Yes, that is the case with XML. However, ASN.1 relies on both sides knowing exactly the same info as DTD. If the client does not know the info, then you need to send it before the document, so that the ASN.1 compiler can work.
GPL states that if others will not be able to distribute the code freely, because of patent or any other concerns, then you canNOT distribute the code under the GPL.
How could a leader lead opensource community?
If a person is working on project A because he likes it, then you cannot just tell him to work on project B. If project A is useless and redundant, then the programmer will switch to using and developing a superior product eventually anyway(w/o leadership), but otherwise he would just tell any self-called 'leader' to stop bugging him.
Repeat after me -
talented IT workers are not 'repaceable'.
Replacing a programmer costs 4-8 weeks of time, while the new one is grokking the project. And strange, hard-to-fix bugs tend to creep in because of slight misunderstandings.
And no company now has a workplace monopoly like that of physical workers when unions formed. Those people couldn't just go somewhere else, there was just one company in the town which needed workers with their skills.
IT workers, however, can work at a very wide range of companies. It doesn't matter if you write code/web/whatever for a car manufacturer or a bank.
IT workers are not replaceable. Instead, the companies we work for are replaceable.
I remember AmiPro, and it seems superior to Word2000, and Improve was very interesting and I would want to use it instead of Excel, but I do not have that choice!
A lot or superior software was bought, or forced out of business by semi-legal practices, and yes, MS has used things forbidden by anti-monopoly laws.
To be considered a monopoly, company does not need to have 99% market share. It is enough to use monoploist tactics, like forbidding its partners to have contracts with competitors, exclusive licenses, and so on.
Free market does a lot of things great, but as soon monopolistic practices start, the free market turns into a corporate serfdom.
If you have a high risk of ilness, then you should pay more; If you have a low risk of ilness then you should pay less for insurance.
If you have 90% chance of dying in the next year, then your insurance price should skyrocket.
It IS fair.
Unions were needed because of the work monopoly
on
The Jungle
·
· Score: 2
.. and only for that.
The average factory in 19th century employed a large part of all local workers, and they did not have a choice - they had to work for what the factory offered them or be unemployed.
Monopolies can onlybe dealt with by other monopolies, and so workforce monololists - unions were created.
Now, however, the situation is completely different - in workforce market there is free trade; You don't like one company, there are hundreds of others you can go to. This way people can NOT be oppressed by their employer; Abuse can only happen if it is hard to leave.
But, if the unions make it into the high-tech world, then the monopoly issues will start again, but from other side.
Unions will probably start protectionism (only union workers will work here), thus limiting specialists from other areas of education or world from working; And probably will make 'experience' (in years) matter far more than your capabilities, which is a Bad Thing.
We want a free market of workforce, where anyone can work for anyone he wants, and the best people get the best positions.
The only need free people might have to union, is to fight against a monopoly, otherwise it will just hurt anyone.
.. on my computer. Get a good, flicker-free monitor, a good, clear font, and a comfy chair, and it works out rather fine. I read a lot of books, like all Dune books and Douglas Adams this way, coz the paper books are hard to get here, and ordering them from abroad was way too expensive.
Reading on a monitor is no problem. Printing it out if you want to take it somewhere is extremely easy also. Just Do It.
Many of those charges do not exist in other countries, as do many other laws and regulations that are in the US designed to pretect the stupid from themselves.
And the 'rules of conduct' of any community should not affect anyone outside of it, even if members of the comunity might view a webside which seems offensive to it.
The moral values, decency, whatever, varies heavily between different communities. And why should any one community be able to deny others their views?
And, there is a difference between rules designed to protect people IRL and on the 'net.
In life, someone has to come to you to verbally assault you. In the 'net, you have to go to them to be insulted. And then you deserve no protection, you get what you ask for. If you do not like $FOO, then do not view sites discussing it, and live happily behind a wall of illusion.
Is there any at all benefit to the user by the fact that certain data on his harddrive is not as freely accessible as others?
Filesystem permissions are better for what they do; while secure encryption will anyway be needed for really secure data.
So, aside from the ability of the industry to try to forbid to copy music/viedo/warez/whatever, can They think of any possible reason why someone would want to buy a drive with this feat ?
It is rather simple - fines and such shouldn't even be discussed.
As they have not complied with the GPL, they are distributing stolen software, which is criminally prosecutable in all countries which have accepted the Berne convention.
Big companies will end the case with an 'agreement' and a lot of money, but with GPL an ultimatum would work - either they release the code under GPL, or they can face a criminal lawsuit - and as such, it would be enforced by their country, and wouldn't require lawyers from the developers.
The solution to viewers in getting to see movies at the same tame when in USA DVD's are already available is to NOT forbid selling of those DVD's.
If the DVD's will be freely available, then it will just make an economical incentive to start showing movies in all the world at the *same* time.
Why should people at wait a year to see a movie after it has been released? Taking away the movie-makers ability to restrict regions will give the people the freedom to view available movies without regard to the country they are in.
A good example of needing stuff really secure from government is politics. Remember Watergate?
And now a bit of deduction :
1) Criminals/3rd world terrorist countries/child pron'ers/ are able, and always will be, to get unbreakable crypto.
Anyone who reallly wants protection, can get it.
2) As it is obvious, the goverment knows this.
Result : Thus, the only possible reason for RIP, Carnivore, etc, can be to spy on simple citizens who might be doing something those at power don't like. Yes, criminals who are not serious about security, also will be cought more easily.
And, you should know, that there is no such thing as 'reasonable security' for encryption. If goverment can decrypt/wiretap/whatever something, then the BadGuyNextDoor can do it also.
They don't have the right to check if you disagree. However, they are asking the company's permission to check it, and if they would have disagreed, they can file a suit, whatever, come back with a police team, stop all work there, and forcibly check everything. If you wouldn't be held liable for inadequate licencing, which is legally the same as software piracy and is a criminal offense, they would probably pay your losses. But are you sure that you have 100% licences available?
They don't have rights to barge in and check your computers, but the law enforcement has. And most companies will opt for the 'easy way'.
Computational power probably will lead to possibility sometime to directly emulate a human brain on computer, and a more or less smart AI system much earlier. However, there are other problems than the sophistication of computers in the way.
It takes many years before a humen is considered 'smart' - many years spent doing little useful, but looking at the world and learning. And not only learning, but being in a community which teaches many, many unobvious things ('Don't put that in your mouth! You don't know where it's been!')
With most expert-system building, based on AI theories, the biggest problem is neither making software nor computers, but pumping information that we find obvious into that system. That takes most of time. And as for mouse intellect - i believe, that, if put enough work into it, our computers today are as smart as a mouse. Just nobody has had the time to teach one to be a mouse.
The author seems to push aside Internet journalism, because of finding it incapable of making profit. Still, it plays a role, and an example of it is Slashdot.
The change that he does not notice is not in funding of journalism, but rather replacing paid people who decide what news are important and what not, and tell about them, with a community, where everyone can express whatever news they have to tell to others.
I, personally, am all against newspapers because of their way of making decisions about importance instead of the public, and often doing it wrong. We don't need a centralised journalism service. News agencies will probably still be useful for providing hard facts, but opinions and decision-making should be left to the public, via some interactive feature. Slashdot's voting system is something like this, though not perfect. Also, to function properly, it would need the involvement of a larger audience. Maybe, in the future, CNN on interactive TV with viewers opinions and evaluation of both articles and opinions (drooling)..
You haven't reat at all about ICANN elections, have you? It is pretty hard to write a bot that will register with a realistic name and adress, then fetch snailmail from there to get the PIN code needed for the voting.
This mentality is exactly what was adressed in Fanlander's post -
USA is, to most of its inhabitants, self-sufficient. And this majority does not know, nor care about that some things could be completely different somewehere else.
I have yet to see a check or hear about one received personally from anyone i know, and i am connected with the finance industry.
Another thing that seems - creadits at all are widely used in the USA, credit cards, important credit history and stuff like that coming from credits. Come on, why would one like to borrow money at enormous rates, except to buy a house or a car on loan?
And, of course, CC fraud is a must-have if you desire a system where your card's number is enough for a transaction to happen.
Rather, here in Latvia, debit cards are popular, being used almost everywhere the same way as, i think, in USA CC's are. One can get a debit card, a bank account and internet access to do transactions for free in a half an hour.
I can transfer money and pay my bills online. And I can buy stuff online, and have my card verified by the courier with a portable reader when I receive it.
And I still fail to see any advantages of the USA way. Prove me wrong. I dare you.
There is a game out there that consists of programming simulated robots to perform in different tasks, one of them is a 2 vs. 2 hockey game.
Check out http://www.cognitoy.com
Windows has severe problems, as anyone can see, but id does not mean that developers have to run away frightened from anything that looks Windows-like. And the component usage within windows, IIRC, was *never* in the list of win-sucks claims.
People should not have to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes, it is the Right Thing to do things with custom code, despite of available solutions ready-made. But, they should be able to reuse components if they don't feel like rewriting them.
About that "But it doesn't make much sense for projects with ongoing, constant development, long life cycles, and millions of users" - if two projects like this share a common thing, whose functionality can be enclosed in a component - then it becomes really useful for innovations of one project to benefit the other, also. And custom apps based on a part of one of those large proects - but not all of it - could be developed far more easily.
Really, should they? The kind they are marketed as does not change them. If I sell baseball bats inscribed 'Shashes faces twice as hard as a regular bat!', then it does not mean that I am assaulting people. I am not responsible for the actions of software written by me, if you use it maliciously. I would be responsible if i wrote a virus, for example. If people are starting to be held accountable for indirect consequences of their actions, then how about putting parents of criminals behind bars?
You hold full responsibility for what you do, wether it is using my software for illegal things, smoking(as in recent compensation lawsuit), or protection your children from violent games(as in cries to limit violence in games).
The government must not protect people from themselves. You should know what is allowed and not, and when using Napster, you should know, which songs are copyrighted an which are not; And when using exploits to crack other people's computers, you are the criminal, not the one who wrote the exploit. Ignorance is no excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Word is non-standard in the meaning that each and every version of Word has a different, uncompatible format.
Yes, that is the case with XML. However, ASN.1 relies on both sides knowing exactly the same info as DTD. If the client does not know the info, then you need to send it before the document, so that the ASN.1 compiler can work.
GPL states that if others will not be able to distribute the code freely, because of patent or any other concerns, then you canNOT distribute the code under the GPL.
How could a leader lead opensource community?
If a person is working on project A because he likes it, then you cannot just tell him to work on project B. If project A is useless and redundant, then the programmer will switch to using and developing a superior product eventually anyway(w/o leadership), but otherwise he would just tell any self-called 'leader' to stop bugging him.
How is such scanning different from cops checking ID's of people who look like the 'wanted' posters the cops have seen ?
Repeat after me -
talented IT workers are not 'repaceable'.
Replacing a programmer costs 4-8 weeks of time, while the new one is grokking the project. And strange, hard-to-fix bugs tend to creep in because of slight misunderstandings.
And no company now has a workplace monopoly like that of physical workers when unions formed. Those people couldn't just go somewhere else, there was just one company in the town which needed workers with their skills.
IT workers, however, can work at a very wide range of companies. It doesn't matter if you write code/web/whatever for a car manufacturer or a bank.
IT workers are not replaceable. Instead, the companies we work for are replaceable.
I remember AmiPro, and it seems superior to Word2000, and Improve was very interesting and I would want to use it instead of Excel, but I do not have that choice!
A lot or superior software was bought, or forced out of business by semi-legal practices, and yes, MS has used things forbidden by anti-monopoly laws.
To be considered a monopoly, company does not need to have 99% market share. It is enough to use monoploist tactics, like forbidding its partners to have contracts with competitors, exclusive licenses, and so on.
Free market does a lot of things great, but as soon monopolistic practices start, the free market turns into a corporate serfdom.
If you have a high risk of ilness, then you should pay more; If you have a low risk of ilness then you should pay less for insurance.
If you have 90% chance of dying in the next year, then your insurance price should skyrocket.
It IS fair.
The average factory in 19th century employed a large part of all local workers, and they did not have a choice - they had to work for what the factory offered them or be unemployed.
Monopolies can onlybe dealt with by other monopolies, and so workforce monololists - unions were created.
Now, however, the situation is completely different - in workforce market there is free trade; You don't like one company, there are hundreds of others you can go to. This way people can NOT be oppressed by their employer; Abuse can only happen if it is hard to leave.
But, if the unions make it into the high-tech world, then the monopoly issues will start again, but from other side.
Unions will probably start protectionism (only union workers will work here), thus limiting specialists from other areas of education or world from working; And probably will make 'experience' (in years) matter far more than your capabilities, which is a Bad Thing.
We want a free market of workforce, where anyone can work for anyone he wants, and the best people get the best positions.
The only need free people might have to union, is to fight against a monopoly, otherwise it will just hurt anyone.
.. on my computer. Get a good, flicker-free monitor, a good, clear font, and a comfy chair, and it works out rather fine. I read a lot of books, like all Dune books and Douglas Adams this way, coz the paper books are hard to get here, and ordering them from abroad was way too expensive.
Reading on a monitor is no problem. Printing it out if you want to take it somewhere is extremely easy also. Just Do It.
Many of those charges do not exist in other countries, as do many other laws and regulations that are in the US designed to pretect the stupid from themselves.
And the 'rules of conduct' of any community should not affect anyone outside of it, even if members of the comunity might view a webside which seems offensive to it.
The moral values, decency, whatever, varies heavily between different communities. And why should any one community be able to deny others their views?
And, there is a difference between rules designed to protect people IRL and on the 'net.
In life, someone has to come to you to verbally assault you. In the 'net, you have to go to them to be insulted. And then you deserve no protection, you get what you ask for. If you do not like $FOO, then do not view sites discussing it, and live happily behind a wall of illusion.
..for including this feat?
Is there any at all benefit to the user by the fact that certain data on his harddrive is not as freely accessible as others?
Filesystem permissions are better for what they do; while secure encryption will anyway be needed for really secure data.
So, aside from the ability of the industry to try to forbid to copy music/viedo/warez/whatever, can They think of any possible reason why someone would want to buy a drive with this feat ?
It is rather simple - fines and such shouldn't even be discussed.
As they have not complied with the GPL, they are distributing stolen software, which is criminally prosecutable in all countries which have accepted the Berne convention.
Big companies will end the case with an 'agreement' and a lot of money, but with GPL an ultimatum would work - either they release the code under GPL, or they can face a criminal lawsuit - and as such, it would be enforced by their country, and wouldn't require lawyers from the developers.
The solution to viewers in getting to see movies at the same tame when in USA DVD's are already available is to NOT forbid selling of those DVD's.
If the DVD's will be freely available, then it will just make an economical incentive to start showing movies in all the world at the *same* time.
Why should people at wait a year to see a movie after it has been released? Taking away the movie-makers ability to restrict regions will give the people the freedom to view available movies without regard to the country they are in.
> "Errr. Sorry, we lost the source. "
.. And have a criminal case for falsificating evidence when an unhappy employee proves that you *did* have the source.
A good example of needing stuff really secure from government is politics. Remember Watergate?
And now a bit of deduction :
1) Criminals/3rd world terrorist countries/child pron'ers/ are able, and always will be, to get unbreakable crypto.
Anyone who reallly wants protection, can get it.
2) As it is obvious, the goverment knows this.
Result : Thus, the only possible reason for RIP, Carnivore, etc, can be to spy on simple citizens who might be doing something those at power don't like. Yes, criminals who are not serious about security, also will be cought more easily.
And, you should know, that there is no such thing as 'reasonable security' for encryption. If goverment can decrypt/wiretap/whatever something, then the BadGuyNextDoor can do it also.
They don't have the right to check if you disagree. However, they are asking the company's permission to check it, and if they would have disagreed, they can file a suit, whatever, come back with a police team, stop all work there, and forcibly check everything. If you wouldn't be held liable for inadequate licencing, which is legally the same as software piracy and is a criminal offense, they would probably pay your losses. But are you sure that you have 100% licences available?
They don't have rights to barge in and check your computers, but the law enforcement has. And most companies will opt for the 'easy way'.
Computational power probably will lead to possibility sometime to directly emulate a human brain on computer, and a more or less smart AI system much earlier. However, there are other problems than the sophistication of computers in the way.
It takes many years before a humen is considered 'smart' - many years spent doing little useful, but looking at the world and learning. And not only learning, but being in a community which teaches many, many unobvious things ('Don't put that in your mouth! You don't know where it's been!')
With most expert-system building, based on AI theories, the biggest problem is neither making software nor computers, but pumping information that we find obvious into that system. That takes most of time. And as for mouse intellect - i believe, that, if put enough work into it, our computers today are as smart as a mouse. Just nobody has had the time to teach one to be a mouse.
The author seems to push aside Internet journalism, because of finding it incapable of making profit. Still, it plays a role, and an example of it is Slashdot.
The change that he does not notice is not in funding of journalism, but rather replacing paid people who decide what news are important and what not, and tell about them, with a community, where everyone can express whatever news they have to tell to others.
I, personally, am all against newspapers because of their way of making decisions about importance instead of the public, and often doing it wrong. We don't need a centralised journalism service. News agencies will probably still be useful for providing hard facts, but opinions and decision-making should be left to the public, via some interactive feature. Slashdot's voting system is something like this, though not perfect. Also, to function properly, it would need the involvement of a larger audience. Maybe, in the future, CNN on interactive TV with viewers opinions and evaluation of both articles and opinions (drooling)..
You haven't reat at all about ICANN elections, have you? It is pretty hard to write a bot that will register with a realistic name and adress, then fetch snailmail from there to get the PIN code needed for the voting.
This mentality is exactly what was adressed in Fanlander's post -
USA is, to most of its inhabitants, self-sufficient. And this majority does not know, nor care about that some things could be completely different somewehere else.
I have yet to see a check or hear about one received personally from anyone i know, and i am connected with the finance industry.
Another thing that seems - creadits at all are widely used in the USA, credit cards, important credit history and stuff like that coming from credits. Come on, why would one like to borrow money at enormous rates, except to buy a house or a car on loan?
And, of course, CC fraud is a must-have if you desire a system where your card's number is enough for a transaction to happen.
Rather, here in Latvia, debit cards are popular, being used almost everywhere the same way as, i think, in USA CC's are. One can get a debit card, a bank account and internet access to do transactions for free in a half an hour.
I can transfer money and pay my bills online. And I can buy stuff online, and have my card verified by the courier with a portable reader when I receive it.
And I still fail to see any advantages of the USA way. Prove me wrong. I dare you.
There is a game out there that consists of programming simulated robots to perform in different tasks, one of them is a 2 vs. 2 hockey game.
Check out http://www.cognitoy.com
Windows has severe problems, as anyone can see, but id does not mean that developers have to run away frightened from anything that looks Windows-like. And the component usage within windows, IIRC, was *never* in the list of win-sucks claims.
People should not have to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes, it is the Right Thing to do things with custom code, despite of available solutions ready-made. But, they should be able to reuse components if they don't feel like rewriting them.
About that "But it doesn't make much sense for projects with ongoing, constant development, long life cycles, and millions of users" - if two projects like this share a common thing, whose functionality can be enclosed in a component - then it becomes really useful for innovations of one project to benefit the other, also. And custom apps based on a part of one of those large proects - but not all of it - could be developed far more easily.
Six times 10^23, not 1023. 6 * 10^23 , number of molecules in 1 mol, Avogaddro's constant.
Really, should they? The kind they are marketed as does not change them. If I sell baseball bats inscribed 'Shashes faces twice as hard as a regular bat!', then it does not mean that I am assaulting people. I am not responsible for the actions of software written by me, if you use it maliciously. I would be responsible if i wrote a virus, for example. If people are starting to be held accountable for indirect consequences of their actions, then how about putting parents of criminals behind bars?
You hold full responsibility for what you do, wether it is using my software for illegal things, smoking(as in recent compensation lawsuit), or protection your children from violent games(as in cries to limit violence in games).
The government must not protect people from themselves. You should know what is allowed and not, and when using Napster, you should know, which songs are copyrighted an which are not; And when using exploits to crack other people's computers, you are the criminal, not the one who wrote the exploit. Ignorance is no excuse.