The first is an example of wasting resources detailing new regulation which looks like it was written by a male secretary who only uses TeX and drinks Jolt cola, and has serious problems identifying the priorities in life.
The second is a government docket from the USDA detailing in what seems to be the streamlining of the inspection and labeling system. The context is unfamiliar for most of us (food inspection + labeling), and he may not have don't the greatest job trying to be clear and concise.
However, He makes an honest attempt to be precise, probably because it is a docket.
Oh yeah, one of these affects the quality of our food supply.
Here's some more examples to what seems to look like stupid and complicated excerpts. (Atleast by your standard...)
Subsection 1201(b)(1) is similar to subsection 1201(a)(2), except that subsection 1201(a)(2) covers those who traffic in technology that can circumvent "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under" Title 17, whereas subsection 1201(b)(1) covers those who traffic in technology that can circumvent "protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under" Title 17. Id. 1201(a)(2), (b)(1) (emphases added). In other words, although both subsections prohibit trafficking in a circumvention technology, the focus of subsection 1201(a)(2) is circumvention of technologies designed to prevent access to a work, and the focus of subsection 1201(b)(1) is circumvention of technologies designed to permit access to a work but prevent copying of the work or some other act that infringes a copyright. See S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 11-12 (1998). Subsection 1201(a)(1) differs from both of these anti-trafficking subsections in that it targets the use of a circumvention technology, not the trafficking in such a technology.
Wow... That looks stupid and frivilous too!!! Why can't they just make these things simple.
How about this example:
The WRR qdisc distributes bandwidth between its classes using the weighted round robin scheme. That is, like the CBQ qdisc it contains classes into which arbitrary qdiscs can be plugged. All classes which have sufficient demand will get bandwidth proportional to the weights associated with the classes. The weights can be set manually using the tc program. But they can also be made automatically decreasing for classes transferring much data.
The qdisc has a built-in classifier which assigns packets coming from or sent to different machines to different classes. Either the MAC or IP and either source or destination addresses can be used. The MAC address can only be used when the Linux box is acting as an ethernet bridge, however. The classes are automatically assigned to machines based on the packets seen.
I thought I understood trolling when I was younger, but I didn't really seem to understand your form. You see, when I trolled it was utter nonsense, and anybody getting truely riled up by it looked like an idiot.
Minus the "I'm the tasty treat nobody can resists" (I should have known picked it up from there) it seems like you're form of trolling offers some purpose as people are often presented with arguments like the one you presented with failed logic.
It's almost like you're turning Slashdot into a game where you present a flawed, but somewhat believable argument, and the rest of us are aiming to refute it as concisely and quickly as possible, without sounding like your blowing too much hot air. Pretty clever...
...OR...
Is your troll the kind that teaches us to ignore stupid posts? (Hence, the THWACK)
BSD license results: 1 free version without improvements + 2 commercial derivatives with improvements
vs.
GNU license results: 1 free version without improvements
So now the end user that wants both improvements suffers because he has to pay 2 companies to get both improvements and since they both closed their source he can't use both improvements at the same time.
In the GNU scenerio, improved versions wouldn't even be available, let alone a hybred of 2 improved versions... Oh wait, but in the GNU scenerio people will just volunteer thier time to make these improvements whereas the BSD scenerio people don't volunteer thier time to make these improvements.
You imply that it's possible to create something without someone owning it. In the end, everything is owned by somebody. Whether it be an individual, a corporation, or a state, everything belongs to someone.
Owning something implies that the party exercises exclusive control over that something. When EVERYBODY owns something (public domain), does it really fcsking matter anymore?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
You decided to recycle the reason for having patents and copyrights to apply to this argument. There's a reason for that argument, which you seemed to miss, and that is to allow Authors and Inventors to recoup thier time and money creating said Art, thus to encourage artists and inventors to SHARE thier discoveries.
In OUR scenerio, where the PUBLIC FUNDS our Artist/Inventor. There is nothing to recoup. Or, atleast the original funder isn't recouped (you and me)...
Whether funded by the US Government, Bayer, Sony, or Mama Cass, the innovations belong to the individuals who discover/develop them. If the innovators want to license their developments to other corporations, that's their decision.
This is true... What we're advocating is that the US Government should be limited to give funding to individuals who will not retain the intellectual rights, but rather release it into the public domain. This is perfectly normal, legal, constitutional, and WAS very much common practice before the Bayh-Dole Act.
Lastly, Think about the implications of publicly funded technology ending up in the public domain. This means it commercialized and expanded on by ANY company, which from what I understand creates COMPETITION, which I also understand is a KEY mechanism in a prosperous capitalistic society?
BUT Firstly, I believe that if it's paid with public money, the code needs to be public.
However, like the article points out: There are cases where a researcher augments proprietary code, thus is unable to release the code to the public.
There should be a provision for cases like this, but this provision should be made very difficult to prevent abuse (Everybody saying thier an exception).
1. Status quo = Only corporations benefit
2. BSD + Public Domain = Everybody can benefit
3. GPL = Only GPL users benefit
And why should the greedy corporations benefit from the public funding?
Why should a public infrastructure discriminate between a company or an individual?
I release all my work into the public domain, because I'm more interested in my work being used and available then keeping companies from profiting off it. Why shouldn't all research enjoy the priveledge to be shared with EVERYONE with no strings attached?
I wouldn't have to point it out to the people saying they want to pay the artist for the material. That's not a possible legal solution for most of the music they want to access.
Yes... but I ALREADY pointed that out my original post.
You just expanded on what I said by putting in the context of an example, but you made it sound like I missed something.
PS, I'm not being obsessed on being right... I'm obsessed on how everybody else is wrong...:)
Jesus... If I said it once, I'll say it again... All of the crap you're talking about is Passport, not.NET and by the way... The two aren't integrated. Passport is to.NET as Jxta is to Java.
1. Passport is already out and available and relatively easy to use (integrating into an application), but the adoption is slow because most people don't need a global authentication service with personalized info.
.NET makes the creation of Passport clones relatively easy, so I really doubt Passport is going to become a monopoly any time soon...
This crap about.NET being a philosophy is about as much crap as Java being a religion. Both are tools in which you can develop client or server applications. Both are capable of using Passport, and both are capable of creating web services.
Microsoft is trying to sell.NET as a platform where you can develop applications that can talk to your partners applications.
They want to replace EDI (A very large sector) with SOAP and BizTalk (this would make it larger). That's where the money is...
They're not focusing thier attention towards Joe Beer who may buy thier OS and pirate a version of Office for home. They know they can't squeeze money out of Joe beer for the priviledge to use Passport (A tool that saves Joe Beer 30 seconds to sign up on a new service)...
You need to quit smoking too much wacky weed. Everybody knows a little bit now and then is good for the mind, but too much kills critical thinking...
.NET is just like Java. It's a virtual machine environment that executes pseudo-machine code that is very readable, thus making it easy for the VM to indentify and prevent malicious code from running (giving your running in applet mode)...
1. That right there makes a.NET a safer application environment than conventional executables.
2. Passport and.NET aren't tied together.
I would honestly predict that very few.NET applications will use Passport. Passport is already available today and pretty easy to implement with VB and ASP, but nobody is really using it. People just don't trust it, and there's not that much to gain from using it...
Remember Passport is just an authentication service with extras. This is a commodity technology with a lot of players, and if it does get hot I'm sure Yahoo or AOL are very capable of making thier own competiting authenication services...
Firstly, I'm not a MS fan, I hate to defend them, but I feel compelled to correct gross misconceptions when I see them...
1..NET is pretty much a Java clone that supports many languages. That's it...
.NET is a virtual machine. It's as dangerous a Java or any other programming platform. (Yes,.NET is capable of an applet like technology, restricting the program to not damage the system)
2..NET programmers aren't forced to use Passport just like Java programmers aren't forced to use Jxta. So, I don't see how they're going to force you to use Passport, let alone charge for it.
3. Microsoft isn't looking to put everything on the Server. This would jeopardize thier client monopoly, and plus it makes absolutely no sense.
If Microsoft wants to insure a steady revenue stream, they have two ways of doing this.
A. Change the license to require companies to renew thier license after x years.
B. Add new features to the next version causing customers to salivate and upgrade.
They're pretty much doing a good job with B, but if they happen to fail, they can always revert to A.
If you would like me to clarify on any further points, feel free to respond.
Maybe we'll atleast get some representation with a World Govt, we sure as hell aren't getting any with the WTO (Responsible for this DMCA BS in the first place being that the WIPO treaty requires countries to legislate thier own DMCAs or face the trade consequences...)
His whole point was: I'll switch to Lindows if it can run (My Favorite App)
Not: InterDev + ASP RULEZ!!!
This is a great point, especially for Win32 developers. If you can't run your Win32 development tools on Lindows, what can you run?
Lastly, I don't understand this IDE hate. What's wrong with using productive tools like integrated debuggers, color coding, code templates, etc. Are these extra features a major cause of sezuires? He finds them very useful, as do I. Why should he or anyone have to REVERT to notepad?
I can understand another editor like CodeWarrior, Emacs, etc., etc. but NOTEPAD???
Maybe we should all revert to assembler... no...no... HEX!!!
(* Rather, I'm suggesting if one, two, or 5 have different formats and rules, XML transformation should be able to handle it. *)
Example? In my experience it is a matter of human communication and negotiation, not a magic algorithmic
I wasn't suggesting that XML tranformation is a magic algorithm that doesn't require user intervention. You need a person to explain to the software how to transform from one format to one your system can digest, which is current done with XSLT.
While this isn't a magic algorithm, it provides just enough technology to allow companies to develop newer/better standards while providing a means to support existing systems, making it A LOT more flexible than EDI.
Of course (and it goes without saying), it ALL relies on some basic human negotiation and communication. However, Unlike EDI, you'll find you'll need a lot less negotiation regarding HOW you send the information, but rather WHAT information.
Guy: Hey Geek, I'm looking to get a computer, but I want to make sure I can upgrade it and get all the good toys with it. What kind of computer should I get?
Geek: Hey Guy. Upgradablility and toys? I can get you a great price (Geek bragging rights) from (insert favorite PC manufacturer here).
The PC had all the good toys and games. Even if it was harder to use (see Dave Barry's point), a guy will still buy the one that's upgradable and has the best toys.
Remember, Geeks recommened upgradable PCs with the cool toys, because they remembered how fscking annoying it was that you couldn't run game X on the Mac, and you couldn't upgrade the video card, or run this specific program, yada yada yada yada...
Bonus: Figuring out thier PC gave a man bragging rights back in the day...
Insinuate
1. To introduce or otherwise convey (a thought, for example) gradually and insidiously.
2. To introduce or insert (oneself) by subtle and artful means.
I would use the alternative...
Sorry, but 3 SUGGESTS that slashdot readers are Linux developers. They are not.
The format is only 1/3 of the battle. Agreeing on content arrangments/rules is the tricky part:
I agree that content arrangment and rules are still a big part of the piece, but with XML and XML tranformation, you can accept different arragments and rules from different people, which makes it pooploads more versatile than EDI.
Please don't misunderstand me and think that I'm suggesting that companies should accommodate every other companies subtile rules. Rather, I'm suggesting if one, two, or 5 have different formats and rules, XML transformation should be able to handle it.
I hope you don't live in the US because if you do I'm sure there's a socialist country somewhere that's just waiting for people like you.
Jesus Christ, Which economic model would you compare a government sponsered monopoly to anyways? A Capitalistic model where competition is the driving force, or a Socialistic model where beaurcracy is the driving force?
...and I don't understand anything about capitalism???
Here are some basic lessons you need to learn before your misguided accusations call a good American like myself a commie.
1. We use a capitalistic system to create wealth so as to enrich the quality of life. It is not an end to itself.
2. The goal of capitalism is not to create monopolies where efficiency eventually suffers, but to create COMMODITY markets where products are inexpensive, of good quality, and truely enrich life.
The wonderful thing about commodity markets is that entrepenuers have to add VALUE to thier products, thus creating WEALTH.
What I was suggesting in my original post was the following: The FCC is keeping the telecommunications industry from becoming a commodity industry like that of the PC industry with thier corrupt practices.
PS, I am an American who loves thier country and hates thier government, who robs thier citizens of thier right to improve their and others standard of living everyday... AKA the right to pursue happiness.
If you think we should just let the government and the lobbiests do what they want until thier heart is content, why don't YOU move to a socialist country, or better yet... A communist country where your right to vote is stripped away and doesn't matter anyway.
Personally, I don't think this is much bigger than mail fraud. IMHO, Rather than criminalize sending unsolicited email, I would criminalize sending spam without an ADV: prefix or ADV ADULT: prefix.
This would effectively give them the freedom to send as much unsolicited junk to people who want it, and let us who don't want it to filter it out.
As far as regulating technology goes, I think there's bigger fish to fry. Here's some examples of how the FCC helps the communication monopolies keep thier monopolies...
My point: Communications and tech have been regulated for YEARS. So while you're pondering if criminalizing spam MAY set a bad precident, existing technology and communication monopolies are doing everything to criminalize and patent truely liberating technology (Ultra-Wide-Band) (DSL without the telcos): (That is before they figure out how to use it for thier own advantage)
...and that's just one very small facit of the problem...
For new music this is correct. But if you want something by Madonna, the record companies already own all her old work. That's only accessible by making deals with the record company, the artist unfortunately has no say there.
Napster will offer artists and labels tools to register as rights holders and get paid for sharing their music on Napster. Artists and other rights holders can set rules for how their music files are used, check their account status online, and receive quarterly statements.
Many artists are legally bound to thier labels and have no control over thier music, so most of your money will go to those labels. HOWEVER, A Label isn't required to distribute your music via new Napster, so those Artists who wish to get paid directly CAN. And those who wish to sell thier soul, can sign up with the labels...
I just got an email offering Bachelors, Masters, and PhDs WITHOUT spending time in a classroom, because it's based on professional experience!!!
Seriously, 1 year is an awefully short period of time, and I would think you would really loose out on a lot of good classes.
Being in the same situation you're in, but having the benefit of following my friends throughout thier CS studies, I would have to say that I'm a lot less optimistic than you.
While you probably already know Universities don't subject you to much to the technology, you can really emerse yourself deeply in the theory.
My advice: If you really want to get the most out of a degree, put some good time in it and specialize in 2-3 related areas, while going for your Masters. Become THE authority in those 2-3 areas, and have the papers to back up your assertions.
...but is slowely being perverted as cheesy wannabe's figure out the formula for selling records and delivering thier trite messages.
While there's a big market for Britney Spears, there's another big market for "underground" music.
Thier sound or trite messages still doesn't distinguish the Backstreet Boys or Incubus from being a bunch of monkey boys who perform when you shove a quarter in thier ass.
It's all the same crap, targeted at a wide demographic of people and children, sending out the same old shit message, "Image is everything... Cultural, Political, Moral, Whatever..." (Note: Image refers to more than just external appearances. Include behavioral nuances and all elements of "culture")
What I do agree with is that these same people hawking Britney Spears have way too much influence on people. Hence, My opinions on fair use...
Really, I think that even the record industry didn't expect the various copy protections to really work. What they're doing is building an easily hackable content protection system so that they can prosecute MP3 traders under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
Ahh... A criminal charge can be filed against anyone who attempts to traffic a circumvention device, right?
Does it matter if you're selling the device like Elcomsoft, or can you give away circumvention devices as long as you're not profiting?
If possessing and/or trafficking copyright circumvention devices is illegal, then we're all fcuked...
Don't think the EU isn't going to get thier share of DMCA laws. After all, Isn't one of the provisions of the WIPO treaty to legislate a DMCA law by a specified deadline?
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest: I don't see the parallel...
The first is an example of wasting resources detailing new regulation which looks like it was written by a male secretary who only uses TeX and drinks Jolt cola, and has serious problems identifying the priorities in life.
The second is a government docket from the USDA detailing in what seems to be the streamlining of the inspection and labeling system. The context is unfamiliar for most of us (food inspection + labeling), and he may not have don't the greatest job trying to be clear and concise.
However, He makes an honest attempt to be precise, probably because it is a docket.
Oh yeah, one of these affects the quality of our food supply.
Here's some more examples to what seems to look like stupid and complicated excerpts. (Atleast by your standard...)
Subsection 1201(b)(1) is similar to subsection 1201(a)(2), except that subsection 1201(a)(2) covers those who traffic in technology that can circumvent "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under" Title 17, whereas subsection 1201(b)(1) covers those who traffic in technology that can circumvent "protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under" Title 17. Id. 1201(a)(2), (b)(1) (emphases added). In other words, although both subsections prohibit trafficking in a circumvention technology, the focus of subsection 1201(a)(2) is circumvention of technologies designed to prevent access to a work, and the focus of subsection 1201(b)(1) is circumvention of technologies designed to permit access to a work but prevent copying of the work or some other act that infringes a copyright. See S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 11-12 (1998). Subsection 1201(a)(1) differs from both of these anti-trafficking subsections in that it targets the use of a circumvention technology, not the trafficking in such a technology.
Source
Wow... That looks stupid and frivilous too!!! Why can't they just make these things simple.
How about this example:
The WRR qdisc distributes bandwidth between its classes using the weighted round robin scheme. That is, like the CBQ qdisc it contains classes into which arbitrary qdiscs can be plugged. All classes which have sufficient demand will get bandwidth proportional to the weights associated with the classes. The weights can be set manually using the tc program. But they can also be made automatically decreasing for classes transferring much data.
The qdisc has a built-in classifier which assigns packets coming from or sent to different machines to different classes. Either the MAC or IP and either source or destination addresses can be used. The MAC address can only be used when the Linux box is acting as an ethernet bridge, however. The classes are automatically assigned to machines based on the packets seen.
The Source
YHBT
I thought I understood trolling when I was younger, but I didn't really seem to understand your form. You see, when I trolled it was utter nonsense, and anybody getting truely riled up by it looked like an idiot.
Minus the "I'm the tasty treat nobody can resists" (I should have known picked it up from there) it seems like you're form of trolling offers some purpose as people are often presented with arguments like the one you presented with failed logic.
It's almost like you're turning Slashdot into a game where you present a flawed, but somewhat believable argument, and the rest of us are aiming to refute it as concisely and quickly as possible, without sounding like your blowing too much hot air. Pretty clever...
...OR...
Is your troll the kind that teaches us to ignore stupid posts? (Hence, the THWACK)
There's a problem with your scenerio...
BSD license results: 1 free version without improvements + 2 commercial derivatives with improvements
vs.
GNU license results: 1 free version without improvements
So now the end user that wants both improvements suffers because he has to pay 2 companies to get both improvements and since they both closed their source he can't use both improvements at the same time.
In the GNU scenerio, improved versions wouldn't even be available, let alone a hybred of 2 improved versions... Oh wait, but in the GNU scenerio people will just volunteer thier time to make these improvements whereas the BSD scenerio people don't volunteer thier time to make these improvements.
You imply that it's possible to create something without someone owning it. In the end, everything is owned by somebody. Whether it be an individual, a corporation, or a state, everything belongs to someone.
Owning something implies that the party exercises exclusive control over that something. When EVERYBODY owns something (public domain), does it really fcsking matter anymore?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
You decided to recycle the reason for having patents and copyrights to apply to this argument. There's a reason for that argument, which you seemed to miss, and that is to allow Authors and Inventors to recoup thier time and money creating said Art, thus to encourage artists and inventors to SHARE thier discoveries.
In OUR scenerio, where the PUBLIC FUNDS our Artist/Inventor. There is nothing to recoup. Or, atleast the original funder isn't recouped (you and me)...
Whether funded by the US Government, Bayer, Sony, or Mama Cass, the innovations belong to the individuals who discover/develop them. If the innovators want to license their developments to other corporations, that's their decision.
This is true... What we're advocating is that the US Government should be limited to give funding to individuals who will not retain the intellectual rights, but rather release it into the public domain. This is perfectly normal, legal, constitutional, and WAS very much common practice before the Bayh-Dole Act.
Lastly, Think about the implications of publicly funded technology ending up in the public domain. This means it commercialized and expanded on by ANY company, which from what I understand creates COMPETITION, which I also understand is a KEY mechanism in a prosperous capitalistic society?
You need to relearn your capitalism...
BUT Firstly, I believe that if it's paid with public money, the code needs to be public.
However, like the article points out: There are cases where a researcher augments proprietary code, thus is unable to release the code to the public.
There should be a provision for cases like this, but this provision should be made very difficult to prevent abuse (Everybody saying thier an exception).
1. Status quo = Only corporations benefit
2. BSD + Public Domain = Everybody can benefit
3. GPL = Only GPL users benefit
And why should the greedy corporations benefit from the public funding?
Why should a public infrastructure discriminate between a company or an individual?
I release all my work into the public domain, because I'm more interested in my work being used and available then keeping companies from profiting off it. Why shouldn't all research enjoy the priveledge to be shared with EVERYONE with no strings attached?
I wouldn't have to point it out to the people saying they want to pay the artist for the material. That's not a possible legal solution for most of the music they want to access.
:)
Yes... but I ALREADY pointed that out my original post.
You just expanded on what I said by putting in the context of an example, but you made it sound like I missed something.
PS, I'm not being obsessed on being right... I'm obsessed on how everybody else is wrong...
Jesus... If I said it once, I'll say it again... All of the crap you're talking about is Passport, not .NET and by the way... The two aren't integrated. Passport is to .NET as Jxta is to Java.
.NET makes the creation of Passport clones relatively easy, so I really doubt Passport is going to become a monopoly any time soon...
.NET being a philosophy is about as much crap as Java being a religion. Both are tools in which you can develop client or server applications. Both are capable of using Passport, and both are capable of creating web services.
.NET as a platform where you can develop applications that can talk to your partners applications.
1. Passport is already out and available and relatively easy to use (integrating into an application), but the adoption is slow because most people don't need a global authentication service with personalized info.
This crap about
Microsoft is trying to sell
They want to replace EDI (A very large sector) with SOAP and BizTalk (this would make it larger). That's where the money is...
They're not focusing thier attention towards Joe Beer who may buy thier OS and pirate a version of Office for home. They know they can't squeeze money out of Joe beer for the priviledge to use Passport (A tool that saves Joe Beer 30 seconds to sign up on a new service)...
You need to quit smoking too much wacky weed. Everybody knows a little bit now and then is good for the mind, but too much kills critical thinking...
1. Click on link...
2. Refresh page until right side banner shows Techno Scout with links below it...
You may notice a single word disclaimer above the banner that says, "Advertisement"
A reasonable person should easily be able to tell the difference...
1. That right there makes a
2. Passport and
I would honestly predict that very few
Remember Passport is just an authentication service with extras. This is a commodity technology with a lot of players, and if it does get hot I'm sure Yahoo or AOL are very capable of making thier own competiting authenication services...
Firstly, I'm not a MS fan, I hate to defend them, but I feel compelled to correct gross misconceptions when I see them...
.NET is pretty much a Java clone that supports many languages. That's it...
.NET is capable of an applet like technology, restricting the program to not damage the system)
.NET programmers aren't forced to use Passport just like Java programmers aren't forced to use Jxta. So, I don't see how they're going to force you to use Passport, let alone charge for it.
1.
.NET is a virtual machine. It's as dangerous a Java or any other programming platform. (Yes,
2.
3. Microsoft isn't looking to put everything on the Server. This would jeopardize thier client monopoly, and plus it makes absolutely no sense.
If Microsoft wants to insure a steady revenue stream, they have two ways of doing this.
A. Change the license to require companies to renew thier license after x years.
B. Add new features to the next version causing customers to salivate and upgrade.
They're pretty much doing a good job with B, but if they happen to fail, they can always revert to A.
If you would like me to clarify on any further points, feel free to respond.
Maybe we'll atleast get some representation with a World Govt, we sure as hell aren't getting any with the WTO (Responsible for this DMCA BS in the first place being that the WIPO treaty requires countries to legislate thier own DMCAs or face the trade consequences...)
His whole point was: I'll switch to Lindows if it can run (My Favorite App)
Not: InterDev + ASP RULEZ!!!
This is a great point, especially for Win32 developers. If you can't run your Win32 development tools on Lindows, what can you run?
Lastly, I don't understand this IDE hate. What's wrong with using productive tools like integrated debuggers, color coding, code templates, etc. Are these extra features a major cause of sezuires? He finds them very useful, as do I. Why should he or anyone have to REVERT to notepad?
I can understand another editor like CodeWarrior, Emacs, etc., etc. but NOTEPAD???
Maybe we should all revert to assembler... no...no... HEX!!!
(* Rather, I'm suggesting if one, two, or 5 have different formats and rules, XML transformation should be able to handle it. *)
Example? In my experience it is a matter of human communication and negotiation, not a magic algorithmic
I wasn't suggesting that XML tranformation is a magic algorithm that doesn't require user intervention. You need a person to explain to the software how to transform from one format to one your system can digest, which is current done with XSLT.
While this isn't a magic algorithm, it provides just enough technology to allow companies to develop newer/better standards while providing a means to support existing systems, making it A LOT more flexible than EDI.
Of course (and it goes without saying), it ALL relies on some basic human negotiation and communication. However, Unlike EDI, you'll find you'll need a lot less negotiation regarding HOW you send the information, but rather WHAT information.
Dave made his point pretty easy to understand.
Here's my reason guys chose Windows over Mac.
Here it is...
Guy: Hey Geek, I'm looking to get a computer, but I want to make sure I can upgrade it and get all the good toys with it. What kind of computer should I get?
Geek: Hey Guy. Upgradablility and toys? I can get you a great price (Geek bragging rights) from (insert favorite PC manufacturer here).
The PC had all the good toys and games. Even if it was harder to use (see Dave Barry's point), a guy will still buy the one that's upgradable and has the best toys.
Remember, Geeks recommened upgradable PCs with the cool toys, because they remembered how fscking annoying it was that you couldn't run game X on the Mac, and you couldn't upgrade the video card, or run this specific program, yada yada yada yada...
Bonus: Figuring out thier PC gave a man bragging rights back in the day...
Insinuate
1. To introduce or otherwise convey (a thought, for example) gradually and insidiously.
2. To introduce or insert (oneself) by subtle and artful means.
I would use the alternative...
Sorry, but 3 SUGGESTS that slashdot readers are Linux developers. They are not.
The format is only 1/3 of the battle. Agreeing on content arrangments/rules is the tricky part:
I agree that content arrangment and rules are still a big part of the piece, but with XML and XML tranformation, you can accept different arragments and rules from different people, which makes it pooploads more versatile than EDI.
Please don't misunderstand me and think that I'm suggesting that companies should accommodate every other companies subtile rules. Rather, I'm suggesting if one, two, or 5 have different formats and rules, XML transformation should be able to handle it.
I hope you don't live in the US because if you do I'm sure there's a socialist country somewhere that's just waiting for people like you.
...and I don't understand anything about capitalism???
Jesus Christ, Which economic model would you compare a government sponsered monopoly to anyways? A Capitalistic model where competition is the driving force, or a Socialistic model where beaurcracy is the driving force?
Here are some basic lessons you need to learn before your misguided accusations call a good American like myself a commie.
1. We use a capitalistic system to create wealth so as to enrich the quality of life. It is not an end to itself.
2. The goal of capitalism is not to create monopolies where efficiency eventually suffers, but to create COMMODITY markets where products are inexpensive, of good quality, and truely enrich life.
The wonderful thing about commodity markets is that entrepenuers have to add VALUE to thier products, thus creating WEALTH.
What I was suggesting in my original post was the following: The FCC is keeping the telecommunications industry from becoming a commodity industry like that of the PC industry with thier corrupt practices.
PS, I am an American who loves thier country and hates thier government, who robs thier citizens of thier right to improve their and others standard of living everyday... AKA the right to pursue happiness.
If you think we should just let the government and the lobbiests do what they want until thier heart is content, why don't YOU move to a socialist country, or better yet... A communist country where your right to vote is stripped away and doesn't matter anyway.
Personally, I don't think this is much bigger than mail fraud. IMHO, Rather than criminalize sending unsolicited email, I would criminalize sending spam without an ADV: prefix or ADV ADULT: prefix.
This would effectively give them the freedom to send as much unsolicited junk to people who want it, and let us who don't want it to filter it out.
As far as regulating technology goes, I think there's bigger fish to fry. Here's some examples of how the FCC helps the communication monopolies keep thier monopolies...
UWB technology gets stuck in red tape
Roll your own DSL
My point: Communications and tech have been regulated for YEARS. So while you're pondering if criminalizing spam MAY set a bad precident, existing technology and communication monopolies are doing everything to criminalize and patent truely liberating technology (Ultra-Wide-Band) (DSL without the telcos): (That is before they figure out how to use it for thier own advantage)
...and that's just one very small facit of the problem...
For new music this is correct. But if you want something by Madonna, the record companies already own all her old work. That's only accessible by making deals with the record company, the artist unfortunately has no say there.
Doesn't that go without saying?
From Napster:
Artists Get Paid
Napster will offer artists and labels tools to register as rights holders and get paid for sharing their music on Napster. Artists and other rights holders can set rules for how their music files are used, check their account status online, and receive quarterly statements.
Many artists are legally bound to thier labels and have no control over thier music, so most of your money will go to those labels. HOWEVER, A Label isn't required to distribute your music via new Napster, so those Artists who wish to get paid directly CAN. And those who wish to sell thier soul, can sign up with the labels...
I just got an email offering Bachelors, Masters, and PhDs WITHOUT spending time in a classroom, because it's based on professional experience!!!
Seriously, 1 year is an awefully short period of time, and I would think you would really loose out on a lot of good classes.
Being in the same situation you're in, but having the benefit of following my friends throughout thier CS studies, I would have to say that I'm a lot less optimistic than you.
While you probably already know Universities don't subject you to much to the technology, you can really emerse yourself deeply in the theory.
My advice: If you really want to get the most out of a degree, put some good time in it and specialize in 2-3 related areas, while going for your Masters. Become THE authority in those 2-3 areas, and have the papers to back up your assertions.
While there's a big market for Britney Spears, there's another big market for "underground" music.
Thier sound or trite messages still doesn't distinguish the Backstreet Boys or Incubus from being a bunch of monkey boys who perform when you shove a quarter in thier ass.
It's all the same crap, targeted at a wide demographic of people and children, sending out the same old shit message, "Image is everything... Cultural, Political, Moral, Whatever..." (Note: Image refers to more than just external appearances. Include behavioral nuances and all elements of "culture")
What I do agree with is that these same people hawking Britney Spears have way too much influence on people. Hence, My opinions on fair use...
Really, I think that even the record industry didn't expect the various copy protections to really work. What they're doing is building an easily hackable content protection system so that they can prosecute MP3 traders under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
Ahh... A criminal charge can be filed against anyone who attempts to traffic a circumvention device, right?
Does it matter if you're selling the device like Elcomsoft, or can you give away circumvention devices as long as you're not profiting?
If possessing and/or trafficking copyright circumvention devices is illegal, then we're all fcuked...
Don't think the EU isn't going to get thier share of DMCA laws. After all, Isn't one of the provisions of the WIPO treaty to legislate a DMCA law by a specified deadline?
:)
Sleep tight...