And their webpage has more information and less fluff. The P3 is just having a holiday an Germany at the moment and stopping in at a trade show while it's there. It's about time they started on the P4 I reckon, I wanna see the thing _run_. Or perhaps hop. Yeah, hopping would probably look funnier......
Yes, according to the Japanese site which contains more info and less fluff the P3 was completed in September 1997. It just seems to be going to Germany for a short holiday in the near future.
However the curious thing is that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th....30th (I got bored there) are all my pages description on various Yahoo or Open Directory listings.
I don't know how meta-moderation is done now, but I'd have thought meta-moderation if done properly, should be self moderating. If it were done so that a minimum of 3-5 people had to meta-moderate any given piece of moderation before it took effect and majority ruled then most of the rogue meta-moderation would be minimised.
I guess this really is a hard problem to really solve. The above solution would start to fail as the rogues register multiple accounts to get in more meta-moderation attempts.
I think the only way to really stop it is to have some eminently trustworthy people at the top, so that meta-moderation, rather than having a direct impact simply refers them to a higher power to check....Hmmm....
I see a lot of (justified) bitching on Slashdot about people who just don't get it but hardly any support for the people who do get it.
So I'd like to throw a link out to the people at emusic who do get it. Music by well known artists, at a reasonable price, in the lovely non-proprietary mp3 format. These guys rock and deserve our support. Come on Slashdotters, put your money where your mouth is!
I've been wondering where that moderation choice is?
I guess that it'd be ripe for abuse with people marking opinion as misinformative, but hopefully moderation/metamoderation guidelines could sort that out.
It's closer to ten! Seriously though, installing an NT box can take ages, install the OS, then an option pack, then a service pack, then something else, then the service pack again, etc, etc....
You never know your luck, perhaps someone will mark that up as insightful and you'll get your karma back;)
Re:What difference does pure methane make?
on
NASA Snake-Bots
·
· Score: 2
I don't think it's supposed to burn anything. The passing gas is supposed to turn the turbine and therefore generate electricity which the snake could then use to move. I don't know what sort of flow rate you get in these pipes, but if it is high enough this should be feasable.
What difference does pure methane make?
on
NASA Snake-Bots
·
· Score: 2
Do you really need me to explain why the GPL prohibits people from downloading code, slapping it into their own proprietary code base and selling it to others as their own work?
No, but I'd like to know what you think it has to do with this discussion.
The bit I 'selectively' quoted was chosen for two reasons: I thought people would be familiar with that section. It shows that the GPL talks in terms of rights.
If the software was released under GPL and the GPL extends rights to everyone who downloads it, the programmers can't legitimatly claim to be the "sole proprietors of all rights" in their contract with Mattel. That's all.
How does that imply ownership rights alone? In then language of the gpl:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
It specifically talks of the granting of rights from the code holder to the code reciever.
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your
rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Perhaps the GPL will be tested in this case, not in the legality of posessing/distributing the software, but in the legality of the contract these guys signed.
So cphack uses the GPL, and the GPL permits free distribution. I suppose that the Slashdot readers will know assume that this gives cphack users free reign to copy and use this illegal program.
Bzzzt. Wrong.
When was the software ruled illegal? I was under the impression that Mattel gained the settlement which gave them ownership of the software in part to avoid going to the trouble of getting such a ruling. We aren't going to get a GPL testcase here but we may end up with one on reverse engineering instead.
It seems that signing that settlement may have been a bad idea on behalf of the hackers. If they did indeed sign contracts stating that they were the 'sole proprietors' of all rights to the software then they have clearly done so falsely, as they extended rights to every single person that downloaded it.
What does this mean for them? Will they be subject to (I imagine rather hideous) penalty clauses in the contract. Or will they be back in front of the judge with the old charges plus whatever breaches of contract law they have made?
The fact that the ACLU lawyers were surprised in yesterdays story is a bad sign, surely if the lawyers had seen the settlements they wouldn't have let these guys sign an (IM undeducated O) obviously false statement.
Slashdot Mirror
And their webpage has more information and less fluff. The P3 is just having a holiday an Germany at the moment and stopping in at a trade show while it's there. It's about time they started on the P4 I reckon, I wanna see the thing _run_. Or perhaps hop. Yeah, hopping would probably look funnier......
Yes, according to the Japanese site which contains more info and less fluff the P3 was completed in September 1997. It just seems to be going to Germany for a short holiday in the near future.
Well, if you search for chunder pictures then my page is 4th
....30th (I got bored there) are all my pages description on various Yahoo or Open Directory listings.
However the curious thing is that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th
It looks like I have the market cornered!
Praise be to the Lord, I've been trying to find the URL for Slashdot everywhere!
I don't know how meta-moderation is done now, but I'd have thought meta-moderation if done properly, should be self moderating. If it were done so that a minimum of 3-5 people had to meta-moderate any given piece of moderation before it took effect and majority ruled then most of the rogue meta-moderation would be minimised.
I guess this really is a hard problem to really solve. The above solution would start to fail as the rogues register multiple accounts to get in more meta-moderation attempts.
I think the only way to really stop it is to have some eminently trustworthy people at the top, so that meta-moderation, rather than having a direct impact simply refers them to a higher power to check....Hmmm....
I see a lot of (justified) bitching on Slashdot about people who just don't get it but hardly any support for the people who do get it.
So I'd like to throw a link out to the people at emusic who do get it. Music by well known artists, at a reasonable price, in the lovely non-proprietary mp3 format. These guys rock and deserve our support. Come on Slashdotters, put your money where your mouth is!
Surely it's English....talk about cultural insensitivity....
Well, you seem to have mistyped 'to' for 'at', so I guess anything possible eh!
English is my first language, but sometimes the fingers move faster than the brain...
If you really feel the need to poke fun of someone, at least make sure it's the right person.
I've been wondering where that moderation choice is?
I guess that it'd be ripe for abuse with people marking opinion as misinformative, but hopefully moderation/metamoderation guidelines could sort that out.
It's closer to ten! Seriously though, installing an NT box can take ages, install the OS, then an option pack, then a service pack, then something else, then the service pack again, etc, etc....
I don't think it's supposed to burn anything.
The passing gas is supposed to turn the turbine and therefore generate electricity which the snake could then use to move. I don't know what sort of flow rate you get in these pipes, but if it is high enough this should be feasable.
I'd really like to know...
I think that the key difference is that Microsoft forced the bundling, you have the choice of IE and Windows or neither.
One word which does seem to apply within and across Linux distributions is 'choice'.
You're correct, all that food would be expensive. It'd be much cheaper to run monkeys simulators on a big beowolf cluster.
I can't believe I just said that.
talking about something. It's still merely opinion until it's gone through a court and come out of the other end.
Are you guys serious or subtle trolls?
In fact I hope everyone emails the Executive Director of University Relations.
Perhaps we could ask if we can link to the page about the "Linux Demo Day" they are having on April 5th.
The bit I 'selectively' quoted was chosen for two reasons:
I thought people would be familiar with that section.
It shows that the GPL talks in terms of rights.
If the software was released under GPL and the GPL extends rights to everyone who downloads it, the programmers can't legitimatly claim to be the "sole proprietors of all rights" in their contract with Mattel. That's all.
Perhaps the GPL will be tested in this case, not in the legality of posessing/distributing the software, but in the legality of the contract these guys signed.
I was under the impression that Mattel gained the settlement which gave them ownership of the software in part to avoid going to the trouble of getting such a ruling. We aren't going to get a GPL testcase here but we may end up with one on reverse engineering instead.
It seems that signing that settlement may have been a bad idea on behalf of the hackers.
If they did indeed sign contracts stating that they were the 'sole proprietors' of all rights to the software then they have clearly done so falsely, as they extended rights to every single person that downloaded it.
What does this mean for them? Will they be subject to (I imagine rather hideous) penalty clauses in the contract. Or will they be back in front of the judge with the old charges plus whatever breaches of contract law they have made?
The fact that the ACLU lawyers were surprised in yesterdays story is a bad sign, surely if the lawyers had seen the settlements they wouldn't have let these guys sign an (IM undeducated O) obviously false statement.