Apparantly, it's the fact that it's done with PHP. I guess PHP is considered incapable of doing this, and thus getting PHP to do it amazes some folk. I'm not familiar enought with PHP to be either amazed or underwhelmed by this announcement, but I do find it amusing, and I haven't even RTFA!
not everything that conveys a message is art - and the distinction is highly subjective
Don't forget context. A traffic sign out by the side of the road is mearly conveying a message, while that same traffic sign hanging in a gallery (or your livingroom) is art.
OK, but who's the judge of the "Turing test"? As in the "real" Turing test, I see a great bias in the premise that a human must judge whether some entitiy on the other side of the curtain is a computer or a human. Computers are far more objective than humans, so computers should be used to judge a "Turing test." What I consider witty conversation may be mindless blather to you, and visa-versa, so the only "Turing test" that I will find valid is the one I personally judge.* Naturally, you would also have to be a judge to accept the verdict, as would everyone else.
I see no great leap to conclude that, similarly, a "Turing test" for art would be biased and thus worthless if it solely had human judges. Art to me may be junk to you, and visa-versa.**
So any "Turing test" for art would quickly degenerate into something like David Letterman's bit, "Is This Anything?" And if you've seen that, you'll know how pointless this whole discussion really is.
* Of course, any computer that passed the Turing test would be just as biased at judging it as any human, which in a way proves my point -- only I can judge a Turing test to my own satisfaction.
** Naturally, if a computer were capable of judging a "Turing test" for art, a computer would be capable of creating that art, thus mooting the entire discussion.
After reading this thread, I'm confused. You say the Java development kit for Linux gives the end-user the right to "freely distribute the run-time with your apps." Others complain that they must download the whole Java environment from Sun, it can't come with their favorite distro. So which is it? Is the run-time freely distributable, or not?
Honestly, folks, if the run-time is freely distributable, then it seems you're comparing the run-time with the development kit. And why wouldn't a distro come with the Java run-time if it's freely re-distributeable (is that a word)?
And if the Java run-time is not freely re-distributable, then why should anyone code in Java?
the GNU GPL forbids the addition of extra restrictions.
Correction: The current GPL forbids it. From the GPL version 2:
"Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and 'any later version', you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
So if the FSF wish to, they can create another version of the GPL, call it V2EU, which allows a legally mandated restriction that would otherwise be against the spirit of the GPL. Since it's a version of the GPL, the various coders have already given their consent to have their code released under that newer/alternate version. I'm sure someone could come up with wording that would please the FSF folks (the clause only applies when legally mandated) and meet the letter of the law.
Whether the FSF would be willing to even discuss it, though, is another matter. My guess is that they would rather you push for a change in EU law than a change in the GPL to accomodate EU law. But the choice may come down to this: Do you want people using a legally restricted but otherwise free program, or do you want them to have no choice but to use a non-free program?
My laptop doesn't use me as a heat sink, but it does use me as an airflow barrier, increasing the temperature. Why oh why do they put the air intake on the bottom of the laptop? I find that if I put the laptop on a hard surface (TV tray works nicely) the laptop runs cooler and I don't need any insulation.
It's not like we can't get Apache somewhere else. This is Yet Another Licensing Dispute, and the solution is -- as always -- to just download whatever you want to run on your own if it doesn't come bundled with the OS.
The only way this is even close to what happend with ipf/pf would be if the OpenBSD folks decided to write their own web server and release it under the BSD license, which isn't going to happen because they're OS folks, not web server folks.
If you want to see real changes in commercial software in regards to general openness, then we need to see real changes in the global and local economic model.
Has anyone done a study of the various licenses out there? I know some software is available under a license that allows you to see the source, but not distribute it or any changes you make. What I don't know is if this makes any money, or if pirates kill the business model. I'd really like to know how "successful" the various licenses are. Maybe I should turn this into an Ask Slashdot.
A policeman lecturing on how not to be a victum suggested using a money clip, with at least a $5 bill visible on the outside. When the mugger asks for money you show him the money clip, then you toss it one way and run the other way FAST. He said the mugger doesn't want to hurt/kill you, he just wants your money, so he'll go after that and let you go.
He had lots of other advice, too, but his mantra was that, no matter what the situation, don't be the easiest target. Lock your doors and turn on your porch light -- not that this will stop a thief, you just want him to pass by your house and break into your neighbors. Similarly, your backpack should look not worth taking, and keep an eye on it so they'll pass by yours and grab that fancy backpack next to the guy watching some babe, not his pack.
Call this flamebait or a troll, but in my personal opinion there's no minimum size -- if you can get something from the phone company at wholesale rather than retail, it's worthwhile, if only to deny them just that little bit more profit. I don't know about SBC, but since every other phone company I've ever delt with has been the same ("we don't care -- we don't have to"), I say screw 'em if you can.
I'm assuming your cable company doesn't offer internet access, right? I'd go with the phone company only as a last resort, but as I say, I'm biased against them.
But appart from changing isp, im not sure what else you can do:(
That's exactly what MAPS wants you to do -- change ISPs. They think that if everyone in your situation leaves your ISP, your ISP will go out of business and that's one less spam channel. Of course, this logic has proven false in the real world. Your short-term solution is indeed to change ISPs, but that won't give you any assurance this won't happen again. The only way to prevent a future occurance is to take out MAPS and their vigilante cousins. One way is legally - you could sue them, or write your Congressperson and ask for email anti-terror legislation (because, let's face it, MAPS is engaged in email terrorism to achieve their goals).
Or you could find their address and fire bomb them. If they ever mess with me again, that's the route I plan to take. I tried the other approaches and they don't work.
Either that, or make zombies of a few thousand Windows boxes (it's easy) and launce a DOS attack on MAPS. That might work, but I still think firebombs is your best option. Mod this "troll" or "flamebait" but you know I'm right.
Why not invite her to play along? My wife didn't even want me to buy Halo (gee, honey, why the hell did we buy an Xbox if you don't want Halo?) but we started playing in co-op mode and now it's her guilty pleasure. She's even started playing alone at difficutly level 3 (geeze, I've played enough that you'd think I could remember what the levels are called). The only problem is you can't save in co-op mode; you have to finish each level or you lose all progress. So sometimes we stay up way too late on weekends.
Hardware will never be free. Even the Stepometer you get with McDonalds new "Go Active!" Happy Meal isn't free -- you have to buy the meal to get it. My cell phone was "free" -- but I had to sign up for 2 years of service to get it.
Hell, if you like, you could say my PDA was free -- I just had to buy WindowsCE. It's all in how you look at it, and if the software is married to the hardware then which are you paying for, the hardware or the software?
I can sure see the software folks dreaming that, in the future (thanks to DRM), you'll pay through the nose for a subscription to software we buy outright today, making the hardware portion virtually free. But that doesn't mean the public is going to fall for this. In an era where Office 97 is all most people need, and OOo is delivering more functionality for free if you'll take the time to learn a slightly different interface, why would anyone pay Microsoft for a subscription to Office 2006? Unless your new Dell will only run Office 2006 -- in which case, the Dell damn well better be free if Gates expects Dell's customers to send him money every month just to keep using their computers.
Don't you hate it when you read a post and you agree with it so much you want to make the poster a "friend", but it turns out they're an AC and you can't befriend them? And on top of that you don't have any mod points to give them?
Google's pretty up-front about everything, and given their attitude in general, I'm much more comfortable with them holding my email than I am with others. Frankly, I don't see the point of this legislation. For one thing, it precludes Gmail users from setting up frequently used searches (i don't know if gmail offers such, but under this law it couldn't).
It would be nice if we didn't all have to switch to Outlook to use this, but since this is from Microsoft I'm afraid the sole purpose of the proposal is to get Outlook mandated as the only legal email program. Send email without this "ID" and you go to jail. Oh, you're welcome to use any email program that supports "caller ID", but due to patent restrictions only Outlook will qualify.
Where do you live? I live in the Seattle market, and my Comcast agreement -- also in writing -- specifically prohibits me from running any server. A strict interpretation of that would seem (IANAL) to prohibt a file server on my home network! Comcast definately prohibit mail and web servers.
So again I ask, where do you live? And can you post a copy of your written agreement? (and have you checked with them lately -- I'm sure they've superceeded your agreement with a more restrictive one)
Comcast will let you run VPN, they just want you to buy a "commercial" service to do it (at $99/month). VPN, like all services, is prohibited in their "residential" package. In fact, if you read the agreement closely, it implies that you can't even have a file server in your home network (because it assumes you won't have a home network -- again, that classifies you as a "commercial" user). So I make sure my file server can also be used as a workstation.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparantly, it's the fact that it's done with PHP. I guess PHP is considered incapable of doing this, and thus getting PHP to do it amazes some folk. I'm not familiar enought with PHP to be either amazed or underwhelmed by this announcement, but I do find it amusing, and I haven't even RTFA!
I see no great leap to conclude that, similarly, a "Turing test" for art would be biased and thus worthless if it solely had human judges. Art to me may be junk to you, and visa-versa.**
So any "Turing test" for art would quickly degenerate into something like David Letterman's bit, "Is This Anything?" And if you've seen that, you'll know how pointless this whole discussion really is.
* Of course, any computer that passed the Turing test would be just as biased at judging it as any human, which in a way proves my point -- only I can judge a Turing test to my own satisfaction.
** Naturally, if a computer were capable of judging a "Turing test" for art, a computer would be capable of creating that art, thus mooting the entire discussion.
Honestly, folks, if the run-time is freely distributable, then it seems you're comparing the run-time with the development kit. And why wouldn't a distro come with the Java run-time if it's freely re-distributeable (is that a word)?
And if the Java run-time is not freely re-distributable, then why should anyone code in Java?
"Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and 'any later version', you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
So if the FSF wish to, they can create another version of the GPL, call it V2EU, which allows a legally mandated restriction that would otherwise be against the spirit of the GPL. Since it's a version of the GPL, the various coders have already given their consent to have their code released under that newer/alternate version. I'm sure someone could come up with wording that would please the FSF folks (the clause only applies when legally mandated) and meet the letter of the law.
Whether the FSF would be willing to even discuss it, though, is another matter. My guess is that they would rather you push for a change in EU law than a change in the GPL to accomodate EU law. But the choice may come down to this: Do you want people using a legally restricted but otherwise free program, or do you want them to have no choice but to use a non-free program?
My laptop doesn't use me as a heat sink, but it does use me as an airflow barrier, increasing the temperature. Why oh why do they put the air intake on the bottom of the laptop? I find that if I put the laptop on a hard surface (TV tray works nicely) the laptop runs cooler and I don't need any insulation.
The only way this is even close to what happend with ipf/pf would be if the OpenBSD folks decided to write their own web server and release it under the BSD license, which isn't going to happen because they're OS folks, not web server folks.
This is the story's first post, and it's modded "redundant"? WTF?
He had lots of other advice, too, but his mantra was that, no matter what the situation, don't be the easiest target. Lock your doors and turn on your porch light -- not that this will stop a thief, you just want him to pass by your house and break into your neighbors. Similarly, your backpack should look not worth taking, and keep an eye on it so they'll pass by yours and grab that fancy backpack next to the guy watching some babe, not his pack.
I'm assuming your cable company doesn't offer internet access, right? I'd go with the phone company only as a last resort, but as I say, I'm biased against them.
Or you could find their address and fire bomb them. If they ever mess with me again, that's the route I plan to take. I tried the other approaches and they don't work.
Either that, or make zombies of a few thousand Windows boxes (it's easy) and launce a DOS attack on MAPS. That might work, but I still think firebombs is your best option. Mod this "troll" or "flamebait" but you know I'm right.
Why not invite her to play along? My wife didn't even want me to buy Halo (gee, honey, why the hell did we buy an Xbox if you don't want Halo?) but we started playing in co-op mode and now it's her guilty pleasure. She's even started playing alone at difficutly level 3 (geeze, I've played enough that you'd think I could remember what the levels are called). The only problem is you can't save in co-op mode; you have to finish each level or you lose all progress. So sometimes we stay up way too late on weekends.
It's not "open" but it's well-known and a bit of a defacto standard.
Hell, if you like, you could say my PDA was free -- I just had to buy WindowsCE. It's all in how you look at it, and if the software is married to the hardware then which are you paying for, the hardware or the software?
I can sure see the software folks dreaming that, in the future (thanks to DRM), you'll pay through the nose for a subscription to software we buy outright today, making the hardware portion virtually free. But that doesn't mean the public is going to fall for this. In an era where Office 97 is all most people need, and OOo is delivering more functionality for free if you'll take the time to learn a slightly different interface, why would anyone pay Microsoft for a subscription to Office 2006? Unless your new Dell will only run Office 2006 -- in which case, the Dell damn well better be free if Gates expects Dell's customers to send him money every month just to keep using their computers.
Not me.
Don'y you hate it when that happens?
I sure hope it's not built by the folks who built that airport terminal.
Google's pretty up-front about everything, and given their attitude in general, I'm much more comfortable with them holding my email than I am with others. Frankly, I don't see the point of this legislation. For one thing, it precludes Gmail users from setting up frequently used searches (i don't know if gmail offers such, but under this law it couldn't).
It's real enough; every time someone offers up a New York Times registration ("slashdot"/"slashdot") it gets hijacked.
I think this is an opportunity for the Open Source community to beat the proprietary folks to market and set the standard.
It would be nice if we didn't all have to switch to Outlook to use this, but since this is from Microsoft I'm afraid the sole purpose of the proposal is to get Outlook mandated as the only legal email program. Send email without this "ID" and you go to jail. Oh, you're welcome to use any email program that supports "caller ID", but due to patent restrictions only Outlook will qualify.
So again I ask, where do you live? And can you post a copy of your written agreement? (and have you checked with them lately -- I'm sure they've superceeded your agreement with a more restrictive one)
Comcast will let you run VPN, they just want you to buy a "commercial" service to do it (at $99/month). VPN, like all services, is prohibited in their "residential" package. In fact, if you read the agreement closely, it implies that you can't even have a file server in your home network (because it assumes you won't have a home network -- again, that classifies you as a "commercial" user). So I make sure my file server can also be used as a workstation.
We're both just speculating.