The only thing wrong with this prediction is that the crime rate will not be very low. It may well be very high. Every time they add a law, they make a whole new group of criminals. Crime rates are not related to laws, it is a lot more likely that they are related to overall financial health in a society.
Actually, what they haven't shown (that I saw) that would be most cool for this is to have a photo of a scene and a painting of that scene and have the filter learn that! Otherwise, what they have done that's still pretty neat is built a system that figures out what mathematically needs to be done to one set of numbers (i.e. the RGB bytes for each pixel) to get it to a second state. Not bad.
I don't disagree. If I hadn't purchased an iMac long before I'd heard of Linux, I may never have gotten one. My only goal at the time was to avoid Windows. Of course, I do wonder if Linux in mid-1997 was in a state where I could have easily (emphasize point-and-click easy) used it to do high quality inkjet printing, good scanning, sync a Palm Pilot, and run a QuickCam.
But in 2001 I can't imagine spending a lot of money on Apple hardware unless I ran an Adobe-centric printshop or planned to conver the machines to Linux and buy them real mice and keyboards.
Okay. At work, multiply each number by the number of employees, then tell me if $25 x Num_Emp is greater than, less than, or equal to $0-- the price for putting Internet Explorer on all those machines.
Cooperation is more
important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means
saying ``No'' to proprietary software.
or in other words, "Closed source software is bad for you and bad for society". But you can't force people to be free, now can you? It's those of us on the consumer end who must demand our freedom and figure out ways to compensate developers fairly.
An average (mean) does not imply anything about half the people (whether IQ is actually distributed in a bell curve where the median and the average are close together is probably more of a function of test design and scoring technique than actual intelligence). Now if the WAIS IQ had been designed so that 100 indicated the median IQ, your statement would be correct.
And yes, computers are extremely complex and most people do not understand them even a little. Frankly I don't see that this is any different between Windows and Linux, both are pretty hard to use when you can't find the "any" key or you plug the power strip into itself. One thing our culture lacks, however, is a large, mature base of people who have been using something like our current systems since they were quite young. When that happens (and unless there are major strides in computer technology in the next ten years it will happen in about ten years) you will see that our cultural literacy regarding computers will go way up. Or at least, it's my opinion that it will.
Maybe because after shelling out $180 for Windows and another $300 for Office (numbers pulled out of thin air just to be cantankerous)... no one feels like paying $25 for some web browser when there are at least two available for free that work with pretty much every web page under the sun.
For $100 you can easily turn that G4 into a much better machine. Buy a mouse with a scroll-wheel ($30), a real keyboard ($30), and Yellow Dog Linux 2 ($40). Either that, or you can send the G4 to me and stop worrying about possible dust allergies and stuff.
Real artists don't ask other people if their art is really art. Maybe if you left the South you'd find that you don't really care about what people think in a place where re-enacting Civil War battles is considered an interesting pasttime.
Well, which is cheaper, paying $500 for a lawyer to give you an opinion (which still doesn't mean you've gone to court and won or settled with AOL-- which will require a lot more than $500) or simply changing the name? I'd rather send you money so that you could develop good GPL software rather than waste time and energy in court on the name-- a battle I can only half-heartedly support since it's like rooting for the underdog, but not a battle about which I'd be overly optimistic. Go with GNOME Instant Messenger (GNIM?) and be done with it.
Yes, charging for it is a great idea. This allows someone to fund development of more GPL software. Personally I'm a big fan of the way Yellow Dog did this, selling CDs for a while before posting the ISOs for anon FTP.
Is charging a per seat license a good idea? Not at all. Especially not when the bulk of the distribution consists of GPL and GPL-compatible software. That's likely to leave a sour taste in a lot of mouths. It seems to me that a lot of people do consider the free speech aspects of Free Software to be an important piece of why they use Linux.
FWIW I think even at $100 for OpenLinux + support they aren't going to rake it in. Their decision to move to per seat licensing is not likely to win them many fans. Especially if they're making money, but only using it to develop more proprietary pieces to put on top of Linux. Can anyone comment on Caldera's returns to the community? And for those zealots among us, there's always Debian main.
They may not rely on ad revenue, but they are certainly getting some. This is why there is a "sponsored link" on many of the search results you get. See AdWords.
As for "seeling their search engine software"... it sounds more to me like they are renting it out-- since their corporate overview specifically mentions that "All of Google's commercial products are hosted by Google, alleviating the need for organizations to manage their own costly search software and resources." Which says to me that there is a revenue stream from subscriptions, and that they will have less worries about market saturation-- since saturation will simply imply a lot more subscriptions.
I feel the same way about what Super Mario World did to the various cartoon character video games. Side-scrolling was a lot more fun than having jigger the joystick (a decidedly 2d interface device) into doing careful movements and trying to deal with all the swinging camera issues.
I'm wondering if it might not be appropriate to simply forward all spam to the domain listed in the URL in the spam-- assuming there is a URL or other valid email to be found in the email. "Dear root@hot-teens.com, please go away and take the attached email message with you." What are the odds that the owner of the site advertised is not somehow involved in originating the spam?
As we all know, other than following the server hops in headers, the address listed as "from" or "reply-to" is likely invalid.
Announced by who? And overtake how? For raw sales I might believe it, I'm guessing the Palm market is pretty saturated by now, so that Handspring/Palm sales are not exactly brisk.
But I have yet to notice one person using an iPaq where I work (or anywhere), whereas out of 100 people in my office, I'd guess there are at least 15 Palm users.
What I don't understand myself is why beta code for Mozilla is included in the study at all, since you have Netscape available (but not eligible to include in a study of source code since the source is not distributed with RH) and Konqueror which is not a beta product and can have its source counted. Including Mozilla violates the no-beta software for which there is a non-beta alternative clause.
Personally I would have rather seen this study done with the Debian main distribution (even the older stable 2.2r3 would be fine), for which ALL of the source code is available. Anyone know how much of RH7.1 is still binary-only proprietary and what sort of impact this had on this study?
Please provide a link to or a quote from a publicly accessible license for MSIE that explicitly permits any redistribution without prior permission from Microsoft. I don't believe you.
Please provide a single example of a proprietary application that can be distributed on CDROM that relies on MSIE specifically to run. Be sure that it works on MSIE for Mac OS or Solaris. MSIE for Windows is not free either in terms of price or license, a valid copy of Windows is required.
You are, of course, wrong about the GPL as well. How is it that there is a Netscape that runs on Linux? As a further example, it is no problem to write a database front-end GUI that is completely proprietary but attaches to a GPL DBMS and distribute the two together on one CDROM.
It is even possible to write completely proprietary applications in Python or Perl (both GPL and Open Source languages) and distribute the Perl or Python interpreter along with your scripts. Sure, the source code may be available for your copyright protected, proprietary Perl script, but this doesn't automatically engender a right on the part of the user to either make changes and more importantly to redistribute the software or to install it on multiple machines or anything not specifically spelled out in your license agreement for that script.
Oh, don't be so hard on poor Bill Gates. He used to work for less than $2 an hour writing Altair BASIC only to have a bunch of unfeeling computer hobbyists go and steal it!
Hahahah. This is the best AC comment I've seen in a long time. I probably should shut up, eh? What I do know is how easy it is to write a vulnerable Perl CGI script. And yes, I'd worry about that a lot more than a kernel space server which is mostly useful for doing static content. I'm guessing that kernel space exploits would tend to panic the kernel causing a system crash, not an intrusion. Lesser of two evils, but still less scary than a system with uninvited users.
The pages at Red Hat indicate that Tux can do CGI, and nothing about that piece of it looks that much different from the default Apache setup.
I'm not even remotely familiar with web security issues except to say that it seems to me that concern over httpd or kernel-space modules that do httpd is nothing compared to the need to ensure that the backend Perl, C, or whatever is not itself the weak link in the security chain.
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing wrong with this prediction is that the crime rate will not be very low. It may well be very high. Every time they add a law, they make a whole new group of criminals. Crime rates are not related to laws, it is a lot more likely that they are related to overall financial health in a society.
Actually, what they haven't shown (that I saw) that would be most cool for this is to have a photo of a scene and a painting of that scene and have the filter learn that! Otherwise, what they have done that's still pretty neat is built a system that figures out what mathematically needs to be done to one set of numbers (i.e. the RGB bytes for each pixel) to get it to a second state. Not bad.
I don't disagree. If I hadn't purchased an iMac long before I'd heard of Linux, I may never have gotten one. My only goal at the time was to avoid Windows. Of course, I do wonder if Linux in mid-1997 was in a state where I could have easily (emphasize point-and-click easy) used it to do high quality inkjet printing, good scanning, sync a Palm Pilot, and run a QuickCam.
But in 2001 I can't imagine spending a lot of money on Apple hardware unless I ran an Adobe-centric printshop or planned to conver the machines to Linux and buy them real mice and keyboards.
Okay. At work, multiply each number by the number of employees, then tell me if $25 x Num_Emp is greater than, less than, or equal to $0-- the price for putting Internet Explorer on all those machines.
An average (mean) does not imply anything about half the people (whether IQ is actually distributed in a bell curve where the median and the average are close together is probably more of a function of test design and scoring technique than actual intelligence). Now if the WAIS IQ had been designed so that 100 indicated the median IQ, your statement would be correct.
And yes, computers are extremely complex and most people do not understand them even a little. Frankly I don't see that this is any different between Windows and Linux, both are pretty hard to use when you can't find the "any" key or you plug the power strip into itself. One thing our culture lacks, however, is a large, mature base of people who have been using something like our current systems since they were quite young. When that happens (and unless there are major strides in computer technology in the next ten years it will happen in about ten years) you will see that our cultural literacy regarding computers will go way up. Or at least, it's my opinion that it will.
Maybe because after shelling out $180 for Windows and another $300 for Office (numbers pulled out of thin air just to be cantankerous)... no one feels like paying $25 for some web browser when there are at least two available for free that work with pretty much every web page under the sun.
I just switched to Ogg Vorbis and Napster is going to make a comeback? Oh, we'll have to pay them to share stuff? Oh. Um. Back to oggenc'ing I guess.
For $100 you can easily turn that G4 into a much better machine. Buy a mouse with a scroll-wheel ($30), a real keyboard ($30), and Yellow Dog Linux 2 ($40). Either that, or you can send the G4 to me and stop worrying about possible dust allergies and stuff.
Real artists don't ask other people if their art is really art. Maybe if you left the South you'd find that you don't really care about what people think in a place where re-enacting Civil War battles is considered an interesting pasttime.
Well, which is cheaper, paying $500 for a lawyer to give you an opinion (which still doesn't mean you've gone to court and won or settled with AOL-- which will require a lot more than $500) or simply changing the name? I'd rather send you money so that you could develop good GPL software rather than waste time and energy in court on the name-- a battle I can only half-heartedly support since it's like rooting for the underdog, but not a battle about which I'd be overly optimistic. Go with GNOME Instant Messenger (GNIM?) and be done with it.
Yes, charging for it is a great idea. This allows someone to fund development of more GPL software. Personally I'm a big fan of the way Yellow Dog did this, selling CDs for a while before posting the ISOs for anon FTP.
Is charging a per seat license a good idea? Not at all. Especially not when the bulk of the distribution consists of GPL and GPL-compatible software. That's likely to leave a sour taste in a lot of mouths. It seems to me that a lot of people do consider the free speech aspects of Free Software to be an important piece of why they use Linux.
FWIW I think even at $100 for OpenLinux + support they aren't going to rake it in. Their decision to move to per seat licensing is not likely to win them many fans. Especially if they're making money, but only using it to develop more proprietary pieces to put on top of Linux. Can anyone comment on Caldera's returns to the community? And for those zealots among us, there's always Debian main.
They may not rely on ad revenue, but they are certainly getting some. This is why there is a "sponsored link" on many of the search results you get. See AdWords.
As for "seeling their search engine software"... it sounds more to me like they are renting it out-- since their corporate overview specifically mentions that "All of Google's commercial products are hosted by Google, alleviating the need for organizations to manage their own costly search software and resources." Which says to me that there is a revenue stream from subscriptions, and that they will have less worries about market saturation-- since saturation will simply imply a lot more subscriptions.
I feel the same way about what Super Mario World did to the various cartoon character video games. Side-scrolling was a lot more fun than having jigger the joystick (a decidedly 2d interface device) into doing careful movements and trying to deal with all the swinging camera issues.
What, are they too busy golfing?
There is only one system that protects copyrights. The legal system. Technical systems only restrict duplication or use.
I'm wondering if it might not be appropriate to simply forward all spam to the domain listed in the URL in the spam-- assuming there is a URL or other valid email to be found in the email. "Dear root@hot-teens.com, please go away and take the attached email message with you." What are the odds that the owner of the site advertised is not somehow involved in originating the spam?
As we all know, other than following the server hops in headers, the address listed as "from" or "reply-to" is likely invalid.
Announced by who? And overtake how? For raw sales I might believe it, I'm guessing the Palm market is pretty saturated by now, so that Handspring/Palm sales are not exactly brisk.
But I have yet to notice one person using an iPaq where I work (or anywhere), whereas out of 100 people in my office, I'd guess there are at least 15 Palm users.
What I don't understand myself is why beta code for Mozilla is included in the study at all, since you have Netscape available (but not eligible to include in a study of source code since the source is not distributed with RH) and Konqueror which is not a beta product and can have its source counted. Including Mozilla violates the no-beta software for which there is a non-beta alternative clause.
Personally I would have rather seen this study done with the Debian main distribution (even the older stable 2.2r3 would be fine), for which ALL of the source code is available. Anyone know how much of RH7.1 is still binary-only proprietary and what sort of impact this had on this study?
How else will we be able to crash it? ;)
Especially considering this will likely cut into their $895/unit sales of Linux/DB2 bundles.
Please provide a link to or a quote from a publicly accessible license for MSIE that explicitly permits any redistribution without prior permission from Microsoft. I don't believe you.
Please provide a single example of a proprietary application that can be distributed on CDROM that relies on MSIE specifically to run. Be sure that it works on MSIE for Mac OS or Solaris. MSIE for Windows is not free either in terms of price or license, a valid copy of Windows is required.
You are, of course, wrong about the GPL as well. How is it that there is a Netscape that runs on Linux? As a further example, it is no problem to write a database front-end GUI that is completely proprietary but attaches to a GPL DBMS and distribute the two together on one CDROM.
It is even possible to write completely proprietary applications in Python or Perl (both GPL and Open Source languages) and distribute the Perl or Python interpreter along with your scripts. Sure, the source code may be available for your copyright protected, proprietary Perl script, but this doesn't automatically engender a right on the part of the user to either make changes and more importantly to redistribute the software or to install it on multiple machines or anything not specifically spelled out in your license agreement for that script.
Oh, don't be so hard on poor Bill Gates. He used to work for less than $2 an hour writing Altair BASIC only to have a bunch of unfeeling computer hobbyists go and steal it!
Hahahah. This is the best AC comment I've seen in a long time. I probably should shut up, eh? What I do know is how easy it is to write a vulnerable Perl CGI script. And yes, I'd worry about that a lot more than a kernel space server which is mostly useful for doing static content. I'm guessing that kernel space exploits would tend to panic the kernel causing a system crash, not an intrusion. Lesser of two evils, but still less scary than a system with uninvited users.
The pages at Red Hat indicate that Tux can do CGI, and nothing about that piece of it looks that much different from the default Apache setup.
I'm not even remotely familiar with web security issues except to say that it seems to me that concern over httpd or kernel-space modules that do httpd is nothing compared to the need to ensure that the backend Perl, C, or whatever is not itself the weak link in the security chain.