Hey, self regulation is fine until you're one of those people caught in the cross fire, right?
I'm not advocating government interference, even though I mentioned government.
My thought was that there is a bigger issue that the net creates an international cross political, cross ethnicity, cross religion population that is not bound by the traditional religious, geographic, cultural, or political boundaries, except that all those bodies must somehow interact on the net.
It can also be called vigilanteism, guerilla warfare, or vandalism, if you treat the pipes to macromedia as a street that has been destroyed...
Subjective name calling and semantics aside, this might revolve around the fact that there is no kind of 'rules of engagement' among netizens. In real life there are governments, societies, and political bodies to define right behavior and civic mindedness and stuff. Wars are fought over this.
So Macromedia, and others, are accused/defined as spammers, and are treated as such.
Spin, sensationalism, defamy, etc, spring up to attack, defend, rationalize, explain the event.
What can we do to address the bigger issues? What can we do to define and understand what these issues may be?
It's very vague for me; parts privacy, security, trust, parts honesty, integrity, and cooperation. There is probably more I'm not defining as well. All netizens need to be involved. Governments, net bodies, and corporations are also strongly tied into this, as well.
That is actually an achievement. As far as I can tell, the costs of personnel dwarf the costs of hardware, where an engineer costs upwards of $800 a day, and engineers sitting idle costs as much as engineers busy doing work, so the cost deltas of the Macs is offset by the speed and effectiveness of setting up and maintaining the array.
In the long run, it's not the fixed, sunk costs that a PC represents that is meaningful, it's the daily ongoing performance, productivity, and maintanence costs that mean anything, especially in a place that runs plasma tokamaks at $125k a day...
How about time?
Say it takes N people 1 day to set up the Appleseed vs the same N people 1 week to set up the Linux array?
What's 7 days worth of time? $300*N a day? $4k*N a day? While price is a legitamate concern, so is time to ramp and operating costs, and from what I've seen, the costs of an engineer and of support staff dwarf the costs of a PC; what's $800 when your engineer makes that much in a day? So 3 days where the array is not spent computing is 3 days where you're paying for no work done.
Um, the problem is that you don't know before hand which problems will be solved by which research...
Sure we can specifically target things like AI for ocean probes, but what's from stopping someone just like you saying 'That's sooo expensive, why not just do AI for automatic vacuum cleaners instead?'
The difference being that for Hoover or Eureka, good enough is what sells, and AI research will stop when the vacuums figure out how to navigate, plug themselves into an outlet, and not get destroyed by running into the street. AI research for Mars, or even the ocean, will hopefully design for robustness, learning capability, flexibility, and reliability.
How do we know that traveling to Mars doesn't unlock some sort of cancer cure as a side effect of making humans more fit in space? How do we know we won't cure baldness or the common cold by designing anti-radiation treatments? How do we know that we won't find the secret to room temperature superconducting electronics in the design of a lightweight yet sturdy heat transfer support structure (since there is no convection or radiative heat loss, you have to use other means)?
There is applied research, where you know the problem and try to find an answer, and there is pure research, where you don't know the problem, and thus finding an answer is as much about finding the problem as anything else. Going into space offers a lot of pure research problems; materials sciences, medicine, genetics, biology, physics, mechanical engineering, electronics, etc. How do we know how they all fit? If we did, we would already know how to solve problems and questions; we don't, so the public has to be satisfied with the fact that such lofty, grand, and otherwise pointless expeditions do have many positive secondary effects.
Traveling to Mars may unlock the secrets of buckyball transistors, or new lubricants that use buckyballs, or whatever. We don't know, yet.
A fingerprint such that different papers from the same author show the same 'fingerprint', as well as showing that a paper plagarized to some extent has a similar fingerprint; the size of the match indicates the size of the plagarism.
Heh, if they're re-wording the copied work to break down the search strings, then it means they must be rewriting significant stretches of the papers...
Which means that some thought had to go in.
Now, if the prof could somehow develop a 'fingerprint' technology...:)
They are talking about aluminim oxide powered turboprops traveling at about 200 meters per second, which is about ~400 miles per hour.
They also have been able to launch projectiles at about 1.5kmps, which is over 7 times faster, or about 3200 miles per hour, much much faster than the speed of sound under water or above water.
Meaning that the shock waves it gives off cannot be deteced by sonar!
The speed of sound is determined by the medium in which you are measuring sound, so that in the air at sea level it can be ~700mph, but underwater it is considerably slower, I think. Regardless, if you read the article, they already have projectiles that travel faster than the speed of sound, traveling at 1.5km/s
So the bullet travels faster than the sound waves it produces, which means that a moving sub cannot 'hear' the bullet with passive sonar, and unless it uses active radar, cannot do a radar scan either (I think active radar can be detected by other subs...)
And besides the main point, the Soviet Squall has already been recorded/suspected to be capable of reaching speeds of 230miles per hour!
Actually, I think the underlying principles may have merit.
You don't need to dispell the bubble at 1000 yards. You need to destabilize the bubble enough for tail slap to kick in, and you only need it far enough that the explosive warhead, if it detonates, doesn't damage the sub. Even 10 yards may be enough to soak up the explosion.
The same with the ablative armor. It doesn't need to even touch the warhead, because the destroying the bubble would be worse than tail slap; a wall of water rushing at the warhead at 200mph will do all the work you need.
A 5000lb torpedo would impact the water no different than if it were hitting a concrete barrier. The water would soak most of the impact. However, what I don't know is what range is necessary for the water to do all the work for the military.
Super cavitating weapons would travel faster than the speed of sound, so it cannot be detected sonically.
The gas/water interface may be very radar noisy, so that might still work, I don't know.
A sonic attack, akin to a laser, should be able to collapse or deflect super cavitating weapons.
Focus the water waves/sound waves into a beam like weapon in the path of the super cavitating weapon, feed more energy into the bubble than it was designed to handle, and destabilize the cavitating devices capacity to create a stable bubble, forcing tail slap and mis-guides.
Or something as simple as 'ablative' armor, in which surface mounted explosives destroy the bubble and using the shockwave/water as a weapon against super-cavitating devices.
Just like jet, prop, and other air-based propulsion technologies are only used to kill people?
Militaries are loss leaders, like racing teams for car manufacturers, but the technology is something that can be applied to anything; it takes a genius to figure it out, and a genius to apply it, but once we do, the 'capitalist' system rewards them for the efficiencies they exploit.
What I'm wondering is why shareholders with a clue aren't sueing the respective companies for 'fraudulent' behavior, considering copy protection is just a scam!
Like, are they so afraid of P2P technology, that movie sharing and such, will rise that watermarking is worth the effort?
It almost seems like the corporations involved are mixing their signals!
Are they trying to prevent pirate/bootlegs? Why would watermarking prevent that?
Are they trying to prevent people from copying content they legitamately own? Why would watermarking prevent that?
As long as the contract is well defined and specified about what the terms are, what's billable, what's required, what's requested, and what's supported, there should be no issue.
How much money is being exchanged? What services will be provided? What resources?
That is independent on whether the product is Open Source or not, the only difference is in the implementation in that the client has full access to the source, as it were.
Alright, let's look at your example...
CoA designs sales tracking software X.
CoB, a purchaser of said software X, has added a feature to it, so it's now X.1
CoC and CoD want said feature, and you can provide it in future versions thanks to CoB.
It's not fair to say CoA never spent a dime to develop, because without the initial investments and design of X, there would not be X.1
Are you, CoB, gonna be miffed that someone else sold X.1? Well, how about the fact that because X is Open Source, you didn't *have* to pay for X in the first place? It cost you nothing to use it, so why would you be bothered that someone else is using your software, X.1?
Let's say you purchase product X, and modify the source to become X.1; The value of the product to you is in how you use it to satisfy your need to do sales tracking. If X.1 does that for you, all your needs have been met. Sales of X.1 to other companies through CoA is irrelevant because that was written into the contract and also because CoA spent the money you paid them to give you X, X.1.1, and X.2, saving you a further 400 hours. Does it matter to you that X.1.1 was created at CoC, giving you features you didn't pay for, but get for free because you have the source? And because X and X.1 and X.1.1 was so beneficial to you, you upgrade to X.2 for the support and service contracts.
What motivation would you have to make significant modifications to a program? How about knowing that you need said modifications to get your job done? Why does it matter that the vendor sells the mod in a future release? If that is an issue, create a contract in which features and enhancements to product X because of CoB give you a kickback; otherwise, live with the fact that without X you would have to roll your own, and instead of spending 200 hours of development, you would have to spend 1200 hours of development.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask for or look for profit sharing, as it was your work. The point is that you still *save* money by using X over rolling your own, and you still make more money using X.1 than by using X, and that there is a profit increase by licensing the codebase instead of rolling your own.
If the contract that CoA demands is no kickbacks, you can choose not to do business with them; on the other hand, since the source is free, by doing business with CoA, you get access to all the development on X that CoC, CoD, and CoA invest into the code, saving you previous development and resources.
It's the choice of whether the model saves you more money, or whether rolling your own does. It's a rational choice.
So I release an Open Source product, say some sort of load balancing software, and I sell network devices that use this product.
Company B who buys my products and rebrands them to create their own variation of network devices is free to, and does.
Company C buys my products in order to use said network devices.
Both offer fixes and patches to my software, being Open Source, and both gain the benefits of using my software and products. What's to stop us from taking the software of CoB and creating a new network device?
Morals, I guess. On the other hand, it would make sense that CoB's mods are device specific, and essentially forked off from my branch. If I were to re-release them myself, I'd need to redevelop the hardware that CoB uses.
If there is no value in modifying a GPLed program, you wouldn't modify it.
If there is some marginal value, then it's worth modifying.
This is very similar to the current situation between Handspring and Palm, but instead of GPLed software we have licensed software. On the other hand, you can ask the question "Why should I release my software's source if company B can take it, make improvements, and sell better devices?
The added benefit is almost raw, unadultered competition. Whatever benefit CoB can add is the profit you can make. Whatever benefit I can add is the profit I can make. If my GPLed software didn't exist, CoB would be forced to reinvent the wheel. If CoB can release a product with my software that I cannot win against CoB, then, well, shame on me!
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, self regulation is fine until you're one of those people caught in the cross fire, right?
I'm not advocating government interference, even though I mentioned government.
My thought was that there is a bigger issue that the net creates an international cross political, cross ethnicity, cross religion population that is not bound by the traditional religious, geographic, cultural, or political boundaries, except that all those bodies must somehow interact on the net.
Geek dating!
I have one too! It's a Mac!
Geek dating!
LCD pros:
Size
Power requirements
Digital clarity
CRT pros:
Price
LCD cons:
Viewing angle limitations
CRT cons:
Heat generation
Refresh rate limitations
Analog degradation
Geek dating!
Don't forget other cool toys: DVD-R, dual processors, and Unix on the desktop!
Geek dating!
Sorry, I'm melodramatic. What McCartyite tactics, and what is Godwin's Law?
Geek dating!
From a certain spin, it sounds like terrorism.
It can also be called vigilanteism, guerilla warfare, or vandalism, if you treat the pipes to macromedia as a street that has been destroyed...
Subjective name calling and semantics aside, this might revolve around the fact that there is no kind of 'rules of engagement' among netizens. In real life there are governments, societies, and political bodies to define right behavior and civic mindedness and stuff. Wars are fought over this.
So Macromedia, and others, are accused/defined as spammers, and are treated as such.
Spin, sensationalism, defamy, etc, spring up to attack, defend, rationalize, explain the event.
What can we do to address the bigger issues? What can we do to define and understand what these issues may be?
It's very vague for me; parts privacy, security, trust, parts honesty, integrity, and cooperation. There is probably more I'm not defining as well. All netizens need to be involved. Governments, net bodies, and corporations are also strongly tied into this, as well.
Geek dating!
Not per platter, but per ^2cm.
Geek dating!
When IBM released their 25Gb per platter drives.
Geek dating!
Well, as the other replies said:
It took them considerably less than a day.
That is actually an achievement. As far as I can tell, the costs of personnel dwarf the costs of hardware, where an engineer costs upwards of $800 a day, and engineers sitting idle costs as much as engineers busy doing work, so the cost deltas of the Macs is offset by the speed and effectiveness of setting up and maintaining the array.
In the long run, it's not the fixed, sunk costs that a PC represents that is meaningful, it's the daily ongoing performance, productivity, and maintanence costs that mean anything, especially in a place that runs plasma tokamaks at $125k a day...
Geek dating!
How about time?
Say it takes N people 1 day to set up the Appleseed vs the same N people 1 week to set up the Linux array?
What's 7 days worth of time? $300*N a day? $4k*N a day? While price is a legitamate concern, so is time to ramp and operating costs, and from what I've seen, the costs of an engineer and of support staff dwarf the costs of a PC; what's $800 when your engineer makes that much in a day? So 3 days where the array is not spent computing is 3 days where you're paying for no work done.
Geek dating!
Um, the problem is that you don't know before hand which problems will be solved by which research...
Sure we can specifically target things like AI for ocean probes, but what's from stopping someone just like you saying 'That's sooo expensive, why not just do AI for automatic vacuum cleaners instead?'
The difference being that for Hoover or Eureka, good enough is what sells, and AI research will stop when the vacuums figure out how to navigate, plug themselves into an outlet, and not get destroyed by running into the street. AI research for Mars, or even the ocean, will hopefully design for robustness, learning capability, flexibility, and reliability.
How do we know that traveling to Mars doesn't unlock some sort of cancer cure as a side effect of making humans more fit in space? How do we know we won't cure baldness or the common cold by designing anti-radiation treatments? How do we know that we won't find the secret to room temperature superconducting electronics in the design of a lightweight yet sturdy heat transfer support structure (since there is no convection or radiative heat loss, you have to use other means)?
There is applied research, where you know the problem and try to find an answer, and there is pure research, where you don't know the problem, and thus finding an answer is as much about finding the problem as anything else. Going into space offers a lot of pure research problems; materials sciences, medicine, genetics, biology, physics, mechanical engineering, electronics, etc. How do we know how they all fit? If we did, we would already know how to solve problems and questions; we don't, so the public has to be satisfied with the fact that such lofty, grand, and otherwise pointless expeditions do have many positive secondary effects.
Traveling to Mars may unlock the secrets of buckyball transistors, or new lubricants that use buckyballs, or whatever. We don't know, yet.
Geek dating!
Uh, that's why the quotes.
A fingerprint such that different papers from the same author show the same 'fingerprint', as well as showing that a paper plagarized to some extent has a similar fingerprint; the size of the match indicates the size of the plagarism.
Geek dating!
Heh, if they're re-wording the copied work to break down the search strings, then it means they must be rewriting significant stretches of the papers...
:)
Which means that some thought had to go in.
Now, if the prof could somehow develop a 'fingerprint' technology...
Geek dating!
I dunno...
Isn't conventional cryptography just 'hiding' a message 'inside' a string of random bits?
Apply the key, and out pops the message?
Why isn't stenography just the symmetric case, where instead of one random and one non random data stream, you have two non random data streams?
Geek dating!
Re-read my post and re-read the article, they already have projectiles that travel at 1.5kmps which breaks the sound barrier.
Geek dating!
Read the article;
They are talking about aluminim oxide powered turboprops traveling at about 200 meters per second, which is about ~400 miles per hour.
They also have been able to launch projectiles at about 1.5kmps, which is over 7 times faster, or about 3200 miles per hour, much much faster than the speed of sound under water or above water.
Meaning that the shock waves it gives off cannot be deteced by sonar!
Geek dating!
The speed of sound is determined by the medium in which you are measuring sound, so that in the air at sea level it can be ~700mph, but underwater it is considerably slower, I think. Regardless, if you read the article, they already have projectiles that travel faster than the speed of sound, traveling at 1.5km/s
So the bullet travels faster than the sound waves it produces, which means that a moving sub cannot 'hear' the bullet with passive sonar, and unless it uses active radar, cannot do a radar scan either (I think active radar can be detected by other subs...)
And besides the main point, the Soviet Squall has already been recorded/suspected to be capable of reaching speeds of 230miles per hour!
Geek dating!
Actually, I think the underlying principles may have merit.
You don't need to dispell the bubble at 1000 yards. You need to destabilize the bubble enough for tail slap to kick in, and you only need it far enough that the explosive warhead, if it detonates, doesn't damage the sub. Even 10 yards may be enough to soak up the explosion.
The same with the ablative armor. It doesn't need to even touch the warhead, because the destroying the bubble would be worse than tail slap; a wall of water rushing at the warhead at 200mph will do all the work you need.
A 5000lb torpedo would impact the water no different than if it were hitting a concrete barrier. The water would soak most of the impact. However, what I don't know is what range is necessary for the water to do all the work for the military.
Geek dating!
Here, let's spark one.
Super cavitating weapons would travel faster than the speed of sound, so it cannot be detected sonically.
The gas/water interface may be very radar noisy, so that might still work, I don't know.
A sonic attack, akin to a laser, should be able to collapse or deflect super cavitating weapons.
Focus the water waves/sound waves into a beam like weapon in the path of the super cavitating weapon, feed more energy into the bubble than it was designed to handle, and destabilize the cavitating devices capacity to create a stable bubble, forcing tail slap and mis-guides.
Or something as simple as 'ablative' armor, in which surface mounted explosives destroy the bubble and using the shockwave/water as a weapon against super-cavitating devices.
Geek dating!
Just like jet, prop, and other air-based propulsion technologies are only used to kill people?
Militaries are loss leaders, like racing teams for car manufacturers, but the technology is something that can be applied to anything; it takes a genius to figure it out, and a genius to apply it, but once we do, the 'capitalist' system rewards them for the efficiencies they exploit.
Geek dating!
Heck, not only does Imohotep do Darth Vader, he does a pretty mean Alien Xenomorph too :)
Then there are the Matrix/Jackie Chan/CTHD styled fight scenes.
It could almost be considered a parody of horror and adventure movies. Ha, they invented the hot air balloon in this movie!
Geek dating!
What I'm wondering is why shareholders with a clue aren't sueing the respective companies for 'fraudulent' behavior, considering copy protection is just a scam!
Like, are they so afraid of P2P technology, that movie sharing and such, will rise that watermarking is worth the effort?
It almost seems like the corporations involved are mixing their signals!
Are they trying to prevent pirate/bootlegs? Why would watermarking prevent that?
Are they trying to prevent people from copying content they legitamately own? Why would watermarking prevent that?
This is ludicrous!
Geek dating!
I'm not sure I get your point;
As long as the contract is well defined and specified about what the terms are, what's billable, what's required, what's requested, and what's supported, there should be no issue.
How much money is being exchanged? What services will be provided? What resources?
That is independent on whether the product is Open Source or not, the only difference is in the implementation in that the client has full access to the source, as it were.
Geek dating!
Alright, let's look at your example...
CoA designs sales tracking software X.
CoB, a purchaser of said software X, has added a feature to it, so it's now X.1
CoC and CoD want said feature, and you can provide it in future versions thanks to CoB.
It's not fair to say CoA never spent a dime to develop, because without the initial investments and design of X, there would not be X.1
Are you, CoB, gonna be miffed that someone else sold X.1? Well, how about the fact that because X is Open Source, you didn't *have* to pay for X in the first place? It cost you nothing to use it, so why would you be bothered that someone else is using your software, X.1?
Let's say you purchase product X, and modify the source to become X.1; The value of the product to you is in how you use it to satisfy your need to do sales tracking. If X.1 does that for you, all your needs have been met. Sales of X.1 to other companies through CoA is irrelevant because that was written into the contract and also because CoA spent the money you paid them to give you X, X.1.1, and X.2, saving you a further 400 hours. Does it matter to you that X.1.1 was created at CoC, giving you features you didn't pay for, but get for free because you have the source? And because X and X.1 and X.1.1 was so beneficial to you, you upgrade to X.2 for the support and service contracts.
What motivation would you have to make significant modifications to a program? How about knowing that you need said modifications to get your job done? Why does it matter that the vendor sells the mod in a future release? If that is an issue, create a contract in which features and enhancements to product X because of CoB give you a kickback; otherwise, live with the fact that without X you would have to roll your own, and instead of spending 200 hours of development, you would have to spend 1200 hours of development.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask for or look for profit sharing, as it was your work. The point is that you still *save* money by using X over rolling your own, and you still make more money using X.1 than by using X, and that there is a profit increase by licensing the codebase instead of rolling your own.
If the contract that CoA demands is no kickbacks, you can choose not to do business with them; on the other hand, since the source is free, by doing business with CoA, you get access to all the development on X that CoC, CoD, and CoA invest into the code, saving you previous development and resources.
It's the choice of whether the model saves you more money, or whether rolling your own does. It's a rational choice.
Geek dating!
So I release an Open Source product, say some sort of load balancing software, and I sell network devices that use this product.
Company B who buys my products and rebrands them to create their own variation of network devices is free to, and does.
Company C buys my products in order to use said network devices.
Both offer fixes and patches to my software, being Open Source, and both gain the benefits of using my software and products. What's to stop us from taking the software of CoB and creating a new network device?
Morals, I guess. On the other hand, it would make sense that CoB's mods are device specific, and essentially forked off from my branch. If I were to re-release them myself, I'd need to redevelop the hardware that CoB uses.
If there is no value in modifying a GPLed program, you wouldn't modify it.
If there is some marginal value, then it's worth modifying.
This is very similar to the current situation between Handspring and Palm, but instead of GPLed software we have licensed software. On the other hand, you can ask the question "Why should I release my software's source if company B can take it, make improvements, and sell better devices?
The added benefit is almost raw, unadultered competition. Whatever benefit CoB can add is the profit you can make. Whatever benefit I can add is the profit I can make. If my GPLed software didn't exist, CoB would be forced to reinvent the wheel. If CoB can release a product with my software that I cannot win against CoB, then, well, shame on me!
Geek dating!