> If it's already in the kernal, it's hardly secret. Where is it?
I thought they said it wasn't in the kernel.
That was last month. They've been all over the map since then, with statements ranging from "the kernel.org kernel is clear, but SuSE and Red Hat are not" to "the violations are in the kernel.org kernel *and* in the distros" to "we haven't looked at the kernel.org kernel yet."
Re:Dyson didnt invent this , Derek Phillips did !
on
Water Flows Uphill
·
· Score: 1
In this case, Dyson's contribution was looking at Escher's drawing, saying, "I want one of those," and telling Derek Phillips to figure out how to build it.
No, no, it actually means the opposite -- keep a tight lid on the development process so that *our* IP doesn't escape -- not to avoid letting other IP in.
Oh please, tell me another. (Excuse me while I stifle my instinct to laugh out loud.)
And when my two-and-a-half year old son grabs his cousin's car and yells "Mine!" (a term he never used until he was almost two, by which time he had learned plenty of other words)? Is that evidence that appropriation of another's property (e.g., theft, government exercise of eminent domain, colonization of foreign territories, etc.) is also a natural right?
I'd say it's more likely to be evidence that children are born solipsists than that they are born natural rights advocates.
I didn't say anything about whether it was useful or not. Some fictions are more useful and beneficial than others. The assertion of strong property rights is a useful fiction for people who have things and want to do whatever the hell they want with them, others be damned. The denial of property rights is a useful fiction for those who don't have things and want a piece of the action, but aren't as strong as the ones who do own things. The assertion of property rights limited to varying degrees by consensus of the members of a civil society seems a more useful and beneficial fiction than either of the extremes, and you can avoid messy things like arguing whether property rights are "natural" or not. Because if property rights were "natural", no one would be able to steal anything from anyone, now would they?;o)
Well, exactly. Which means it's a bit daft to try and present either of the prior definitions of copyright as objectively (and obviously) true. But for some reason, it's much easier to deconstruct the idea that there are a priori "natural rights" than the idea that they are convenient fictions.
Actually, there may not be a Gnome menu editor in RH 9. Havoc Pennington's been trying to make sure the Gnome code plays nice with the freedesktop.org standards, and last I saw on the phoebe-list, he declared it very broken. There is a brief tutorial on editing the Red Hat 8.0 and Phoebe menus by hand at http://www.bluethingy.com/linux/rh8menu.html
IIRC, Tolkien was known to have been working at various times on his own translation of Beowulf (I believe he may have actually been asked to do so for a publisher), though I doubt anyone knew how far along he ever got, given his propensity for putting things aside or starting from scratch (viz. the *many* versions of the stories in the Silmarillion published in the History of Middle-earth series). He sold off or gave away many of his manuscripts and papers to various libraries and universities at different points in his life, so it's not surprising that something like a near-complete translation would be sitting around undiscovered for so long.
It was a small collection of poems, some of which had appeared previously in other publications, and few of which had any sort of link to Tom Bombadil or even Middle-earth.
Technically, only the first two could be considered novelizations of the radio series. Even then, Adams considerably changed any number of things so that "novelization" falls somewhat short of describing the reality of the situation. Adams talked about the radio series being one thing, the books another, and the tv show yet another. The movie would (will?) be yet another thing. In some ways, the Guide is more like a comedy routine that gets reworked with each retelling than a single story that is simply being retold in different media.
HHGTTG has been in development hell for I don't know how long - at least since the mid-80's, when I saw Adams at UC San Diego (it would have been prior to the publication of So Long and Thanks for All the Fish) where he gave a reading and talked about, amongst other things, LA and dealing with Hollywood types.
Adams was very interested in getting a movie made, and was quite willing to give it to the Hollywood system (probably in part because Hollywood is very much not unlike the universe in his books).
All of the dwarf names in The Hobbit actually come from the Norse Eddas; they were not invented by Tolkien. They were silly rhyming intended for Vikings, not for children.;o)
Jackson has reportedly altered the Anduril plotline in order to extend the "Aragorn's birthright' subplot more evenly through the films. From what I've seen in various rumor reports, Narsil will be reforged in TTT or RoTK, most likely at Arwen's insistence. This plot change would provide a plausible reason for Arwen's character to appear in the second movie if it happens in TTT (some of the brief scenes in the TTT trailer seem to reinforce this). My guess is that it will be delivered to him before the battle of Helm's Deep. A group of Elves from Lorien take part (and sacrifice their lives) in the battle. I would hazard another guess that they're the ones who deliver Anduril to Aragorn, possibly replacing the sons of Elrond and the Rangers who arrive after the battle in the book.
Yeah, I'm sure it was pretty bad back in the bad old days, but there's a hell of a big leap between someone not being able to install their stupid Bonzi Buddies, Comet Cursors and poorly written shareware screensavers that suck up all their resources, and being stuck with a disk-less terminal. But feel free to cry me a river if that's what will really make you happy.
And there's enough half-baked Linux software out there that enterprising secretaries can crash their systems with that your PC liberation theology should be safe.
Your biggest problems will come when everyone and their dog wants to install their personal stuff (screensavers, wallpaper, P2P apps, etc...) on their new Linux machines, then get mad when you tell them it won't work.
For most IS people, I suspect, that's actually a plus.
for a story on Steve Ditko's role. A brief passage:
Lee and Ditko's first Spider-Man story was actually an experiment. In the early 1960s, Marvel had pulled out of a decade-long slump and was flush with the success of its 1961 title "The Fantastic Four." Editor Lee wanted to follow up with more heroes, beginning with a nerdy high school student who gains the proportionate strength of a spider in a freak lab accident. Lee's publisher, Martin Goodman, hated the idea, particularly the insect theme and the fact that the hero was a teenager. Lee compromised by slotting Spider-Man's inaugural tale into the final issue of a canceled fantasy series.
Spider-Man Co-Creators Begin to Disagree
Initially, Lee assigned the art chores to legendary comics artist Jack Kirby, with whom he had co-created the Fantastic Four. Kirby returned with several pages of bombastic heroic renderings Lee didn't think were quite right, so he turned to Ditko. "There was something about the way he drew," Lee says. "It had a realistic style, it wasn't too exaggerated or too over the top."
"Amazing Fantasy" No. 15 hit newsstands in August 1962. When the issue's staggering sales figures came back a few months later, Lee gave the character his own series. "Amazing Spider-Man" debuted in March 1963, and almost immediately became a hit.
Behind the scenes, though, the co-creators began to disagree on the title's direction. After a few dozen issues, Ditko was plotting the book himself and turning the penciled pages over to Lee, who filled in the dialogue. "I didn't know what he'd be bringing me. It was almost like doing a crossword puzzle," Lee says.
By the time Roy Thomas joined the company as assistant editor in 1965, Ditko and Lee were no longer speaking to each other, using intermediaries to communicate. "There wasn't a lot of anger, it was just that they got to arguing so much over the plot lines," Thomas recalls. Then, one day in early 1966, Ditko walked into Marvel's offices on Madison Avenue, delivered a stack of pages, and quit. The only person who knows for sure why Ditko left is Ditko.
MS has been found to have a monopoly in PC Operating Systems. If you have a monopoly in your market, there are certain things you are not allowed to do under federal and state anti-trust laws, either to wilfully gain that monopoly or to maintain it once you get it.
Yes, the DOJ case *DID* focus on the bundling issue, but the determination that MS is a monopoly does not derive from the bundling issue. That was a fact that the court had to determine before the DOJ's charges could be examined. Bundling was simply the charge that the DOJ focused on (there were other counts that were not pursued as vigorously in the public eye but were still relevant in the final decision, moreso in the Appeals Court findings). The determination that MS was a monopoly essentially validated the DOJ's case
The fact that MS has been found to be a monopoly allows its behavior in other areas to be scrutinized more closely to see what *other* actions it has done may *also* have violated antitrust laws.
Go read the law here and see what it really says: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanua l/ch2.h tm
The problem with that attitude is that most publishers won't give a porting house the code until *after* the Windows version is finished. The publisher has its own timetable, and could really care less about when a version they're not making comes out. It's no money out of their pocket when the Linux versions don't sell. In fact, they're making money even when the Linux versions don't sell. And after all, what do you think they would prefer: a bunch of Linux gamers who get tired of waiting for the port and buy the Windows version (money directly in the publishers pocket), while also making money selling the porting rights to some foolhardy porting house that won't sell any copies because everyone already bought the Windows version; or to finance cross-platform development up front and pay to publish a Linux version concurrently with the Windows version, when the return for the Linux version is arguably likely to be a miniscule fraction of the return on the Windows game?
There are some developers who've gotten the cross-platform bug, but they are few and far between, and the experience of porting houses like Loki and Hyperion doesn't seem to show the publishers changing their tune any time in the near future. And it's the publishers who call the shots, not the porting houses.
Slashdot Mirror
> If it's already in the kernal, it's hardly secret. Where is it?
I thought they said it wasn't in the kernel.
That was last month. They've been all over the map since then, with statements ranging from "the kernel.org kernel is clear, but SuSE and Red Hat are not" to "the violations are in the kernel.org kernel *and* in the distros" to "we haven't looked at the kernel.org kernel yet."
In this case, Dyson's contribution was looking at Escher's drawing, saying, "I want one of those," and telling Derek Phillips to figure out how to build it.
No, no, it actually means the opposite -- keep a tight lid on the development process so that *our* IP doesn't escape -- not to avoid letting other IP in.
It's evidence of the idea that property rights are instinctive
No, that's evidence of selfishness. Property "rights" means you respect my ownership of my things and I respect your ownership of your things.
we have to learn what is and what is not ours
Umm. QED.
Oh please, tell me another. (Excuse me while I stifle my instinct to laugh out loud.)
And when my two-and-a-half year old son grabs his cousin's car and yells "Mine!" (a term he never used until he was almost two, by which time he had learned plenty of other words)? Is that evidence that appropriation of another's property (e.g., theft, government exercise of eminent domain, colonization of foreign territories, etc.) is also a natural right?
I'd say it's more likely to be evidence that children are born solipsists than that they are born natural rights advocates.
I didn't say anything about whether it was useful or not. Some fictions are more useful and beneficial than others. The assertion of strong property rights is a useful fiction for people who have things and want to do whatever the hell they want with them, others be damned. The denial of property rights is a useful fiction for those who don't have things and want a piece of the action, but aren't as strong as the ones who do own things. The assertion of property rights limited to varying degrees by consensus of the members of a civil society seems a more useful and beneficial fiction than either of the extremes, and you can avoid messy things like arguing whether property rights are "natural" or not. Because if property rights were "natural", no one would be able to steal anything from anyone, now would they? ;o)
It's inherently unproveable.
Well, exactly. Which means it's a bit daft to try and present either of the prior definitions of copyright as objectively (and obviously) true. But for some reason, it's much easier to deconstruct the idea that there are a priori "natural rights" than the idea that they are convenient fictions.
Copyright is the legal recognition of an author's natural property rights over his creation.
Please prove that such things as "natural property rights" exist, sans tautological reasoning.
And pine is currently listed as "deprecated" - so it won't be there much longer.
Actually, there may not be a Gnome menu editor in RH 9. Havoc Pennington's been trying to make sure the Gnome code plays nice with the freedesktop.org standards, and last I saw on the phoebe-list, he declared it very broken. There is a brief tutorial on editing the Red Hat 8.0 and Phoebe menus by hand at http://www.bluethingy.com/linux/rh8menu.html
IIRC, Tolkien was known to have been working at various times on his own translation of Beowulf (I believe he may have actually been asked to do so for a publisher), though I doubt anyone knew how far along he ever got, given his propensity for putting things aside or starting from scratch (viz. the *many* versions of the stories in the Silmarillion published in the History of Middle-earth series). He sold off or gave away many of his manuscripts and papers to various libraries and universities at different points in his life, so it's not surprising that something like a near-complete translation would be sitting around undiscovered for so long.
It was a small collection of poems, some of which had appeared previously in other publications, and few of which had any sort of link to Tom Bombadil or even Middle-earth.
Technically, only the first two could be considered novelizations of the radio series. Even then, Adams considerably changed any number of things so that "novelization" falls somewhat short of describing the reality of the situation. Adams talked about the radio series being one thing, the books another, and the tv show yet another. The movie would (will?) be yet another thing. In some ways, the Guide is more like a comedy routine that gets reworked with each retelling than a single story that is simply being retold in different media.
RTFA(tm). Adams himself was working on a script.
HHGTTG has been in development hell for I don't know how long - at least since the mid-80's, when I saw Adams at UC San Diego (it would have been prior to the publication of So Long and Thanks for All the Fish) where he gave a reading and talked about, amongst other things, LA and dealing with Hollywood types.
Adams was very interested in getting a movie made, and was quite willing to give it to the Hollywood system (probably in part because Hollywood is very much not unlike the universe in his books).
If you have or can find the CD version, there's a patch (samcd.exe, IIRC) from LucasArts to allow it to play under Windows9x.
All of the dwarf names in The Hobbit actually come from the Norse Eddas; they were not invented by Tolkien. They were silly rhyming intended for Vikings, not for children. ;o)
Jackson has reportedly altered the Anduril plotline in order to extend the "Aragorn's birthright' subplot more evenly through the films. From what I've seen in various rumor reports, Narsil will be reforged in TTT or RoTK, most likely at Arwen's insistence. This plot change would provide a plausible reason for Arwen's character to appear in the second movie if it happens in TTT (some of the brief scenes in the TTT trailer seem to reinforce this). My guess is that it will be delivered to him before the battle of Helm's Deep. A group of Elves from Lorien take part (and sacrifice their lives) in the battle. I would hazard another guess that they're the ones who deliver Anduril to Aragorn, possibly replacing the sons of Elrond and the Rangers who arrive after the battle in the book.
Yeah, I'm sure it was pretty bad back in the bad old days, but there's a hell of a big leap between someone not being able to install their stupid Bonzi Buddies, Comet Cursors and poorly written shareware screensavers that suck up all their resources, and being stuck with a disk-less terminal. But feel free to cry me a river if that's what will really make you happy.
And there's enough half-baked Linux software out there that enterprising secretaries can crash their systems with that your PC liberation theology should be safe.
Your biggest problems will come when everyone and their dog wants to install their personal stuff (screensavers, wallpaper, P2P apps, etc...) on their new Linux machines, then get mad when you tell them it won't work.
For most IS people, I suspect, that's actually a plus.
You want a snooty movie critic? Try Duncan Shepherd of the San Diego Reader:
. HT M
http://www.sdreader.com/ed/mv/movies.html
Read his most recent reviews of Cat's Meow, Hollywood Ending and Spider-Man here:
http://www.sdreader.com/ed/mv/shepherd/SHEPHERD
All those other guys are puff-ball populists compared to Shepherd.
See
s -M ovies-X!ArticleDetail-57463,00.html
http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATime
for a story on Steve Ditko's role. A brief passage:
Lee and Ditko's first Spider-Man story was actually an experiment. In the early 1960s, Marvel had pulled out of a decade-long slump and was flush with the success of its 1961 title "The Fantastic Four." Editor Lee wanted to follow up with more heroes, beginning with a nerdy high school student who gains the proportionate strength of a spider in a freak lab accident. Lee's publisher, Martin Goodman, hated the idea, particularly the insect theme and the fact that the hero was a teenager. Lee compromised by slotting Spider-Man's inaugural tale into the final issue of a canceled fantasy series.
Spider-Man Co-Creators Begin to Disagree
Initially, Lee assigned the art chores to legendary comics artist Jack Kirby, with whom he had co-created the Fantastic Four. Kirby returned with several pages of bombastic heroic renderings Lee didn't think were quite right, so he turned to Ditko. "There was something about the way he drew," Lee says. "It had a realistic style, it wasn't too exaggerated or too over the top."
"Amazing Fantasy" No. 15 hit newsstands in August 1962. When the issue's staggering sales figures came back a few months later, Lee gave the character his own series. "Amazing Spider-Man" debuted in March 1963, and almost immediately became a hit.
Behind the scenes, though, the co-creators began to disagree on the title's direction. After a few dozen issues, Ditko was plotting the book himself and turning the penciled pages over to Lee, who filled in the dialogue. "I didn't know what he'd be bringing me. It was almost like doing a crossword puzzle," Lee says.
By the time Roy Thomas joined the company as assistant editor in 1965, Ditko and Lee were no longer speaking to each other, using intermediaries to communicate. "There wasn't a lot of anger, it was just that they got to arguing so much over the plot lines," Thomas recalls. Then, one day in early 1966, Ditko walked into Marvel's offices on Madison Avenue, delivered a stack of pages, and quit. The only person who knows for sure why Ditko left is Ditko.
What about those of us who are old enough that we found them boring and childish when they were first on?
Who do you think negotiated the agreement between the studios? Lawyers, that's who.
You are wrong.
a l/ch2.h tm
You keep missing the point.
MS has been found to have a monopoly in PC Operating Systems. If you have a monopoly in your market, there are certain things you are not allowed to do under federal and state anti-trust laws, either to wilfully gain that monopoly or to maintain it once you get it.
Yes, the DOJ case *DID* focus on the bundling issue, but the determination that MS is a monopoly does not derive from the bundling issue. That was a fact that the court had to determine before the DOJ's charges could be examined. Bundling was simply the charge that the DOJ focused on (there were other counts that were not pursued as vigorously in the public eye but were still relevant in the final decision, moreso in the Appeals Court findings). The determination that MS was a monopoly essentially validated the DOJ's case
The fact that MS has been found to be a monopoly allows its behavior in other areas to be scrutinized more closely to see what *other* actions it has done may *also* have violated antitrust laws.
Go read the law here and see what it really says:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanu
The problem with that attitude is that most publishers won't give a porting house the code until *after* the Windows version is finished. The publisher has its own timetable, and could really care less about when a version they're not making comes out. It's no money out of their pocket when the Linux versions don't sell. In fact, they're making money even when the Linux versions don't sell. And after all, what do you think they would prefer: a bunch of Linux gamers who get tired of waiting for the port and buy the Windows version (money directly in the publishers pocket), while also making money selling the porting rights to some foolhardy porting house that won't sell any copies because everyone already bought the Windows version; or to finance cross-platform development up front and pay to publish a Linux version concurrently with the Windows version, when the return for the Linux version is arguably likely to be a miniscule fraction of the return on the Windows game?
There are some developers who've gotten the cross-platform bug, but they are few and far between, and the experience of porting houses like Loki and Hyperion doesn't seem to show the publishers changing their tune any time in the near future. And it's the publishers who call the shots, not the porting houses.