in the FOSS community or you're "displaying similar levels of denial, abuse, and ignorance".
I don't think so. But I would agree that many comments here on Slashdot do have the feel of having either taken bait of trolls or of being genuinely intolerant issues women may face in FOSS.
This discussion reminds me of Slashdot debates about the value of Web accessibility. Many developers expressed the view that the disabled population was so small that they didn't matter. Others railed in frustration against the injustice of having significant information facilities unavailable to people born blind or otherwise disabled or to those who became disabled through war or disease.
There are people who post well thought out, informed comments on Slashdot, but those are not generally the most exciting comments, and they are not the only ones to get modded +5 Insightful.
For most developers, open source software is a hobby. A valuable one, yes, but I would suspect that "fewer than 1.5%" of open source developers actually have that in their primary job description.
Well, speaking for Linux, at least, Baloney. Not just a lot, but a majority of the Linux kernel development is done as someone's paid job. I'd be surprised if something similar isn't true of other significant open source projects, such as Firefox, GNOME, KDE, Moblin, OpenOffice.org, MySQL, etc.
Anyone in advertising that I've ever spoken with always insists people love advertising. However, I've never spoken to anyone outside of advertising that says they like ads. I would think the emergence of things like DVRs, browser adblockers, etc would be a big clue to the advertising industry.
Really? I know a number of people who congregate annually for the Super Bowl not because they love football, but because they "just want to see the ads". Over time, the advertising there has become nearly as important to the entertainment value as the event itself.
If advertisers (or product placers) start paying to get their products placed, or moreso, if you see ads before the game starts, will the price of games go down?
Nope. Remember when cable TV was new? One of the big selling point was that there were no commercials. Why would there be commercials, when you're paying for access? Well once Cable became mainstream a couple channels started sneaking in a few commercials, then a few more, then commercials on cable became standard. They get you to pay to view their advertising.
No. When cable TV was new (at least where I was), there sure as heck were commercials. There were a bunch of network affiliates and local broadcast stations, all of which had advertisements. One of the oddities touted in early cable days was the idea that you would have a channel (Home Shopping Network) that carried nothing but advertisement. Then there were the premium channels (WHT, HBO, later Showtime), which carried feature movies, but no advertisements. There were a few channels with content owned or licensed by the cable network that carried no advertisements. MTV actually IS and was a commercial for the pop music industry.
So, there never was some kind of ideal time when cable TV was commercial free, because you just paid for access.
No, IBM never produced an "OS 500". The branding went from OS/400 to i5/OS to today's "IBM i".
No, the system never had a 128-bit address space. The address space of OS400 went from 48-bit to 64-bit when IBM started using 64-bit Power-based processors in those systems.
Yes, the instruction set uses 128-bit pointers, but only the rightmost 64 bits of the pointer are used in the current system.
Yes, The 64-bit address space covers both system memory and disk storage.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if I understand the context correctly, the following is true:
Since the copyright of lesson plans, work products of public school employees, are by definition owned by the public, the teachers, being members of the public, are free to sell them, in the same way that I can sell copies of any public records produced by my government, (even though they may be already available for "free"). Thanks, got it.
No, its still about politeness. Mccabe doesn't want royalties or anything like that, he doesn't want legal nonsense either - he just wants them to respect the fact that he created a language before them that has the same name.
Its not even about that, but the need to disambiguate the languages, Even I checked the '99 bottles of beer' website to see if anyone had already posted in Go, and found Go! already there.
Its not about whether the language is updated in years or not, or they could call their language Algol and get the same amount of criticism :)
Google should change the name, then thank their lucky stars for the massive publicity!
So, if I understand what you're saying, it is, in fact, about politeness. It would be the Right Thing to do for Google to change the name of their language; they may well do so. However, it's McCabe who should be thanking his lucky stars for the publicity. His language was extremely unlikely to have received this much attention without this Goof by Google.
Proposed new name for language: Goof.
Here's one way a reckless lawbreaker could probably find out:
1. He would find a known speed trap where he believes LIDAR is being used.
2. Every time he approached the area where a cop is monitoring traffic speed and there are no cars in front of him, he would accelerate to at least 10mph above the posted speed limit, until he passed the speed trap. (He would probably repeat this step until he received a citation for exceeding the speed limit.)
3. He would then contest the speeding ticket in court on the basis of the fallibility of the LIDAR device.
Of course, I would encourage anyone to avoid this type of experiment, because it would be very dangerous, regardless of how interesting it would be interesting to see the results of such an legal experiment.
Advertising works? Geico has some of the best commercials (the gecko, the cavemen, the pile of money), but I've never, ever, ever, ever, ever considered buying their goods/services. I know a bunch of their customers and I know enough bad stuff about them that all the funny commercials in the world can't fix.
Bad experiences of folks you know notwithstanding, the numbers say Geico's advertising is working great.
We call it the "X" chromosome.
So... that's everyone, then. Based on my observations, I wouldn't argue with that.
Hmm? According to 2005 data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), New Jersey is actually one of the safest states to drive in. New Jersey is number 10 on this list, behind Utah, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky,Idaho, Nebraska,West Virginia, Indiana, and Maine.
Also interesting, but not directly related to New Jersey drivers, is an Allstate study of driver safety by city.
It's not quite as bad as most crackpots. I looked it up on Wikipedia and it looks like his big mistake is writing a blog about it. That's the difference between a controversial (or perhaps flat out incorrect) theory and a crackpot theory; the blog about it. His paper has sparked much debate over it's validity which makes it a valuable contribution. Even if it's incorrect, it has enough merit to provoke criticism, not dismissal.
You're allowed to be wrong in science; being wrong is still more useful than saying nothing. Just don't blog about it.
Erm... It's a crackpot hypothesis, not a crackpot theory. If I understand correctly, there are no experimental results that support his idea.
ARM lacks OS/X in addition to Windows.
Perhaps, but the iPhone and iPod Touch use ARM. Lacking OS/X isn't likely to damage the prospects for ARM. At all.
Well, in this case, they (DHS) are saying it's irrational to expect the government to be able to regulate the internet in the event of a public health emergency, which I happen to agree with.
As to getting rid of DHS, that's would likely entail just breaking the DHS back into the separate agencies from which it was formed. There could be some benefit, but based on what I can discern, I'm not sure what would be gained in making that change. Any thoughts?
A spokeswoman for the church, Agnès Bron, called the verdict "an Inquisition for modern times."
Help me out here, which Inquisition are you trying to draw a parallel to?
I don't know for sure, but I'm hoping it's this one. What a show!
Hamburgers don't reduce fish populations; people do. Same story for fishing poles, nets, and seaborne garbage as hamburgers.
Credit to the National Rifle Association for making this point. Extra credit to Burger King for making this point so delicious.
With a modest amount of money, you can put together a new system that provides a slick, fully-supported experience using Ubuntu Linux as the OS.
The problem is that, like Windows, Linux distros that try to serve the mass market have the almost impossible task of supporting everything. It simply doesn't work in all cases.
Apple solved this problem by packaging a very limited, controlled set of hardware with their OS. If a computer vendor does that with a Linux distro, they can provide a similar "it just works" kind of experience.
For example, if you buy a Dell system with Ubuntu preinstalled, I think you will find it will "just work".
On the other hand, if you install Ubuntu on your system made from parts that you might think "ought to just work", you're gambling.
I'd ask if you're new here, but your UID suggests you may be one of the original bearded ones.
Food for thought: Early Slashdotters were just as mentally handi-capable as the recent Slashdotters.
Why should these companies choose a different strategy for Android-based phones than they do for any other phones? A very quick glance at their websites reveals the total number of mobile phone products they produce:
Samsung: 166
HTC: 39
Motorola: 107
So, in answer to your question of "why", these companies are doing the same thing with Android that they do with other mobile platforms. Is it a good idea to make a huge number of different phones? I think Steve Jobs would agree with you that it isn't. However, HTC, Samsung, and Motorola are not doing anything new. This is their "tried and true" business model. In fact, it would be strange to expect them to do something different just because their new mobile OS of choice is Android.
mothers'
No, the GP was implying that people who read DC Comics are all children of the same mother, and that they live in a multitude of basements that she owns. That mother must be one amazing woman.
The real unintended consequence is, that gay rights activists can come to your place of employment, or to your home, and picket. Signing a petition is very similar to voting - it's no one's business how I mark a ballot, nor is it anyone's business that I signed the petition.
Really? It's nobody's business that you're trying to influence legislators to do things that may affect the rights of people other than yourself?
Okay, these folks aren't medicine or public health experts, but doesn't The Fine Article explicitly say that this a list of people providing input specifically in the Internet "enforcement procedures"? I didn't understand this to be the sum total of folks who provided input on ACTA. The article on Ars Technica certainly indicated nothing of the sort.
I don't see how consideration of Internet enforcement issues would particularly need public health expertise. I assume is why there is nobody, corporate or otherwise, who represents medical, pharmaceutical, or public health policy interests on the list in the article.
They have been getting input from a good, broad selection of people? The corporate interests listed have legitimate interests, whether we like them or not. Others, such as the three representatives from Public Knowledge, are EXACTLY who I would want representing various other interests.
My impression is that the solution to the mobile-unfriendly tooling that some companies have chosen is to create an iPhone app for their sites, which I assume is cheaper than retooling their real Web sites to actually work well for mobile platforms. Do you think this is an accurate assessment?
I agree with your assertion that FOSS development is fundamentally a meritocracy. Those who produce good code are respected, and even so, from time to time they all have to put up with a lot of crap/hazing regardless of their gender.
However, if I understand correctly, you are saying there are few, if any, women in software development. In my experience, this is simply not true. I regularly work with female software developers in the US, China, India, and Germany.
Where I am, I haven't seen discrimination against women that prevents them from being hired, though I suppose it is very likely to happen in some places.
This article about research on the subject of women in computing fields is interesting.
Careful, this conversation is a TRAAAAP.
Apparently you either agree that there's rampant sexism in the FOSS community or you're "displaying similar levels of denial, abuse, and ignorance".
I don't think so. But I would agree that many comments here on Slashdot do have the feel of having either taken bait of trolls or of being genuinely intolerant issues women may face in FOSS.
This discussion reminds me of Slashdot debates about the value of Web accessibility. Many developers expressed the view that the disabled population was so small that they didn't matter. Others railed in frustration against the injustice of having significant information facilities unavailable to people born blind or otherwise disabled or to those who became disabled through war or disease.
There are people who post well thought out, informed comments on Slashdot, but those are not generally the most exciting comments, and they are not the only ones to get modded +5 Insightful.
For most developers, open source software is a hobby. A valuable one, yes, but I would suspect that "fewer than 1.5%" of open source developers actually have that in their primary job description.
Well, speaking for Linux, at least, Baloney. Not just a lot, but a majority of the Linux kernel development is done as someone's paid job. I'd be surprised if something similar isn't true of other significant open source projects, such as Firefox, GNOME, KDE, Moblin, OpenOffice.org, MySQL, etc.
Anyone in advertising that I've ever spoken with always insists people love advertising. However, I've never spoken to anyone outside of advertising that says they like ads. I would think the emergence of things like DVRs, browser adblockers, etc would be a big clue to the advertising industry.
Really? I know a number of people who congregate annually for the Super Bowl not because they love football, but because they "just want to see the ads". Over time, the advertising there has become nearly as important to the entertainment value as the event itself.
If advertisers (or product placers) start paying to get their products placed, or moreso, if you see ads before the game starts, will the price of games go down?
Nope. Remember when cable TV was new? One of the big selling point was that there were no commercials. Why would there be commercials, when you're paying for access? Well once Cable became mainstream a couple channels started sneaking in a few commercials, then a few more, then commercials on cable became standard. They get you to pay to view their advertising.
No. When cable TV was new (at least where I was), there sure as heck were commercials. There were a bunch of network affiliates and local broadcast stations, all of which had advertisements. One of the oddities touted in early cable days was the idea that you would have a channel (Home Shopping Network) that carried nothing but advertisement. Then there were the premium channels (WHT, HBO, later Showtime), which carried feature movies, but no advertisements. There were a few channels with content owned or licensed by the cable network that carried no advertisements. MTV actually IS and was a commercial for the pop music industry.
So, there never was some kind of ideal time when cable TV was commercial free, because you just paid for access.
No, IBM never produced an "OS 500". The branding went from OS/400 to i5/OS to today's "IBM i".
No, the system never had a 128-bit address space. The address space of OS400 went from 48-bit to 64-bit when IBM started using 64-bit Power-based processors in those systems.
Yes, the instruction set uses 128-bit pointers, but only the rightmost 64 bits of the pointer are used in the current system.
Yes, The 64-bit address space covers both system memory and disk storage.
This Wikipedia article about IBM System i is a pretty good reference about this kind of stuff.