Umm, read the post that started this off. The poster was claiming that KDE's naming scheme was useful because it made it obvious what the application did. My posts were intended to debunk that idea, and also provide counter-examples which show that this isn't the case, and that, clearly, some other reason exists for this ridiculous naming convention (IMHO, the "cool" factor).
it is much easier to remember/type into a console kpdf than kdepdfviewer
And who said anything about the menu and the executable sharing the same name? In my menu, I have an item called "Calendar". It corresponds to an application with the file name "gnomecal". So, in the menu, call it "KDE PDF Viewer" and on the command line, call it "kpdf".
My only point is that the KDE naming scheme for their *Menu* items has *nothing* to do with useability and everything to do with the "coolness" factor.
BTW, if the naming scheme is so great for identifying apps, please, tell me, what does Konqueror do?
Bah. If you wanted clarity, you'd call it "KDE PDF Viewer". Moreover, reasonable tooltips in the menu make it very simple to understand what an application does (example, the menu item says "Acrobat" and the tooltip says "Adobe PDF Viewer").
No, these ridiculous naming schemes are due to 1) lack of creativity and 2) some twisted belief that they're cool.
Actually, ideas like this have been tossed around in UI literature for as long as the area has existed. The problem with these kinds of adaptive UIs is that they can be confusing to a user.
Example: Imagine, I'm Joe Sixpack and, three weeks ago, I fired up The GIMP. But now, I look in the menu, and it's missing... so I look around. Oooh, found it. So, he closes The GIMP. Oh, just one more thing... click on the menu. And it's moved again!
The point is that users rely a great deal on UI consistency in order to remember where things are and how they work. As a result, things like dynamic menus go a long way to making the UI *less* useable, rather than more, since you can no longer rely on your memory. Now, yes, careful design can minimize some of these problems, but the fundamental point is the same: the user expects the UI to behave in a deterministic manner.
Uhh... I think you're missing the point. SCO's contention is that IBM has placed, in Linux, code which is actually SCO's, or at least derived from SCO's code. And according to the article, SCO tried to "[pressure] the courts to force IBM to reveal its Unix and Linux source code". But that doesn't make any sense, as SCO can *already* see it, what with that whole "open source" thing. Hell, if you want, you can see it too! Thus, clearly, the author of the article has no fscking clue what he/she is talking about.
Actually, if you did use, say, the sun as a gravitational lense, I'd expect that your telescope would most definitely have a blind spot exactly where the sun would be (similar to the SOHO chronograph), as the lensed images you're interested in would show up as warped images *around* the sun. IMHO, the more interesting question is, what is the focal length of the sun? Is 500 AU enough? After all, relatively speaking, the sun isn't *that* massive.
As for your second point, regarding planet detection, well, that's a strawman, as the grandparent didn't even *mention* planet-detection. In fact, he specifically mentioned high-resolution imaging of *stars*, not planets.
And how are physical inventions any different? Do you really think the steam engine was a wholly unique device? Or the light bulb? Or the television? Sorry, but the "uniqueness" argument just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. From that perspective, *nothing* is new, and so *no* inventor should have the rights to their inventions.
Of course, this may be exactly what you're advocating. I, however, disagree.
Nice ad hominum attack. But, unfortunately, I'm missing the compelling point you were trying to make. Are you implying that people who create things with the expectation of compensation cannot create anything of value? Well, tell that to Henry Ford. Or Peter Jackson, for that matter.
If all ideas are copyrighted or patented, which suggest that we only create when assured of compensation, then ultimately we all lose something as the creative process can be halted prematurely.
Strawman. I never said that these rights should be perpetual. Limited terms have always existed for these sorts of rights. Of course, the terms have been extended to be, IMHO, unnaturally long, but that doesn't change the fact that these rights expire, at which point the work in question is placed in the public domain.
To say that those ideas would have never happened without the existence of copyrights or patents ("why would I ever create anything of value?") seems very shortsited to me.
Not to mention pragmatic. You don't seem to understand the massive undertaking it is to create something of value. Would you spend 18 months of YOUR life creating a novel, knowing that, in the end, you'd never be compensated for that work? More importantly, would you be able to *afford* it? Artists need to fund their activies somehow... selling their work is a natural way to do this, and without copyrights, it isn't possible.
Which is to say that you want to control what everyone else can do. You only naturally expect it because you grew up with copyrights and patents existing.
You assume. IMHO, I expect some level of control because I believe that, when I create something, I have a right, as the creator, to ensure that it's not going to be stolen, and the benefit reaped by someone else, all without my permission.
Now, back in the days before copyright, this wasn't a problem because stealing a work and making money off it simply wasn't as easy. But in today's age of computers and copy machines, copyrights are, IMHO, a necessary thing.
We have a movie industry which makes bad movies. We have a recording industry which makes bad recodings. We have a publication industry wich makes bad publications. We have a software industry which makes bad software.
And you're overgeneralizing. There are many brilliant books, movies, and pieces of software written every year, for money. Heck, how many absolutely brilliant movies, alone, have you seen in your life time? Just to name a few of my favorites: Dr. Strangelove, Apocalypse Now, Schindler's List, Raging Bull. And they were all created in a time of copyrights.
So, yeah, the commercial sector produces a LOT of crap (particularly the music industry). But, they produce a lot of perfectly good material, as well. And how many free, high quality books, movies, or pieces of music have you encountered lately?
Actually, you're not. Not even under current law, and not under any copyright law since the American Revolution. Copyright is a limited-term monopoly granted by the government. You DO NOT own the work you hold copyright on
Oh please, you're arguing semantics. Fine, you are granted rights to control how the work is distributed, for a limited period of time. That doesn't change the point that, as the creator of the work, I naturally expect to be able to control said work.
Worse yet, without this control, I can gain no benefit from my efforts, since anyone can now simply reproduce what I've created at very little cost. So why would I ever create anything of value?
Oh, and BTW, before you cite OSS as an example of creation without compensation, you should ask yourself, how the heck would someone write War and Peace OSS-style... my point is that not all creation is distributable, and as such, requires a massive investment in time, resources, etc, in the work by a single person. Without compensation, this kind of investment is practically impossible.
it is the property of society, whose resources you used to create it.
Really. Well, I wrote my book/poem/etc with my own computer in my own home using electricity I paid for. Oh, wait, because all those things were built by society? Okay, can I have your house, then?
What the hell is so bad about copyrights? Okay, I create a work. It's not a physical creation, but rather an intellectual work. A book, a piece of music, a new recipe. It's a product of my own effort, and it's uniquely my own. Now, what the heck is wrong with me having the rights to that work, at least for a limited amount of time? Am I not allowed to control my work? Or do you think that, because what I've created isn't "physical", I'm not allowed to "own" it?
Frankly, I think your apparent dislike of copyright is a misguided reaction to the disaster that is the US patent system. As it stands, the PTO is seriously hindering scientific advancement, at least IMHO, because it allows what the patents were never intended to allow: patenting of a thought, an idea, something where there is no concrete invention. Hell, back when patents were invented, in order to get one, you had to demonstrate a *working prototype*! But, those days are gone now, and I think that, in general people can agree that things have gotten out of hand.
However, don't think that, just because the patent system is a disaster, all "intellectual property" is a bad thing. Copyrights are a very good thing, if used correctly. And I would argue that the concept of copyright is very natural. After all, if I write a poem or a book, I refer to it as "my poem" or "my book", and I would be very offended if someone "stole" my work (notice the word "stole"... it immediate implies ownership), copied it, and made gobs of money off of it. Of course, the system is abused by some (eg, RIAA), but overall, I can see no real reason to abandon the concept of copyrights.
Nooo... what Mozilla Calendar needs is to become another standalone Mozilla application, just like Firebird and Thunderbird. And guess what, that's what project Sunbird is all about.
Now, before you say "I want them integrated!", keep in mind, it is expected that these standalone components (Firebird, Thunderbird, Sunbird) will also operate as extensions. So, as I understand it, you should be able to load Sunbird into Thunderbird as an extension.
Re:That's how discovery works in litigation
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
This is a non-issue. If IBM were forced to release trade-secret material during discovery, those court documents may very well be sealed at the end of the trial (or, at least, that material may be excised). Moreover, if SCO tried to leverage trade-secret material after the fact, IBM could take them to court for trade secret violations.
So, no worries... the legal system has considered these things.:)
And, if you want a testimonial, I can tell you that PocketNES is an absolutely *brilliant* emulator. The video emulation is practically flawless, and the sound is excellent as well. Moreover, with all that, it runs at full speed. It's truly amazing...
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, read the post that started this off. The poster was claiming that KDE's naming scheme was useful because it made it obvious what the application did. My posts were intended to debunk that idea, and also provide counter-examples which show that this isn't the case, and that, clearly, some other reason exists for this ridiculous naming convention (IMHO, the "cool" factor).
it is much easier to remember/type into a console kpdf than kdepdfviewer
And who said anything about the menu and the executable sharing the same name? In my menu, I have an item called "Calendar". It corresponds to an application with the file name "gnomecal". So, in the menu, call it "KDE PDF Viewer" and on the command line, call it "kpdf".
My only point is that the KDE naming scheme for their *Menu* items has *nothing* to do with useability and everything to do with the "coolness" factor.
BTW, if the naming scheme is so great for identifying apps, please, tell me, what does Konqueror do?
That's an *excellent* point.
Bah. If you wanted clarity, you'd call it "KDE PDF Viewer". Moreover, reasonable tooltips in the menu make it very simple to understand what an application does (example, the menu item says "Acrobat" and the tooltip says "Adobe PDF Viewer").
No, these ridiculous naming schemes are due to 1) lack of creativity and 2) some twisted belief that they're cool.
Actually, ideas like this have been tossed around in UI literature for as long as the area has existed. The problem with these kinds of adaptive UIs is that they can be confusing to a user.
Example: Imagine, I'm Joe Sixpack and, three weeks ago, I fired up The GIMP. But now, I look in the menu, and it's missing... so I look around. Oooh, found it. So, he closes The GIMP. Oh, just one more thing... click on the menu. And it's moved again!
The point is that users rely a great deal on UI consistency in order to remember where things are and how they work. As a result, things like dynamic menus go a long way to making the UI *less* useable, rather than more, since you can no longer rely on your memory. Now, yes, careful design can minimize some of these problems, but the fundamental point is the same: the user expects the UI to behave in a deterministic manner.
"Apart from POV , which AFAIK can do raytracing"
LOL! Yes, POV can do raytracing. It's also a Monte Carlo raytracer (ie, Photon Mapping) and a Radiosity renderer, as well.
You could also just download POVRay, which has been doing this for years. :)
Err, AFAIR, the GNOME VFS layer existed long before Nautilus... it was part of Gnome Commander.
Well, that and large metal fences...
Ahh, Terminate! I was trying to remember what my old terminal program was called. Thanks! *sigh* The memories... :)
Excellent! Hmmm... well, that leaves one valid point left... I wonder how long that'll last...
Uhh... I think you're missing the point. SCO's contention is that IBM has placed, in Linux, code which is actually SCO's, or at least derived from SCO's code. And according to the article, SCO tried to "[pressure] the courts to force IBM to reveal its Unix and Linux source code". But that doesn't make any sense, as SCO can *already* see it, what with that whole "open source" thing. Hell, if you want, you can see it too! Thus, clearly, the author of the article has no fscking clue what he/she is talking about.
Damnit... disregard my second paragraph. The great-grandparent did, in fact, mention "solar systems", thus implying planets.
Actually, if you did use, say, the sun as a gravitational lense, I'd expect that your telescope would most definitely have a blind spot exactly where the sun would be (similar to the SOHO chronograph), as the lensed images you're interested in would show up as warped images *around* the sun. IMHO, the more interesting question is, what is the focal length of the sun? Is 500 AU enough? After all, relatively speaking, the sun isn't *that* massive.
As for your second point, regarding planet detection, well, that's a strawman, as the grandparent didn't even *mention* planet-detection. In fact, he specifically mentioned high-resolution imaging of *stars*, not planets.
Out of curiosity, any ideas on how do digital SLRs perform for astrophotography?
And how are physical inventions any different? Do you really think the steam engine was a wholly unique device? Or the light bulb? Or the television? Sorry, but the "uniqueness" argument just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. From that perspective, *nothing* is new, and so *no* inventor should have the rights to their inventions.
Of course, this may be exactly what you're advocating. I, however, disagree.
Nice ad hominum attack. But, unfortunately, I'm missing the compelling point you were trying to make. Are you implying that people who create things with the expectation of compensation cannot create anything of value? Well, tell that to Henry Ford. Or Peter Jackson, for that matter.
If all ideas are copyrighted or patented, which suggest that we only create when assured of compensation, then ultimately we all lose something as the creative process can be halted prematurely.
Strawman. I never said that these rights should be perpetual. Limited terms have always existed for these sorts of rights. Of course, the terms have been extended to be, IMHO, unnaturally long, but that doesn't change the fact that these rights expire, at which point the work in question is placed in the public domain.
To say that those ideas would have never happened without the existence of copyrights or patents ("why would I ever create anything of value?") seems very shortsited to me.
Not to mention pragmatic. You don't seem to understand the massive undertaking it is to create something of value. Would you spend 18 months of YOUR life creating a novel, knowing that, in the end, you'd never be compensated for that work? More importantly, would you be able to *afford* it? Artists need to fund their activies somehow... selling their work is a natural way to do this, and without copyrights, it isn't possible.
Every literary work owes a great debt to society.
As does every physical work. That doesn't mean society owns every physical thing that I create. Well, to you it might, but to me, it doesn't.
Which is to say that you want to control what everyone else can do. You only naturally expect it because you grew up with copyrights and patents existing.
You assume. IMHO, I expect some level of control because I believe that, when I create something, I have a right, as the creator, to ensure that it's not going to be stolen, and the benefit reaped by someone else, all without my permission.
Now, back in the days before copyright, this wasn't a problem because stealing a work and making money off it simply wasn't as easy. But in today's age of computers and copy machines, copyrights are, IMHO, a necessary thing.
We have a movie industry which makes bad movies.
We have a recording industry which makes bad recodings.
We have a publication industry wich makes bad publications.
We have a software industry which makes bad software.
And you're overgeneralizing. There are many brilliant books, movies, and pieces of software written every year, for money. Heck, how many absolutely brilliant movies, alone, have you seen in your life time? Just to name a few of my favorites: Dr. Strangelove, Apocalypse Now, Schindler's List, Raging Bull. And they were all created in a time of copyrights.
So, yeah, the commercial sector produces a LOT of crap (particularly the music industry). But, they produce a lot of perfectly good material, as well. And how many free, high quality books, movies, or pieces of music have you encountered lately?
Actually, you're not. Not even under current law, and not under any copyright law since the American Revolution. Copyright is a limited-term monopoly granted by the government. You DO NOT own the work you hold copyright on
Oh please, you're arguing semantics. Fine, you are granted rights to control how the work is distributed, for a limited period of time. That doesn't change the point that, as the creator of the work, I naturally expect to be able to control said work.
Worse yet, without this control, I can gain no benefit from my efforts, since anyone can now simply reproduce what I've created at very little cost. So why would I ever create anything of value?
Oh, and BTW, before you cite OSS as an example of creation without compensation, you should ask yourself, how the heck would someone write War and Peace OSS-style... my point is that not all creation is distributable, and as such, requires a massive investment in time, resources, etc, in the work by a single person. Without compensation, this kind of investment is practically impossible.
it is the property of society, whose resources you used to create it.
Really. Well, I wrote my book/poem/etc with my own computer in my own home using electricity I paid for. Oh, wait, because all those things were built by society? Okay, can I have your house, then?
What the hell is so bad about copyrights? Okay, I create a work. It's not a physical creation, but rather an intellectual work. A book, a piece of music, a new recipe. It's a product of my own effort, and it's uniquely my own. Now, what the heck is wrong with me having the rights to that work, at least for a limited amount of time? Am I not allowed to control my work? Or do you think that, because what I've created isn't "physical", I'm not allowed to "own" it?
Frankly, I think your apparent dislike of copyright is a misguided reaction to the disaster that is the US patent system. As it stands, the PTO is seriously hindering scientific advancement, at least IMHO, because it allows what the patents were never intended to allow: patenting of a thought, an idea, something where there is no concrete invention. Hell, back when patents were invented, in order to get one, you had to demonstrate a *working prototype*! But, those days are gone now, and I think that, in general people can agree that things have gotten out of hand.
However, don't think that, just because the patent system is a disaster, all "intellectual property" is a bad thing. Copyrights are a very good thing, if used correctly. And I would argue that the concept of copyright is very natural. After all, if I write a poem or a book, I refer to it as "my poem" or "my book", and I would be very offended if someone "stole" my work (notice the word "stole"... it immediate implies ownership), copied it, and made gobs of money off of it. Of course, the system is abused by some (eg, RIAA), but overall, I can see no real reason to abandon the concept of copyrights.
Nooo... what Mozilla Calendar needs is to become another standalone Mozilla application, just like Firebird and Thunderbird. And guess what, that's what project Sunbird is all about.
Now, before you say "I want them integrated!", keep in mind, it is expected that these standalone components (Firebird, Thunderbird, Sunbird) will also operate as extensions. So, as I understand it, you should be able to load Sunbird into Thunderbird as an extension.
This is a non-issue. If IBM were forced to release trade-secret material during discovery, those court documents may very well be sealed at the end of the trial (or, at least, that material may be excised). Moreover, if SCO tried to leverage trade-secret material after the fact, IBM could take them to court for trade secret violations.
:)
So, no worries... the legal system has considered these things.
And, if you want a testimonial, I can tell you that PocketNES is an absolutely *brilliant* emulator. The video emulation is practically flawless, and the sound is excellent as well. Moreover, with all that, it runs at full speed. It's truly amazing...