Ender's Game is a great book... totally deserved the Hugo. Even if you didn't like it much, read some of the sequels -- both the Ender sequels (Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, etc.) and the Shadow sequels (Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon, etc.) are very well done as well. Intelligent stories with all the character interplay, mind games, and plot twists of a Herbert or Asimov.
If they can do anywhere near as good a job with this as with Spider-Man (read: a few minor changes from the original, a few dumb scenes, but still an enjoyable movie), I'd be more than willing to plop down $20 or whatever a movie will cost in 2006.
The AC's right: the trademark is spelled in all caps. But see the Jargon File:
Some people are confused over whether this word is appropriately `UNIX' or `Unix'; both forms are common, and used interchangeably. Dennis Ritchie says that the `UNIX' spelling originally happened in CACM's 1974 paper "The UNIX Time-Sharing System" because "we had a new typesetter and troff had just been invented and we were intoxicated by being able to produce small caps." Later, dmr tried to get the spelling changed to `Unix' in a couple of Bell Labs papers, on the grounds that the word is not acronymic. He failed, and eventually (his words) "wimped out" on the issue. So, while the trademark today is `UNIX', both capitalizations are grounded in ancient usage; the Jargon File uses `Unix' in deference to dmr's wishes.
As a side note, putting it under a Free license (GPL, BSDL, whatever) doesn't necessarily mean he's going to release the source to the general public, or even at all. With the GPL, he only has to give the source to anyone to whom he supplies the binaries.
Thank you.
This is the single most insightful comment made in this entire thread.
Why does everyone think that just because the software in question is GPL'd that therefore everyone in the world will have access to it? In the traditional closed-source model, two parties have access to the source: the contractor (programmer) and the buyer. The contractor licenses the binaries to the buyer under non-exclusive terms -- meaning that he can later turn around and sell the same code to a competitor if he so wishes.
If the contractor GPLs the code, then he's required to provide the buyer a written offer for the source code, free of charge. This isn't a big deal, since the buyer ought to have access to the code anyway. The contractor is also required to provide a similar offer to anyone else to whom he supplies the binaries. Just as in the closed-source model, the contractor can distribute the program to whomever he wants! The buyer only has a non-exclusive license to the program.
As long as the buyer doesn't expect to own the code, there's really no difference from their point of view. They have to trust the contractor, or else make the terms of his contract such that he cannot supply copies of this program to their direct competitors. IANAL, but I don't believe terms like that would preclude licensing the program under the GPL.
Of course, depending on the type of project in question, GPL may be impractical for other reasons. Especially if the design of the software would include, for instance, trade secrets or other information (like APIs or other interface specs that are internal and proprietary to the buyer's company), it may be better to opensource the majority of the program under the LGPL and then use a closed-source link between them. Or it may be better to simply keep the entire program closed.
But the program certainly shouldn't be closed source simply because someone thinks "open source means this will help our competitors". That's misleading at best and flat-out wrong at worst.
I couldn't find a reference to that suit, but here's a story at CNet which discusses this. Note this paragraph:
The U.S. government in 1990 accused Microsoft of coercing computer resellers into paying a fee for each PC they shipped, whether or not a Microsoft operating system was actually installed. This action long preceded the separate antitrust case filed in 1998 by the Dept. of Justice and 19 states.
The article is actually discussing a stunt Microsoft pulled to get resellers to tattle on anyone who bought a PC without Windows.
Bill & co. never cease to amaze me -- but what amazes me more is that so few people have caught on to what they're doing.
Honestly, people are stupid and gullible. If you don't believe me, look up gullible on dictionary.com. They updated the definition recently, and it actually says "A very large percentage, nearly 80%, of the human population is extremely gullible." It also cites some documented studies, and indicates that they are actually considering removing gullible from the English dictionary. I would have included a link to the actual page, but my internet access is down at the moment.
here's a tip from one tech to another, on toner spills use alchohol swabs from a med kit, coffee filters and tight tip q-tips.
Actually, I would first go over it with a vacuum, since dry toner won't bond to a surface unless pressure or heat is applied. A vacuum (with an anti-static head, of course) will pick up all the mess that isn't glued down. Then you can go back and work on it with alcohol, without any fear of getting a gob of it on your shirtsleve or something like that.
Of course, once you're done, run a page through with a heavy black field, followed by several blank pages, to pick up any bits left behind and to verify that the charging and transfer coronas and the fuser are working correctly.
I used to be HP Authorized Technician and fix HP computers and occassionally HP printers for a living. I can tell you that you really don't want to get an ink spill inside your inkjet printer. Older HP models (like the original DeskJet and the 5xx series) had a large, important circut board at the bottom of the case, where ink (or any other spilled liquid) loved to collect. I've seen many a printer ruined by people who tried refills and didn't get it right.
And, as you point out, unless the ink is the exact same consistency, the print head will get clogged or else simply not deliver good print performance.
Additionally, the reason they make the print heads part of the ink cartridge is (at least in part) so that users will change the heads regularly. For good print quality, you need new heads every few hundred pages anyway, so tying the head to the ink forces Joe Blow not to forget to change the heads.
Now, don't get me wrong: I believe that this is also a case of the manufacturers taking a legitimate claim and using it as leverage to force the users to pay more. I'm not naive. But that doesn't mean that the manufacturer's claims are entirely without merit, either.
I think that ideally, the heads and ink should be separate, standardized modules. Each one would have to be labeled with precise information about (in the case of the head) number of jets, jet spacing, voltages, etc. and (in the case of the ink) the types of heads it will work with, the quantity of ink per container, etc. That way, you could (theoretically) upgrade your printer by swapping in a higher-quality print head. If they could legislate that kind of solution, it might work.
But DIY ink refills are at best a hit-and-miss proposition -- if the government were to legitimatize ink refills, they would have to also regulate the quality of these offerings... something like requiring a warranty, in case the refilled cartridge somehow ruins the printer.
Oh, and BTW: None of this applies to laser refills, which I have very little experience with. My understanding is that some are very good, and others are very bad. And, having had to clean toner spills out of laser printers, I can tell you that it's not a fun job. But laser is by far the better technology: my printer here is a LaserJet that produces nice, sharp (albeit B&W) pages and that has jammed maybe once and otherwise never given me a problem. Of course, I don't use it as much anymore... I really have no need for hard copies of anything 99% of the time...
Actually, it's a conservative estimate: as the article suggests, it's far more likely that geekier (read: high-paid, on average) people will see it, so they will be wasting more money than an average cross-section would be.
"By providing any direct links to content within the site, you allow visitors to avoid the homepage, which:
* can result in a viewer not understanding that the content is on our client's site; and
* allows the viewer to avoid the advertising, etc., on the homepage (which places our client in a bad position with respect to its advertisers, etc.)."
Excuse me? (1) I can easily understand that the content is on a different site, and (2) the deep link in question has a large advertising banner prominently displayed across the top of the page.
IANAL, but it sure sounds like this lawyer doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
I used to work for a couple "mom and pop" type computer builders that always placed those "void if broken" seals on PCs. I don't think any of us really expected them to be legally binding if we got in a big fight with a customer. It was just an attempt to deter people from tinkering around inside their PC if they didn't know what they were doing.
Funny story: for a while, HP put shiny, official-looking stickers across the seams of their consumer PCs (so that you couldn't open the case without tearing the sticker) that actually said "Breaking this seal DOES NOT void warranty."
Being shiny and official-looking, it still deterred 95% of the bozos who didn't know what they were doing.
In fact, after fixing a customer's PC once, she complained that I (an HP Authorized Technician) had broken the seal. I had to explain to her that the seal really didn't mean anything and that her warranty was still valid, but I don't think she really believed me.
Do not assume Joe Sixpack knows what Tucows is, or even, having heard some "works with computers" person mention it, know how to get there.
Do not assume that, having heard about this thing called Mozilla that's supposed to be like Netscape, (which is the other thing that does what Internet Explorer does, that they may have heard about), only it's free, and somehow better, that Joe Sixpack will be willing to risk getting a virus by downloading scary program files off the Internet, especially if it's from crazy site with a stupid logo that's probably run by gasp -- hackers!
To quote myself, from the parent post: "Never assume that ordinary people of average intelligence will manifest anything short of utter stupidity when confronted with a computer."
Go back and read the rest of my argument.
People saying "it's easy, all you need is [Website X] or [Utility Y] or [Technology Z]" may be all that's needed for your average slashdotter, but Joe Sixpack needs a little more help.
It's amazing how some people can be very intelligent about some things and yet totally stupid about others. Hmmm... maybe that should be my new sig.
2. Frampton Comes Alive! is one the better selling albums of the mid-1970s era. Many songs from this CD are *STILL* played on classic rock stations and soft rock stations, namely Baby I Love Your Way (later remade by the crappy Will To Power and Big Mountain), Show Me The Way, and Do You Feel Like We Do.
Yup. In fact, according to the official WIPO doc:
The Complainant's 1976 album "Frampton Comes Alive" has sold over sixteen million copies since its release, making it the world's best-selling live album. This is indicated in a copy of the Complainant's biography which appears, in the Complaint, as Annex C.
Even if, as mrbrown1602 claims, Frampton is "washed up", the world's best-selling live album argues that he's still got some clout.
I'd argue that his name recognition is still pretty high. I wouldn't consider myself a Frampton fan per se, although I respect his playing ability, but we have at least one fan among us.
It was an intentional effort to cash in on the musician's name.
Okay, granted. But Frampton (the guitarist) could have used other recourses -- for instance, he could have sent a cease & desist and then sued over trademark infringement.
Here we have an unfortunate (however justified) precedent: Lyle Peter Frampton does have a (quasi-)legitimate claim to using the name he is commonly known by as an Internet address or even to engage in business.
What he does not have is the right to capitalize on the fame of the original Frampton. However, I don't believe taking the domain away from him was necessarily the best way to resolve this dispute.
Peter Frampton (the guitar player) already has a site ("The Official Peter Frampton Website") at frampton.com, which one could argue is a shorter and more preferable domain anyway.
Firstly it's apt not apt-get, apt-get is just a binary that is part of apt. Secondly you can't compare rpm to apt because apt is a layer above packaging tools like rpm or dpkg.
Point taken. (Shows I'm a RedHat man, doesn't it?) But what I meant by mentioning apt was that the Windows world needs an installer that can fetch the appropriate files and automatically begin the installation process. If there was a cute-looking Windows front-end to apt, even if the back-end only unpacked zipfiles and ran setup.exe, a lot of clueless users would love it. Imagine if Joe Sixpack could just click "Get New Program" and type "Mozilla" in the box, and voila! Mozilla. If it were that easy, more people would do it.
I know, I know, all it takes is a quick Google search, download the file, double-click, follow the wizard -- what could be easier? -- but do you know how many Windows users don't even know about Google? For a lot of people, AOL search is the only thing they know how to use.
Never assume that ordinary people of average intelligence will manifest anything short of utter stupidity when confronted with a computer. For most of the/. community, computers and technology in general are intuitive; they can generalize knowledge of one application, interface, or platform and quickly begin using another. For the average non-technical person, computer "logic" is 100% counter-intuitive.
I believe this confusion stems somewhat from the fact that what the average person calls "logic" is nothing of the sort: rather, it's "common sense." Most people conclude that something is logical if it "makes sense." But computer logic is a cold, unforgiving mathematical concept, which is totally foreign to people who haven't been exposed to it. I think this is the major link between proficiency with computers and mathematics -- it's not that, on an everyday level, the details have much in common, but the underlying logical model is well-nigh identical.
Hmmm... seems I've gotten carried away. Sorry 'bout rambling on like that...
I would say the killer app for getting OSS into Windows boxen would have to be either rpm or apt-get.
If we could make installing software easy, painless, and reliable, we would have an open-source competitor to the Windows Installer. Just think: how many small apps use a full-blown InstallShield or Wise wizard when all they really need is to copy a couple of.EXEs and set up some shortcuts? But how many technophobic users would never install software by reading the README, unzipping the files, and putting them in the proper places?
Once you have a back-end like rpm or apt, all you need is a one-click graphical front-end that launches it. If installing the program all happens automagically, the users will think it is a Good Thing(TM). They will notice how they don't have to click through a gazilion stupid steps like ""C:\Program Files\Company-Name\Product-Name" does not exist. Do you want to create it?"
And then they ate Sir Billy's minstrels. And there was much rejoicing.
Besides, isn't it kind of an unwritten rule of./ ettiquette (that's an oxymoron) that you can only call moderators "crack-smoking" whatevers over moderation of somebody else's comment? If you do it over your own comments, you sound self-absorbed and hypersensitive. After all, it's just karma.
You're right. To the extent that there is such an unwritten slashdot code of conduct, I probably broke it. Sorry. I just got irritated at the mod -- I mean, I barely had time to reload after posting the comment and it was already modded down. It's not like I really care about karma or even the scoring of my comments, but stupid moderations always get on my nerves. (Whether of someone else's comments or of my own.)
You're also right about how Microsoft seems to be able to get away with anything. Did you ever see the Animaniacs episode where they are trying to kill "Baloney" (an obvious Barney lookalike) and "It won't die!" Sorry, bad metaphor, but that's what just popped into my mind.
I do some work on CIFS and there is indeed some samba code in the codebase.
Is this for real?
Blockquote the AC:
Rather than rewite it ourselves, samba code was taken and obfuscated. After all, who's going to find it? And good luck proving it.
If you aren't just some clever troll making this up, then you could blow the whistle and gain far more fame than you ever would as a code grunt in Big Billy's Zoo of Death. After that, you could probably have a job at any free-software-friendly house out there.
Or you could just write a book and milk the talk show circuit for all it's worth.
What crack-smoking mod decided this was "overrated"? How again does posting an insightful (IMNSHO) comment with my +1 bonus constitute "overrating" the comment?
<conspiracy theory> It's the Microsoft infiltrators! They want to hide the legitimate Microsoft exposes by only modding up the lame anti-M$ FUD-spouting L1nuX k1dd33s! Slashdot has fallen victim! The terrorists have won! </conspiracy theory>
What would happen, for example, if Windows were "licensed" to exclude its use in conjunction with certain free software -- such as -- oh say -- Wine.
Actually, the latest Wine builds are working better and better even without Microsoft libraries. A far more likely scenario -- and one with a more powerful impact -- would be if MS Office was licensed so that it could only be used with Windows... or if it could only authenticate using Passport, or something along those lines. In fact, I believe that the reason CodeWeavers Office does not yet support MS Office XP has to do with this kind of licensing issue.
Or worse, what if the Windows EULA was changed to explictly forbid running it in an emulated virtual machine? That would kill VirtualPC, VMware, and plex86 all with one fell swoop -- and drive a lot of users back to the Windows platform.
You've got a good point. Hopefully, if enough people become aware of the dangerous possibilities of this kind of faux-open documentation licensing, the antitrust people will be able to do something about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ender's Game is a great book... totally deserved the Hugo. Even if you didn't like it much, read some of the sequels -- both the Ender sequels (Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, etc.) and the Shadow sequels (Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon, etc.) are very well done as well. Intelligent stories with all the character interplay, mind games, and plot twists of a Herbert or Asimov.
If they can do anywhere near as good a job with this as with Spider-Man (read: a few minor changes from the original, a few dumb scenes, but still an enjoyable movie), I'd be more than willing to plop down $20 or whatever a movie will cost in 2006.
The Powers that Be(TM) at the Pentagon need to read Dr. Villanueva's letter.
This is the single most insightful comment made in this entire thread.
Why does everyone think that just because the software in question is GPL'd that therefore everyone in the world will have access to it? In the traditional closed-source model, two parties have access to the source: the contractor (programmer) and the buyer. The contractor licenses the binaries to the buyer under non-exclusive terms -- meaning that he can later turn around and sell the same code to a competitor if he so wishes.
If the contractor GPLs the code, then he's required to provide the buyer a written offer for the source code, free of charge. This isn't a big deal, since the buyer ought to have access to the code anyway. The contractor is also required to provide a similar offer to anyone else to whom he supplies the binaries. Just as in the closed-source model, the contractor can distribute the program to whomever he wants! The buyer only has a non-exclusive license to the program.
As long as the buyer doesn't expect to own the code, there's really no difference from their point of view. They have to trust the contractor, or else make the terms of his contract such that he cannot supply copies of this program to their direct competitors. IANAL, but I don't believe terms like that would preclude licensing the program under the GPL.
Of course, depending on the type of project in question, GPL may be impractical for other reasons. Especially if the design of the software would include, for instance, trade secrets or other information (like APIs or other interface specs that are internal and proprietary to the buyer's company), it may be better to opensource the majority of the program under the LGPL and then use a closed-source link between them. Or it may be better to simply keep the entire program closed.
But the program certainly shouldn't be closed source simply because someone thinks "open source means this will help our competitors". That's misleading at best and flat-out wrong at worst.
I couldn't find a reference to that suit, but here's a story at CNet which discusses this. Note this paragraph:
The article is actually discussing a stunt Microsoft pulled to get resellers to tattle on anyone who bought a PC without Windows.Bill & co. never cease to amaze me -- but what amazes me more is that so few people have caught on to what they're doing.
Scene 2 ("Bring out your dead!")
and
Scene 15 ("Message for you, sir")
It's funny. Laugh.
Scotty: It'll take at least 8 days, but for you, Captain, I can do it in 2.
Kirk: Do you always multiply your repair estimates by four, Mr. Scott?
Scotty: Aye, sir. How else do you expect me to keep my reputation as a miracle worker?
Yup... he's an engineer.
Of course, once you're done, run a page through with a heavy black field, followed by several blank pages, to pick up any bits left behind and to verify that the charging and transfer coronas and the fuser are working correctly.
And, as you point out, unless the ink is the exact same consistency, the print head will get clogged or else simply not deliver good print performance.
Additionally, the reason they make the print heads part of the ink cartridge is (at least in part) so that users will change the heads regularly. For good print quality, you need new heads every few hundred pages anyway, so tying the head to the ink forces Joe Blow not to forget to change the heads.
Now, don't get me wrong: I believe that this is also a case of the manufacturers taking a legitimate claim and using it as leverage to force the users to pay more. I'm not naive. But that doesn't mean that the manufacturer's claims are entirely without merit, either.
I think that ideally, the heads and ink should be separate, standardized modules. Each one would have to be labeled with precise information about (in the case of the head) number of jets, jet spacing, voltages, etc. and (in the case of the ink) the types of heads it will work with, the quantity of ink per container, etc. That way, you could (theoretically) upgrade your printer by swapping in a higher-quality print head. If they could legislate that kind of solution, it might work.
But DIY ink refills are at best a hit-and-miss proposition -- if the government were to legitimatize ink refills, they would have to also regulate the quality of these offerings... something like requiring a warranty, in case the refilled cartridge somehow ruins the printer.
Oh, and BTW: None of this applies to laser refills, which I have very little experience with. My understanding is that some are very good, and others are very bad. And, having had to clean toner spills out of laser printers, I can tell you that it's not a fun job. But laser is by far the better technology: my printer here is a LaserJet that produces nice, sharp (albeit B&W) pages and that has jammed maybe once and otherwise never given me a problem. Of course, I don't use it as much anymore... I really have no need for hard copies of anything 99% of the time...
According to the Belo lawyer:
Excuse me? (1) I can easily understand that the content is on a different site, and (2) the deep link in question has a large advertising banner prominently displayed across the top of the page.IANAL, but it sure sounds like this lawyer doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Being shiny and official-looking, it still deterred 95% of the bozos who didn't know what they were doing.
In fact, after fixing a customer's PC once, she complained that I (an HP Authorized Technician) had broken the seal. I had to explain to her that the seal really didn't mean anything and that her warranty was still valid, but I don't think she really believed me.
In fact, it will be observing a number of days of silence... quite a number so far.
BTW: Props to michael for the Simon & Garfunkel reference too.
- Do not assume Joe Sixpack knows what Tucows is, or even, having heard some "works with computers" person mention it, know how to get there.
- Do not assume that, having heard about this thing called Mozilla that's supposed to be like Netscape, (which is the other thing that does what Internet Explorer does, that they may have heard about), only it's free, and somehow better, that Joe Sixpack will be willing to risk getting a virus by downloading scary program files off the Internet, especially if it's from crazy site with a stupid logo that's probably run by gasp -- hackers!
- To quote myself, from the parent post: "Never assume that ordinary people of average intelligence will manifest anything short of utter stupidity when confronted with a computer."
Go back and read the rest of my argument.People saying "it's easy, all you need is [Website X] or [Utility Y] or [Technology Z]" may be all that's needed for your average slashdotter, but Joe Sixpack needs a little more help.
It's amazing how some people can be very intelligent about some things and yet totally stupid about others. Hmmm... maybe that should be my new sig.
I'd argue that his name recognition is still pretty high. I wouldn't consider myself a Frampton fan per se, although I respect his playing ability, but we have at least one fan among us.
Here we have an unfortunate (however justified) precedent: Lyle Peter Frampton does have a (quasi-)legitimate claim to using the name he is commonly known by as an Internet address or even to engage in business.
What he does not have is the right to capitalize on the fame of the original Frampton. However, I don't believe taking the domain away from him was necessarily the best way to resolve this dispute.
Why does he need PeterFrampton.com as well?
I know, I know, all it takes is a quick Google search, download the file, double-click, follow the wizard -- what could be easier? -- but do you know how many Windows users don't even know about Google? For a lot of people, AOL search is the only thing they know how to use.
Never assume that ordinary people of average intelligence will manifest anything short of utter stupidity when confronted with a computer. For most of the /. community, computers and technology in general are intuitive; they can generalize knowledge of one application, interface, or platform and quickly begin using another. For the average non-technical person, computer "logic" is 100% counter-intuitive.
I believe this confusion stems somewhat from the fact that what the average person calls "logic" is nothing of the sort: rather, it's "common sense." Most people conclude that something is logical if it "makes sense." But computer logic is a cold, unforgiving mathematical concept, which is totally foreign to people who haven't been exposed to it. I think this is the major link between proficiency with computers and mathematics -- it's not that, on an everyday level, the details have much in common, but the underlying logical model is well-nigh identical.
Hmmm... seems I've gotten carried away. Sorry 'bout rambling on like that...
I would say the killer app for getting OSS into Windows boxen would have to be either rpm or apt-get.
If we could make installing software easy, painless, and reliable, we would have an open-source competitor to the Windows Installer. Just think: how many small apps use a full-blown InstallShield or Wise wizard when all they really need is to copy a couple of .EXEs and set up some shortcuts? But how many technophobic users would never install software by reading the README, unzipping the files, and putting them in the proper places?
Once you have a back-end like rpm or apt, all you need is a one-click graphical front-end that launches it. If installing the program all happens automagically, the users will think it is a Good Thing(TM). They will notice how they don't have to click through a gazilion stupid steps like ""C:\Program Files\Company-Name\Product-Name" does not exist. Do you want to create it?"
And then they ate Sir Billy's minstrels. And there was much rejoicing.
You're also right about how Microsoft seems to be able to get away with anything. Did you ever see the Animaniacs episode where they are trying to kill "Baloney" (an obvious Barney lookalike) and "It won't die!" Sorry, bad metaphor, but that's what just popped into my mind.
Or you could just write a book and milk the talk show circuit for all it's worth.
<conspiracy theory>
It's the Microsoft infiltrators! They want to hide the legitimate Microsoft exposes by only modding up the lame anti-M$ FUD-spouting L1nuX k1dd33s! Slashdot has fallen victim! The terrorists have won!
</conspiracy theory>
Or worse, what if the Windows EULA was changed to explictly forbid running it in an emulated virtual machine? That would kill VirtualPC, VMware, and plex86 all with one fell swoop -- and drive a lot of users back to the Windows platform.
You've got a good point. Hopefully, if enough people become aware of the dangerous possibilities of this kind of faux-open documentation licensing, the antitrust people will be able to do something about it.