Really just a sign that Taco, after a few years of Slashdot, would still rather have the comments section read like a good old-fashioned flame-fest than any sort of real discussion. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily... but the old FSF vs. the world debate is getting old.
And you have to wonder why someone (Taco, in this case) would covet a membership card for an organization to which he does not belong. Business card sized CDs *are* for sale in stores. I'm also 100% certain that one could special-order a batch with custom printing if one really wanted to be 1337. Then presuming the ability to cobble together Slashcode means you have some technical ability, you'd be able to burn whatever the hell you wanted on these CDs-- suggestions: your own distro or a modification of any existing micro-distro, some HTML, perhaps a set of Perl scripts and copies of the Perl executables for MS Windows and/or x86 Linux, mp3s, jpgs, you name it really. Why covet when a man of Taco's means could easily outdo? That's what I want to know.
Huh? Not only is there no mention of the mechanism in the summary, but the linked article comes up blank for me. And you'll notice I was not asserting anything about this patent in particular, except to respond to the idea of changing colors is harldy novel and not really patentable and that in this case there must be a specific method or device that does something. In fact, the details you've provided back up my point: it's not the idea of a device that changes color that's novel here, it's a newly invented mechanism.
You've never seen one of those little toys that changes color when warm? Or seen a chameleon in action? Or how about those fiber optic toys at novelty shops? Or things that have special inks or paints so that they look different colors depending on angle you look at them (one example is US currency)?
I don't know how novel the idea of a device that changes its color really is. However, the patent shouldn't be on the vague idea, but rather on a novel instantiation of the idea-- that is the specific device or mechanism or chemical/electrical process to do this. Or maybe I'm still misunderstanding patents, I always thought they protected specifics, not generalities-- not that you have to have a working demo available, but that you had to have a very exacting description of the invention.
To wit, here is a quote from trademark law itself (p. 21 of Consolidated Patent Laws): The specification shall contain a written description
of the invention, and of the manner and process of
making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and
exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art
to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and use the same, and shall set
forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of
carrying out his invention.
Well, at least I was able to elucidate my point of view. Saying "you... don't know what your [sic] talking about" doesn't really contribute much. What exactly is your objection to my statement that listlessness, boredom, and depression are not physical symptoms? Are you going to contend that these are physical symptoms rather than mental conditions?
Have to agree on this one. If it's a problem, kick the habit... and I think we should distinguish between things that are habit forming and things that are actually addictive here. Caffeine, nicotine, cocaine, and many other drugs are addictive. If you wait too long in between uses you feel sick-- often resulting in headaches, nauseau, exhaustion, etc.
Other things are habit-forming, like smoking (apart from the nicotine itself), masturbating, chewing your nails, playing video games online, chatting on IRC, over-eating or whatever it might be. Habits can be quit without obvious physical side-effect. What you find when you try to stop a habit cold-turkey is much different than what happens with an addiction. You might feel listless, bored, depressed, or any number of things, but these are not physical symptoms.
In this case, as habits/hobbies go, EQ doesn't sound so bad, except that like most overdone habits, it can be depressing to not know what else to do with your time or to feel like that habit has too much control over your life... but on a purely financial basis, EQ sounds like a bargain. $50 for the box game and under $20 for a monthly sub that can easily eat up all my free time? The only thing cheaper is meditation or prayer-- and then only if you don't actually join a temple or church. Oh, and chess via FICS. And there's no Sony involved there.
I prefer to use the term "Free Software" (with caps on at least the word Free) to denote software for which I can obtain the source code and have the right to share and modify the (shared) code. This is an older term than "open source" and puts an emphasis on freedom. I feel that the term "open source" seeks to limit the discussions about freedom and merely relegates the matter to a discussion of whether the source code is available for review (although I recognize that the OSI definition typically includes most of the same freedoms that are found with Free Software).
This is a highly nuanced distinction, though, and for most practical purposes the terms can be interchanged at will. That is, for most of us, the availability of the source is enough-- this will let us examine and at least modify the code for our own personal use. In most cases with "open source" software, the author allows us to distribute unmodified copies of the original code and perhaps a set of patches if we've made any.
So yes, the nvidia drivers are available at no charge, but they are neither Free Software nor Open Source Software by any stretch of the imagination. If we care about the freedoms inherent in either Free Software or Open Source software, the availability of these drivers is irrelevant-- except as part of a dangerous trend towards the "proprietary-ization" of Linux systems in general.
Apparently those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it. The formalization of the Free Software movement by RMS in the form of the FSF was a direct result of a buggy driver (for a printer). So while it's nice that nvidia sees value in releasing these drivers and giving GNU/Linux the option to play on a level field with Windows... it hardly pushes the cause of Free Software forward to pollute machines that would otherwise be 100% Free with little bits of wholly un-Free software. Now, as I understand it, it's unfortunate that much of the competitive edge nvidia's hardware has is actually the result of the proprietary code in their drivers. It's going to be hard to convince them to forego that, since it would endanger their cash flow.
Can't make anyone share my morality huh? How about if I legislate it? There are a great many laws in the U.S. that attempt to do just that. Now I don't know about you, but I consider the threat of being deprived of time with my family and friends, my property, and my freedom to be a pretty severe imposition.
So while companies and individuals would be right to follow their own moral code (although companies, it should be pointed out, don't have moral codes except that code which is the almalgam of its owners and workers-- and usually those people are united in their desire for money, and little else), there is no reason the U.S. cannot legislate such that it is illegal to assist foreign nations in depriving its citizens or other humans of their human rights. However, contrary to the assertion in the write-up, the article mentions nothing about any existing laws that might prohibit these businesses from doing this business at this time.
But since these products (censorware) are legal in the U.S. and are even mandated in many circumstances, I think such laws would be pretty silly. What better way to act (as a country) like a bunch of hypocritical, self-righteous twits? I think our international reputation couldn't take much more. In fact, in this case, the work Amnesty International is doing is admirable, and is exactly what you suggest: attempting to use the power of persuasion to convince both the Chinese government and the people who work at these corporations that this activity is wrong.
On the top of links to sites where user registration is required, could everyone please stop with the footnoting of such URLs with tags such as "free reg yada yada" and the like? Maybe I know what that means, but a lot of people coming here might not catch the meaning. Besides, while I don't mind juvenile comments, I do mind article postings that look childish and unprofessional. It's one of those things that keeps me from telling people about Slashdot. It's embarrassing.
How hard is it to just type in "(free registration required to view link)" or something like that? If the registration stuff is so annoying that you can't just deal with it, then stop linking to sites that require it.
Seems like a pretty bold claim. Most of the hard drives I've purchased came with a whole computer wrapped around them and they (the drives) were most certainly not empty (not that a little time with fdisk couldn't fix that).
I believe that the problem is that he wants to post material that ought to have fallen into the public domain, but did not, due to the retroactive term extension.
I had, of course, no intention of appearing to side with term extension. I do not support retroactive laws of any nature, including those that outlaw possession of a particular good (i.e., prior possession of a drug or an image or any other proscribed item would constitute an affirmative defense).
I also think that our currently legislated "limited term" is way too long. Most copyrighted works seem to lose value extremely rapidly. The main exceptions appear to be those that involve media shifting, which is situations like re-releasing old audio recordings on CD, taking old films and putting them on DVD, or other dramatic shifts, like making a movie from old books (a great example of this is the recent "Lord of the Rings" movies-- if I'm reading this timeline of copyright correctly, the whole of LotR would be public domain by now. This was prevented in 1976, and again in 1998.)
In most cases, the people enriched by media shifting are not those who originally created the material. And with the exception of adaptive shifts like making movies from books, the main purpose of media shifting seems to be to resell the same content to the same customers in a different form. This also causes a lot of damage to the after-market for existing copies of those works.
The Public Domain is not shrinking. It just isn't expanding very quickly. Big difference. If we're going to have an impact, we need to avoid these kinds of untrue exaggerations. Our credibility is already heavily impacted by the whole Napster debacle and the filesharing crowd (and I'm not talking about copying a song here and there, I mean the people who own nothing but unauthorized dupes and tons of warez).
Read the question, specifically this part "How do you provide open source without escrow"... they want the client to not only have eventual access to the code, but to have immediate access to the code.
I know that! I was as disappointed as you were. But this whole question has been asked and answered a hundred times-- it's in the FAQ. Yes, there are isolated cases where the posted story makes no sense or where some poor server gets totally hammered... this is a perfect example of such a case. But in general the system works fine.
If you can do better, please take advantage of the freely offered source code that powers this site. The barriers to entry here are so incredibly low it's not even funny.
To me, the occasional Slashdotting is nothing compared to rampant copyright violations that occur every time some AC reposts the entire article, even over minor excuses like the linked site requires a no-fee registration.
I mean, don't they sometimes give off the impression that they either want software released under the GPL or a "compatible" license (not sure what that means), or not at all?
It doesn't just seem that way, that's exactly what they're saying! You can find out all this and more just by reading what Mr. Stallman and others have written. They've done their best from the beginning to get to a state where they were able to use a system that was comprised only of Free Software (such as you'll find with the default install of Debian GNU/Linux), now that they have that of course they're not going to give it up without at least complaining a little.:)
Hmmm. Someone moderated me as troll even though the original post about "why can't Slashdot mirror the content" is a damn FAQ and the poster has a UID in the 500,000 range. So here, posted with my +1 bonus, is a more polite retread of my original post, just because I can.:P
Yes, except that this is an issue of freedom of speech. A class-action lawsuit alleging damages for the mere act of linking via URL would produce a serious chill factor. May as well make illegal to link to a site without first obtaining permission-- and thereby destroy one of the strengths of the web. That's a precedent I'm not excited about. This is a technical problem with technical solutions, not a social/ethical issue.
I've often wondered about this. I suspect that a roomful of old Pentiums is going to burn a lot more juice than a single P4 or Athlon XP just to get to the same amount of processing power. Anyone who's more knowledgeable about electronics care to illuminate me (no pun intended)?
if you're any kind of half intelligent human, you're not going to lose a $200+ PDA.
This may explain why I've managed to drop both my old Palm III and my aging Visor, they were lot more careful with my new Zaurus...
Best reason I can think of not to carry paper is that I'd need a pretty big notebook to match what I can fit in 192Mb on the Zaurus. I'd be constantly trying to shove in several international newspapers, an mp3 player, and a VCR.:)
No. It's a technical issue. If your site can't handle the traffic, fix your site or restrict access. Mirroring and caching is a legal quagmire in terms of infringment, and a time sink to boot. If Slashdot had to wait around for approval to mirror or even to link to various web pages-- a process that could take hours or even days-- many of the stories would be worthless by the time they showed up here.
Can Slashdot show some restraint? Maybe. But if you can do a better job while being more restrained and respectful, feel free. Maybe your Slashdot++ could include a spell-check service as well... I'm far more concerned that all the mixed-up there/their's, lose/loose's, etc, here are actually causing extreme atrophy in my ability to use those words correctly.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
DO THE CAPITAL LETTERS SOMEHOW MAKE YOUR DRIVEL MORE TRUE?
The Nobel Prize for Economics was recently awarded to three Americans whose work looked at the notion that asymetric information is a cause of inefficiency in markets. Or do these highly respected economics professors just need to "learn some economics", too?
Yeah, fsck the First Amendment... and screw the whole point of the WWW anyway. It will now be illegal to link to a site without first obtaining permission. That's a precedent I'm excited about. This is a technical problem with technical solutions, not a social/ethical issue.
Hey, at least with Linux you get a message to read. I can't tell you how many times during my work day the error messages from MS Windows or one of their apps are about as helpful as "this is the machine that goes bing!".
Slashdot Mirror
Really just a sign that Taco, after a few years of Slashdot, would still rather have the comments section read like a good old-fashioned flame-fest than any sort of real discussion. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily... but the old FSF vs. the world debate is getting old.
And you have to wonder why someone (Taco, in this case) would covet a membership card for an organization to which he does not belong. Business card sized CDs *are* for sale in stores. I'm also 100% certain that one could special-order a batch with custom printing if one really wanted to be 1337. Then presuming the ability to cobble together Slashcode means you have some technical ability, you'd be able to burn whatever the hell you wanted on these CDs-- suggestions: your own distro or a modification of any existing micro-distro, some HTML, perhaps a set of Perl scripts and copies of the Perl executables for MS Windows and/or x86 Linux, mp3s, jpgs, you name it really. Why covet when a man of Taco's means could easily outdo? That's what I want to know.
Right, which is why you could patent a specific flying machine, but not flight itself.
Huh? Not only is there no mention of the mechanism in the summary, but the linked article comes up blank for me. And you'll notice I was not asserting anything about this patent in particular, except to respond to the idea of changing colors is harldy novel and not really patentable and that in this case there must be a specific method or device that does something. In fact, the details you've provided back up my point: it's not the idea of a device that changes color that's novel here, it's a newly invented mechanism.
You've never seen one of those little toys that changes color when warm? Or seen a chameleon in action? Or how about those fiber optic toys at novelty shops? Or things that have special inks or paints so that they look different colors depending on angle you look at them (one example is US currency)?
I don't know how novel the idea of a device that changes its color really is. However, the patent shouldn't be on the vague idea, but rather on a novel instantiation of the idea-- that is the specific device or mechanism or chemical/electrical process to do this. Or maybe I'm still misunderstanding patents, I always thought they protected specifics, not generalities-- not that you have to have a working demo available, but that you had to have a very exacting description of the invention.
To wit, here is a quote from trademark law itself (p. 21 of Consolidated Patent Laws): The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Well, at least I was able to elucidate my point of view. Saying "you... don't know what your [sic] talking about" doesn't really contribute much. What exactly is your objection to my statement that listlessness, boredom, and depression are not physical symptoms? Are you going to contend that these are physical symptoms rather than mental conditions?
Have to agree on this one. If it's a problem, kick the habit... and I think we should distinguish between things that are habit forming and things that are actually addictive here. Caffeine, nicotine, cocaine, and many other drugs are addictive. If you wait too long in between uses you feel sick-- often resulting in headaches, nauseau, exhaustion, etc.
Other things are habit-forming, like smoking (apart from the nicotine itself), masturbating, chewing your nails, playing video games online, chatting on IRC, over-eating or whatever it might be. Habits can be quit without obvious physical side-effect. What you find when you try to stop a habit cold-turkey is much different than what happens with an addiction. You might feel listless, bored, depressed, or any number of things, but these are not physical symptoms.
In this case, as habits/hobbies go, EQ doesn't sound so bad, except that like most overdone habits, it can be depressing to not know what else to do with your time or to feel like that habit has too much control over your life... but on a purely financial basis, EQ sounds like a bargain. $50 for the box game and under $20 for a monthly sub that can easily eat up all my free time? The only thing cheaper is meditation or prayer-- and then only if you don't actually join a temple or church. Oh, and chess via FICS. And there's no Sony involved there.
I prefer to use the term "Free Software" (with caps on at least the word Free) to denote software for which I can obtain the source code and have the right to share and modify the (shared) code. This is an older term than "open source" and puts an emphasis on freedom. I feel that the term "open source" seeks to limit the discussions about freedom and merely relegates the matter to a discussion of whether the source code is available for review (although I recognize that the OSI definition typically includes most of the same freedoms that are found with Free Software).
This is a highly nuanced distinction, though, and for most practical purposes the terms can be interchanged at will. That is, for most of us, the availability of the source is enough-- this will let us examine and at least modify the code for our own personal use. In most cases with "open source" software, the author allows us to distribute unmodified copies of the original code and perhaps a set of patches if we've made any.
So yes, the nvidia drivers are available at no charge, but they are neither Free Software nor Open Source Software by any stretch of the imagination. If we care about the freedoms inherent in either Free Software or Open Source software, the availability of these drivers is irrelevant-- except as part of a dangerous trend towards the "proprietary-ization" of Linux systems in general.
Quoth the AC: I like drivers that work.
Apparently those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it. The formalization of the Free Software movement by RMS in the form of the FSF was a direct result of a buggy driver (for a printer). So while it's nice that nvidia sees value in releasing these drivers and giving GNU/Linux the option to play on a level field with Windows... it hardly pushes the cause of Free Software forward to pollute machines that would otherwise be 100% Free with little bits of wholly un-Free software. Now, as I understand it, it's unfortunate that much of the competitive edge nvidia's hardware has is actually the result of the proprietary code in their drivers. It's going to be hard to convince them to forego that, since it would endanger their cash flow.
Can't make anyone share my morality huh? How about if I legislate it? There are a great many laws in the U.S. that attempt to do just that. Now I don't know about you, but I consider the threat of being deprived of time with my family and friends, my property, and my freedom to be a pretty severe imposition.
So while companies and individuals would be right to follow their own moral code (although companies, it should be pointed out, don't have moral codes except that code which is the almalgam of its owners and workers-- and usually those people are united in their desire for money, and little else), there is no reason the U.S. cannot legislate such that it is illegal to assist foreign nations in depriving its citizens or other humans of their human rights. However, contrary to the assertion in the write-up, the article mentions nothing about any existing laws that might prohibit these businesses from doing this business at this time.
But since these products (censorware) are legal in the U.S. and are even mandated in many circumstances, I think such laws would be pretty silly. What better way to act (as a country) like a bunch of hypocritical, self-righteous twits? I think our international reputation couldn't take much more. In fact, in this case, the work Amnesty International is doing is admirable, and is exactly what you suggest: attempting to use the power of persuasion to convince both the Chinese government and the people who work at these corporations that this activity is wrong.
On the top of links to sites where user registration is required, could everyone please stop with the footnoting of such URLs with tags such as "free reg yada yada" and the like? Maybe I know what that means, but a lot of people coming here might not catch the meaning. Besides, while I don't mind juvenile comments, I do mind article postings that look childish and unprofessional. It's one of those things that keeps me from telling people about Slashdot. It's embarrassing.
How hard is it to just type in "(free registration required to view link)" or something like that? If the registration stuff is so annoying that you can't just deal with it, then stop linking to sites that require it.
Its a legal rquirement if they ever hope to maintain copyrights to thei products.
That's trademark. You don't have to "maintain" copyright.
Seems like a pretty bold claim. Most of the hard drives I've purchased came with a whole computer wrapped around them and they (the drives) were most certainly not empty (not that a little time with fdisk couldn't fix that).
I believe that the problem is that he wants to post material that ought to have fallen into the public domain, but did not, due to the retroactive term extension.
Here is the original complaint where this is laid out.
I had, of course, no intention of appearing to side with term extension. I do not support retroactive laws of any nature, including those that outlaw possession of a particular good (i.e., prior possession of a drug or an image or any other proscribed item would constitute an affirmative defense).
I also think that our currently legislated "limited term" is way too long. Most copyrighted works seem to lose value extremely rapidly. The main exceptions appear to be those that involve media shifting, which is situations like re-releasing old audio recordings on CD, taking old films and putting them on DVD, or other dramatic shifts, like making a movie from old books (a great example of this is the recent "Lord of the Rings" movies-- if I'm reading this timeline of copyright correctly, the whole of LotR would be public domain by now. This was prevented in 1976, and again in 1998.)
In most cases, the people enriched by media shifting are not those who originally created the material. And with the exception of adaptive shifts like making movies from books, the main purpose of media shifting seems to be to resell the same content to the same customers in a different form. This also causes a lot of damage to the after-market for existing copies of those works.
The Public Domain is not shrinking. It just isn't expanding very quickly. Big difference. If we're going to have an impact, we need to avoid these kinds of untrue exaggerations. Our credibility is already heavily impacted by the whole Napster debacle and the filesharing crowd (and I'm not talking about copying a song here and there, I mean the people who own nothing but unauthorized dupes and tons of warez).
Read the question, specifically this part "How do you provide open source without escrow"... they want the client to not only have eventual access to the code, but to have immediate access to the code.
I know that! I was as disappointed as you were. But this whole question has been asked and answered a hundred times-- it's in the FAQ. Yes, there are isolated cases where the posted story makes no sense or where some poor server gets totally hammered... this is a perfect example of such a case. But in general the system works fine.
If you can do better, please take advantage of the freely offered source code that powers this site. The barriers to entry here are so incredibly low it's not even funny.
To me, the occasional Slashdotting is nothing compared to rampant copyright violations that occur every time some AC reposts the entire article, even over minor excuses like the linked site requires a no-fee registration.
I mean, don't they sometimes give off the impression that they either want software released under the GPL or a "compatible" license (not sure what that means), or not at all?
:)
It doesn't just seem that way, that's exactly what they're saying! You can find out all this and more just by reading what Mr. Stallman and others have written. They've done their best from the beginning to get to a state where they were able to use a system that was comprised only of Free Software (such as you'll find with the default install of Debian GNU/Linux), now that they have that of course they're not going to give it up without at least complaining a little.
Hmmm. Someone moderated me as troll even though the original post about "why can't Slashdot mirror the content" is a damn FAQ and the poster has a UID in the 500,000 range. So here, posted with my +1 bonus, is a more polite retread of my original post, just because I can. :P
Yes, except that this is an issue of freedom of speech. A class-action lawsuit alleging damages for the mere act of linking via URL would produce a serious chill factor. May as well make illegal to link to a site without first obtaining permission-- and thereby destroy one of the strengths of the web. That's a precedent I'm not excited about. This is a technical problem with technical solutions, not a social/ethical issue.
You see what I'm saying? All this bad writing is messing me up! It's not ironic. It proves my point.
I've often wondered about this. I suspect that a roomful of old Pentiums is going to burn a lot more juice than a single P4 or Athlon XP just to get to the same amount of processing power. Anyone who's more knowledgeable about electronics care to illuminate me (no pun intended)?
if you're any kind of half intelligent human, you're not going to lose a $200+ PDA.
:)
This may explain why I've managed to drop both my old Palm III and my aging Visor, they were lot more careful with my new Zaurus...
Best reason I can think of not to carry paper is that I'd need a pretty big notebook to match what I can fit in 192Mb on the Zaurus. I'd be constantly trying to shove in several international newspapers, an mp3 player, and a VCR.
No. It's a technical issue. If your site can't handle the traffic, fix your site or restrict access. Mirroring and caching is a legal quagmire in terms of infringment, and a time sink to boot. If Slashdot had to wait around for approval to mirror or even to link to various web pages-- a process that could take hours or even days-- many of the stories would be worthless by the time they showed up here.
Can Slashdot show some restraint? Maybe. But if you can do a better job while being more restrained and respectful, feel free. Maybe your Slashdot++ could include a spell-check service as well... I'm far more concerned that all the mixed-up there/their's, lose/loose's, etc, here are actually causing extreme atrophy in my ability to use those words correctly.
DO THE CAPITAL LETTERS SOMEHOW MAKE YOUR DRIVEL MORE TRUE?
The Nobel Prize for Economics was recently awarded to three Americans whose work looked at the notion that asymetric information is a cause of inefficiency in markets. Or do these highly respected economics professors just need to "learn some economics", too?
Yeah, fsck the First Amendment... and screw the whole point of the WWW anyway. It will now be illegal to link to a site without first obtaining permission. That's a precedent I'm excited about. This is a technical problem with technical solutions, not a social/ethical issue.
Hey, at least with Linux you get a message to read. I can't tell you how many times during my work day the error messages from MS Windows or one of their apps are about as helpful as "this is the machine that goes bing!".