Worshipping Steve Jobs
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
I don't think it's a matter of being forced to do anything in regards to Steve Jobs. It's just that the man has this aura. Kind of like an energy field that he projects that turns rain into sunshine and lemons into lemonade. In a sense, he is a god. And gods ought to be worshipped.
Which goes to my original point. Regardless of the amount of testing that goes into your project, at some point you're going to have to release to the real world and all that QA work that you thought you did turns out to be insufficient.
Better to have released early and often and let the real testers (your users) find the bugs. Sarge is hardly the state of the art, but it took so long to finally get released. How is the old buggy release any better than Redhat's up to date buggy release?
I refer you to a very old post I wrote
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I wrote this to address exactly the mistake you are making.
GPL is not freedom for anyone. It is freedom for the software.
Uh. What do you think happens to it?
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The heirs receive the copyrights. Unless there's something in the decedent's will, the copyrights to the code will be passed on to the appropriate heir.
The heir is then free to release the code under any copyright scheme he deems appropriate. However, he is bound by the original licensing of the code (GPL) which has already been granted. He may stop distributing it altogether, or he may stop licensing it under GPL, but the code that has already been distributed under the GPL remains that way.
When four corners is too much
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
They specify the four pillars of GPL3:
1) GPL is a worldwide copyright license, 2) the code of conduct for free software distributors, 3)the constitution of the free software movement, 4) and the literary work of RMS
The problem is that (1) has always been limited by the FSF's unwillingness to translate the GPL into any other language. How they plan to make it an international license without actually translating it ought to be interesting.
(2) is already pretty much taken care of. You use GPL code in your code and then distribute it, you have to open up your code under GPL conditions. I can't imagine what will change.
I'm not sure what they plan to get out of (3). The GPL is the General Public License. It may be drafted by the FSF, but it is intended for broad usage by many different people. If they want to have a constitution, they ought to make one, for their organization. Trying to pretend like their organization represents the entire movement is silly and pure hubris.
As for (4), who cares except for RMS what literary works he's published? More hubris.
It seems that like the Perl camp, the FSF can't leave good enough alone and is slowly imploding under the pressure of their own navel gazing.
GPL 2.0 is fine and clear. GPL 3 looks to be an FSF circle jerk in honor of RMS. Count me out.
As an Open Source developer, I'm not in this for the money. If I were, you can bet the project would be Closed Source.
Rather, I want this project to be open and usable for all. To that end, I license it under the GPL and anyone is free to use it.
So my users are partners with me. They are not my guinea pigs. Though I maintain control over the project, there is no set-in-stone law that no one else may fork the project. In fact, they are encouraged to, if they feel it necessary.
I release the patches, and they accept them or reject them, depending on their own circumstances. I don't rule them with an iron fist. I consider them my Knights of the Round Table where they all have the right to say what they want and none is any greater than the other.
So maybe you think that users are passive slugs, but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt.
Windows and IE being no exception. The very fact that users have neither access to the source code nor the ability to build the application sources means that any testing must be done "in-house". This is going to slow down the release cycle by exactly the amount of time it would take to run all the regression tests.
With Open Source, a patch can be released right away and users can compile in the new sources themselves. Any issues can be immediately identified and reported back to the maintainers, often with both the offending source code and potential fixes to the patch. Without the lengthy QA cycle, Open Source patches are much more immediate than any Closed Source shop could ever hope to achieve.
Testicular cancer is one of those cancers that can be caught and treated successfully if found early. Unfortunately, it's not exactly one of those tests that you so willingly sign up for. You usually go in for examination when you notice some symptoms and by that point it's already too late. It's a lot like prostate cancer in that regard.
Paving the way for custom publishing in a multiple-channel environment with industry-leading design, page layout, publishing, enterprise workflow, personalization, and content management software.
I'm not sure if it was a photoshop plugin or a standalone filter, but the filter was able to derive sharp pictures from the bokeh of photographs.
Essentially, it calculated the ring of blur and interpolated the data and was able to resolve out-of-focus areas. The sample photos were either of gorillas or pandas. I'm sure someone will have a link.
With all due respect, Dr. Who is one of the most unwatchable series on public television. I watch the pledge drives and get treated to all sorts of interesting shows ranging from Dr. Weil's health seminars to David Hyde Pierce's documentary on the wine regions in France to Dale Chihuly's blown glass exhibits, and I'm compelled to give. Then for the next 4 months I'm treated to languid, unfunny British science fiction.
How has Dr. Who changed the face of television? I'm not so sure we can answer that except in opposition. It has shown us that shows ought to be recorded on film or in digital rather than on VHS. It has shown us that special effects ought to be well done instead of looking like a 2nd grade art contest. It shows us that British actors can only employ ironic humor.
Dr. Who (I'll be modded down for this, I'm sure. What else is new?) sucks.
I'm not a hippie, far from it. Grizzled veteran of several wars is more like it.
But I hate guns. I hate war. I hate all these things that are designed to kill and maim (contrary to international treaties, in fact).
How about concentrating on global cooperation instead of global conquest? There are only two ways of eliminating an enemy: Kill him or make him a friend.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather make a friend than kill an enemy.
Designing these weapons can only lead to more killing. I find that terribly sad.
Microsoft built a suite of integrated Office applications with built-in functionality that allows seamless transfer of data between the apps. Amado uses the built-in functions to do exactly what those features are designed to do, receives a patent from the braindead patent office, then tries to present his "discovery" to the people who invented the thing in the first place.
There's nothing to understand here except that Amado's idea was exactly why Microsoft put those features into the applications in the first place.
If this doesn't push Microsoft to patent every single thing they ever do or plan to do, I don't know what will. How can they protect themselves from these fleas? The only way is to hold those patents.
These types of lawsuits are what is leading to the demise of intellectual property, not the other way around. It is when people abuse the system by applying for things that are either obvious or developed by someone else that this type of lawsuit occurs.
I hope Amado is happy with that money because he doesn't deserve it.
As much as I hate Microsoft, I hate people who think they can use patents to cash in on something after the fact. Rambus did this in its ambush of memory makers. Eolas did this to Microsoft. Intertrust is doing this now to MS.
These companies sit around and brainstorm ideas without ever coming up with anything tangible, then they receive patents on their broad ideas. With the patent in hand, they can then sue anyone and anything that looks to be infringing. It's really sad.
At least when IBM or Microsoft or Sun patent something, they have some tangible product they look to implement. The patent leeches just look for traps they can set for big payoffs later on.
Unless it's tapping directly into their brains (which it isn't), those signals aren't getting transmitted to the point where handicapped people will be allowed to walk.
I suppose if you expanded the group of "handicapped" to include those suffering from polio and other diseases that result muscular dystrophy, then I can see this argued, but paraplegics and quadraplegics are not going to be helped, despite the claims of the article.
I remember about 6 or 7 years ago when I was switching from Netscape 3 to IE 4 that there was a huge argument over whether Netscape 4 or IE 4 was the better product. The step up from versions 3 was significant.
Lately, having switched to Firefox to avoid rampant security issues, I feel fairly comfortable with this browser. There are some things that I wish were better like better Googlebar and better plug-in handling, but am pretty happy with it.
So with IE7, what's the draw? What features will it have that will encourage me to jump ship again? The feature list doesn't impress me as much as the jump from Netscape 3 to IE 4 did. And security is not an issue with Firefox, so that's not a good enough reason.
I guess I'll just have to download the mandatory Critical Update and try out the browser for myself.
I'm not going to say I told you so, but I told you so. The minute you give up the physical artifact and rely on a digital representation of your data, you are at the risk of any company who wishes to exert some control over the format of that data. That's why all those RAW file formats for each camera are different from company to company. They gain the most benefit by locking you into a certain piece of software and forcing you along their upgrade path.
If you stick with film, you are only limited in your ability to develop your own negatives. If you can do this, you will be able to continue with film for as long as you want. Scan the negs and save them in whatever format you want. It doesn't matter because the actual physical artifact is still in your possession.
Not so with Digital.
In many ways, digital is superior to film. However, when it comes to ownership of your data, you are far better off with film than you ever can be with digital.
I think it bears notice that it is Men in a position of power over Women pretty much the world over. With such things as the colloquial "Old Boys Club", women are at a severe disadvantage to men in most aspects of society. They are typically paid less on average, they are defacto excluded from the upper echelons in business and government, and historically they have been seen as lesser humans because of their gender.
So, yes, there is a problem of inequality between men and women which makes the actions of men against women more atrocious than an identical action of women against men.
Yes, but the authors are also males and are projecting their conception of a "strong male" into their artwork. It means rugged looks, broad shoulders, muscular physique.
When they project their impression of "strong female", we get diminutive height, waspy waist, large breasts, well-shaped vulva, and perfect skin. They have confused (or purposefully replaced) strong with sexy.
So only sexy female superheroes exist. Unsexy females can't possibly exist because it would shatter the geek audience's preconceived notions of what a strong female looks like.
They celebrate the male characters by drawing them in that way, yet they demean the female characters by the same drawing techniques. It's not something that can be cured overnight, but it is something that ought to be taken note of and resisted.
What always makes me laugh is how otakus try to justify their objectification of women in comics as somehow empowering to women. By cladding the female characters in skin-tight suits that leave nothing to the imagination and giving them powers, they are somehow less objectified than you'd assume at first glance. Oh no, they are totally powerful, according to the geeks.
Of course, at no point are they ever in charge, in normal clothes, homely, or out of the control of some male superhero.
I've jacked off to Rogue in her undies many times, so I ought to know a thing or two about objectifying comic book women. That doesn't excuse the industry for its blatant subjection of women, though, it only reinforces the stereotype of geeks as misogynists.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's a matter of being forced to do anything in regards to Steve Jobs. It's just that the man has this aura. Kind of like an energy field that he projects that turns rain into sunshine and lemons into lemonade. In a sense, he is a god. And gods ought to be worshipped.
Steve Jobs is awesome.
Looks like Sarge has got some problems.
Which goes to my original point. Regardless of the amount of testing that goes into your project, at some point you're going to have to release to the real world and all that QA work that you thought you did turns out to be insufficient.
Better to have released early and often and let the real testers (your users) find the bugs. Sarge is hardly the state of the art, but it took so long to finally get released. How is the old buggy release any better than Redhat's up to date buggy release?
I wrote this to address exactly the mistake you are making.
GPL is not freedom for anyone. It is freedom for the software.
The heirs receive the copyrights. Unless there's something in the decedent's will, the copyrights to the code will be passed on to the appropriate heir.
The heir is then free to release the code under any copyright scheme he deems appropriate. However, he is bound by the original licensing of the code (GPL) which has already been granted. He may stop distributing it altogether, or he may stop licensing it under GPL, but the code that has already been distributed under the GPL remains that way.
They specify the four pillars of GPL3:
1) GPL is a worldwide copyright license, 2) the code of conduct for free software distributors, 3)the constitution of the free software movement, 4) and the literary work of RMS
The problem is that (1) has always been limited by the FSF's unwillingness to translate the GPL into any other language. How they plan to make it an international license without actually translating it ought to be interesting.
(2) is already pretty much taken care of. You use GPL code in your code and then distribute it, you have to open up your code under GPL conditions. I can't imagine what will change.
I'm not sure what they plan to get out of (3). The GPL is the General Public License. It may be drafted by the FSF, but it is intended for broad usage by many different people. If they want to have a constitution, they ought to make one, for their organization. Trying to pretend like their organization represents the entire movement is silly and pure hubris.
As for (4), who cares except for RMS what literary works he's published? More hubris.
It seems that like the Perl camp, the FSF can't leave good enough alone and is slowly imploding under the pressure of their own navel gazing.
GPL 2.0 is fine and clear. GPL 3 looks to be an FSF circle jerk in honor of RMS. Count me out.
As an Open Source developer, I'm not in this for the money. If I were, you can bet the project would be Closed Source.
Rather, I want this project to be open and usable for all. To that end, I license it under the GPL and anyone is free to use it.
So my users are partners with me. They are not my guinea pigs. Though I maintain control over the project, there is no set-in-stone law that no one else may fork the project. In fact, they are encouraged to, if they feel it necessary.
I release the patches, and they accept them or reject them, depending on their own circumstances. I don't rule them with an iron fist. I consider them my Knights of the Round Table where they all have the right to say what they want and none is any greater than the other.
So maybe you think that users are passive slugs, but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt.
Isn't the writing of Open Source software the whole point?
If no one wanted to write it, OSS wouldn't even exist.
Windows and IE being no exception. The very fact that users have neither access to the source code nor the ability to build the application sources means that any testing must be done "in-house". This is going to slow down the release cycle by exactly the amount of time it would take to run all the regression tests.
With Open Source, a patch can be released right away and users can compile in the new sources themselves. Any issues can be immediately identified and reported back to the maintainers, often with both the offending source code and potential fixes to the patch. Without the lengthy QA cycle, Open Source patches are much more immediate than any Closed Source shop could ever hope to achieve.
Testicular cancer is one of those cancers that can be caught and treated successfully if found early. Unfortunately, it's not exactly one of those tests that you so willingly sign up for. You usually go in for examination when you notice some symptoms and by that point it's already too late. It's a lot like prostate cancer in that regard.
Good luck to this guy.
I did when I was reading their website:
Paving the way for custom publishing in a multiple-channel environment with industry-leading design, page layout, publishing, enterprise workflow, personalization, and content management software.
I'm not sure if it was a photoshop plugin or a standalone filter, but the filter was able to derive sharp pictures from the bokeh of photographs.
Essentially, it calculated the ring of blur and interpolated the data and was able to resolve out-of-focus areas. The sample photos were either of gorillas or pandas. I'm sure someone will have a link.
Very space opera.
Well put, though I'd recommend thinking twice before simply assuming that someone you disagree with must live in America.
As for longest running science fiction, I could have sworn that was Star Trek Voyager. Maybe it just felt like it was on forever.
With all due respect, Dr. Who is one of the most unwatchable series on public television. I watch the pledge drives and get treated to all sorts of interesting shows ranging from Dr. Weil's health seminars to David Hyde Pierce's documentary on the wine regions in France to Dale Chihuly's blown glass exhibits, and I'm compelled to give. Then for the next 4 months I'm treated to languid, unfunny British science fiction.
How has Dr. Who changed the face of television? I'm not so sure we can answer that except in opposition. It has shown us that shows ought to be recorded on film or in digital rather than on VHS. It has shown us that special effects ought to be well done instead of looking like a 2nd grade art contest. It shows us that British actors can only employ ironic humor.
Dr. Who (I'll be modded down for this, I'm sure. What else is new?) sucks.
An eye for an eye leaves us all toothless.
I'm not a hippie, far from it. Grizzled veteran of several wars is more like it.
But I hate guns. I hate war. I hate all these things that are designed to kill and maim (contrary to international treaties, in fact).
How about concentrating on global cooperation instead of global conquest? There are only two ways of eliminating an enemy: Kill him or make him a friend.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather make a friend than kill an enemy.
Designing these weapons can only lead to more killing. I find that terribly sad.
How does it change anything?
Microsoft built a suite of integrated Office applications with built-in functionality that allows seamless transfer of data between the apps. Amado uses the built-in functions to do exactly what those features are designed to do, receives a patent from the braindead patent office, then tries to present his "discovery" to the people who invented the thing in the first place.
There's nothing to understand here except that Amado's idea was exactly why Microsoft put those features into the applications in the first place.
If this doesn't push Microsoft to patent every single thing they ever do or plan to do, I don't know what will. How can they protect themselves from these fleas? The only way is to hold those patents.
These types of lawsuits are what is leading to the demise of intellectual property, not the other way around. It is when people abuse the system by applying for things that are either obvious or developed by someone else that this type of lawsuit occurs.
I hope Amado is happy with that money because he doesn't deserve it.
As much as I hate Microsoft, I hate people who think they can use patents to cash in on something after the fact. Rambus did this in its ambush of memory makers. Eolas did this to Microsoft. Intertrust is doing this now to MS.
These companies sit around and brainstorm ideas without ever coming up with anything tangible, then they receive patents on their broad ideas. With the patent in hand, they can then sue anyone and anything that looks to be infringing. It's really sad.
At least when IBM or Microsoft or Sun patent something, they have some tangible product they look to implement. The patent leeches just look for traps they can set for big payoffs later on.
Unless it's tapping directly into their brains (which it isn't), those signals aren't getting transmitted to the point where handicapped people will be allowed to walk.
I suppose if you expanded the group of "handicapped" to include those suffering from polio and other diseases that result muscular dystrophy, then I can see this argued, but paraplegics and quadraplegics are not going to be helped, despite the claims of the article.
And I'll take -1 Offtopic again for saying so.
It works by enhancing muscle movements. You move a muscle a little, the exoskeleton translates that into a much larger movement.
Handicapped people (paras, quads) do not have muscle control in their handicapped limbs, so this exoskeleton can't help them.
I remember about 6 or 7 years ago when I was switching from Netscape 3 to IE 4 that there was a huge argument over whether Netscape 4 or IE 4 was the better product. The step up from versions 3 was significant.
Lately, having switched to Firefox to avoid rampant security issues, I feel fairly comfortable with this browser. There are some things that I wish were better like better Googlebar and better plug-in handling, but am pretty happy with it.
So with IE7, what's the draw? What features will it have that will encourage me to jump ship again? The feature list doesn't impress me as much as the jump from Netscape 3 to IE 4 did. And security is not an issue with Firefox, so that's not a good enough reason.
I guess I'll just have to download the mandatory Critical Update and try out the browser for myself.
How can we argue the opposite end of the spectrum?
Are we willing to talk about that?
I'm not going to say I told you so, but I told you so. The minute you give up the physical artifact and rely on a digital representation of your data, you are at the risk of any company who wishes to exert some control over the format of that data. That's why all those RAW file formats for each camera are different from company to company. They gain the most benefit by locking you into a certain piece of software and forcing you along their upgrade path.
If you stick with film, you are only limited in your ability to develop your own negatives. If you can do this, you will be able to continue with film for as long as you want. Scan the negs and save them in whatever format you want. It doesn't matter because the actual physical artifact is still in your possession.
Not so with Digital.
In many ways, digital is superior to film. However, when it comes to ownership of your data, you are far better off with film than you ever can be with digital.
I think it bears notice that it is Men in a position of power over Women pretty much the world over. With such things as the colloquial "Old Boys Club", women are at a severe disadvantage to men in most aspects of society. They are typically paid less on average, they are defacto excluded from the upper echelons in business and government, and historically they have been seen as lesser humans because of their gender.
So, yes, there is a problem of inequality between men and women which makes the actions of men against women more atrocious than an identical action of women against men.
Yes, but the authors are also males and are projecting their conception of a "strong male" into their artwork. It means rugged looks, broad shoulders, muscular physique.
When they project their impression of "strong female", we get diminutive height, waspy waist, large breasts, well-shaped vulva, and perfect skin. They have confused (or purposefully replaced) strong with sexy.
So only sexy female superheroes exist. Unsexy females can't possibly exist because it would shatter the geek audience's preconceived notions of what a strong female looks like.
They celebrate the male characters by drawing them in that way, yet they demean the female characters by the same drawing techniques. It's not something that can be cured overnight, but it is something that ought to be taken note of and resisted.
What always makes me laugh is how otakus try to justify their objectification of women in comics as somehow empowering to women. By cladding the female characters in skin-tight suits that leave nothing to the imagination and giving them powers, they are somehow less objectified than you'd assume at first glance. Oh no, they are totally powerful, according to the geeks.
Of course, at no point are they ever in charge, in normal clothes, homely, or out of the control of some male superhero.
I've jacked off to Rogue in her undies many times, so I ought to know a thing or two about objectifying comic book women. That doesn't excuse the industry for its blatant subjection of women, though, it only reinforces the stereotype of geeks as misogynists.