why anti-competitive intent would have any bearing on a patent suit? Aren't patents intended as monopolies that will be used, at least in many cases, anti-competitively?
Monopolies are held to a different standard of conduct. The enforcement of a legal patent can still be illegally anti-competitive. Convicted illegal monopolies are held to an even tougher standard.
The X3 release notice has links to a Zope3 Book, a Programming Tutorial, and a DeveloperInfo page.
I can't comment on the quality (yet), but at least they're there now as opposed to how long it took to get decent docs for Zope2. I think Zope2's organic growth made it difficult to maintain decent documentation. It looks like documentation was a part of the development process for X3, expecially since it's such a dramatic change from Zope2.
So if I wanted to use it for my own purposes on a shared server, I can't.
All you need is an Apache Virtual Host that does nothing put proxy pass-through to a Zope instance. You can run multiple, independent Zopes all frontended with the same Apache.
I guess the biggest thing that made me uncomfortable with it was that it uses a custom database format and a custom format for storing all the site's files inside of one actual file. And you can't just move that one file, there's other dependency issues and problems with paths if you move it to a different location or OS.
But you can export/import either in a Zope.zexp format (good for Zope->Zope) or in XML (for porting to another application server). (I don't understand the problems with paths that you're refering too?)
Re:Zope great in theory ... not so much in practic
on
Zope X3 3.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Just Some Geek guy suggested Kate with the webdav protocol. I use vim with it's ftp:// protocol. You can easily edit zope content in pretty much any editor that supports network protocols.
In other words, "We don't own any of this. We use it. If you use MS software to access these protocols, here's the (extremely liberal and almost nonexistant) 'license' to do so." Nothing to see here.
Nothing to see here except another attempt to take the square peg of intellectual rights (NOT "Intellectual Property", NOT "IP", NOT even lower-case "intellectual property") law and coerce it into the round hole of property law. Microsoft, SCO, the RIAA, the MPAA and others are building the meme that ideas are property. This is a prelude to FUD and it's having a devastating affect because our constitutionally ignorant legislators are believing it, the PHB's are believing it, and corporate legal departments are starting to believe it (or at least finding it financially expedient to act like they do anyway).
That's also why they're trying to push "copyright education" into the classroom. If you get kids to believe ideas are property, it becomes much harder to convince them otherwise later.
I believe the term for what's going on is called a "propoganda war," and this is quite a salvo. Even though they're saying "We don't own this" the implication is clearly "this stuff is ownable, so someone probably owns it, and if you use it you have to have a license (and we're willing to give you one 'just in case')."
To make things even worse a new term was invented to confuse people, and it is also called IP.
it was in reference to the term "Intellectual Property" which is supposed to be the body of law that covers copyright, trademark and patents. The spin of the term is intended to confuse people into thinking that property law, an entirely different set of rules, applies to those categories.
It does not, and as long as we let the Intellectual Robber Barons define the debate by accepting the concept of ideas as "property" we concede to the assumption that since we're talking about "property" then it must be "ownable."
A better term, that more correctly defines the legal concept and better describes the issues is "intellectual rights." This restricts the debate to the limited rights that the law grants authors and inventors for a limited time and prevents the application of property law concepts like "ownership" and "theft" from being applied to things that they are simply not applicable to.
...true, there's little risk of losing your state's EVs, but there is the matter of "winning enough". If the election is close, or if one candidate wins the popular vote while the other wins the EV, you can count on an ugly, protracted, bitter, divisive legal battle in the weeks ahead.
Like the last several months.... Oh wait, that wasn't a "legal" battle, just ugly, protracted, bitter and divisive. Never mind....
So what do you want to challenge: the constitutionally mandated electoral college or the legislatively snuck in republicrat monopoly on elected offices?
The first is a long and arduous task, regardless of how outraged people are, and requires 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of the states to pass an ammendment. Repeat after me: It's in the Constitution. No court in the land is going to abolish the electoral college as "unconstitutional."
The second requires nothing more than not voting for them. And if we don't vote for them, most states now have laws requiring electoral votes to follow the "will of the people" (TM owned by [insert your state here]).
Instead of having the paper leave the machine, why not simply have it presented (on a paper roll) through a windows in the machine
Because there's still no way to verify that what is printed is what is counted. While your method would allow for recounts, if the window showed 55% of the voters that they voted for X but the machine actually "counted" and reported 60% for candidate Y it would seem to be an uncontestable win. A recount would be unlikely.
Using one machine to print ballots and another to count them provides two separate layers. The first, printing the ballots, is virtually un-attackable (as long as voters bother double-checking the printout, which I think is at least as reasonable as expecting them to double-check their paper ballots). Individual voting stations have no need to be networked, eliminating network attacks, and the logic is much more limited. It's pretty much a simple print program. Auditing such a program is trivial. Does it print what the voter put in or not? It wouldn't matter much if the code were open for inspection or not since anyone could stand in front of one, "test vote" as many times as they like and verify the paper shows what they did. Further, no special hardware is required. No embedded printer. No opening the computational box to add ink. No way for a voter to try to "scroll back" and see what the previous voter did. (Hmmm. Now that I think about it, the order of votes on your embedded printer coupled with the voter sign-in sheet could jeapordize voter anonymity.) It doesn't take much to write such an application in a cross-platform way, allowing for independent platform decisions based on a precinct's requirements. (Need a few? Just buy some off-the-shelf PC's. Need a lot? Order specialized embedded systems in bulk.) This completely eliminates dependence on a particular voting machine or software vendor.
The counting stations need be nothing more the scanners than what has been in use for several years, not only for voting but for scoring tests, processing surveys, etc. Aside from already being in fairly wide use, they are also easily auditable, since the counts and paper ballots counted are contained in the same box. (The scanners "eat" the ballots when they read correctly, so they're physically not accessible until voting closes. Verifying the scanning process is a simple as counting what's inside any given box and making sure the totals match.
The bottom line is that, from what I see, the e-voting vendors are over-complicating the problem. Complexity is security's nemesis. There's no need for any "solution" that requires a code-walkthrough either for certification or for an audit, especially when there's no real way to verify that every voting station is running the code that's being walked through.
As far as I'm concerned, the only acceptable computer voting process is one that is better referred to as "computer vote printing." Do whatever you want for an interface, but the result is a printed ballot that I can read and verify, then take to a counting station (or destroy and start over). The counter can be electronic too, as long as it's possible for humans to count the paper ballots if there's any question at all about the final tally.
We've see this reaction before from a/. link, and I'm still confused.
I think you still are. PJ was not refering to/. linking to her site, she was refering to/. linking to the Linuxworld article thus boosting it's readership which she was not going to oblige.
Somewhere in the Groklaw archives is a report on readership stat's for O'Gara. Her page hits are usually abissmally low. The only time they seem to hit the 10's of thousands are when/. links to them. So the theory that/. is helping to perpetual journalistic rot like this has some merit.
OTOH, if/. is going to post about a story, I think they are under some obligation to link to it. In this particular case, Groklaw was specifically mentioned in a rather derogatory manner, so for it to not link back is fair because Groklaw has every right to defend itself against false and malicious charges without driving up the advertising dollars of those leveling the charges.
Right. Like they would have been allowed to pass the security guards with impunity if they were only members of one of the bigger parties.
If "the authorities" bothered to investigate, Badnarik had a properly adjudicated Order to Show Cause that he was legally entitled, in fact ordered, to serve on AZU and the CPD. So, yeah, the police should allow someone to pass when they have papers from a judge that says they can. If they (the police) do not at least make an attempt to verify the judicial order, I'd say they are political prisoners.
Don't mind me. I just take the time to read the articles and follow the links.
If you had RTFA, you'd have seen that Badnarik was there with an Order to Show Cause signed by an Arizona Judge, charging that AZU and CPD are effectively using government funds to prevent the Libertarian candidate from participating in the debates in a state where the Libertarian party is designated as one of the three parties with a gauranteed place on the ballot. The complaint alleged 2 violations of the AZ Consitution and was persuasive enough that a judge issued the order and there will be a hearing on the matter.
Sarcasm tags noted and appreciated, but I'd make the same argument in reverse.
Graphics, CAD, and like applications are far more productive with a mouse (or other "pointing device"). Once in that mode, however, every function should be available through the same device. The point is not so much that a keyboard is better than a mouse; It just tends to be in the situations where I get frustrated.
The point is that any given application's interface shouldn't require the user to swing their arm back and forth between different input devices. Further, they usually don't but user's are conditioned to think "that's the way it works", mostly because companies train their employees to "use" applications when it's a better long-term investment to teach them to be productive in applications they use regularly.
But how long did it take him to acquire that information? How many mistakes did he make on the way to that wonderous proficiency?
That's a very good point, but the "give 'em a mouse and let them click way" results in less training and more lost productivity in the long term. You always hear "But Windows is so easy to use!" I think that's a misconception. Windows is easy to learn, to "get by with" as you say, but not "easy to use."
A little post-use training would go a long way. "Ok class, now that you know where to click on which menu to do what, try hitting Alt-F. See the "File" menu open? Now press the down arrow and you can select a file operation. But wait, there's more! Press the right arrow and you go to the next menu. You can select any menu item from anywhere without reaching for the mouse."
A 1/2 hour "Ways to work without a mouse" class would greatly improve the efficiency and productivity of people who use computers and applications for routine tasks.
"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
-John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.
If you're trying to discredit Dvorak, this is a bad example. The mouse has become the single most non-productive enhancement to computing in history. People used to fly through applications using TAB and function keys. Although they usually still can, they don't.
Try waiting for a bank teller, loan processer, application taker, or yout typical computer user to do anything now and it's tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click, tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click, tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click,.... just to move focus to the next text box. I find myself silently screaming TAB, dammit, TAB! TAB to the button and hit ENTER!
What's worse is I'm finding applications that no longer implement focus shifting with tab. "Web apps" are notoriusly bad. Worse yet is where most workspaces "have room" for the mouse. Mousing literally causes in pain in my neck in my workstation.
AFAIC, there's still no evidence that people actually want to use a mouse. They simply don't know of any other way.
What we need is enlightened leadership, which acts in the interest of the people.
What we need is someone to rock the boat. The President is one of 3 delicately balanced branches of governement. Since he cannot "make" law, a 3rd Party president is not going to make a whole lot of major changes to the country. The minimum he can do is eradicate bunches of "executive directives" that pass as law. The best he can do is leverage the "bully pulpit" to work for real change, which will require Congressional action.
What he'd (any 3rd party president, not just Mr. Badnarik) do is be a big slap in the face to the other 2 parties to WAKE UP and realize that there's a majority of citizens that aren't going to take their crap any more. I bet you'd see a lot of people scrambling to act in the interest of the people as soon as they realized that their carrers are on the line, and no amount of back-room power-peddling is going to keep them in office without Joe & Jane Citizen's votes.
A win for either Bush or Kerry is a win for the status-quo. Seriously, how much different will the U.S. be if one or the other wins? Short-term: Little; Long-term: None.
The Democrats won't do it, neither will the Republicans...
Not as long as they're supremely confident that can get along just fine without changing anything. As it stands, they've got the system rigged so they get more benefit from whining about why they can't solve the problem (it's the other party's fault!) than they would if they actually DID solve the problem. What's on the news now? Certainly not any real information about the issues. What gets reported is the partisan wrangling for position around the issues. The last thing either party wants to see is headlines like SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM SOLVED!, or FAIR TAX SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED!. Those would drastically cut into the resources available for "sound-bite" mining. Worse, someone on the "other side" might get some good press out of it, and they can't let that happen.
His best point: 'All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil. If you don't like the way things are, how do you change it by voting for more of the same?' Will he win? Not likely but the more votes he gets the stronger and more clearly the message is sent that the citizens are getting restless.
Personally, I don't know who I'm going to vote for but it will NOT be for either Bush or Kerry. And no matter who gets elected president, I'm staying hard on the backs of my congressman and senators.
Information is may be easy to distribute, but anything that is truly valuable to people is NOT by any means easy to create or find.
Any thing that is tuly valuable will find someone willing to trade something else of value for it. Limiting the rights of consumers does not create value.
Not only is it in a "mainstream" publication, it notes "SCO's case looks as if it's close to collapse." It's hard to find tech publications that see the case so clearly.
Slashdot Mirror
Monopolies are held to a different standard of conduct. The enforcement of a legal patent can still be illegally anti-competitive. Convicted illegal monopolies are held to an even tougher standard.
I can't comment on the quality (yet), but at least they're there now as opposed to how long it took to get decent docs for Zope2. I think Zope2's organic growth made it difficult to maintain decent documentation. It looks like documentation was a part of the development process for X3, expecially since it's such a dramatic change from Zope2.
All you need is an Apache Virtual Host that does nothing put proxy pass-through to a Zope instance. You can run multiple, independent Zopes all frontended with the same Apache.
I guess the biggest thing that made me uncomfortable with it was that it uses a custom database format and a custom format for storing all the site's files inside of one actual file. And you can't just move that one file, there's other dependency issues and problems with paths if you move it to a different location or OS.
But you can export/import either in a Zope.zexp format (good for Zope->Zope) or in XML (for porting to another application server). (I don't understand the problems with paths that you're refering too?)
And Zope supports PHP and Perl scripting
Just Some Geek guy suggested Kate with the webdav protocol. I use vim with it's ftp:// protocol. You can easily edit zope content in pretty much any editor that supports network protocols.
Yeah, that's even better, but I suspect it will be easier to get people to stop using "IP" for "IR" than "TGGIM" ;)
Yes, we do! They're attempting to license them! You can't license something without claiming the right to license it.
Nothing to see here except another attempt to take the square peg of intellectual rights (NOT "Intellectual Property", NOT "IP", NOT even lower-case "intellectual property") law and coerce it into the round hole of property law. Microsoft, SCO, the RIAA, the MPAA and others are building the meme that ideas are property. This is a prelude to FUD and it's having a devastating affect because our constitutionally ignorant legislators are believing it, the PHB's are believing it, and corporate legal departments are starting to believe it (or at least finding it financially expedient to act like they do anyway).
That's also why they're trying to push "copyright education" into the classroom. If you get kids to believe ideas are property, it becomes much harder to convince them otherwise later.
I believe the term for what's going on is called a "propoganda war," and this is quite a salvo. Even though they're saying "We don't own this" the implication is clearly "this stuff is ownable, so someone probably owns it, and if you use it you have to have a license (and we're willing to give you one 'just in case')."
- To make things even worse a new term was invented to confuse people, and it is also called IP.
it was in reference to the term "Intellectual Property" which is supposed to be the body of law that covers copyright, trademark and patents. The spin of the term is intended to confuse people into thinking that property law, an entirely different set of rules, applies to those categories.It does not, and as long as we let the Intellectual Robber Barons define the debate by accepting the concept of ideas as "property" we concede to the assumption that since we're talking about "property" then it must be "ownable."
A better term, that more correctly defines the legal concept and better describes the issues is "intellectual rights." This restricts the debate to the limited rights that the law grants authors and inventors for a limited time and prevents the application of property law concepts like "ownership" and "theft" from being applied to things that they are simply not applicable to.
Like the last several months.... Oh wait, that wasn't a "legal" battle, just ugly, protracted, bitter and divisive. Never mind....
So what do you want to challenge: the constitutionally mandated electoral college or the legislatively snuck in republicrat monopoly on elected offices?
The first is a long and arduous task, regardless of how outraged people are, and requires 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of the states to pass an ammendment. Repeat after me: It's in the Constitution. No court in the land is going to abolish the electoral college as "unconstitutional."
The second requires nothing more than not voting for them. And if we don't vote for them, most states now have laws requiring electoral votes to follow the "will of the people" (TM owned by [insert your state here]).
Because there's still no way to verify that what is printed is what is counted. While your method would allow for recounts, if the window showed 55% of the voters that they voted for X but the machine actually "counted" and reported 60% for candidate Y it would seem to be an uncontestable win. A recount would be unlikely.
Using one machine to print ballots and another to count them provides two separate layers. The first, printing the ballots, is virtually un-attackable (as long as voters bother double-checking the printout, which I think is at least as reasonable as expecting them to double-check their paper ballots). Individual voting stations have no need to be networked, eliminating network attacks, and the logic is much more limited. It's pretty much a simple print program. Auditing such a program is trivial. Does it print what the voter put in or not? It wouldn't matter much if the code were open for inspection or not since anyone could stand in front of one, "test vote" as many times as they like and verify the paper shows what they did. Further, no special hardware is required. No embedded printer. No opening the computational box to add ink. No way for a voter to try to "scroll back" and see what the previous voter did. (Hmmm. Now that I think about it, the order of votes on your embedded printer coupled with the voter sign-in sheet could jeapordize voter anonymity.) It doesn't take much to write such an application in a cross-platform way, allowing for independent platform decisions based on a precinct's requirements. (Need a few? Just buy some off-the-shelf PC's. Need a lot? Order specialized embedded systems in bulk.) This completely eliminates dependence on a particular voting machine or software vendor.
The counting stations need be nothing more the scanners than what has been in use for several years, not only for voting but for scoring tests, processing surveys, etc. Aside from already being in fairly wide use, they are also easily auditable, since the counts and paper ballots counted are contained in the same box. (The scanners "eat" the ballots when they read correctly, so they're physically not accessible until voting closes. Verifying the scanning process is a simple as counting what's inside any given box and making sure the totals match.
The bottom line is that, from what I see, the e-voting vendors are over-complicating the problem. Complexity is security's nemesis. There's no need for any "solution" that requires a code-walkthrough either for certification or for an audit, especially when there's no real way to verify that every voting station is running the code that's being walked through.
As far as I'm concerned, the only acceptable computer voting process is one that is better referred to as "computer vote printing." Do whatever you want for an interface, but the result is a printed ballot that I can read and verify, then take to a counting station (or destroy and start over). The counter can be electronic too, as long as it's possible for humans to count the paper ballots if there's any question at all about the final tally.
I think you still are. PJ was not refering to /. linking to her site, she was refering to /. linking to the Linuxworld article thus boosting it's readership which she was not going to oblige.
Somewhere in the Groklaw archives is a report on readership stat's for O'Gara. Her page hits are usually abissmally low. The only time they seem to hit the 10's of thousands are when /. links to them. So the theory that /. is helping to perpetual journalistic rot like this has some merit.
OTOH, if /. is going to post about a story, I think they are under some obligation to link to it. In this particular case, Groklaw was specifically mentioned in a rather derogatory manner, so for it to not link back is fair because Groklaw has every right to defend itself against false and malicious charges without driving up the advertising dollars of those leveling the charges.
Is your head safer now?
Links, please? I'm so sick of "mainstream pop commercials" it's painful to even google for such sites.
TIA!
with it's citizens/customers.
Once it's up, just put it online and let Google cache it!
If "the authorities" bothered to investigate, Badnarik had a properly adjudicated Order to Show Cause that he was legally entitled, in fact ordered, to serve on AZU and the CPD. So, yeah, the police should allow someone to pass when they have papers from a judge that says they can. If they (the police) do not at least make an attempt to verify the judicial order, I'd say they are political prisoners.
Don't mind me. I just take the time to read the articles and follow the links.
If you had RTFA, you'd have seen that Badnarik was there with an Order to Show Cause signed by an Arizona Judge, charging that AZU and CPD are effectively using government funds to prevent the Libertarian candidate from participating in the debates in a state where the Libertarian party is designated as one of the three parties with a gauranteed place on the ballot. The complaint alleged 2 violations of the AZ Consitution and was persuasive enough that a judge issued the order and there will be a hearing on the matter.
Sarcasm tags noted and appreciated, but I'd make the same argument in reverse.
Graphics, CAD, and like applications are far more productive with a mouse (or other "pointing device"). Once in that mode, however, every function should be available through the same device. The point is not so much that a keyboard is better than a mouse; It just tends to be in the situations where I get frustrated.
The point is that any given application's interface shouldn't require the user to swing their arm back and forth between different input devices. Further, they usually don't but user's are conditioned to think "that's the way it works", mostly because companies train their employees to "use" applications when it's a better long-term investment to teach them to be productive in applications they use regularly.
That's a very good point, but the "give 'em a mouse and let them click way" results in less training and more lost productivity in the long term. You always hear "But Windows is so easy to use!" I think that's a misconception. Windows is easy to learn, to "get by with" as you say, but not "easy to use."
A little post-use training would go a long way. "Ok class, now that you know where to click on which menu to do what, try hitting Alt-F. See the "File" menu open? Now press the down arrow and you can select a file operation. But wait, there's more! Press the right arrow and you go to the next menu. You can select any menu item from anywhere without reaching for the mouse."
A 1/2 hour "Ways to work without a mouse" class would greatly improve the efficiency and productivity of people who use computers and applications for routine tasks.
-John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.
If you're trying to discredit Dvorak, this is a bad example. The mouse has become the single most non-productive enhancement to computing in history. People used to fly through applications using TAB and function keys. Although they usually still can, they don't.
Try waiting for a bank teller, loan processer, application taker, or yout typical computer user to do anything now and it's tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click, tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click, tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click, .... just to move focus to the next text box. I find myself silently screaming TAB, dammit, TAB! TAB to the button and hit ENTER!
What's worse is I'm finding applications that no longer implement focus shifting with tab. "Web apps" are notoriusly bad. Worse yet is where most workspaces "have room" for the mouse. Mousing literally causes in pain in my neck in my workstation.
AFAIC, there's still no evidence that people actually want to use a mouse. They simply don't know of any other way.
Sue them for Slander of Title.
What we need is someone to rock the boat. The President is one of 3 delicately balanced branches of governement. Since he cannot "make" law, a 3rd Party president is not going to make a whole lot of major changes to the country. The minimum he can do is eradicate bunches of "executive directives" that pass as law. The best he can do is leverage the "bully pulpit" to work for real change, which will require Congressional action.
What he'd (any 3rd party president, not just Mr. Badnarik) do is be a big slap in the face to the other 2 parties to WAKE UP and realize that there's a majority of citizens that aren't going to take their crap any more. I bet you'd see a lot of people scrambling to act in the interest of the people as soon as they realized that their carrers are on the line, and no amount of back-room power-peddling is going to keep them in office without Joe & Jane Citizen's votes.
A win for either Bush or Kerry is a win for the status-quo. Seriously, how much different will the U.S. be if one or the other wins? Short-term: Little; Long-term: None.
The Democrats won't do it, neither will the Republicans...
Not as long as they're supremely confident that can get along just fine without changing anything. As it stands, they've got the system rigged so they get more benefit from whining about why they can't solve the problem (it's the other party's fault!) than they would if they actually DID solve the problem. What's on the news now? Certainly not any real information about the issues. What gets reported is the partisan wrangling for position around the issues. The last thing either party wants to see is headlines like SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM SOLVED!, or FAIR TAX SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED!. Those would drastically cut into the resources available for "sound-bite" mining. Worse, someone on the "other side" might get some good press out of it, and they can't let that happen.
His best point: 'All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil. If you don't like the way things are, how do you change it by voting for more of the same?' Will he win? Not likely but the more votes he gets the stronger and more clearly the message is sent that the citizens are getting restless.
Personally, I don't know who I'm going to vote for but it will NOT be for either Bush or Kerry. And no matter who gets elected president, I'm staying hard on the backs of my congressman and senators.
Any thing that is tuly valuable will find someone willing to trade something else of value for it. Limiting the rights of consumers does not create value.
Not only is it in a "mainstream" publication, it notes "SCO's case looks as if it's close to collapse." It's hard to find tech publications that see the case so clearly.