I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Copyright and patent both do such a miserable job of balancing the rights and needs of programmers (who are also users) and users (who are frequently also programmers) and society as a whole, that we should probably invent something new to handle it. It will take a lot of thought and a lot of discussion to figure out what that new thing should be and how it should work. We can't just put forth a list of grievances with the old system; we need to be able to describe something better.
Supporting Free Software is a good thing, and useful. Clearly, though, it isn't adequate, or we wouldn't still be in this mess.
...about this guy's sexuality sorted out. How the hell am I supposed to make an intelligent decision about open source GUIs and themes without this information?
Well, thanks, but I already looked there. I find pointer accel, pointer threshold, double click interval, drag start time and drag start distance. No control for pointer speed. This installation is dead stock KDE 2.1.1; anything I could add or upgrade to affect this change?
my mother doesn't even see much difference between KDE in Windows mode and Windows
Okay, what's your secret? I cannot get the base (as opposed to accelerated) speed of the mouse cursor to a decent level in X (KDE/RH7.1), and the only FAQ question I've found about it basically admits as much.
If Linux is ever going to take over large chunks of the desktop market, I think it will be because of some radically and snazzy different new design that that by pure chance catches fire and becomes a fad.
I just had this conversation in another thread. This need not be an accident; one of the desktop projects (or an entirely new one, God help us) needs to tap the best thinking on alternative paradigms (heh heh--I said 'paradigms') for user interface and do something different and EFFECTIVE.
As usual, I just let 5 mod points drop unused yesterday, and today I see this. I like this post, and wish I could mod it up. Also, I agree with most of the points made. Linux has evangelists aplenty; where are the visionaries?
You don't know that there's no exploit available for this bug. What's worse, you don't know if there's an exploit for the other 112 bugs that haven't been found by any of the good guys yet, or the who-knows-how-many that have been found but are still under wraps because MS doesn't advocate full disclosure. Failure to disclose bugs leaves you in the dark, but that doesn't mean the crackers are equally mystified. Full disclosure is in the user's best interest in the long run, even when it causes short-term disturbances.
...why some sciences seem to be so lucky and others so cursed. We've been spinning our wheels on fusion power seemingly forever, and storage battery technology inches along, and we're perpetually awaiting our personal jetpacks (well, I am). But every crazy idea that comes along in computers just works.
I agree completely with cut him slack and be nice--no reason not too. But I think it's funny that you can assume he's fragile because he's young, but don't want others making any assumption based on their experience with the hazards of youth.
Actually, I think it was bypassable the first time, and, when I went back to verify this, I didn't get the intro at all. So they're not totally unsophisticated. Not that they're not a bunch of assholes for sending these letters to people, but as corporate websites go, it's not a total farce.
...five years ago when popular science magazines were discussing how close we were to finally breaking all barriers and answering all mysteries. That seemed like a pretty strong hint we were about to see everything we thought we knew knocked helter-skelter by some of those little niggling details we hadn't cleaned up yet.
I don't pretend to have any idea where this squabble is headed, but somebody might want to start thinking up a good name for a whole new branch of physics. Looks like these guys are just about to figure out they're looking at different parts of the same elephant [from an old parable, if that makes no sense to you].
Re:I'm missing something
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
You mean 'overlook', and no, you didn't. Perhaps it reverses thrust when you, um, think of a stop sign.
I don't know if you'll check back for responses to this post, but if you do I wonder if you could clarify your comment about american being a poorer version of english. I'm not aware that there is anything that can be said in the british dialect that cannot be said just as clearly in american, but I'd be interested to hear your views on this (or was it just flamebait?)
He obviously also speaks (or at least reads English). Perhaps for the benefit of those of us who don't speak German, he could post in the language the rest of us are using. I see many posts from people for whom English is obviously a second language (or they graduated from one of the poorer U.S. public schools), but guess what: they post in English anyway, so we can all follow along. And I'll bet a lot of them don't speak German either.
Holy shit! I didn't even know my computer knew how to make those, um, characters. But unless there's a lot of arithmetic being discussed, it doesn't know how to make all of them.
This 'new' essay is a lightly edited version of a response to O'Reilly's original blog entry (linked to at the bottom of said blog entry, BTW), which is dated 8/15/01. What's more, it's already been discussed on Slashdot before, because that's what pointed me to this whole morass three months ago.
But while we're back at it again, let me one more time remind people that copyright is no more insidious or evil than than any other legal instrument that permits people to enter into contracts with each other. In the case of using a copyrighted good, that contract is spelled out in the copyright notice, and must be accepted by the consumer prior to using the good (reading the book, playing the cd, installing the software, whatever). While it does indeed serve to raise the price of copyrightable goods, a basic understanding of the laws of economics tells us that this rise in price serves to increase the supply of available copyrighted works.
In the specific case of software freedom, the issue we're trying to get at is probably not copyright at all, since all GNU software is copyrighted, and (almost) no one denies that it is 'free' software. What we're concerned with is whether software is open source or not, and whether we have the legal right to change that source code. Releasing software under a Closed Source type of license imposes costs on the user above and beyond the monitary costs; these additional costs (which are so well enumerated by Kuhn and Stallman--see essay) are important reasons that Open Source software exists and will continue to thrive. But they do not justify attempts to deny developers the right to release software they have created under the license of their choice, any more than the simple act of requiring payment for the use of the software would justify such legal action.
If you're viewing posts 'newest first', count your blessings--you have received this warning in time. Click off this fucking discussion right now before you scroll down to the argument between the fucking idiot who wants to use a political analogy to tell us why AtheOS is bad for OS and the fucking idiot who wants to use that as an excuse to tell us why the U.S. political system is fucked up. This thread is dangerous to your mental health. It is stupid, banal, boring, whiny, and insufficiently down-moderated. Leave while you can!
GodDAMN I had to scroll down a long way to find this. People, we just went over this shit a few days ago: the patent contrasts the technique in question with alpha-blending. This is a non-issue.
I'm well beyond being amused by all the lawyers jumping into this story to demonstrate their wisdom and knowledge without ever fucking reading the patent being discussed. Please let's shoot this one and put it out of its misery.
This is funny, because I actually consulted an encyclopedia to come up with the number 12. I knew I was lumping the Yukon and Northwest Territories in with the provinces (my teachers did this when I was in school, too, but didn't mention that it wasn't common usage in Canada--probably didn't know), but even with that bit of 'poetic license' I was still wrong. Pretty sad, huh?
Well, I don't pretend that it's any less strange, but apparently the writer him(her?)self, Advogato, is supposed to be a cat. There's never any reference to anyone else as a cat, only frequent use of the phrase 'this cat', as in 'this reporter'. If you click on the personal information for Advogato, you'll see a bit about this writing feline.
Every time I hear operations/transfers between the U.S. and Canada referred to as 'international' I have to do a reality check. I keep forgetting Canada's not the 51st state. (Canadians note: no belittlement intended--the U.S. can be the 13th province if you like that better, though I doubt you do.) With all due respect to Canada's, um, unique national culture, it's not very different, and I've been there to see for myself.
Anyway, my point is, corporations cheerfully take advantage of the close relationship between the two countries when it boosts their profits, then want to pretend that the complexities of international transactions make it impossible to accept responsibility for their actions when things go sour. What bullshit. It's like pretending they don't have to reimburse you for crushing your computer because it happened in Kentucky, and they have different laws there.
Sorry about the atrocities committed to your stuff, dude.
Would it perhaps be feasible to to compile the CML2 parser, and just ship that binary for those that don't want to install Python as well? Or does someone have other tricks up their sleeve?
In the cited document (I know, it's a long, technical, and only semi-interesting read), The CML2 Language, ESR says this about that:
Python, unlike other scripting languages, can be (effectively) compiled to pure C using the freeze facility. The translation is not pretty, and produces rather large C programs from even small Python sources, but it does meet the problem of portability head-on. Kernels could be shipped with a precompiled rulebase and a frozen C version of the CML2 interpreter to avoid the requirement for Python.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Copyright and patent both do such a miserable job of balancing the rights and needs of programmers (who are also users) and users (who are frequently also programmers) and society as a whole, that we should probably invent something new to handle it. It will take a lot of thought and a lot of discussion to figure out what that new thing should be and how it should work. We can't just put forth a list of grievances with the old system; we need to be able to describe something better.
Supporting Free Software is a good thing, and useful. Clearly, though, it isn't adequate, or we wouldn't still be in this mess.
...about this guy's sexuality sorted out. How the hell am I supposed to make an intelligent decision about open source GUIs and themes without this information?
Well, thanks, but I already looked there. I find pointer accel, pointer threshold, double click interval, drag start time and drag start distance. No control for pointer speed. This installation is dead stock KDE 2.1.1; anything I could add or upgrade to affect this change?
my mother doesn't even see much difference between KDE in Windows mode and Windows
Okay, what's your secret? I cannot get the base (as opposed to accelerated) speed of the mouse cursor to a decent level in X (KDE/RH7.1), and the only FAQ question I've found about it basically admits as much.
If Linux is ever going to take over large chunks of the desktop market, I think it will be because of some radically and snazzy different new design that that by pure chance catches fire and becomes a fad.
I just had this conversation in another thread. This need not be an accident; one of the desktop projects (or an entirely new one, God help us) needs to tap the best thinking on alternative paradigms (heh heh--I said 'paradigms') for user interface and do something different and EFFECTIVE.
As usual, I just let 5 mod points drop unused yesterday, and today I see this. I like this post, and wish I could mod it up. Also, I agree with most of the points made. Linux has evangelists aplenty; where are the visionaries?
You don't know that there's no exploit available for this bug. What's worse, you don't know if there's an exploit for the other 112 bugs that haven't been found by any of the good guys yet, or the who-knows-how-many that have been found but are still under wraps because MS doesn't advocate full disclosure. Failure to disclose bugs leaves you in the dark, but that doesn't mean the crackers are equally mystified. Full disclosure is in the user's best interest in the long run, even when it causes short-term disturbances.
Yeah, that's true. I knew there was a good example I was forgetting; I just couldn't think of it when I was posting. Oh well, forget I mentioned it.
...why some sciences seem to be so lucky and others so cursed. We've been spinning our wheels on fusion power seemingly forever, and storage battery technology inches along, and we're perpetually awaiting our personal jetpacks (well, I am). But every crazy idea that comes along in computers just works.
Very strange.
I agree completely with cut him slack and be nice--no reason not too. But I think it's funny that you can assume he's fragile because he's young, but don't want others making any assumption based on their experience with the hazards of youth.
Just an observation....
Don't complain to us; we already know. Write the letter.
Actually, I think it was bypassable the first time, and, when I went back to verify this, I didn't get the intro at all. So they're not totally unsophisticated. Not that they're not a bunch of assholes for sending these letters to people, but as corporate websites go, it's not a total farce.
You mean, say, something like this?
...five years ago when popular science magazines were discussing how close we were to finally breaking all barriers and answering all mysteries. That seemed like a pretty strong hint we were about to see everything we thought we knew knocked helter-skelter by some of those little niggling details we hadn't cleaned up yet.
I don't pretend to have any idea where this squabble is headed, but somebody might want to start thinking up a good name for a whole new branch of physics. Looks like these guys are just about to figure out they're looking at different parts of the same elephant [from an old parable, if that makes no sense to you].
You mean 'overlook', and no, you didn't. Perhaps it reverses thrust when you, um, think of a stop sign.
I don't know if you'll check back for responses to this post, but if you do I wonder if you could clarify your comment about american being a poorer version of english. I'm not aware that there is anything that can be said in the british dialect that cannot be said just as clearly in american, but I'd be interested to hear your views on this (or was it just flamebait?)
He obviously also speaks (or at least reads English). Perhaps for the benefit of those of us who don't speak German, he could post in the language the rest of us are using. I see many posts from people for whom English is obviously a second language (or they graduated from one of the poorer U.S. public schools), but guess what: they post in English anyway, so we can all follow along. And I'll bet a lot of them don't speak German either.
Holy shit! I didn't even know my computer knew how to make those, um, characters. But unless there's a lot of arithmetic being discussed, it doesn't know how to make all of them.
This 'new' essay is a lightly edited version of a response to O'Reilly's original blog entry (linked to at the bottom of said blog entry, BTW), which is dated 8/15/01. What's more, it's already been discussed on Slashdot before, because that's what pointed me to this whole morass three months ago.
But while we're back at it again, let me one more time remind people that copyright is no more insidious or evil than than any other legal instrument that permits people to enter into contracts with each other. In the case of using a copyrighted good, that contract is spelled out in the copyright notice, and must be accepted by the consumer prior to using the good (reading the book, playing the cd, installing the software, whatever). While it does indeed serve to raise the price of copyrightable goods, a basic understanding of the laws of economics tells us that this rise in price serves to increase the supply of available copyrighted works.
In the specific case of software freedom, the issue we're trying to get at is probably not copyright at all, since all GNU software is copyrighted, and (almost) no one denies that it is 'free' software. What we're concerned with is whether software is open source or not, and whether we have the legal right to change that source code. Releasing software under a Closed Source type of license imposes costs on the user above and beyond the monitary costs; these additional costs (which are so well enumerated by Kuhn and Stallman--see essay) are important reasons that Open Source software exists and will continue to thrive. But they do not justify attempts to deny developers the right to release software they have created under the license of their choice, any more than the simple act of requiring payment for the use of the software would justify such legal action.
If you're viewing posts 'newest first', count your blessings--you have received this warning in time. Click off this fucking discussion right now before you scroll down to the argument between the fucking idiot who wants to use a political analogy to tell us why AtheOS is bad for OS and the fucking idiot who wants to use that as an excuse to tell us why the U.S. political system is fucked up. This thread is dangerous to your mental health. It is stupid, banal, boring, whiny, and insufficiently down-moderated. Leave while you can!
GodDAMN I had to scroll down a long way to find this. People, we just went over this shit a few days ago: the patent contrasts the technique in question with alpha-blending. This is a non-issue.
I'm well beyond being amused by all the lawyers jumping into this story to demonstrate their wisdom and knowledge without ever fucking reading the patent being discussed. Please let's shoot this one and put it out of its misery.
This is funny, because I actually consulted an encyclopedia to come up with the number 12. I knew I was lumping the Yukon and Northwest Territories in with the provinces (my teachers did this when I was in school, too, but didn't mention that it wasn't common usage in Canada--probably didn't know), but even with that bit of 'poetic license' I was still wrong. Pretty sad, huh?
Well, I don't pretend that it's any less strange, but apparently the writer him(her?)self, Advogato, is supposed to be a cat. There's never any reference to anyone else as a cat, only frequent use of the phrase 'this cat', as in 'this reporter'. If you click on the personal information for Advogato, you'll see a bit about this writing feline.
Like I said, not any less weird....
This post is correct. Moderate it up to 20, close the discussion, and get on to something that wasn't a non-issue before we ever started.
Every time I hear operations/transfers between the U.S. and Canada referred to as 'international' I have to do a reality check. I keep forgetting Canada's not the 51st state. (Canadians note: no belittlement intended--the U.S. can be the 13th province if you like that better, though I doubt you do.) With all due respect to Canada's, um, unique national culture, it's not very different, and I've been there to see for myself.
Anyway, my point is, corporations cheerfully take advantage of the close relationship between the two countries when it boosts their profits, then want to pretend that the complexities of international transactions make it impossible to accept responsibility for their actions when things go sour. What bullshit. It's like pretending they don't have to reimburse you for crushing your computer because it happened in Kentucky, and they have different laws there.
Sorry about the atrocities committed to your stuff, dude.
Would it perhaps be feasible to to compile the CML2 parser, and just ship that binary for those that don't want to install Python as well? Or does someone have other tricks up their sleeve?
In the cited document (I know, it's a long, technical, and only semi-interesting read), The CML2 Language, ESR says this about that:
Python, unlike other scripting languages, can be (effectively) compiled to pure C using the freeze facility. The translation is not pretty, and produces rather large C programs from even small Python sources, but it does meet the problem of portability head-on. Kernels could be shipped with a precompiled rulebase and a frozen C version of the CML2 interpreter to avoid the requirement for Python.