... does anyone who does not themselves blog actually *read* blogs?
Unless you count posting on occasion to/., I don't blog and I read several blogs, some because I enjoy their content, some because they point me to usefull information sources and some to "know thy enemy".
Many bloggers are very lazy with their stories, others are very responsible. All that I've seen are transparently, even proudly, biased and partisan. I think that's a good thing. As long as I know where a source of information is coming from on an issue, I can optimise my analysis of their stories. It's when media claim to be "fair and balanced" (regardless of whether they're Fox or CBS), but exhibit over time a definate spin/lean/bias/whatever, that I have a problem.
If CBS or MSNBC would just come out and say, "We're the news source of choice from the far left bank of the main stream", I would have much less to complain about. That wouldn't absolve them from responsibility for such blatent fraud as RatherGate, but it would make them much more credible for day to day news, since I would know ahead of time that most if not all stories would be spun widdershins, as opposed to Fox's deosil.
I don't normally feed the trolls, but since you already did, I'll reply to you, thus maintaining plausable deniability.;P
I mostly agree with your response to the troll, but have to differ with you on the stupidity of buying both sets of DVDs. For the record, I've only purchased the extended versions. However, I can certainly understand why someone might wish to own both. If, for instance, they enjoy having friends over to watch movies, but not many of their friends are big enough fans of the trilogy to sit through the extended cut, it'd be nice to have the theatrical release to show instead.
As for the whole reproducing thing, I am rabid enough a fan to have read the trilogy more than 15 times (I've lost count), to have compiled an pair of Elvish dictionarys back in my early teens by pouring over the text and appendixes of The Hobbit, The LOTR and Silmarillion, I spent a day of PTO to see the theatrical releases on their first day (not quite rabid enough to do the midnight thing, I suppose)... and yet I have a son. Go figure.
If you are indeed a lawyer, I hope to ${diety} you find a new line of work, for your clients' sake.
This ruling simply recognizes that Microsoft's VFAT implementation is an obvious application of and extention to common practice and previously patented inventions. I says nothing at all like what you are claiming.
I know, I know... IHBT IHL HAND.
I'm not new here (see my UID), but even on/. it is depressing to see obvious tripe like this modded up.
OTOH, though it pains me to say so, I do agree with one of the troll's points -- it is indeed a fine idea to support the EFF (and PubPat), if you agree that our IP systems are seriously out of whack.
Far be it for me to defend Rush and his ilk, but having one station that isn't obviously left of center isn't the same as the main stream media not being left of center. Besides Fox, the only other news I can think of that doesn't show a left-leaning tendancy is "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" on PBS. There are, no doubt, others -- I just can't think of any right now. Not surprising, considering how little TV I watch these days.
Note that I'm not trying to imply that most news shows have some sort of liberal agenda (though there are those that all too often seem to), just that those producing them are looking at the world through the lens of The Left, IMHO.
You're second comment is, unfortunately, rather close to the truth.
This sounds link a simpler version of Circuit Cellar, brought to us by that master of "programming in solder", Steve Ciarcia. For those of you too young (or too new to geekdom, anyway), Steve wrote a column for Byte back before it became just a weak PC Magazine clone.
Circuit Cellar does range into more advaced electronic design, but the've done lots of fun and approachable stuff over the years. Back in the early days they did a whole series on making rockets with 2 liter bottles.
Sad to respond to myself, but in order to (attempt to) head off the obvious correction: The States select the members of the Electoral Collage, who then select the President. The States get to decide how they select those members. There is nothing in the Constitution that requres the States to allow their citizens to participate in the selections of Electors, except in that it prohibits the denial of any right to vote based on sex or race.
It's not a matter of the relative "say" of the citizens in a state. The U.S.A. is a union of States. The States decide the President of the union. The fact that, as regards the Federal Govt., the States rights are distinct from the people's rights is a simple concept that is too often muddled by those who think the U.S.A. is a simple democracy as opposed to a Representative Republic.
If you bothered to read the rest of my post, you could have save some typing, as you've more or less paraphrased it. To whit:
While you are correct that the "user" of BSD licensed code need not "pay" by releasing changes, that is explicit and intentional. As for the FUD about the hard work of the "community" being "absconded with", that is pure, unadulterated crap -- the "community" loses nothing. The code "they" wrote is still there. The changes to it may or may not be available to them if they were to use a BSD license, but nothing at all is being "absconded with".
Since we seem to be on the same page, I'll not bother to flame you, but reading the post you're responding to might be something you want to try in the future.
BSD trades away the freedom of the community for the freedom of the user, while GPL preserves the freedom of the community while restricting the freedom of the user.
Nonsense.
BSD does nothing to restrict the "freedom of the community", whatever the hell that means. It doesn't constrain the "user" (by which I assume you mean one who chooses to modify and redistribute) to release their changes, which is probably what you mean.
With BSD code, the individual is free to do what he wants, including taking without "paying" (by releasing changes). With GPL code, the user is not free to do that, so the community benefits, in that their hard work is not absconded with.
More nonesense.
While you are correct that the "user" of BSD licensed code need not "pay" by releasing changes, that is explicit and intentional. As for the FUD about the hard work of the "community" being "absconded with", that is pure, unadulterated crap -- the "community" loses nothing. The code "they" wrote is still there. The changes to it may or may not be available to them if they were to use a BSD license, but nothing at all is being "absconded with".
BSD is about as free -- in the sense of lack of restraint -- as a license can be while still maintaining copyright. That says nothing against the GPL -- I just don't understand why people can't get off this pathetic need to color these two licenses as opposites. Well, I do understand -- I'm just trying to be polite and not point out that the only possible reasons are stupidity, ignorance and malice -- mostly because I'm afraid to find out what the actual case is.
GPL is a fine license -- it does exatly what the FSF intends it to. So does the LGPL. The BSD license (licenses, actually) does exactly what its users intend it do do, as well.
Sure, I agree with you: taxation, if it is to be used at all, should be used to pay for the govt. doing its job.
The real issue is: What is the job of government. That definition gets streched and twisted and expanded and bloated more and more with each passing year - "enough" is not in the government lexicon.
As for how I would suggest "public services" are payed for -- for the most part I I'm in favor of user fees for most things like roads, plowing and other infrastructure. For national defense, justice system and regulation of interstate commerce I'd say a simple flat tax would suffice.
Of course, that is a pure pipe dream, but this isn't real life -- it's/.
If taxing your land to pay for defending your rights is sensible, then, especially as we move to more expansive IP protections including criminal sanctions against infringers, shouldn't IP be taxed?
An interesting thought. I'm against taxes of most every description, but I'm also deeply troubled by the current state of CR/Patent/TM abuse.
The obvious issues with your thought have to do with the basis value of the IP in question and the actual effect enacting such a tax will have.
If we appraise a certin IP, its value would either have to be potental (what it could be sold for or could likely earn for the owner) or real (what it is actually sold for or what it actually earns). In essence, the new tax would either end up being an additional, perhaps recurring, fee for IP protection or simply an extension to the current capital gains taxes. In the formor case, individual inventors and creators would find it onerous to protect their works. In the latter case, it just becomes a net reduction in the real value of the IP.
In either case, the net effect will be what taxation most always causes: a reduction in the behavior taxed or increased negative economic fallout (bankrupcies, debt, default on that debt, etc.) for the group that finds the taxed behavior difficult to curb.
In other words, the net effect would be that less and less cool new stuff would be created.
Ob-OSS reference: Think how this would extend to Free/OS software - how much would the copyright/trademark holders owe the government?
IMHO this is like most any call for new/increased taxation: at best misguided, at worst evil.
The only real solution to the whole IP mess is to acutally reform the laws. Reduce the period of copyright back to no more than 50 years. Create patent classes -- one for non-drug tangibles (the inventions originally addressed by Mr. Jefferson et al.), one for drugs and other highly regulated tangibles (the time lost to the regulatory process needs to be addressed), one for software and , perhaps, one for processes. Set the protection periods for each to something like 17 years, 20 years, 3 years and 5 years, respectively. Doing this would, all by itself, bring the IP system back to doing what it was intended to do: increase the development of cool new stuff by a) helping ensure that the costs of developing them can be recouped and b) making that cool new stuff public so it can be built upon.
Depending upon the age of your PC, any drive. Most PCs built in the last several years can boot from a USB device. Don't know if Macs can, but I'd assume so. I've configured my flash drive with bootable OSes before, both Linux and DOS... mostly as a lark, as (with the exception of the %$@#$$! Intel 2100 wireless drivers) I've not had need of a rescue disk for years.
BS. Open-source has the same freedom as far as changing software and redistributing, it just allows more freedom as to how you license the code you choose to distribute.
Yeah, we used to use the blitter for lots of things. Cellular automatia (e.g. Conway's game of Life) for example. The only bummer was that only Chip Memory could be used, which, depending upon which version of the Agnes chip (where the blitter lived) you had, was 2MB at most.
Ahhh... the good old days, when computers were actually documented well so we could hack 'em. Woudn't it be cool if today's manufacturers did the same? The Amiga Hardware Reference had detailed information about all the custom chips (Agnes, Copper and Denise, mainly) including register info, programming examples and, IIRC, scematic info.
Sure, but the NRA doesn't purport to fight for all of them. Not that they don't respect and uphold them, and not that they don't fight for the 1st when the @#$#! morons in DC try to usurp it, but they exist to support those who enjoy shooting.
Hell, their main point wasn't defending the 2nd -- until the antis made it necessary, they were primarily a safty and sporting organization.
What "objective measure" is it that tells you that $200k/year is "stinking fucking rich"? Seriously, spell it out for me if it's so damn objective.
You're full of shit. I make much less than the magic $200k/year, but I don't see that level as being so bloody rich. Of course, I don't think that being rich should be a crime, either, as you apparently do. I'm of course making an assumption here, deducing from the use of the perjorative way you refer to being rich. At least I assume you didn't mean literally that if you make >$200k/year you're a smelly and coppulating.
Hotspot doesn't compile the "whole program". It compiles those methods that run sufficiently many times to be worth compiling. Still not as fast as native compiled code, but for long running programs, it can be very, very close. And for a program like this one, it is perfect: he can get participation from Linux, Linux64, LinxMPC, Solaris, Solaris64, SolarisX86, Windows95/98/NT/2k/2k3/XP/64 (er... strike that last one), Mac OSX, and AIX, at the very least, from one executable. And, as an added bonus, his code can be multithreaded and automagically take advantage of multiple CPUs on most of the above.
Um... you'd have much more credibility if you at least got his name right.
It's Guido van Rossum.
As for your claims about the GC, I was under the impression that current versions of Python have a hybrid GC that cleans up circ-refs. I certainly could be mistaken, though, as I've been exiled to Java-land for the last several years.
In typical/. fashion, you obviously didn't read the article. UltraV was killed, but UltraIV and its progeny will continue. If anything, this was an uncharacteristicaly smart and swift move on Sun's part.
Besides, it's AMD Sun is doing favors for these days. If they ever do kil UltraSparc, they'll be using Opteron. They've already started down that path, at least as a "low-end" alternative to UltraSparc.
You are correct that companies will attempt to pass the cost on to their customer.
The limiting factor is the point at which the price increase causes sufficient reduction in demand to make overall revenue decrease. At that point, since the price has been raised as far as it can, other things have to change to increase revenuew -- either sales have to increase (new markets, better marketing, etc.) or costs have to be reduced. So, eventually, the cost of polluting becomes the one that needs to be optimized away and the company will do so, either through innovation, legislation (through lobbying) or by leaving the market.
Obviously only the first and last actually cause a net reduction in pollution.
Slashdot Mirror
Many bloggers are very lazy with their stories, others are very responsible. All that I've seen are transparently, even proudly, biased and partisan. I think that's a good thing. As long as I know where a source of information is coming from on an issue, I can optimise my analysis of their stories. It's when media claim to be "fair and balanced" (regardless of whether they're Fox or CBS), but exhibit over time a definate spin/lean/bias/whatever, that I have a problem.
If CBS or MSNBC would just come out and say, "We're the news source of choice from the far left bank of the main stream", I would have much less to complain about. That wouldn't absolve them from responsibility for such blatent fraud as RatherGate, but it would make them much more credible for day to day news, since I would know ahead of time that most if not all stories would be spun widdershins, as opposed to Fox's deosil.
I mostly agree with your response to the troll, but have to differ with you on the stupidity of buying both sets of DVDs. For the record, I've only purchased the extended versions. However, I can certainly understand why someone might wish to own both. If, for instance, they enjoy having friends over to watch movies, but not many of their friends are big enough fans of the trilogy to sit through the extended cut, it'd be nice to have the theatrical release to show instead.
As for the whole reproducing thing, I am rabid enough a fan to have read the trilogy more than 15 times (I've lost count), to have compiled an pair of Elvish dictionarys back in my early teens by pouring over the text and appendixes of The Hobbit, The LOTR and Silmarillion, I spent a day of PTO to see the theatrical releases on their first day (not quite rabid enough to do the midnight thing, I suppose) ... and yet I have a son. Go figure.
This ruling simply recognizes that Microsoft's VFAT implementation is an obvious application of and extention to common practice and previously patented inventions. I says nothing at all like what you are claiming.
I know, I know ... IHBT IHL HAND.
I'm not new here (see my UID), but even on /. it is depressing to see obvious tripe like this modded up.
OTOH, though it pains me to say so, I do agree with one of the troll's points -- it is indeed a fine idea to support the EFF (and PubPat), if you agree that our IP systems are seriously out of whack.
Note that I'm not trying to imply that most news shows have some sort of liberal agenda (though there are those that all too often seem to), just that those producing them are looking at the world through the lens of The Left, IMHO.
You're second comment is, unfortunately, rather close to the truth.
Circuit Cellar does range into more advaced electronic design, but the've done lots of fun and approachable stuff over the years. Back in the early days they did a whole series on making rockets with 2 liter bottles.
Sad to respond to myself, but in order to (attempt to) head off the obvious correction: The States select the members of the Electoral Collage, who then select the President. The States get to decide how they select those members. There is nothing in the Constitution that requres the States to allow their citizens to participate in the selections of Electors, except in that it prohibits the denial of any right to vote based on sex or race.
It's not a matter of the relative "say" of the citizens in a state. The U.S.A. is a union of States. The States decide the President of the union. The fact that, as regards the Federal Govt., the States rights are distinct from the people's rights is a simple concept that is too often muddled by those who think the U.S.A. is a simple democracy as opposed to a Representative Republic.
If you bothered to read the rest of my post, you could have save some typing, as you've more or less paraphrased it. To whit:
Since we seem to be on the same page, I'll not bother to flame you, but reading the post you're responding to might be something you want to try in the future.HTH
HAND
BSD does nothing to restrict the "freedom of the community", whatever the hell that means. It doesn't constrain the "user" (by which I assume you mean one who chooses to modify and redistribute) to release their changes, which is probably what you mean.
More nonesense.While you are correct that the "user" of BSD licensed code need not "pay" by releasing changes, that is explicit and intentional. As for the FUD about the hard work of the "community" being "absconded with", that is pure, unadulterated crap -- the "community" loses nothing. The code "they" wrote is still there. The changes to it may or may not be available to them if they were to use a BSD license, but nothing at all is being "absconded with".
BSD is about as free -- in the sense of lack of restraint -- as a license can be while still maintaining copyright. That says nothing against the GPL -- I just don't understand why people can't get off this pathetic need to color these two licenses as opposites. Well, I do understand -- I'm just trying to be polite and not point out that the only possible reasons are stupidity, ignorance and malice -- mostly because I'm afraid to find out what the actual case is.
GPL is a fine license -- it does exatly what the FSF intends it to. So does the LGPL. The BSD license (licenses, actually) does exactly what its users intend it do do, as well.
I really do wish everyone would get over it.
The real issue is: What is the job of government. That definition gets streched and twisted and expanded and bloated more and more with each passing year - "enough" is not in the government lexicon.
As for how I would suggest "public services" are payed for -- for the most part I I'm in favor of user fees for most things like roads, plowing and other infrastructure. For national defense, justice system and regulation of interstate commerce I'd say a simple flat tax would suffice.
Of course, that is a pure pipe dream, but this isn't real life -- it's /.
The obvious issues with your thought have to do with the basis value of the IP in question and the actual effect enacting such a tax will have.
If we appraise a certin IP, its value would either have to be potental (what it could be sold for or could likely earn for the owner) or real (what it is actually sold for or what it actually earns). In essence, the new tax would either end up being an additional, perhaps recurring, fee for IP protection or simply an extension to the current capital gains taxes. In the formor case, individual inventors and creators would find it onerous to protect their works. In the latter case, it just becomes a net reduction in the real value of the IP.
In either case, the net effect will be what taxation most always causes: a reduction in the behavior taxed or increased negative economic fallout (bankrupcies, debt, default on that debt, etc.) for the group that finds the taxed behavior difficult to curb.
In other words, the net effect would be that less and less cool new stuff would be created.
Ob-OSS reference: Think how this would extend to Free/OS software - how much would the copyright/trademark holders owe the government?
IMHO this is like most any call for new/increased taxation: at best misguided, at worst evil.
The only real solution to the whole IP mess is to acutally reform the laws. Reduce the period of copyright back to no more than 50 years. Create patent classes -- one for non-drug tangibles (the inventions originally addressed by Mr. Jefferson et al.), one for drugs and other highly regulated tangibles (the time lost to the regulatory process needs to be addressed), one for software and , perhaps, one for processes. Set the protection periods for each to something like 17 years, 20 years, 3 years and 5 years, respectively. Doing this would, all by itself, bring the IP system back to doing what it was intended to do: increase the development of cool new stuff by a) helping ensure that the costs of developing them can be recouped and b) making that cool new stuff public so it can be built upon.
Must preview twice when posting sans caffeine.
s/with the exception of the Intel/with the exception of one time because of the Intel/
Depending upon the age of your PC, any drive. Most PCs built in the last several years can boot from a USB device. Don't know if Macs can, but I'd assume so. I've configured my flash drive with bootable OSes before, both Linux and DOS ... mostly as a lark, as (with the exception of the %$@#$$! Intel 2100 wireless drivers) I've not had need of a rescue disk for years.
BS. Open-source has the same freedom as far as changing software and redistributing, it just allows more freedom as to how you license the code you choose to distribute.
Bruce's real name is "dotted-quad" or, less commonly, "dotted decimal".
There is a difference, though it is often colored by the listener's own sense of self confidence.
In the spirit of AST's baseball analogy, I refer you to the immortal words of Dizzy Dean: " It ain't bragging if you can do it."
Ahhh ... the good old days, when computers were actually documented well so we could hack 'em. Woudn't it be cool if today's manufacturers did the same? The Amiga Hardware Reference had detailed information about all the custom chips (Agnes, Copper and Denise, mainly) including register info, programming examples and, IIRC, scematic info.
Hell, their main point wasn't defending the 2nd -- until the antis made it necessary, they were primarily a safty and sporting organization.
You're full of shit. I make much less than the magic $200k/year, but I don't see that level as being so bloody rich. Of course, I don't think that being rich should be a crime, either, as you apparently do. I'm of course making an assumption here, deducing from the use of the perjorative way you refer to being rich. At least I assume you didn't mean literally that if you make >$200k/year you're a smelly and coppulating.
That specious argument is getting really damn old. If it was so stinking obvious, it SHOULDN't BE PATENTABLE!
Hotspot doesn't compile the "whole program". It compiles those methods that run sufficiently many times to be worth compiling. Still not as fast as native compiled code, but for long running programs, it can be very, very close. And for a program like this one, it is perfect: he can get participation from Linux, Linux64, LinxMPC, Solaris, Solaris64, SolarisX86, Windows95/98/NT/2k/2k3/XP/64 (er ... strike that last one), Mac OSX, and AIX, at the very least, from one executable. And, as an added bonus, his code can be multithreaded and automagically take advantage of multiple CPUs on most of the above.
It's Guido van Rossum.
As for your claims about the GC, I was under the impression that current versions of Python have a hybrid GC that cleans up circ-refs. I certainly could be mistaken, though, as I've been exiled to Java-land for the last several years.
Besides, it's AMD Sun is doing favors for these days. If they ever do kil UltraSparc, they'll be using Opteron. They've already started down that path, at least as a "low-end" alternative to UltraSparc.
The limiting factor is the point at which the price increase causes sufficient reduction in demand to make overall revenue decrease. At that point, since the price has been raised as far as it can, other things have to change to increase revenuew -- either sales have to increase (new markets, better marketing, etc.) or costs have to be reduced. So, eventually, the cost of polluting becomes the one that needs to be optimized away and the company will do so, either through innovation, legislation (through lobbying) or by leaving the market.
Obviously only the first and last actually cause a net reduction in pollution.