As I was reading their example, something like: a -> b c -> d ->e With their temporal list of {b,a,c,d,e} I had to wonder whether that was a more useful list than simply keeping {a,b,a,c,d,e}. I realise that their list would tend to eliminate duplicate entried of the same page, but wouldn't the other list be a closer mirror of the actual pages in the actual order visited? It may be that some people think in terms of "I want to be back at the page I was at 7 pages back" rather than navigating by looking at each page. And I think this difference might be significant if we had a button that could travel back several pages at once (in an unknown method other than the pull-down page title thing that most back buttons now have. I dunno, maybe a scroll-bar type button - or using the mouse wheel to scroll the pages rather than the current screen.)
I absolutely agree with you, and I'd rather see more of this discussion held in an arena that we control.
BUT I'm a little concerned about their motives and given their track record I wonder why they're really here? Are they planing to use their acceptance here to further their "Shared Sourse is just like Open Source but better" bs? Is there any way that they think they can embrace and extend open source?
STILL I think better to let them come and not waste time protesting them. Spend time engaging them, and illustrating why our way is better than theirs.
I've gotta agree. While I usually like Lynch, the whole weirding module thing and the sound-based weapons... it significantly changed the plot. And then there were those annoying little details like heart plugs, etc... that just irritated me to no end. I just chalked it up to the difficulty of making that book into a movie, but then SF came along and did a much better adeptation.
But with.NET, it seems you need to know VB and ASP and C# and...
Ok, it may seem to be a bit of a stretch, but when ya think about it, in order to mantain.NET a programer will have to know these at least these 3 languages and quite possibly more since.NET source could be in any of these languages.
Remember that only a fraction of the effort in in development, most of it (in my experience) is in mantainence, and multiple languages in the same project means that all programmers should be able to at least read them all.
But sometimes the devil is in those split hairs
on
NARAS vs. the RIAA
·
· Score: 1
I think that part of the problem with the discussion of IP today is that copyright and patents are both lumped together and there should not be such a thing as IP, but rather that there are copyrights and there are patents. I also think that copyright infringement is more similar to tresspassing (physical property infringement) than it is to theft (on the high seas with eye patches and parrots or otherwise.)
And even if this is "just" debate over semantics, the language used in a debate and the background for that debate has a great deal of influence over the ability to persuade people. I'm just trying to pull the debate away from thinking of IP (copyright and patent) infringement as theft and more as simply infringement since theft implies that the owner has lost something (and of course the owner still owns his work, and can still sell copies of it to his heart's content) while infringement merely implies that another has used that property (work) without the owner's permission.
There is a difference between ownership of IP and the right to use that IP.
Near as I can tell, TrollTech isn't offering the Qt IP for sale. They are offering liscences for sale, and the distinction between a liscence to use that IP (which is usually what is for sale) and the actual IP itself (which usually is not for sale) is the point I was illustrating.
I do understand your point about de-emphasizing the property aspect of IP. However, the property aspect of IP is not the work itself, but rather the copyright or patent that covers the work. After all, one can patent a math formula (like RSA) but who can ever really own math? Or even a piece of math? But what has value to a business here is the exclusive ability to control who is allowed to use what you've created. So the property is not the work, but the (government enforced) privilege to control access to that work.
The benefit to them is that through browser popularity they can influence decisions about server software and platforms. If the dominate web browser out there is IE, and if IIS will give you a performance advantage when serving pages to IE, then of course you'll want to use IIS (and the server market has much larger profit margins than the consumer market.) It's in their best interests to maintain their browser dominance (since this can help drive their server sales) by making the web as inconvenient to the malcontents who use anything other than IE as possible in the hopes of (1) eventually getting them to switch to IE, and (2) dissuading current IE users from switching to other browsers.
Anyway, that's about as coherant of a justification for this behavior as you'll get out of me.
Re:How can you sell property more than once?
on
NARAS vs. the RIAA
·
· Score: 1
But you'd be in the same trouble if you sold your IP to more than one person. When one buys a CD, a movie, a non-free software package, one is not buying the IP, but rather permission to use that IP.
A better analogy would be say owning a bar. Some bars require patrons to pay a cover charge to get in, and patrons who sneak in through the bathroom window are tresspassing. There's no problem with selling multiple admissions to multiple patrons, or even charging different admission prices based on gender or time, becasue you're not selling your bar, you're selling permission to use the bar.
Personally, I prefer the bars that don't charge a cover.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to re-frame the discussion about violating IP as tresspassing rather than piracy. It seems to me to be a more accurate description.
My understanding (and I've not much MS experience) is that the security model for Win is more complex and therefore more difficult to secure. In *nix, everything's a file, and I think that makes it simpler. Plus, the Unix model's been around for 30+ years, and it's an open model.
I dunno - considering that the only utility you need to customize *nix security is vi, where with Windows you need countless wizards and administrative tools and multiple registry settings for the same items.... well it confuses me (not that that's hard to do)
No, Starbucks became popular because most places sell a WORSE product. They remain popular because they sell the SAME product line everywhere they are. Kinda like McDonald's.
Hmmmm, Best System Integration Software must have only had one entry in order for SFU to win that one. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that include the MKS toolkit? What a worthless pain in my behind that is. Got a not-quite Korn compatible shell, a gui cron-ish scheduler, and a gui vi. I dunno why you'd want to pay for a half-working unixish environment when you can get Cygwin for free (and it even works they way you'd expect it to!)
In Louisiana gambling was (and still is) explicitly prohibited by our constitution. So we don't have any gambling down here - the lottery, the casinos, the horse tracks, etc... are all defined as gaming instead....
I plan to file complaints on calls from politicians and non-profits also - even if they're exempt from the fines. And if enough people do this then maybe our politicians will see that there is desire to be free of political/charitible phone-spam and they'll either include it (not likely) or refrain from pissing the public off with their calls (not likely either - but hey, I can dream can't I?)
Why not have 3 lists, one for do not call commercial, one for do not call political and one for do not call non-profit? I'd sign up for all 3. I'm just as irritated being interrupted during dinner to donate to the Firefighter's Benevolent Orphans and Widows blah blah blah. And I really don't want to have Jesse Jackson call to remind me to vote for Cleo Fields (f-ing crook) either...
If I want to give to charity, I'll make the effort to go to them. If I want to vote for or against something, I make the effort to investigate it myself rather than listen to the lies that the proponents/opponents spread about it.
They just need to stay off my phone. And off my answering machine.
There's actually some evidance of chocolate being (mildly) physically addictive.
I think that rather than telling someone to 'stop' it would be more aproptiate to tell them to either fix themselves or shut the hell up. I've just got no sympathy for people with psychological addictions whining about how hard their life is. Oh, everyone's a victim, no one's responsible for their actions.... I know, why don't they sue Sony for their EQ addiction. [runs out to the store to buy a pack of Marlboros, a Happy Meal, and EverQuest]
Since the ifconfig man pages contain instructions on how to change MAC addresses and Since changing the MAC address would allow a cheater to circumvent access controls Then are the ifconfig man pages now illegal in the US under the DMCA?
Down here (New Orleans) we had (almost) all of the public schools institute manditory uniforms - and the reasoning behind it was that it would save parents money since they wouldn't have to buy the designer closes that their children demanded of them.
Seems to me that if you need a school policy to be able to stand up to your children then you've got more serious problems there than spending too much money on clothes.
But even if they lose money on the hardware (and I suspect that it's not enough money to really matter for them) the more people that buy it, the more attractive the platform becomes for software distributers, which in turn increases the revenue stream for MS.
On the other hand having the consoles sitting on store shelves and in warehouses would be much more expensice to MS and would not grow the x-box market.
But passively listening in on wireless networks does not deny the owners of anything, so I don't see how that can be considered theft. And if you could somehow define it as theft then how do you deal with two people setting up overlapping networks. Surely they are not stealing from each other by occasionally picking up wireless packets intended for the other network.
And I wonder, since this is part of the unregulated spectrum, and since these devices must accept any external interferance, couldn't sniffing, or even using their network constitute interferance and would the fact that they have decided to set up their wireless network in unregulated space prevent them from having any recourse from others steping on their network?
Slashdot Mirror
if only I could get it with a trackpoint instead of that gawd-awful touchpad.........
As I was reading their example, something like:
a -> b c -> d ->e
With their temporal list of {b,a,c,d,e} I had to wonder whether that was a more useful list than simply keeping {a,b,a,c,d,e}. I realise that their list would tend to eliminate duplicate entried of the same page, but wouldn't the other list be a closer mirror of the actual pages in the actual order visited? It may be that some people think in terms of "I want to be back at the page I was at 7 pages back" rather than navigating by looking at each page. And I think this difference might be significant if we had a button that could travel back several pages at once (in an unknown method other than the pull-down page title thing that most back buttons now have. I dunno, maybe a scroll-bar type button - or using the mouse wheel to scroll the pages rather than the current screen.)
I absolutely agree with you, and I'd rather see more of this discussion held in an arena that we control.
BUT
I'm a little concerned about their motives and given their track record I wonder why they're really here? Are they planing to use their acceptance here to further their "Shared Sourse is just like Open Source but better" bs? Is there any way that they think they can embrace and extend open source?
STILL
I think better to let them come and not waste time protesting them. Spend time engaging them, and illustrating why our way is better than theirs.
I've gotta agree. While I usually like Lynch, the whole weirding module thing and the sound-based weapons... it significantly changed the plot. And then there were those annoying little details like heart plugs, etc... that just irritated me to no end. I just chalked it up to the difficulty of making that book into a movie, but then SF came along and did a much better adeptation.
I just wish they had better actors.
Remember that only a fraction of the effort in in development, most of it (in my experience) is in mantainence, and multiple languages in the same project means that all programmers should be able to at least read them all.
I like where that's going.
I think that part of the problem with the discussion of IP today is that copyright and patents are both lumped together and there should not be such a thing as IP, but rather that there are copyrights and there are patents. I also think that copyright infringement is more similar to tresspassing (physical property infringement) than it is to theft (on the high seas with eye patches and parrots or otherwise.)
And even if this is "just" debate over semantics, the language used in a debate and the background for that debate has a great deal of influence over the ability to persuade people. I'm just trying to pull the debate away from thinking of IP (copyright and patent) infringement as theft and more as simply infringement since theft implies that the owner has lost something (and of course the owner still owns his work, and can still sell copies of it to his heart's content) while infringement merely implies that another has used that property (work) without the owner's permission.
There is a difference between ownership of IP and the right to use that IP.
Near as I can tell, TrollTech isn't offering the Qt IP for sale. They are offering liscences for sale, and the distinction between a liscence to use that IP (which is usually what is for sale) and the actual IP itself (which usually is not for sale) is the point I was illustrating.
I do understand your point about de-emphasizing the property aspect of IP. However, the property aspect of IP is not the work itself, but rather the copyright or patent that covers the work. After all, one can patent a math formula (like RSA) but who can ever really own math? Or even a piece of math? But what has value to a business here is the exclusive ability to control who is allowed to use what you've created. So the property is not the work, but the (government enforced) privilege to control access to that work.
The benefit to them is that through browser popularity they can influence decisions about server software and platforms. If the dominate web browser out there is IE, and if IIS will give you a performance advantage when serving pages to IE, then of course you'll want to use IIS (and the server market has much larger profit margins than the consumer market.) It's in their best interests to maintain their browser dominance (since this can help drive their server sales) by making the web as inconvenient to the malcontents who use anything other than IE as possible in the hopes of (1) eventually getting them to switch to IE, and (2) dissuading current IE users from switching to other browsers.
Anyway, that's about as coherant of a justification for this behavior as you'll get out of me.
But you'd be in the same trouble if you sold your IP to more than one person. When one buys a CD, a movie, a non-free software package, one is not buying the IP, but rather permission to use that IP.
A better analogy would be say owning a bar. Some bars require patrons to pay a cover charge to get in, and patrons who sneak in through the bathroom window are tresspassing. There's no problem with selling multiple admissions to multiple patrons, or even charging different admission prices based on gender or time, becasue you're not selling your bar, you're selling permission to use the bar.
Personally, I prefer the bars that don't charge a cover.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to re-frame the discussion about violating IP as tresspassing rather than piracy. It seems to me to be a more accurate description.
My understanding (and I've not much MS experience) is that the security model for Win is more complex and therefore more difficult to secure. In *nix, everything's a file, and I think that makes it simpler. Plus, the Unix model's been around for 30+ years, and it's an open model.
I dunno - considering that the only utility you need to customize *nix security is vi, where with Windows you need countless wizards and administrative tools and multiple registry settings for the same items.... well it confuses me (not that that's hard to do)
No, Starbucks became popular because most places sell a WORSE product.
They remain popular because they sell the SAME product line everywhere they are. Kinda like McDonald's.
Hmmmm, Best System Integration Software must have only had one entry in order for SFU to win that one. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that include the MKS toolkit? What a worthless pain in my behind that is. Got a not-quite Korn compatible shell, a gui cron-ish scheduler, and a gui vi. I dunno why you'd want to pay for a half-working unixish environment when you can get Cygwin for free (and it even works they way you'd expect it to!)
In Louisiana gambling was (and still is) explicitly prohibited by our constitution. So we don't have any gambling down here - the lottery, the casinos, the horse tracks, etc... are all defined as gaming instead....
I plan to file complaints on calls from politicians and non-profits also - even if they're exempt from the fines. And if enough people do this then maybe our politicians will see that there is desire to be free of political/charitible phone-spam and they'll either include it (not likely) or refrain from pissing the public off with their calls (not likely either - but hey, I can dream can't I?)
Why not have 3 lists, one for do not call commercial, one for do not call political and one for do not call non-profit? I'd sign up for all 3. I'm just as irritated being interrupted during dinner to donate to the Firefighter's Benevolent Orphans and Widows blah blah blah. And I really don't want to have Jesse Jackson call to remind me to vote for Cleo Fields (f-ing crook) either...
If I want to give to charity, I'll make the effort to go to them. If I want to vote for or against something, I make the effort to investigate it myself rather than listen to the lies that the proponents/opponents spread about it.
They just need to stay off my phone. And off my answering machine.
There's actually some evidance of chocolate being (mildly) physically addictive.
I think that rather than telling someone to 'stop' it would be more aproptiate to tell them to either fix themselves or shut the hell up. I've just got no sympathy for people with psychological addictions whining about how hard their life is. Oh, everyone's a victim, no one's responsible for their actions.... I know, why don't they sue Sony for their EQ addiction. [runs out to the store to buy a pack of Marlboros, a Happy Meal, and EverQuest]
That'd certainly make Jimmy Swaggart happy
I did and it couldn't even find the mouse (a Microsoft mouse at that).
Suppose you shouldn't need that for a firewall/router but it wouldn't supprise me if you did.
I just got this mental image of a Jesus Office Assistant... Maybe in Office XP (Chi-Rho).
Since the ifconfig man pages contain instructions on how to change MAC addresses and
Since changing the MAC address would allow a cheater to circumvent access controls
Then are the ifconfig man pages now illegal in the US under the DMCA?
Damn right!
Down here (New Orleans) we had (almost) all of the public schools institute manditory uniforms - and the reasoning behind it was that it would save parents money since they wouldn't have to buy the designer closes that their children demanded of them.
Seems to me that if you need a school policy to be able to stand up to your children then you've got more serious problems there than spending too much money on clothes.
Great, so now they'll have something else to fight over besides religion.
Yea, that'd be about as effective as using MAC addresses for authentication. It's not like anyone would be able to spoof their GPS location.
But even if they lose money on the hardware (and I suspect that it's not enough money to really matter for them) the more people that buy it, the more attractive the platform becomes for software distributers, which in turn increases the revenue stream for MS.
On the other hand having the consoles sitting on store shelves and in warehouses would be much more expensice to MS and would not grow the x-box market.
But passively listening in on wireless networks does not deny the owners of anything, so I don't see how that can be considered theft. And if you could somehow define it as theft then how do you deal with two people setting up overlapping networks. Surely they are not stealing from each other by occasionally picking up wireless packets intended for the other network.
And I wonder, since this is part of the unregulated spectrum, and since these devices must accept any external interferance, couldn't sniffing, or even using their network constitute interferance and would the fact that they have decided to set up their wireless network in unregulated space prevent them from having any recourse from others steping on their network?