U.S. Football Capitalist Game; Soccer Marxest Game
on
Little Robots Play Soccer
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Dear north america,
it's called football.
Sincerely,
The rest of the world.
American football is a capitalist game characterized by hierarchy, specialization of labor, a well-defined battle-line, and the "bomb."
Soccer is a Marxest game characterized by its lack of hierarchy, lack of specialization of labor (ok, omitting the goalie:), fluid guerilla warfare battle-line and the fact that each contributes according to his own ability (and takes according to his own needs????;).
Both contain their own code, but when Edit is run, it will also access code from ROX-Lib.
I now understand. However, the Slashdot article states:
The apps are all self-contained in their own directory; binaries, docs, source code and all. * * * Deleting the application along with all the other misc files is as simple as removing the directory it's contained in.
Neither of the statements in the Slashdot article is correct.
The apps are not "self-contained in their own directory." As you state above, "when Edit is run, it will also access code from ROX-Lib."
Also, it is not that case that, "Deleting the application along with all the other misc files is as simple as removing the directory it's contained in." If you delete the Edit directory, the "misc files" (i.e., libraries) the Edit program relied upon will remain in ROX-Lib. Now this of course may be a good thing if other programs rely on those files. However, it is simply incorrect to state that deleting the directory the program is "contained in" (which in truth is only the directory in which it is *partially* contained in) will suffice to delete all of the files the program relies upon.
I'm afraid I don't understand. What does is mean to "depend on other packages" if and when everything (including the so-called shared or dependent package) is in the single directory for the application?
Like this:
You open the directory/uri/0install/rox.sourceforge.net/apps in your file manager (it's like a URI you'd enter into a web browser). You see an application called Edit inside it. Edit is actually a directory, which contains everything that is part of the Edit program (but not libraries Edit uses). When you run Edit, it loads some code from/uri/0install/rox.sourceforge.net/lib/ROX-Lib2. This directory contains all the code that is part of ROX-Lib, which Edit depends on. Everything is downloaded and cached the first time it is accessed (files actually come in groups to reduce round-trip time and the chance that dial-up users will miss something they need once off-line).
Forgive my ignorance, but I still don't understand.
As I understand it, once you have completed your steps 1 through 3 above, in one directory you have everything (including *all* libraries) you need to run Edit without further downloads. Correct?
Assume you do the same thing for the program NewEdit, with the identical result.
Now, in what way do Edit and NewEdit "share" anything, including any libraries? Doesn't the Edit directory have everything Edit needs to run, including all libraries? Doesn't the NewEdit directory have everything NewEdit needs to run, including all libraries? If so, what do they "share?"
Applications are self-contained in that everything from a single package is in a single directory, rather than being spread over/usr/bin,/usr/share, etc. They can still depend on other packages.
I'm afraid I don't understand. What does is mean to "depend on other packages" if and when everything (including the so-called shared or dependent package) is in the single directory for the application?
Does it mean that if I have two programs that "share" the same library that the library files will be duplicated in each of the two program directories? If so, how are the "shared?"
Talk about encouraging waste.... The article states:
The apps are all self-contained in their own directory; binaries, docs, source code and all. * * * This method of partitioning applications in their own directories also allows installing multiple versions of any application trivial.
What happened to the idea that we wanted programmers and users to share libraries and code? To solve rather than avoid dependancy problems?
Doesn't this encourage a move back to the DOS days where applications didn't share code or libraries, and were completely independent of each other?
Then again, given how cheap disk space is, and how frustrating dependency problems are, maybe this isn't such a bad idea.
It seems to me that SCO is going after companies that are more likely to pay up than go to court to fight them, taking a bit of a path of least resistance. We don't know how many private license deals they did in the first quarter of 2004... they'll have to release the total revenues in a few months, but it's not out yet.
SCO might be making more deals than we know with companies less likely to fight back because they know they will lose the IBM fight... so they're profiting while they can.
This is standard operating procedure in intellectual property litigation -- even if you have a good claim. First harvest the low hanging fruit. Build your war chest by first feasting on adversaries who won't put up a fight. Avoid the risk that you may not collect from weak players becaue you attacked a strong adversary too early, and received an adverse precedent (i.e., published) decision that the weaker players can benefit from and couldn't otherwise have obtained.
On the other hand, it is also the perfect strategy if you have a weak claim. Attack only weak adversaries who can't afford to defend themselves, or for whom the cost of defense would be greater the the cost of capitulation. There are companies who survive and prosper by asserting weak (cough) intellectual property claims and offer to settle for amounts less than their adversaries' cost of litigation. The key is to make sure that the claim is not so baseless that you expose yourself sanctions or a subsequent claim for malicious institution of a civil action.
Then again, SCO has already violated these rules by attacking IBM far too early in the game. Go figure.
Listen, this is great. I mean, I like receiving a gift as much as the next guy, but...
I always wonder what people are thinking when they start a business like this and then immediately open source the code and make it publicly available so that anyone and everyone can immediately compete.
Oh, wait. They're going to make their money on support. Or is it custom applications?
And just how do you explain this to the VC? How do you word this on the prospectus?
The can of worms is open - nuclear energy, genetic engineering and the like is not going to go back, and legislations for stopping such things is not going to work. If not us, someone else is going to do it at some point or time or the other. And cross pollination _will_ happen at sometime or the other, no matter how hard you try.
Isn't your belief that "cross pollination _will_ happen... no matter how hard you try" an argument for adopting legislation to prohibit the practice in the short run and let some other country make the intial mistakes, ruin their rice paddies and poison their population?
Isn't your belief the best possible argument for the U.S. not being an early adopter?
Caution, my friend. I am in favour of strong GE legislation. Bio companies have one goal: profit. You know as well as I do that an environmental risk will always take second place to the chance of a nice profit...
Agreed. This looks like the classic case for legislation and regulation -- i.e., where the market will not otherwise force an actor to internatlize the costs of various risks and externalities.
I can see it now. Oh, our companay caused enviromental damage to the tune of $1 trillion, and our company is only worth $100 billion? Guess we'll have to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and pay everyone 10 cents on the dollar. Or better yet, call for a government bail-out.
And I have read of controversy even with what Marconi did, apparently he used someone else's wizardry and claimed it as his own. However, he did publicize it, or market as we say nowadays, which neither Tesla (you need to watch your spelling, you got it right once out of three tries) nor the other forgotten nobody did. Whether that actually spread its use much faster is another question too.
This reminds me of an issue presented in a number of books I've read recently, including Isaac Newton and Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. The issue concerns the date of discovery or invention, as opposed to the date of publication. As I recall, Newton kept many of his discoveries and theories secret for years -- perhaps to his later regret when he got into the priority dispute with Leibniz. Joao Magueijo appeared to be very concerned with establishing priority.
It may not be a matter of publish or perish. More a matter of publish or be forgotten.
I wonder, do we see a pattern here? Could this be why Mandrake wound up in "Chapter 11-like protection status?" Could it be an indication that it might again wind up in said status?
It appears that Mandrake is a great distro for newbies (I know, I started with it myself) who then do not stick around (yep, me again). The result is a relatively high cost of sales, and a relatively small continuing income stream. Can a distro survive if it is everybody's first distro, and nobody's second?
This may create more support for the effort to revive the Bricker Amendment (see also here). Introduced into the Senate in February, 1952, as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:
Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
He can't; he already bought the license, and it is "non-refundable." That's like downloading Britney's "Toxic" from iTunes, then coming to your senses and trying to get your money back.
Not quite. This is not like downloading a single song, and then trying to get your money back.
How many servers does the license cover? How many versions of Linux does it allegedly cover? How long does it last?
If Marsh really wants to demonstrate that he realizes that he made a mistake, and that he has switched sides, all he has to do is to publicly announce that he has deployed Linux in a manner not covered by the license.
It would be even cooler if you could make them fly through windows and drop stink bombs. I can think of many times this would have been cool to have when I was 15.
From the picture, it doesn't appear that the drone could have much, if any, payload. But if it does (or a later, slightly larger generation could), does anyone doubt that Israel hasn't already thought using these to carry tear gas or another irritant in order to clear buildings?
I'm not sure that I agree with the "so many years after his lifetime" part of our current law.
The reason for the "so many years after his lifetime" part of the law is to provide a monetary incentive to old people (or people who otherwise have reason to believe they are near death) to write creative works. Assume you are 80 years old, in poor health, and trying to decide to make that last, great effort to write a last novel... and an attorney advises you that as soon as you die your work will pass into the public domain and that your spouse, children, etc. will not benefit economically from your work.
There are many ways Congress could change the copyright law back to a conditional system and still remain in compliance with the Berne Convention. One way would be to re-impose formalities for all works of U.S. authors -- these are most works published in the U.S., and Berne doesn't prohibit signatory nations from imposing formalities on their own authors. Another would be to pass the Public Domain Enhancement Act, which would impose a tiny renewal fee designed to move unused copyrighted work into the public domain. The PDEA also wouldn't violate Berne, because it would apply only to works of U.S. authors.
GPL has the copyright notice, so it'll still get protection.
This isn't correct. According to item #2 of the FAQ, if this lawsuit is succesful, mere "notice" would be insufficient, and instead we would be back to:
"a conditional copyright system that limited copyright protection to those who took affirmative steps to claim it -- by, for example,
registering their copyright, marking copies of their work with copyright notice, and renewing their copyright after a relatively short initial period of protection."
Slashdot Mirror
American football is a capitalist game characterized by hierarchy, specialization of labor, a well-defined battle-line, and the "bomb."
Soccer is a Marxest game characterized by its lack of hierarchy, lack of specialization of labor (ok, omitting the goalie
Sorry about that. I caught the mistake only after I posted.
Forgive my ignorance, but I still don't understand.
As I understand it, once you have completed your steps 1 through 3 above, in one directory you have everything (including *all* libraries) you need to run Edit without further downloads. Correct?
Assume you do the same thing for the program NewEdit, with the identical result.
Now, in what way do Edit and NewEdit "share" anything, including any libraries? Doesn't the Edit directory have everything Edit needs to run, including all libraries? Doesn't the NewEdit directory have everything NewEdit needs to run, including all libraries? If so, what do they "share?"
Sorry to follow-up on my own post. Caught a link error. I stated:
That should instead read:
I'm afraid I don't understand. What does is mean to "depend on other packages" if and when everything (including the so-called shared or dependent package) is in the single directory for the application?
Does it mean that if I have two programs that "share" the same library that the library files will be duplicated in each of the two program directories? If so, how are the "shared?"
In addition to the sensitivity problem, I wonder if this could be an experiment whose time has passed.
In 1995, the GP-B was described as the "only experiment ever devised to test [the existence of frame-dragging]."
However, in 1997 NASA announced that it had successfully tested frame dragging. See also here.
And in other Gravity Probe B News.
Talk about encouraging waste.... The article states:
What happened to the idea that we wanted programmers and users to share libraries and code? To solve rather than avoid dependancy problems?
Doesn't this encourage a move back to the DOS days where applications didn't share code or libraries, and were completely independent of each other?
Then again, given how cheap disk space is, and how frustrating dependency problems are, maybe this isn't such a bad idea.
This is standard operating procedure in intellectual property litigation -- even if you have a good claim. First harvest the low hanging fruit. Build your war chest by first feasting on adversaries who won't put up a fight. Avoid the risk that you may not collect from weak players becaue you attacked a strong adversary too early, and received an adverse precedent (i.e., published) decision that the weaker players can benefit from and couldn't otherwise have obtained.
On the other hand, it is also the perfect strategy if you have a weak claim. Attack only weak adversaries who can't afford to defend themselves, or for whom the cost of defense would be greater the the cost of capitulation. There are companies who survive and prosper by asserting weak (cough) intellectual property claims and offer to settle for amounts less than their adversaries' cost of litigation. The key is to make sure that the claim is not so baseless that you expose yourself sanctions or a subsequent claim for malicious institution of a civil action.
Then again, SCO has already violated these rules by attacking IBM far too early in the game. Go figure.
Excellent job promoting www.jellybelly.com! You, Sir, deserve both a pay raise and a promotion!
Steal This Book? No, steal this business!
And programmers wonder why they're unemployed.
Listen, this is great. I mean, I like receiving a gift as much as the next guy, but...
I always wonder what people are thinking when they start a business like this and then immediately open source the code and make it publicly available so that anyone and everyone can immediately compete.
Oh, wait. They're going to make their money on support. Or is it custom applications?
And just how do you explain this to the VC? How do you word this on the prospectus?
Isn't your belief that "cross pollination _will_ happen... no matter how hard you try" an argument for adopting legislation to prohibit the practice in the short run and let some other country make the intial mistakes, ruin their rice paddies and poison their population?
Isn't your belief the best possible argument for the U.S. not being an early adopter?
Agreed. This looks like the classic case for legislation and regulation -- i.e., where the market will not otherwise force an actor to internatlize the costs of various risks and externalities.
I can see it now. Oh, our companay caused enviromental damage to the tune of $1 trillion, and our company is only worth $100 billion? Guess we'll have to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and pay everyone 10 cents on the dollar. Or better yet, call for a government bail-out.
This reminds me of an issue presented in a number of books I've read recently, including Isaac Newton and Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. The issue concerns the date of discovery or invention, as opposed to the date of publication. As I recall, Newton kept many of his discoveries and theories secret for years -- perhaps to his later regret when he got into the priority dispute with Leibniz. Joao Magueijo appeared to be very concerned with establishing priority.
It may not be a matter of publish or perish. More a matter of publish or be forgotten.
I wonder, do we see a pattern here? Could this be why Mandrake wound up in "Chapter 11-like protection status?" Could it be an indication that it might again wind up in said status?
It appears that Mandrake is a great distro for newbies (I know, I started with it myself) who then do not stick around (yep, me again). The result is a relatively high cost of sales, and a relatively small continuing income stream. Can a distro survive if it is everybody's first distro, and nobody's second?
Except when choices aren't great.
This may create more support for the effort to revive the Bricker Amendment (see also here). Introduced into the Senate in February, 1952, as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:
Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
in the United States only through legislation which would be valid
in the absence of treaty.
and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization.
All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed
on treaties by this article.
by appropriate legislation.
Not quite. This is not like downloading a single song, and then trying to get your money back.
How many servers does the license cover? How many versions of Linux does it allegedly cover? How long does it last?
If Marsh really wants to demonstrate that he realizes that he made a mistake, and that he has switched sides, all he has to do is to publicly announce that he has deployed Linux in a manner not covered by the license.
From the picture, it doesn't appear that the drone could have much, if any, payload. But if it does (or a later, slightly larger generation could), does anyone doubt that Israel hasn't already thought using these to carry tear gas or another irritant in order to clear buildings?
Think of the Predator.
A copy of the decision can be found at Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1238.html
Now there is a recipe for high ratings.
The reason for the "so many years after his lifetime" part of the law is to provide a monetary incentive to old people (or people who otherwise have reason to believe they are near death) to write creative works. Assume you are 80 years old, in poor health, and trying to decide to make that last, great effort to write a last novel... and an attorney advises you that as soon as you die your work will pass into the public domain and that your spouse, children, etc. will not benefit economically from your work.
This issue is addressed in item 13 of the FAQ:
FAQ
This isn't correct. According to item #2 of the FAQ, if this lawsuit is succesful, mere "notice" would be insufficient, and instead we would be back to:
FAQ (emphasis added)