I use a Linode 512 to do web development, run automated tasks (Twitter updates, website production), and keep current on new technologies. It has hosted application servers including Openfire XMPP, NGINX, Redmine, and I'd read of others hosting Asterix and many others. Its a server that doesn't go down due to local power or internet outages.
Although the Linode team provides top notch support, I really haven't had to use it. The tools are great and the service just works!
If I'm not mistaken, CMU has a small endowment for a University of its size and stature (Just over $1 Billion), you'll find it trailing many universities . That said, I believe CMU does receive more than its share of grant, research funds and donations (Tepper, Gates, etc...) for buildings, etc...
NYU's Coral Project, which seems to be the rage of the so-called "karma whores" on Slashdot these days seems to be a consumer of PlanetLab. Seems to be a strange coincidence.
Ahh, but heres another rub. (IANAL but...) AOL probably cannot even contend that it was unauthorized. Given that they previously have experienced NullSoft releasing "undesirable code," they continue to allow the developers access to the Company owned site, thus empowering them to release software on behalf of the company. The company had reason to believe that its employees might release "undesirable code," and did not take action.
The NullSoft developers therefore are implicitly authorized to release software on behalf of the copyright owner (regardless of whether it is the developers or the company for which they work) because they have access to deploy on corporate servers.
Sure creativity is scarce, the creators time, however is the real commodity.
However, which model is better?
Rewarding the creator for each creation?
Rewarding the sharing of each creation for the greater good?
Or some combination. Just because I contribute 1 great idea, doesn't mean I should be given whatever I want. We expect the great thinkers to continue to provide new and greater ideas.
Our current model seems to reward keeping one's ideas to themselves, rather than share and build upon each others ideas. To me this is so sad, in this day and age with the increased ability to maintain global communications, significant parts of the Global Creative forces are bought up by corporations and unable to share with the rest of us. The potential is great!
Software Licenses, Music Licenses, Intellectual Property Licenses.
This is all "property" that when I give it to you, I still have it. The whole point is create a finite proxy for an infinite proxy.
No more charging for this stuff. You can charge for good packaging, you can charge for good marketing..
Charge me for making it easy to install, but do not.
Wasn't Capitalism designed for the distribution of scarce resources? I'm sick of technology being used to create scarcity. Technology should be used to create the infinite.
Quit wasting time trying to prevent copiers "pirates" and use the "network" effect to make the technology ubiquitous and useful.
My father often tells me that Armstrong botched this scripted line, and the official tapes were edited. He continues that the mass media use to joke about it, but have long since given up.
Can anyone confirm this? I guess its another case of repeat the lie long enough, it becomes the truth
> If we remove the tools, we remove the crime and the world is better off in the end.
Are you insane!? By your logic, anything that can be useful inappropriately (in your opinion) should be denied to the people.
Hmmm, Cars,Planes,Trains & Boats, cannot only be used to kill people, but to rapidly deliver other products that can be used to injure others. Get Rid of Them!
Lets see, Fire! Fire can be used to burn people's homes and even the people themselves, Lets outlaw fire!
Too radical an argument for you.. How about "Words" (tm). With "Words" (tm) you can incite violence and lead other people to revolution and worse. Look at Adolf Hitler, he used "Words" (tm) to devastate a continent. We definitely should outlaw "Words." (tm)
The fundamental difference between a chain on your bike and the ownership of "Intellectual Property" is the following:
If you give me your bike, you no longer have a bike.
If you give me food, you no longer have food.
You are worse off without your bike and without your food, and I am in a better situation.
With "Intellectual Property", if you give me your IP, you have the IP and I have the IP.
You still have it! You can give it to everyone and everyone can have it. There is INFINITE SUPPLY of IP!
However, you have lost the opportunity to sell your IP to me or anyone I supply it too. The Media Companies and Music Companies work very hard to turn a infinte quantity (IP) into a finite quantity (CD's,DVD's, Books,etc...). These corporations have figured this out, and they expect the public to remain ignorant (seems to be a common trait today) of the real issues.
Imagine, as John Gilmore did, that we extend this to future "properties" that become infinite in nature: Energy, Food, etc... Were these things to become plentiful and abdundant would you, as a human being, allow corporations to control the ability to harvest Energy and Food and force you to pay for something that costs them nothing to give?
I'm all for a capitalist society, I'm a big fan of corporations being allowed to protect their business. But when everyone can benefit from something that costs nothing to share, and does not deprive the creator of its benefit, then its time to give to the world.
I completely agree. Work with the constraints of the problem before you. There a few more good reasons to consider:
1) In this field, you have chosen to be a problem solver. Part of the requirements for solving various problems are the tools you have available to solve them. In the professional world there are such constraints on your designs.
2) Learning various environments helps you appreciate not only the specific differences, but also appreciate whats kinds of things can be different across several platforms. It is these sorts of experiences that help us learn to appreciate standards and openness. That is, it is the very existence of some arbitrary rules that provide a context for us to encourage consistency, and standardization.
Remember you are learning more than programming, you are learning more than Computer Science, you are learning more than Algorithms and a specific language. You are learning to work in an situation which is not entirely in your control. You will always have external influences that affect the choices available to you. Embrace these challenges and learn from them.
I went to college with Declan at Carnegie Mellon. He was an outspoken member of Student Goverment. His skills lie in communication and writing. I highly doubt he was a teenage hacker, but clearly he knew many people who were. He has associated with enough people of technical prowess to be able to write about it rather intelligently. I get a kick out of reading his articles, because I knew him. But I don't buy into his attempt to gain credibility by making up some fictional past. Real credibility is judge on current works and perspective, not some attempt to make up some common history with one's audience.
If RedHat goes public and breaks the faith of its supporters, then the OSS and Linux communities won't use RedHat, reducing their value, yada, yada...
The only way for RedHat to continue to thrive is to continue to support the OSS standards that have made it thrive in the first place.
So if RedHat goes public and behaves in concert with the community, then we are happy, and it is successful, thus proving OSS a viable economic decision, and we all win, (maybe including RedHat investors).
But if RedHat goes public and turns its back on the OSS/Linux community, then it will fail and someone else will step up with a popular distribution. And its no skin off our back, but RedHat loses (and probably so do their investors).
Slashdot Mirror
I use a Linode 512 to do web development, run automated tasks (Twitter updates, website production), and keep current on new technologies. It has hosted application servers including Openfire XMPP, NGINX, Redmine, and I'd read of others hosting Asterix and many others. Its a server that doesn't go down due to local power or internet outages. Although the Linode team provides top notch support, I really haven't had to use it. The tools are great and the service just works!
If I'm not mistaken, CMU has a small endowment for a University of its size and stature (Just over $1 Billion), you'll find it trailing many universities . That said, I believe CMU does receive more than its share of grant, research funds and donations (Tepper, Gates, etc...) for buildings, etc...
NYU's Coral Project, which seems to be the rage of the so-called "karma whores" on Slashdot these days seems to be a consumer of PlanetLab. Seems to be a strange coincidence.
Ahh, but heres another rub. (IANAL but ...) AOL probably cannot even contend that it was unauthorized. Given that they previously have experienced NullSoft releasing "undesirable code," they continue to allow the developers access to the Company owned site, thus empowering them to release software on behalf of the company. The company had reason to believe that its employees might release "undesirable code," and did not take action.
The NullSoft developers therefore are implicitly authorized to release software on behalf of the copyright owner (regardless of whether it is the developers or the company for which they work) because they have access to deploy on corporate servers.
GPL should stand.
A SmartDisplay is Windows CE with Remote Desktop and a Tablet PC is Windows XP.
See more at MS's faq.
http://www.rdesktop.org Is that what you are looking for?
Sure creativity is scarce, the creators time, however is the real commodity.
However, which model is better?
Rewarding the creator for each creation?
Rewarding the sharing of each creation for the greater good?
Or some combination. Just because I contribute 1 great idea, doesn't mean I should be given whatever I want. We expect the great thinkers to continue to provide new and greater ideas.
Our current model seems to reward keeping one's ideas to themselves, rather than share and build upon each others ideas. To me this is so sad, in this day and age with the increased ability to maintain global communications, significant parts of the Global Creative forces are bought up by corporations and unable to share with the rest of us. The potential is great!
Software Licenses, Music Licenses, Intellectual Property Licenses.
This is all "property" that when I give it to you, I still have it. The whole point is create a finite proxy for an infinite proxy.
No more charging for this stuff. You can charge for good packaging, you can charge for good marketing..
Charge me for making it easy to install, but do not.
Wasn't Capitalism designed for the distribution of scarce resources? I'm sick of technology being used to create scarcity. Technology should be used to create the infinite.
Quit wasting time trying to prevent copiers "pirates" and use the "network" effect to make the technology ubiquitous and useful.
Arggh!
My father often tells me that Armstrong botched this scripted line, and the official tapes were edited. He continues that the mass media use to joke about it, but have long since given up.
Can anyone confirm this? I guess its another case of repeat the lie long enough, it becomes the truth
> If we remove the tools, we remove the crime and the world is better off in the end.
Are you insane!? By your logic, anything that can be useful inappropriately (in your opinion) should be denied to the people.
Hmmm, Cars,Planes,Trains & Boats, cannot only be used to kill people, but to rapidly deliver other products that can be used to injure others. Get Rid of Them!
Lets see, Fire! Fire can be used to burn people's homes and even the people themselves, Lets outlaw fire!
Too radical an argument for you.. How about "Words" (tm). With "Words" (tm) you can incite violence and lead other people to revolution and worse. Look at Adolf Hitler, he used "Words" (tm) to devastate a continent. We definitely should outlaw "Words." (tm)
The fundamental difference between a chain on your bike and the ownership of "Intellectual Property" is the following:
If you give me your bike, you no longer have a bike.
If you give me food, you no longer have food.
You are worse off without your bike and without your food, and I am in a better situation.
With "Intellectual Property", if you give me your IP, you have the IP and I have the IP.
You still have it! You can give it to everyone and everyone can have it. There is INFINITE SUPPLY of IP!
However, you have lost the opportunity to sell your IP to me or anyone I supply it too. The Media Companies and Music Companies work very hard to turn a infinte quantity (IP) into a finite quantity (CD's,DVD's, Books,etc...). These corporations have figured this out, and they expect the public to remain ignorant (seems to be a common trait today) of the real issues.
Imagine, as John Gilmore did, that we extend this to future "properties" that become infinite in nature: Energy, Food, etc... Were these things to become plentiful and abdundant would you, as a human being, allow corporations to control the ability to harvest Energy and Food and force you to pay for something that costs them nothing to give?
I'm all for a capitalist society, I'm a big fan of corporations being allowed to protect their business. But when everyone can benefit from something that costs nothing to share, and does not deprive the creator of its benefit, then its time to give to the world.
I completely agree. Work with the constraints of the problem before you. There a few more good reasons to consider:
1) In this field, you have chosen to be a problem solver. Part of the requirements for solving various problems are the tools you have available to solve them. In the professional world there are such constraints on your designs.
2) Learning various environments helps you appreciate not only the specific differences, but also appreciate whats kinds of things can be different across several platforms. It is these sorts of experiences that help us learn to appreciate standards and openness. That is, it is the very existence of some arbitrary rules that provide a context for us to encourage consistency, and standardization.
Remember you are learning more than programming, you are learning more than Computer Science, you are learning more than Algorithms and a specific language. You are learning to work in an situation which is not entirely in your control. You will always have external influences that affect the choices available to you. Embrace these challenges and learn from them.
I went to college with Declan at Carnegie Mellon. He was an outspoken member of Student Goverment. His skills lie in communication and writing. I highly doubt he was a teenage hacker, but clearly he knew many people who were. He has associated with enough people of technical prowess to be able to write about it rather intelligently.
I get a kick out of reading his articles, because I knew him. But I don't buy into his attempt to gain credibility by making up some fictional past.
Real credibility is judge on current works and perspective, not some attempt to make up some common history with one's audience.
If RedHat goes public and breaks the faith of its supporters, then the OSS and Linux communities won't use RedHat, reducing their value, yada, yada...
The only way for RedHat to continue to thrive is to continue to support the OSS standards that have made it thrive in the first place.
So if RedHat goes public and behaves in concert with the community, then we are happy, and it is successful, thus proving OSS a viable economic decision, and we all win, (maybe including RedHat investors).
But if RedHat goes public and turns its back on the OSS/Linux community, then it will fail and someone else will step up with a popular distribution. And its no skin off our back, but RedHat loses (and probably so do their investors).
My $.02,
Demian