His point wasn't that physical labor is more needed than professional skills. His point was that the things that need doing that need those kinds of professional skills need to be done by people who are spending more than a week at it.
In office environments like this, management's stand is very unlikely to change. Trying to change their minds will be an exercise in futility, so you need to just focus your decision making on whether or not you are willing to stick around and be a part of it, or would rather look for another job.
Just because Microsoft coughed up a settlement doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't have the resources to beat a lawsuit over the issue. It just means that their bean counters did some math and decided that it would cost less to pay these guys off than it would to fight them. Blizzard may decide to react differently, particularly since their flagship cash cow product is being attacked. We might have seen a different reaction from Microsoft had it been Windows that the lawsuit claimed infringed on their patent.
The problem with this argument is that with open source software, you don't just have to trust a single random guy for your information. When the source is open, it is often the case that MANY people in the online community will examine the code, and through discussion there emerges a consensus which is far more reliable than the opinion of just one random guy. That isn't to say that the community as a whole is never wrong, but it's vastly more trustworthy and reliable than just some $randomInternetDude.
The concept of software freedom in general, no of course he didn't invent that. But I'm not saying he invented the idea of software freedom. "Free Software" is a specific term that has come to mean one particular person's vision, and that person is RMS. There can be all sorts of other ideas about software being free, but it comes down to terminology. If "Free Software" isn't defined by the FSF, then it's just a generic term that can mean anything that you want it to. "Open Source" is another term based on the same general ideas of software freedom, but that term refers to a different vision and interpretation of those ideals. Your interpretation of those ideals is no less valid than the interpretations defined as "Open Source", or "Free Software", but both of those terms have come to mean very specific things, and it is counterproductive to try and change the meanings of those terms to fit your own interpretation.
The way you're looking at it, there could be 100,000 definitions of "Free Software", half of which might mean the same thing as "Open Source", and the other half of which might not. If you're going to look at it that way, the term isn't even useful enough to compare to the term "Open Source", because it is entirely subjective at that point. It can neither be said to be equivilent to "Open Source", or comletely different, because it would depend entirely upon the interpretation of any given individual.
He can't redefine it, but he can clarify it. Any given two people can differ on the interpretation of a written passage, and when this happens it is useful for the person with whom the idea originates to specify what he means. If we leave it to every Tom, Dick, and Brandybuck to decide what the definition means, then we'll end up with a thousand different interpretations of the term, and a thousand different opinions on which licenses satisfy the definition. At that point, what's the use of even having the definition in the first place.
The Free Software concept is RMS's idea. If you have a different idea, then fine. Just call it something else, and don't pretend that it's the real defintion of Free Software. I'm not saying that RMS's viewpoints are right or wrong, just that the term Free Software is his baby, and he is the only one who knows for sure exactly what he meant when he described it. If you can't trust RMS's definition of his own idea, then nobody can say for sure what the term means, and there really isn't such a thing as a correct definition of Free Software. There might be all kinds of similar ideas, but you can't just drape RMS's terminology over your own particular interpretation and claim that's what Free Software really meant all along.
You can claim all you want that your way is the one true way to interpret the term Free Software, but I'll take the FSF's interpretation over that of some random guy off the street any day. So, to clarify my original statement from a couple of posts ago, there are licenses that satisfy the criteria of the term Open Source, that do not satisfy the criteria of the term Free Software as defined by the FSF. If those licenses happen to satisfy the term Free Software as defined by Brandybuck, I can't imagine why I would possibly care.
I did read the FSF's definition, and it's more than just the four bullet points at the top of the page. Those points are the basis of the definition, but the rest of the page clarifies what exactly is meant by each of those points.
What you personally say the definition DOES or DOES NOT mean has no bearing whatsoever. Richard Stallman is the one who defined the term Free Software in the first place. You don't just get to redefine it, and say that's what it really means.
You can argue all you want about whether or not the Free Software definition is a good thing or not, but when it comes to what the Free Software definition IS, then it's hard to argue with the organization that defined the term in the first place. The FSF says that the RPL doesn't meet the defintion, and therefore it doesn't. Period.
How about the Reciprocal Public License for example? Opensource.org lists it as an approved license. However, the FSF specifically declares this license to be a non-free license. Here is a quote from their site:
Reciprocal Public License
The Reciprocal Public License is a non-free license because of three problems. 1. It puts limits on prices charged for an initial copy. 2. It requires notification of the original developer for publication of a modified version. 3. It requires publication of any modified version that an organization uses, even privately.
True, those licenses fit both the FSF's definition, and OSI's definition. However, there are a number of licenses that fit OSI's definition of Open Source that do NOT fit the FSF's definition of Free Software. OSI approves a large number of licenses as Open Source. Some of those are also Free Software licenses, and some of them aren't.
This is a trick question. It doesn't matter what you ask him, because in the end, they probably won't pay much attention to your opinion anyway, and will hire some guy who doesn't know a keyboard from a surfboard. Mainly try not to piss any of the candidates off so that after one of them gets the job, you won't already be screwed.
I don't know what that is that you just described, but whatever it is, it's not RAID5. Using RAID5, if you lose any two disks, anywhere in the array, no matter how many disks you have total, then you are screwed. RAID5 takes one drive worth of space, and uses it for parity. For performance's sake, the parity is not all stored on one drive, but is shared equally amongst every drive in the array. If one drive is lost, then to determine the information that was stored at a particular offset on that drive, you have to read the data from the same offset off of every other drive in the array, and then perform a parity calculation. If even one other drive is missing, the task of resconstructing the missing data becomes mathematically impossible. This is the tradeoff for only losing the total capacity of one drive. To be able to lose two drives requires a true mirror, which requires you to sacrifice half of your drives for a full copy of the information on the array. Then you are only suceptible to loses of specific pairs of drives. If any two drives fail that are not mirrors of each other, then your data is still intact.
While this is true for home games, any poker game played in a Casino, or on an online site has a rake, which means that if the players are close enough in skill to each other, then it can indeed be a losing battle for ALL of the players in the game. However, if a player is sufficiently better than the others involved in the game, then it is still possible to have a positive expectation in such a game.
Sure, but I think that his point wasn't to correct grammar, but rather to point out that as of this incident, Cisco's track record isn't as great as it used to be.
Yes, and it's also nice that ethereal supports numerous different capture file formats. I've used it to analyze snoop captures I made on Solaris boxes many times. Much easier to just do the capture on the box you're trying to diagnose than to mirror a port on the switch and plug in a sniffer.
I've been working with beta builds of SP2 at work, and from looking at it, I am under the impression that what Microsoft is actually including is not actually a virus scanner, but rather integration with 3rd party virus scanners. The last build I tested (2077), complained that I didn't have any virus scanning software installed, and suggested that I remedy the situation. Poking around revealed that it has the capability to work with many existing virus scanning packages, and warn you when your virus definitions are out of date, and possibly even keep them up to date for you. Of course, maybe what I've seen so far is only a prelude to full blown anti-virus software from MS...
So, for example this guy who says he makes 7000 rupees/week makes 7000*52 = 364,000 reupees/year, and is probably (At rough guestimate) living somethime like a guy in the States making a $36,400/year salary?
Ok. So we've established that an Indian worker gets substantially less money. Also we've established that this is offset by the lower cost of living in India. What I want to know though, is HOW MUCH is it offset. If a guy is making $60,000 in the US for a job, and another guy in India is making around $8,000 for the same job, how does his standard of living compare to that of the guy in the States. Is he living more or less the same lifestyle on that $8,000, or what?
The best advice I can give you is to just quit cold turkey. When I did it, I had a massive headache 24 hours a day for about 3 days, but after that it went away. Once the headache was gone, quitting wasn't too bad, although I didn't feel completely right for almost a month. Once I was totally over it though, I realized just how much the caffiene was screwing up my system. I felt much better overall. So, if you want to give it up, just go for it. The only really tough part IMHO was the first few days. On the whole it's not a terribly difficult addiction to break so long as you really want to do it.
Re:Good, Original SF Recommendations
on
Farscape is Back
·
· Score: 1
I'm thinking that the Foundation series would not translate very well to the big screen. It's been a long time since I've read it, but if I remember correctly, weren't the first couple of books almost entirely dialog, with very little actual action? For the record, I'm not complaining. I happen to love that series, but I don't think that sort of book would work very well as a movie. Some of the later books in the series maybe, where they read more like a regular novel, but not the first ones...
Maybe you should have waited to post this thread until after the Power situation is all sorted out, so that the people with the first hand views on the subject could get on to see the thread...
That's true, but in pointing out that their arrangement was not exclusive they mostly seemed to be emphasizing that they would still be doing business with companies like RealNetworks. As far as browsers go, it seems most likely that Netscape isn't going to be the direction that AOL will be going in. Here's the quote from the article that I thought most illustrated that:
One other consequence of the settlement is that it may lead to a further phasing out of Netscape now that AOL has agreed to cooperate more closely with Microsoft. "Netscape is less and less of a priority for AOL Time Warner, and this is just another step in the slow sun-setting process of Netscape Navigator," said Hilal.
Now granted, AOL said that they were not planning on closing their Netscape unit, but overall the deal with Microsoft seems to indicate that although they might not phase Netscape out completely, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the entire AOL community to be running Netscape anytime in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
His point wasn't that physical labor is more needed than professional skills. His point was that the things that need doing that need those kinds of professional skills need to be done by people who are spending more than a week at it.
In office environments like this, management's stand is very unlikely to change. Trying to change their minds will be an exercise in futility, so you need to just focus your decision making on whether or not you are willing to stick around and be a part of it, or would rather look for another job.
Just because Microsoft coughed up a settlement doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't have the resources to beat a lawsuit over the issue. It just means that their bean counters did some math and decided that it would cost less to pay these guys off than it would to fight them. Blizzard may decide to react differently, particularly since their flagship cash cow product is being attacked. We might have seen a different reaction from Microsoft had it been Windows that the lawsuit claimed infringed on their patent.
The problem with this argument is that with open source software, you don't just have to trust a single random guy for your information. When the source is open, it is often the case that MANY people in the online community will examine the code, and through discussion there emerges a consensus which is far more reliable than the opinion of just one random guy. That isn't to say that the community as a whole is never wrong, but it's vastly more trustworthy and reliable than just some $randomInternetDude.
What? You need to use ones AND zeros??? Loser...
You could interpret that as falling under 'practicality'.
http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/dixy_1.txt
The concept of software freedom in general, no of course he didn't invent that. But I'm not saying he invented the idea of software freedom. "Free Software" is a specific term that has come to mean one particular person's vision, and that person is RMS. There can be all sorts of other ideas about software being free, but it comes down to terminology. If "Free Software" isn't defined by the FSF, then it's just a generic term that can mean anything that you want it to. "Open Source" is another term based on the same general ideas of software freedom, but that term refers to a different vision and interpretation of those ideals. Your interpretation of those ideals is no less valid than the interpretations defined as "Open Source", or "Free Software", but both of those terms have come to mean very specific things, and it is counterproductive to try and change the meanings of those terms to fit your own interpretation.
The way you're looking at it, there could be 100,000 definitions of "Free Software", half of which might mean the same thing as "Open Source", and the other half of which might not. If you're going to look at it that way, the term isn't even useful enough to compare to the term "Open Source", because it is entirely subjective at that point. It can neither be said to be equivilent to "Open Source", or comletely different, because it would depend entirely upon the interpretation of any given individual.
He can't redefine it, but he can clarify it. Any given two people can differ on the interpretation of a written passage, and when this happens it is useful for the person with whom the idea originates to specify what he means. If we leave it to every Tom, Dick, and Brandybuck to decide what the definition means, then we'll end up with a thousand different interpretations of the term, and a thousand different opinions on which licenses satisfy the definition. At that point, what's the use of even having the definition in the first place.
The Free Software concept is RMS's idea. If you have a different idea, then fine. Just call it something else, and don't pretend that it's the real defintion of Free Software. I'm not saying that RMS's viewpoints are right or wrong, just that the term Free Software is his baby, and he is the only one who knows for sure exactly what he meant when he described it. If you can't trust RMS's definition of his own idea, then nobody can say for sure what the term means, and there really isn't such a thing as a correct definition of Free Software. There might be all kinds of similar ideas, but you can't just drape RMS's terminology over your own particular interpretation and claim that's what Free Software really meant all along.
You can claim all you want that your way is the one true way to interpret the term Free Software, but I'll take the FSF's interpretation over that of some random guy off the street any day. So, to clarify my original statement from a couple of posts ago, there are licenses that satisfy the criteria of the term Open Source, that do not satisfy the criteria of the term Free Software as defined by the FSF. If those licenses happen to satisfy the term Free Software as defined by Brandybuck, I can't imagine why I would possibly care.
I did read the FSF's definition, and it's more than just the four bullet points at the top of the page. Those points are the basis of the definition, but the rest of the page clarifies what exactly is meant by each of those points.
What you personally say the definition DOES or DOES NOT mean has no bearing whatsoever. Richard Stallman is the one who defined the term Free Software in the first place. You don't just get to redefine it, and say that's what it really means.
You can argue all you want about whether or not the Free Software definition is a good thing or not, but when it comes to what the Free Software definition IS, then it's hard to argue with the organization that defined the term in the first place. The FSF says that the RPL doesn't meet the defintion, and therefore it doesn't. Period.
Really? Every? Single? One?
How about the Reciprocal Public License for example? Opensource.org lists it as an approved license. However, the FSF specifically declares this license to be a non-free license. Here is a quote from their site:
Reciprocal Public License
The Reciprocal Public License is a non-free license because of three problems.
1. It puts limits on prices charged for an initial copy.
2. It requires notification of the original developer for publication of a modified version.
3. It requires publication of any modified version that an organization uses, even privately.
True, those licenses fit both the FSF's definition, and OSI's definition. However, there are a number of licenses that fit OSI's definition of Open Source that do NOT fit the FSF's definition of Free Software. OSI approves a large number of licenses as Open Source. Some of those are also Free Software licenses, and some of them aren't.
This is a trick question. It doesn't matter what you ask him, because in the end, they probably won't pay much attention to your opinion anyway, and will hire some guy who doesn't know a keyboard from a surfboard. Mainly try not to piss any of the candidates off so that after one of them gets the job, you won't already be screwed.
Huh?!?
I don't know what that is that you just described, but whatever it is, it's not RAID5. Using RAID5, if you lose any two disks, anywhere in the array, no matter how many disks you have total, then you are screwed. RAID5 takes one drive worth of space, and uses it for parity. For performance's sake, the parity is not all stored on one drive, but is shared equally amongst every drive in the array. If one drive is lost, then to determine the information that was stored at a particular offset on that drive, you have to read the data from the same offset off of every other drive in the array, and then perform a parity calculation. If even one other drive is missing, the task of resconstructing the missing data becomes mathematically impossible. This is the tradeoff for only losing the total capacity of one drive. To be able to lose two drives requires a true mirror, which requires you to sacrifice half of your drives for a full copy of the information on the array. Then you are only suceptible to loses of specific pairs of drives. If any two drives fail that are not mirrors of each other, then your data is still intact.
While this is true for home games, any poker game played in a Casino, or on an online site has a rake, which means that if the players are close enough in skill to each other, then it can indeed be a losing battle for ALL of the players in the game. However, if a player is sufficiently better than the others involved in the game, then it is still possible to have a positive expectation in such a game.
At least it's not like you had to dress up in the black leather outfit Tim Curry wears in that movie...
Sure, but I think that his point wasn't to correct grammar, but rather to point out that as of this incident, Cisco's track record isn't as great as it used to be.
Yes, and it's also nice that ethereal supports numerous different capture file formats. I've used it to analyze snoop captures I made on Solaris boxes many times. Much easier to just do the capture on the box you're trying to diagnose than to mirror a port on the switch and plug in a sniffer.
I've been working with beta builds of SP2 at work, and from looking at it, I am under the impression that what Microsoft is actually including is not actually a virus scanner, but rather integration with 3rd party virus scanners. The last build I tested (2077), complained that I didn't have any virus scanning software installed, and suggested that I remedy the situation. Poking around revealed that it has the capability to work with many existing virus scanning packages, and warn you when your virus definitions are out of date, and possibly even keep them up to date for you. Of course, maybe what I've seen so far is only a prelude to full blown anti-virus software from MS...
So, for example this guy who says he makes 7000 rupees/week makes 7000*52 = 364,000 reupees/year, and is probably (At rough guestimate) living somethime like a guy in the States making a $36,400/year salary?
Ok. So we've established that an Indian worker gets substantially less money. Also we've established that this is offset by the lower cost of living in India. What I want to know though, is HOW MUCH is it offset. If a guy is making $60,000 in the US for a job, and another guy in India is making around $8,000 for the same job, how does his standard of living compare to that of the guy in the States. Is he living more or less the same lifestyle on that $8,000, or what?
The best advice I can give you is to just quit cold turkey. When I did it, I had a massive headache 24 hours a day for about 3 days, but after that it went away. Once the headache was gone, quitting wasn't too bad, although I didn't feel completely right for almost a month. Once I was totally over it though, I realized just how much the caffiene was screwing up my system. I felt much better overall. So, if you want to give it up, just go for it. The only really tough part IMHO was the first few days. On the whole it's not a terribly difficult addiction to break so long as you really want to do it.
I'm thinking that the Foundation series would not translate very well to the big screen. It's been a long time since I've read it, but if I remember correctly, weren't the first couple of books almost entirely dialog, with very little actual action? For the record, I'm not complaining. I happen to love that series, but I don't think that sort of book would work very well as a movie. Some of the later books in the series maybe, where they read more like a regular novel, but not the first ones...
Maybe you should have waited to post this thread until after the Power situation is all sorted out, so that the people with the first hand views on the subject could get on to see the thread...
That's true, but in pointing out that their arrangement was not exclusive they mostly seemed to be emphasizing that they would still be doing business with companies like RealNetworks. As far as browsers go, it seems most likely that Netscape isn't going to be the direction that AOL will be going in. Here's the quote from the article that I thought most illustrated that:
One other consequence of the settlement is that it may lead to a further phasing out of Netscape now that AOL has agreed to cooperate more closely with Microsoft. "Netscape is less and less of a priority for AOL Time Warner, and this is just another step in the slow sun-setting process of Netscape Navigator," said Hilal.
Now granted, AOL said that they were not planning on closing their Netscape unit, but overall the deal with Microsoft seems to indicate that although they might not phase Netscape out completely, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the entire AOL community to be running Netscape anytime in the near future.