There was this project that used Opensource tools, and everything was fine and dandy.
And then, some PHB felt that this does not have adequate punch since it would not convince potential customers, and so there was this plan of changing it to using propritary stuff.
It probably had a lot to do with the fact that the company was hiring cheap MCSEs rather than competent programmers.
So, all the perl/cgi/php code was converted into ASP, Apache to IIS, MySQL replaced by MS-SQL and platform shifted from Linux to Windows NT (NT - mind you).
And oh yes, did I say we had agents on the *nix box which had to be rewritten in VC++? Which, not to mention, kept crashing every two minutes or when there were too many connections.
Everything turned messy, the whole project was deigned useless and a good product turned bad.
I look at it differently. We have reached a point where we cannot wait for a million years or so for evolution to happen - most of the evolution that's going to happen now will be that we bring upon ourselves - adaptations by virtue of changing environments and changing habits.
Well, if genetically enhanced products are going to have a risk, we are going to have to find a way around it - the solution would not be to ban GE as a whole, right?
I'm not saying you suggested so - merely that we can never really entirely determine what plants and drugs can be used - you can never really foretell. And if you did try, you will end up saying no to a plethora of new advancements that might actually be beneficial.
Sure, you run the risk to. But hey, progress always comes at a risk.
The can of worms is open - nuclear energy, genetic engineering and the like is not going to go back, and legislations for stopping such things is not going to work. If not us, someone else is going to do it at some point or time or the other. And cross pollination _will_ happen at sometime or the other, no matter how hard you try.
It would be far more easier to accept it, embrace new technologies and let technology and nature sort it out. In the end, we will find a way out. Its inevitable, because we have reached that stage as a species.
If I'm not mistaken, its pretty darned hard to patent facts - the only exception I know of is the patenting of genome sequences.
One of the criteria for patents is that your invention should be new and non-obvious to someone who is skilled in that area - unfortunately, even a highschool kid can prove that 7 or 2+5 or even.0000e-34343 does not require skill, and is neither new nor non-obvious.
You can not patent a scientific principle, an abstract theorem, an idea, a method of doing business, a computer program or a medical treatment.
The thing is that _even_ if you did get around patenting that stuff, you would not really stand a chance because just about everyone else will go ahead and use it. What are you going to do? Sue half the population of America for using 7?
Your case will simply be thrown out.
Patents are usually filed for credit and as a _defense_ - its unfortunate that shitty bastards like Ideaflood abuse the system. But there is nothing they can do, really.
When the whole world has adopted the system, and when they cannot prove with absolute certainty that they were the first to come up with the idea, their idea will be thrown out.
Let's get real. This is completely silly.
I never said it isn't - its just inevitable, thats all. And unfortunate too, ofcourse.
The way I see it, this is where Opensource comes in.
Patents are usually for very specific things - for example, while describing even a simple thing as a wire, you are expected to mention all alternative terminologies - copper, metal, fiber or any other alternative methods not covered here - you get the idea.
There are two ways around this mess -
1. Everyone breaks the patent 2. We find a way around it
What better way to do it than as a collective movement of Opensource folks? I'm sure that given any patent, and millions of eyes - workarounds can be found.
Else, if everyone goes ahead and uses the patent - its not really valid anymore - what are you going to do? Sue 10 million people spread across the world?
Not the best of solutions, but hey if the patents are ridiculous, this is just something like civil disobedience.
A shitty patent is like Prohibition - not letting everyone use a common place thing will end up in more mess than ever, and the patent will have to go - plain and simple.
Ah, but you miss an important point - USPTO grants patents because its also a source of income (and a pretty good one at that).
Its not their duty to make sure that its upheld - if its not, its _your_ problem - as an applicant.
However, within the limited scope of their resources (and intellect), they issue as many patents as they can simply because they can. If its a bad one, its going to be dragged to court at some point or the other and shot dead. If not, great, you have great IP on your hands.
Ofcourse, I can see the flaw in this that corporates can bully the less powerful - but hey! Thats corporate Amerika for you.
Re:What happens when life IS found
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
They will simply find a way around it and accomodate it, no matter what.
Just because evolution is widely accepted today did not mean that the religions that preached otherwise went away, right?
Also, some religions might argue that God did not create intelligent life out there, merely microbial life which is not of consequence and all that.
Unless we have little green men with death rays landing up, religions will find a way to cover things up and move on. And even then, they will probably be branded agents of the devil/angels, or God's new creations to give mankind company.
And ofcourse, religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and the like have no problems with little green men, so atleast half the world is not going to be bothered/affected by this.
Its quite unfortunate, but religions will survive no matter what.
You think its going to matter? These guys are mere puppets of the corporates - its about time people realized that.
And they probably receive "gifts" and "payoffs" from the corporates for creating laws that uphold and protect what is enshrined in our Constitution, no doubt.
If its not these guys, someone else will do it tomorrow. Blame the RIAA, MPAA and the corporations - thats the root of your problems.
Would be quite cool to try and study swarm/group behaviour of things like soliders on the warfront. The team squadron leader could have this on his/her back, and we could see how they spread out.
Reminds me of some of the experiments that get performed at the BORG Lab here at GTech.
Look at this guy's work on predicting user behaviour through GPS tracking and the like. Combine that with this kinda queen bee kinda behaviour, am sure we would get something really cool.
Is this some kind of new paradigm in networking?:)
Come on, don't let all that stuff go waste! All we have to make sure is that the Irish run out of their stuff, and point an arrow up in that general direction;-)
I can see where you are coming from, but the thing is that the Search Engine market is not like other markets.
MS slacked off when it comes to browsers, and Mozilla is surely catching up.
Search is a technology that has universal benefits - and it is a technology where there can be only one, not more. Therefore, *if* Microsoft came to the top and slacked off, they will not stay there for long.
Google is not like other search engines from earlier times - they are good at searching, and thats their primary focus - they are not trying to go the portal way that spelt the deathknell for several engines of the days bygone.
So, even if MSFT did come to the top, searching is an area where they will have to stay on top - or pay the price for it.
To be honest - as much as I like Google, may the best engine win:-)
If Microsoft set their mind to it, they can pretty well accomplish it, one way or the other. And they need not necessarily be better at it either (a la Netscape vs. IE). I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head why MSN may probably not succeed - but I can also think of a few really good reasons why they may succeed.
Ofcourse, it would be an interesting fight - Google in itself has got some of the top notch researchers, just like MSR. But do not undermine what MSFT can be capable of - they have time and again proven that despite being behind the times, they can catch up and dominate a market.
I was not talking about mere Opensource elements, I was also thinking of corporates with vested interests who may misuse Java being Opensource, that is all!
In fact, more than Parrot I think Ruby and Smalltalk hold the key to cool computing in the days to come, but hey, I could be wrong!
By the way, I have seen you lurking here before, and have visited your website. It is most excellent.
There is something that is call historical momentium... if you show decent leadership at the start of an OSS project you most often won't be forked....
You won't be forked by Opensource folks - you maybe forked by corporates who benefit from killing Java or making it unusable.
Or restricting it to a select platform or two using popularity as a trump card. You know what am talking about here.
You forget the fact that companies that have vested interests in killing Java *cough* a certain Seattle based company *cough* could use this against Java.
I'm NOT starting a flame war here - but Microsoft does not really consider Perl or Python to be a serious contender as Java.
What do you think really inspired Visual Studio.Net? Microsoft has everything to gain by killing it - it would only more people to use their platform.
Right now, Java gives people the freedom of platform - if in any way killing it or changing it in a way that makes it beneficial to MSFT, they WILL do it.
I code in Java for a living. I don't think open-sourcing it or not has anything to do with Java's current problems in the marketplace.
In fact, it would only make it worse - Opensource it and you will have serious issues with version control and compatibility.
As it is, getting enterprise level applications running together in Java is not an easy task - bring in more forks and incompatibility and you will kill the language.
Sometimes, standardisation through a central point of control can be a good thing.
Actually this would not be a problem only with Linux, but even across other operating systems.
Like I indicated in another post, there is nothing to stop Microsoft from having their own "windows-only" forked version of Java. And nothing to stop from the GNU/Debian crowd to have their own "puritanical" version. And nothing to stop from IBM to have their own "enterprise-ready" version of Java.
If you notice, even in case of Linux, Linus and a handful of others actually maintain the core kernel code. In case of language, it would be difficult to have this kind of a central point of control - the forking would be really hard to control, and would only lead to more confusion and more complexity, not to mention serious incompatibility issues - all of which flies against the very principles that Java has been built on.
As much as I'd hate to admit it, this is probably a good thing.
We would probably end up having a dozen versions of Java out there, and various "java distributions" - and there would be no particular standard. There would be a pseudo-standard enforced by Sun, and say, IBM - but there is nothing to stop Microsoft to go ahead and make a non-standard version of it and popularize it.
Okay, now Java is not going to be Opensource - but does that preclude IBM contributing to Java in any way at all?
Slashdot Mirror
But this one from Mercury News does not.
Maybe, but that did not make the decision any less stupid.
This was at a time when 2000 and XP were out - in my experience, 2000 pro is reasonably stable when done properly. Thats what I meant :)
There was this project that used Opensource tools, and everything was fine and dandy.
And then, some PHB felt that this does not have adequate punch since it would not convince potential customers, and so there was this plan of changing it to using propritary stuff.
It probably had a lot to do with the fact that the company was hiring cheap MCSEs rather than competent programmers.
So, all the perl/cgi/php code was converted into ASP, Apache to IIS, MySQL replaced by MS-SQL and platform shifted from Linux to Windows NT (NT - mind you).
And oh yes, did I say we had agents on the *nix box which had to be rewritten in VC++? Which, not to mention, kept crashing every two minutes or when there were too many connections.
Everything turned messy, the whole project was deigned useless and a good product turned bad.
I look at it differently. We have reached a point where we cannot wait for a million years or so for evolution to happen - most of the evolution that's going to happen now will be that we bring upon ourselves - adaptations by virtue of changing environments and changing habits.
Well, if genetically enhanced products are going to have a risk, we are going to have to find a way around it - the solution would not be to ban GE as a whole, right?
I'm not saying you suggested so - merely that we can never really entirely determine what plants and drugs can be used - you can never really foretell. And if you did try, you will end up saying no to a plethora of new advancements that might actually be beneficial.
Sure, you run the risk to. But hey, progress always comes at a risk.
The can of worms is open - nuclear energy, genetic engineering and the like is not going to go back, and legislations for stopping such things is not going to work. If not us, someone else is going to do it at some point or time or the other. And cross pollination _will_ happen at sometime or the other, no matter how hard you try.
It would be far more easier to accept it, embrace new technologies and let technology and nature sort it out. In the end, we will find a way out. Its inevitable, because we have reached that stage as a species.
I think I would go with Russia. If I'm not mistaken, they have a better record for safety than the US (I could be wrong).
;-)
But more than anything, their equipments and technologies have often proved to be far more resilient and robust than the American counterparts.
American would be more cooler and comfortable, am sure. But the Russian one would be robust and interesting
If I'm not mistaken, its pretty darned hard to patent facts - the only exception I know of is the patenting of genome sequences.
.0000e-34343 does not require skill, and is neither new nor non-obvious.
One of the criteria for patents is that your invention should be new and non-obvious to someone who is skilled in that area - unfortunately, even a highschool kid can prove that 7 or 2+5 or even
I'll quote from this site -
You can not patent a scientific principle, an abstract theorem, an idea, a method of doing business, a computer program or a medical treatment.
The thing is that _even_ if you did get around patenting that stuff, you would not really stand a chance because just about everyone else will go ahead and use it. What are you going to do? Sue half the population of America for using 7?
Your case will simply be thrown out.
Patents are usually filed for credit and as a _defense_ - its unfortunate that shitty bastards like Ideaflood abuse the system. But there is nothing they can do, really.
When the whole world has adopted the system, and when they cannot prove with absolute certainty that they were the first to come up with the idea, their idea will be thrown out.
Let's get real. This is completely silly.
I never said it isn't - its just inevitable, thats all. And unfortunate too, ofcourse.
The way I see it, this is where Opensource comes in.
Patents are usually for very specific things - for example, while describing even a simple thing as a wire, you are expected to mention all alternative terminologies - copper, metal, fiber or any other alternative methods not covered here - you get the idea.
There are two ways around this mess -
1. Everyone breaks the patent
2. We find a way around it
What better way to do it than as a collective movement of Opensource folks? I'm sure that given any patent, and millions of eyes - workarounds can be found.
Else, if everyone goes ahead and uses the patent - its not really valid anymore - what are you going to do? Sue 10 million people spread across the world?
Not the best of solutions, but hey if the patents are ridiculous, this is just something like civil disobedience.
A shitty patent is like Prohibition - not letting everyone use a common place thing will end up in more mess than ever, and the patent will have to go - plain and simple.
Thats just my $0.02.
Ah, but you miss an important point - USPTO grants patents because its also a source of income (and a pretty good one at that).
Its not their duty to make sure that its upheld - if its not, its _your_ problem - as an applicant.
However, within the limited scope of their resources (and intellect), they issue as many patents as they can simply because they can. If its a bad one, its going to be dragged to court at some point or the other and shot dead. If not, great, you have great IP on your hands.
Ofcourse, I can see the flaw in this that corporates can bully the less powerful - but hey! Thats corporate Amerika for you.
They will simply find a way around it and accomodate it, no matter what.
Just because evolution is widely accepted today did not mean that the religions that preached otherwise went away, right?
Also, some religions might argue that God did not create intelligent life out there, merely microbial life which is not of consequence and all that.
Unless we have little green men with death rays landing up, religions will find a way to cover things up and move on. And even then, they will probably be branded agents of the devil/angels, or God's new creations to give mankind company.
And ofcourse, religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and the like have no problems with little green men, so atleast half the world is not going to be bothered/affected by this.
Its quite unfortunate, but religions will survive no matter what.
You think its going to matter? These guys are mere puppets of the corporates - its about time people realized that.
And they probably receive "gifts" and "payoffs" from the corporates for creating laws that uphold and protect what is enshrined in our Constitution, no doubt.
If its not these guys, someone else will do it tomorrow. Blame the RIAA, MPAA and the corporations - thats the root of your problems.
In Soviet Russia, chicken cooks YOU!!!
;-)
Sorry, couldn't resist
Here is a mirror of the first page alone -
j pg
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg575s/wifibedouin.
Wasn't something like this done before for Quake?
Different, yes - it used GPS positioning with VR for playing within a University Campus in Australia.
Ah, here you go.
Would be quite cool to try and study swarm/group behaviour of things like soliders on the warfront. The team squadron leader could have this on his/her back, and we could see how they spread out.
:)
Reminds me of some of the experiments that get performed at the BORG Lab here at GTech.
Look at this guy's work on predicting user behaviour through GPS tracking and the like. Combine that with this kinda queen bee kinda behaviour, am sure we would get something really cool.
Is this some kind of new paradigm in networking?
Ahh yes, but how about infinte supply of galactic grade alchohol?
;-)
Come on, don't let all that stuff go waste! All we have to make sure is that the Irish run out of their stuff, and point an arrow up in that general direction
I like ice-cream with Ketchup, you insensitive clod.
I can see where you are coming from, but the thing is that the Search Engine market is not like other markets.
:-)
MS slacked off when it comes to browsers, and Mozilla is surely catching up.
Search is a technology that has universal benefits - and it is a technology where there can be only one, not more. Therefore, *if* Microsoft came to the top and slacked off, they will not stay there for long.
Google is not like other search engines from earlier times - they are good at searching, and thats their primary focus - they are not trying to go the portal way that spelt the deathknell for several engines of the days bygone.
So, even if MSFT did come to the top, searching is an area where they will have to stay on top - or pay the price for it.
To be honest - as much as I like Google, may the best engine win
Don't be so sure.
Microsoft has some really cool research going on at MSR - see their projects.
As an example, check out their Usenet Social Accounting Search Engine - its really cool.
If Microsoft set their mind to it, they can pretty well accomplish it, one way or the other. And they need not necessarily be better at it either (a la Netscape vs. IE). I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head why MSN may probably not succeed - but I can also think of a few really good reasons why they may succeed.
Ofcourse, it would be an interesting fight - Google in itself has got some of the top notch researchers, just like MSR. But do not undermine what MSFT can be capable of - they have time and again proven that despite being behind the times, they can catch up and dominate a market.
I was not talking about mere Opensource elements, I was also thinking of corporates with vested interests who may misuse Java being Opensource, that is all!
:-)
In fact, more than Parrot I think Ruby and Smalltalk hold the key to cool computing in the days to come, but hey, I could be wrong!
By the way, I have seen you lurking here before, and have visited your website. It is most excellent.
Why, thank you!
There is something that is call historical momentium... if you show decent leadership at the start of an OSS project you most often won't be forked....
You won't be forked by Opensource folks - you maybe forked by corporates who benefit from killing Java or making it unusable.
Or restricting it to a select platform or two using popularity as a trump card. You know what am talking about here.
You forget the fact that companies that have vested interests in killing Java *cough* a certain Seattle based company *cough* could use this against Java.
.Net? Microsoft has everything to gain by killing it - it would only more people to use their platform.
I'm NOT starting a flame war here - but Microsoft does not really consider Perl or Python to be a serious contender as Java.
What do you think really inspired Visual Studio
Right now, Java gives people the freedom of platform - if in any way killing it or changing it in a way that makes it beneficial to MSFT, they WILL do it.
I code in Java for a living. I don't think open-sourcing it or not has anything to do with Java's current problems in the marketplace.
In fact, it would only make it worse - Opensource it and you will have serious issues with version control and compatibility.
As it is, getting enterprise level applications running together in Java is not an easy task - bring in more forks and incompatibility and you will kill the language.
Sometimes, standardisation through a central point of control can be a good thing.
Actually this would not be a problem only with Linux, but even across other operating systems.
Like I indicated in another post, there is nothing to stop Microsoft from having their own "windows-only" forked version of Java. And nothing to stop from the GNU/Debian crowd to have their own "puritanical" version. And nothing to stop from IBM to have their own "enterprise-ready" version of Java.
If you notice, even in case of Linux, Linus and a handful of others actually maintain the core kernel code. In case of language, it would be difficult to have this kind of a central point of control - the forking would be really hard to control, and would only lead to more confusion and more complexity, not to mention serious incompatibility issues - all of which flies against the very principles that Java has been built on.
As much as I'd hate to admit it, this is probably a good thing.
We would probably end up having a dozen versions of Java out there, and various "java distributions" - and there would be no particular standard. There would be a pseudo-standard enforced by Sun, and say, IBM - but there is nothing to stop Microsoft to go ahead and make a non-standard version of it and popularize it.
Okay, now Java is not going to be Opensource - but does that preclude IBM contributing to Java in any way at all?