The odds that
- Some person on this planet can get within 90% of the true values of half those probabilities 0.1
- Hugh Ross is that person 0.1
- Those probabilities are uncorrelated 0.1
- You know why the previous point matters 0.5
- For each of the Hugh-Ross-approved "safe" ranges of any of those parameters, there's a counterexample right here on Earth 0.5
- Alien life forms would find life here tolerable 0.1
Multiply all those together to get the odds your post contains less bullshit than mine: 0.000025
Er, ah, yes, you do. A judge did decide this, in Adobe v.... erm, I forget. (sorry). It's very recent, in California. He or she flat out stated that paying a fee for a right that does not expire is a sale, regardless what anybody wants to call it. The original seller can't prohibit any private use, and cannot even prohibit selling the parts separately. That's what this case was, a company bought bundles cheap, and sold the parts not-so-cheap, but still cheaper than any unbundled price. The reseller has a perfect right to do so.
We all knew this already, and I'm sure you did too. What is illegal without explicit permission is redistributing copies, thus "copyright". But installing one copy of an OS on all your family's computers? Of course MS wants to call that "theft", and I bet even Apple's lawyers would feel compelled to argue the point if only because no corporate lawyer on the planet will say it's ok not to give his employer money when you could reasonably do so. But that's private, and so I think it's reasonable to call that fair, use. Doing the same thing for an office full of machines isn't private.
Anybody who would so blatantly violate the intent of the sale would, I hope, feel at least a bit ashamed, but reprehensible != illegal. It's like saying something wrong is illegal, when it isn't illegal, just wrong. That's wrong, not illegal. Clear?
it's amazing to me how may times developers think their users are luddites and will not figure out how to circumvent shortcuts (as in the case of this CD).
The problem is, Stallman's viewpoint only serves to support the stereotype of the free software movement: "A bunch of opinionated geeks, who have all these high and mighty principles, but won't actually help Joe User learn how to use this stuff, because they don't consider him worthy."
If you don't want to, or can't, use the source and the info, and it would be an utterly. pointless. world. if everybody spent the time to develop the necessary skills, then offer to pay for it. You'd be amazed what happens when people offer to actually pay for actual work.
READ THE PATENT. And not just the claims, the whole thing. It specifically disclaims alpha-blending, mentioning it as a well known and inferior precursor.
The patentspecifically disclaims coverage of alpha-blending. It's only their method of compositing using the full color space of all three images (source, destination, AND mask), where the mask is in the same colorspace.
Read the actual changes before suggesting such comparisons. I guarantee you the current administration would not be pleased to learn what I say and believe about their values and intent, but this rule change is, from what I've read of it so far, completely reasonable.
I do have one question: does anyone know whether the (written, by requirement, and by the AG or TLA head, by requirement) certifications of necessity must be public? I don't have time to spelunk for it, and if it turns out that they do have to publish their assertions, in a place where the general public can get them conveniently and could be expected to look for them, I'll be fine with this. Do read the rule. Please. I might have missed something.
We don't confuse ourselves, we don't speak incorrectly to one another, we don't speak incorrectly to the world. We pride that kind of honesty and integrity in everything that we say and do.
I just realized there's a way to read it that makes it an honest statement. It's masterful.
If a certain type of business is not economically viable (eg developing software), existing businesses will collapse, and there will be an absence of startups to replace the failed companies. In other words, yes. If people aren't paid for writing software, software will not get written.
Ah, the old "the status quo or nothing" dodge. Who suckered you into it? I'll bet it was someone you trust; it almost always is. Here's a few hints to get your brain restarted: the second sentence quoted above does not restate the first; that some existing businesses "developing software" will collapse and not be replaced has nothing to do with the viability of developing software as a business; there are in fact legitimate objections to some methods of turning a profit, and it's not on point to object that nobody could make money that way when examining such an objection for legitimacy; and, yes, extending copyright into perpetuity is drifting across the boundary between appalling and despicable.
Oh: by the way. Redistributing someone else's copyrighted works in direct contravention of their license is unquestionably illegal. I agree with the earlier poster who attributes the more questionable heat Sony's ladling out to their just generally being pissed off.
those [...] should have some sort of certification
Sure. And for designing control systems for traffic or equipment or whatever, where should we get people competent and willing to staff this certifying authority? How should we separate out the ones who are just willing?
Here's an idea: try to come up with specs to turn the sourceforge or advogato systems into something usable for this.
It makes no sense for an "open source project" to respond to an RFP. It is the nature of Open Source Licenses PRECISELY TO DISCLAIM that the software does anything or is suitable for any purpose.
Wrong. Warranties are separately negotiable (as is, for instance, duplicating) and anybody that wants to buy or sell any service related to free software is free to do so. "Free" as in "it's a free country", dude.
The features indicate a system several orders of magnitude more complex than the one it is intended to correct.
These objections were once applied to "automatic code generators": who on earth needs a globally optimizing compiler to print paychecks, and what chance is there of writing compilers that can handle weather-prediction algorithms? They'd be more complex than the programs they're being asked to compile!
I'm all for freedom of speech, but in day-to-day life do with really need to encrypt everything?
Ahh, the old "nothing to hide" argument.
What makes it so seductive is: it's true. You actually have to be planning crimes to worry what you say in email or over the phone or whatever. What makes it so utterly wrongheaded is the history of what gets defined as "crime" once powers like these are granted. Scapegoating is human nature, no doubt about it. Allowing officials to strip liberties by simply attaching a label is... I don't know the word for that. Preposterous doesn't quite cover it.
no "paradigm shift" -- where's the creative destruction that will take us further?
Further in what direction?
With WIMPs the menus list all relevant commands, and they're always in the same place, and you just drag across the menu titles to see them all. It's not going to get much easier than that. (Quick digression: yes, I do demand a convenient turing-equivalent for the things I'm good at, but when I don't want to invest, I'll wimp out pretty damn quick and be grateful for the opportunity: I just want to do this one thing, say, make a log-log graph of some data, which I do about once every tenth blue moon, and last night, in about ten seconds with unfamiliar software).
Okay, you knew all this and maybe even agree: wimps make being lazy easier.
So, what now? Personally, I think IBM have left a lot of really fine ideas just dangling around the place. Check out what they've done with pipes, for instance. Maybe they're taking it too far, maybe not. I wish that stuff were in bash, and C++ for that matter. I wish I had time left to work on it.
For the really creative, world-smashing new directions, I believe they're right where we've learned to expect: cuddled up in everybody's blind spot, closer than anybody seriously believes.
Heroin remains the most powerful painkiller to this day, and the Brits at least use it that way.
Access to heroin is controlled because it's mindbogglingly easy to do permanent damage to yourself and everyone who loves you with it -- apparently the only way to use it that doesn't cause this effect is to first contract a screamingly painful terminal disease.
Does this mean that the general public should have access to the same levels of encryption as our government intelligence?
I believe you've been suckered, Mr. Coward. Heroin hasn't been removed from the market, "should" doesn't have any effect on the people who offend you most, and you're dragging in irrelevancies and scare words. If everybody behaved as they "should", according to (apparently) your definition of "should", there'd be no need of protection from these terrorists, whose beef with the U.S. is... oh, yeah: we don't behave as we "should" by their definition of "should".
Get off it - there is no "inalienable right" to endanger national security. Just because something is possible with technology does not give the public the right to make use of it.
You're presuming facts not in evidence. Another favorite of cowards. The terrorists are cowards, too, Mr. Anonymous. I'll bet you don't like it when your methods are turned on you, do you?
Of course, when I do it it's some comsymp liberal pinko gettin uppity, and when you do it it's supporting the Freedom Fighters in Nic^W Afg^W^W, so that's all right then.
It's loyalty that matters, isn't it? If you're just loyal to the right cause, what else matters? So long as you get that puffed-up I'm-right feeling, and shut the brain off right then, everything will be just peachy, won't it? Who dares question that?
namely, that objecting to something is not the same as forbidding it.
As I read it, they are pointing out that Tim O'Reilly's assertion, that
the most fundamental software freedom is the freedom to choose any license you want for the software you write
is, by a reading ESR says he agrees with, tantamount to saying that attempting to exercise power is a fundamental right.
This is not a "fundamental logical reversal" at all: it's an accurate reading. The only fundamental reversal here is in ESR's hypothesis (that they'd want proprietary licenses outlawed), which he's making up.
I don't know many people who believe one can legislate morality, and none that I respect. But that's precisely the belief he's imputing here, and for a position they haven't taken. This is not good. Unless I'm missing something, he owes an apology.
I think he's so irritated he can't think straight, and I think the FSF's moralizing is the cause. He's trying to get free (he calls it "open", because "free" pisses off the suits) software into businesses, and having the FSF in the news with moral arguments in favor of freedom is, for his purposes, severely counterproductive.
A lot of people share those purposes -- me, too -- and his reasoning on what will convince bidness types seems rock-solid, so I can understand the irritation.
The FSF also wants free software used. Big surprise there, eh? They're just after the same ends for different reasons, and they're more interested in the reasons than the ends: using proprietary licenses is immoral, with the unstated (and perhaps un-held, this one's mine:) belief that immoral behavior produces undesirable results just by the nature of the beast.
So "open" is arguing for the demonstrable relative desirability of the results while "free" takes it as a premise.
These don't have to be at odds with each other. In fact, from where I sit, if either one is correct, they both are. But "free" says "open" is missing the point, and "open" says "free" is missing the prize. No point, no prize; no prize, no point.
Maybe. One thing's certain, though: if the squabbling keeps up at this intensity only M$ and M$-wannabes will look savvy. Someone's been looking for a wedge.
And, perhaps, both the free and the open "camps" (Lord, has it come to this?) have gotten a little greedy. Live and let live applies to the suits, too, guys. Let's focus more on the software, let that speak a bit louder. If it can't, what's the point or the prize?
Slashdot Mirror
I can do the same thing. Wanna play?
The odds that
- Some person on this planet can get within 90% of the true values of half those probabilities 0.1
- Hugh Ross is that person 0.1
- Those probabilities are uncorrelated 0.1
- You know why the previous point matters 0.5
- For each of the Hugh-Ross-approved "safe" ranges of any of those parameters, there's a counterexample right here on Earth 0.5
- Alien life forms would find life here tolerable 0.1
Multiply all those together to get the odds your post contains less bullshit than mine: 0.000025
We all knew this already, and I'm sure you did too. What is illegal without explicit permission is redistributing copies, thus "copyright". But installing one copy of an OS on all your family's computers? Of course MS wants to call that "theft", and I bet even Apple's lawyers would feel compelled to argue the point if only because no corporate lawyer on the planet will say it's ok not to give his employer money when you could reasonably do so. But that's private, and so I think it's reasonable to call that fair, use. Doing the same thing for an office full of machines isn't private.
Anybody who would so blatantly violate the intent of the sale would, I hope, feel at least a bit ashamed, but reprehensible != illegal. It's like saying something wrong is illegal, when it isn't illegal, just wrong. That's wrong, not illegal. Clear?
If you don't want to, or can't, use the source and the info, and it would be an utterly. pointless. world. if everybody spent the time to develop the necessary skills, then offer to pay for it. You'd be amazed what happens when people offer to actually pay for actual work.
Is that clear enough?
And federal crimes are investigated by ...
READ THE PATENT. And not just the claims, the whole thing. It specifically disclaims alpha-blending, mentioning it as a well known and inferior precursor.
The patent specifically disclaims coverage of alpha-blending. It's only their method of compositing using the full color space of all three images (source, destination, AND mask), where the mask is in the same colorspace.
ssia
That's exactly how it works.
I do have one question: does anyone know whether the (written, by requirement, and by the AG or TLA head, by requirement) certifications of necessity must be public? I don't have time to spelunk for it, and if it turns out that they do have to publish their assertions, in a place where the general public can get them conveniently and could be expected to look for them, I'll be fine with this. Do read the rule. Please. I might have missed something.
<Nods> I see. Thank you. That certainly explains your position.
Oh: by the way. Redistributing someone else's copyrighted works in direct contravention of their license is unquestionably illegal. I agree with the earlier poster who attributes the more questionable heat Sony's ladling out to their just generally being pissed off.
Check out TacOps.
Here's an idea: try to come up with specs to turn the sourceforge or advogato systems into something usable for this.
SSIA
What makes it so seductive is: it's true. You actually have to be planning crimes to worry what you say in email or over the phone or whatever. What makes it so utterly wrongheaded is the history of what gets defined as "crime" once powers like these are granted. Scapegoating is human nature, no doubt about it. Allowing officials to strip liberties by simply attaching a label is ... I don't know the word for that. Preposterous doesn't quite cover it.
With WIMPs the menus list all relevant commands, and they're always in the same place, and you just drag across the menu titles to see them all. It's not going to get much easier than that. (Quick digression: yes, I do demand a convenient turing-equivalent for the things I'm good at, but when I don't want to invest, I'll wimp out pretty damn quick and be grateful for the opportunity: I just want to do this one thing, say, make a log-log graph of some data, which I do about once every tenth blue moon, and last night, in about ten seconds with unfamiliar software).
Okay, you knew all this and maybe even agree: wimps make being lazy easier.
So, what now? Personally, I think IBM have left a lot of really fine ideas just dangling around the place. Check out what they've done with pipes, for instance. Maybe they're taking it too far, maybe not. I wish that stuff were in bash, and C++ for that matter. I wish I had time left to work on it.
For the really creative, world-smashing new directions, I believe they're right where we've learned to expect: cuddled up in everybody's blind spot, closer than anybody seriously believes.
Why do you ask?
Access to heroin is controlled because it's mindbogglingly easy to do permanent damage to yourself and everyone who loves you with it -- apparently the only way to use it that doesn't cause this effect is to first contract a screamingly painful terminal disease.
I believe you've been suckered, Mr. Coward. Heroin hasn't been removed from the market, "should" doesn't have any effect on the people who offend you most, and you're dragging in irrelevancies and scare words. If everybody behaved as they "should", according to (apparently) your definition of "should", there'd be no need of protection from these terrorists, whose beef with the U.S. isOf course, when I do it it's some comsymp liberal pinko gettin uppity, and when you do it it's supporting the Freedom Fighters in Nic^W Afg^W^W, so that's all right then.
It's loyalty that matters, isn't it? If you're just loyal to the right cause, what else matters? So long as you get that puffed-up I'm-right feeling, and shut the brain off right then, everything will be just peachy, won't it? Who dares question that?
As I read it, they are pointing out that Tim O'Reilly's assertion, that
is, by a reading ESR says he agrees with, tantamount to saying that attempting to exercise power is a fundamental right.This is not a "fundamental logical reversal" at all: it's an accurate reading. The only fundamental reversal here is in ESR's hypothesis (that they'd want proprietary licenses outlawed), which he's making up.
I don't know many people who believe one can legislate morality, and none that I respect. But that's precisely the belief he's imputing here, and for a position they haven't taken. This is not good. Unless I'm missing something, he owes an apology.
I think he's so irritated he can't think straight, and I think the FSF's moralizing is the cause. He's trying to get free (he calls it "open", because "free" pisses off the suits) software into businesses, and having the FSF in the news with moral arguments in favor of freedom is, for his purposes, severely counterproductive.
A lot of people share those purposes -- me, too -- and his reasoning on what will convince bidness types seems rock-solid, so I can understand the irritation.
The FSF also wants free software used. Big surprise there, eh? They're just after the same ends for different reasons, and they're more interested in the reasons than the ends: using proprietary licenses is immoral, with the unstated (and perhaps un-held, this one's mine:) belief that immoral behavior produces undesirable results just by the nature of the beast.
So "open" is arguing for the demonstrable relative desirability of the results while "free" takes it as a premise.
These don't have to be at odds with each other. In fact, from where I sit, if either one is correct, they both are. But "free" says "open" is missing the point, and "open" says "free" is missing the prize. No point, no prize; no prize, no point.
Maybe. One thing's certain, though: if the squabbling keeps up at this intensity only M$ and M$-wannabes will look savvy. Someone's been looking for a wedge.
And, perhaps, both the free and the open "camps" (Lord, has it come to this?) have gotten a little greedy. Live and let live applies to the suits, too, guys. Let's focus more on the software, let that speak a bit louder. If it can't, what's the point or the prize?