Being able to suspend individual processes is interesting, but being able to bind groups of processes together is where it can get even more interesting.
I'd love this for the sorts of projects I work on.
Group one might be Photoshop and a particular email so that I know what I was working on, and have it left just as it was. But I might want to swap over to group two, which would be a text editor and a web browser, so that I could make changes.
Having the groups hiding and showing themselves could be great in some situations.
Well, unless the license included a non-replacement policy of course.;)
Anyway, I mention this because I seem to have recalled seeing something to this effect in USCA annotations to that particular statute. I'll have to check it out again.
Or not... bear in mind this permits the _OWNER_ of the work to do so; not a licensee. If EULAs are enforcable, this would very likely not protect licensed software.
Of course, I can think of no reasons why individual copies of software would generally be licensed for use anyway, so what do I know?
That was just incredibly scary.... Thunderbirds porn, presumably in supermarionation? Please, don't go there. And if you must, Captain Scarlet is the proper series. But don't go there either!
Read "The Bretheren" by Robert Woodward, and I think some collaborator. It's about things happening within the Court during the 70's. Marshall looked forward to it, apparently.;)
Well sure, but what I'm trying to get across is that ultimately all questions must boil down to, how is that a benefit for the reader over the status quo or alternative proposals?
Authors don't deserve compensation... save where giving them some reward yields a benefit to the readers. Dairy farmers couldn't care less about the welfare of their cattle, unless it improves their own bottom line somehow; this is the position to adopt, and the authors get to be the cows.
It is very true that people generally will not create things without reward. This reward, as you point out need not be monetary -- artistic satisfaction is also a reward.
But here I ask you -- why should I respect an author's wishes about not copying his work, say by supporting a law to that effect, unless I BENEFIT TOO?
That's the rub -- It is not beneficial to readers to give authors everything authors desire. A balance must be struck, and since readers consitute the vast majority, it's going to have to satisfy them. But since readers are sympathetic to authorial interests (we readers ourselves want a balance between freely useable works, and a diversity of works) authors will not be totally left out in the cold.
The Library of Alexandria had an amazingly liberal, institutional copying policy. In fact, any ship or caravan that entered the city was required to loan their scrolls to the Library scriptorium, so that copies could be made. The originals were then returned. (save in the ocassional rare case where the historical value of the original was high, and the library returned the true copy)
The problem wasn't the library, although they never really did anything practical with the knowledge they acquired, but rather that other forces that didn't value them came into power. Specifically the Christians and Moslems.
It was great that the Library copied; sadly, no one else did. Frankly, if I could, I'd want to make copyright conditional on promoting and simplifying the copying of works. (e.g. having highly commented source, high quality negatives for film, etc. deposited in the Library of Congress.
One I rather enjoyed was that in 1946, Russian schoolchildren gave a wooden U.S. seal to the American ambassador to the U.S.S.R. A few years later, it turned out that it had had a bug installed in it. It's on display at the NSA Museum in Maryland, in the same room as the Cray and the Connection Machine that are there representing now-obsolete technology. Worth a visit if you're in the area.
But I imagine that if you had a chip fab available, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to apply modern manufacturing techniques to develop a single CPU package with multiple, multi-gigahertz 6502 processors.
I remember the 'Jonathan' design prototypes Apple developed in the 80's. Essentially the computer would consist of modules that plugged into a common backplane, extending the plane as it went.
It looked a lot like a row of books standing on a desk. Working out the various buses would be an interesting challenge, (just put everything onto fiber optics?) but it could be very small or large, depending on user tastes and what hardware they'd acquired. And parts could easily be reused or replaced.
Naturally, being a really cool idea, nothing came of it. (particularly since Apple was considering opening the standard to everyone)
There's some pictures in the book "Apple Design" but I haven't seen any online.
I bought a bare logic board and PSU from a third party, who had originally obtained it from, AFAIK, Motorola. (it was a 'Tanzania' board, notably also used in the Motorola StarMax and Power Mac 4400)
No OS whatsoever.
Then I went out, picked up a case, drives, cards, etc., and a copy of the entire OS in-box. Installed like a dream, on a computer that hadn't shipped with MacOS at all.
In practice, I suppose you can claim that MacOS and OS X are typically sold as upgrades since it is unusual for someone to not already have it. But you sure as hell can buy it seperate of the hardware. I've done it more than once.
What? I recall that we've had plenty of medium-denomination coins. The shift towards bills, instead of things like the $20 gold coin was around a hundred years ago, however.
I like the coins, but if we did drop the $1 bill, we should definately start printing up more $2 bills to take up slack, or perhaps a $2.50 bill.
Sadly, our really large-denomination bills have pretty crappy backs; guess that's unavoidable given when they date from.
Re:How does devaluing happen now??
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
Well, not entirely. If you did something that was illegal in TX while in TX (or otherwise in certain forms of contact with TX) you may be subject to TX law. It's fairly thorny.
Firstly, barring restrictions imposed by copyright, the guarantee of freedom of speech prevents restrictions (very broadly) on speech. Even speech which is a verbatim repitition of some other person's speech.
Secondly, as has been repeatedly recognized by even the Supreme Court, the public's right to benefit from copyrighted creative works is of greater importance than the right of the author to benefit. Ideally of course, the two can be balanced; but in the end, if one has to trump, it's ours. If an author wishes to claim copyright protections for himself, it does not require a great leap of the imagination to arrive at the position that the public must be able to actually make use of the work, in order to enjoy their right to actually make use of the work. (usage here includes use, copying, etc.)
If there is some inherent or external condition that impairs use -- such as that the work does not exist, or that the only remaining copies are under lock and key -- this is highly unfortunate, but perhaps tolerable. A work deliberately published in a way to impair the unrestricted uses and copying to which it is intended that it surely will eventually be put? Intolerable. Unacceptable. Undeserving of copyright in the first place.
Most users are right handed, most right handed users keep their mouse to the right of their keyboard, but COMMAND V can be easily typed with their left hand, regardless of whether their right hand is mousing or not, whereas, SHIFT INSERT cannot, on a typical keyboard.
The quartet of Z X C and V were never chosen for mnemonic reasons; it's their position on the keyboard relative to a metakey, and the behavior patterns of the user that are important.
Depends on when. Virtually anywhere there are overhead electrical cables for powering trolleys or streetcars, e.g. the electric busses all over western Cambridge, there used to be trolleys.
The Green Line used to have an A branch, traces of which are still around. It went to Watertown, IIRC, via Brighton Center. And of course, the Red Line was extended in both directions, and there's been plenty of work on the southern end of the Orange Line.
At any rate, the rail network used to be somewhat larger. I'm upset that there have been proposals bandied about to shut down the E line.
It's possible, though I wouldn't put money on it, that a throttled down server is not a customary software distribution method as required by the GPL that Ximian is bound to.
Hilariously of course, DVD keepcases are designed to be the height and depth of VHS tapes, even though there's a lot of wasted space and plastic in there as well. Something like a CD jewelcase would work just as well. Where's the protest movement then?
No, home folders are a dumb idea. Instead each user should own the entire filesystem. BUT each user has their own virtual filesystem, which is just an abstraction on top of whatever exists beneath.
Thus I can keep folders at the root level of the hard drive, and you can keep the SAME folders on the desktop. If I delete them, it just unlinks them from my vfs and leaves them in yours.
Of course, taxonomy handles cross-references rather better than computers too. Why doesn't the damn thing place a link of Jimi Hendrix's cover of "All Along the Watchtower" in the Bob Dylan folder? Stupid box.
It is for this reason that you have autocompletion. In fact, not just crappy-ass autocompletion where you have to manually trigger it, but an automatic autocompletion, as seen in many web browsers. (even including the pull down menu of alternatives)
Who said CLIs have to use telnet? Telnet's an attempt to make a virtual 60's era teletype machine. CLIs can benefit greatly from total integration into the GUI. (e.g. right clicking on commands to get a list of arguments to select, commands in the CLI having effects in the GUI, etc.)
Why not simply have a virtualized filesystem that lies atop some other mechanism that the user need not touch, so that the desktop really CAN be the rook. And users can move around any files they want to, without causing those files to move around from the way that other users have arranged them.
Frankly, it's highly dubious that there's no alternative that cannot satisfy both camps: a powerful, efficient interface that takes less time to learn.
Remember, time that it takes to learn how to use, or remember how to use a UI is time wasted. Low learning curves improve efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
Being able to suspend individual processes is interesting, but being able to bind groups of processes together is where it can get even more interesting.
I'd love this for the sorts of projects I work on.
Group one might be Photoshop and a particular email so that I know what I was working on, and have it left just as it was. But I might want to swap over to group two, which would be a text editor and a web browser, so that I could make changes.
Having the groups hiding and showing themselves could be great in some situations.
Well, unless the license included a non-replacement policy of course. ;)
Anyway, I mention this because I seem to have recalled seeing something to this effect in USCA annotations to that particular statute. I'll have to check it out again.
Or not... bear in mind this permits the _OWNER_ of the work to do so; not a licensee. If EULAs are enforcable, this would very likely not protect licensed software.
Of course, I can think of no reasons why individual copies of software would generally be licensed for use anyway, so what do I know?
That was just incredibly scary.... Thunderbirds porn, presumably in supermarionation? Please, don't go there. And if you must, Captain Scarlet is the proper series. But don't go there either!
Read "The Bretheren" by Robert Woodward, and I think some collaborator. It's about things happening within the Court during the 70's. Marshall looked forward to it, apparently. ;)
Well sure, but what I'm trying to get across is that ultimately all questions must boil down to, how is that a benefit for the reader over the status quo or alternative proposals?
Authors don't deserve compensation... save where giving them some reward yields a benefit to the readers. Dairy farmers couldn't care less about the welfare of their cattle, unless it improves their own bottom line somehow; this is the position to adopt, and the authors get to be the cows.
It is very true that people generally will not create things without reward. This reward, as you point out need not be monetary -- artistic satisfaction is also a reward.
But here I ask you -- why should I respect an author's wishes about not copying his work, say by supporting a law to that effect, unless I BENEFIT TOO?
That's the rub -- It is not beneficial to readers to give authors everything authors desire. A balance must be struck, and since readers consitute the vast majority, it's going to have to satisfy them. But since readers are sympathetic to authorial interests (we readers ourselves want a balance between freely useable works, and a diversity of works) authors will not be totally left out in the cold.
The Library of Alexandria had an amazingly liberal, institutional copying policy. In fact, any ship or caravan that entered the city was required to loan their scrolls to the Library scriptorium, so that copies could be made. The originals were then returned. (save in the ocassional rare case where the historical value of the original was high, and the library returned the true copy)
The problem wasn't the library, although they never really did anything practical with the knowledge they acquired, but rather that other forces that didn't value them came into power. Specifically the Christians and Moslems.
It was great that the Library copied; sadly, no one else did. Frankly, if I could, I'd want to make copyright conditional on promoting and simplifying the copying of works. (e.g. having highly commented source, high quality negatives for film, etc. deposited in the Library of Congress.
One I rather enjoyed was that in 1946, Russian schoolchildren gave a wooden U.S. seal to the American ambassador to the U.S.S.R. A few years later, it turned out that it had had a bug installed in it. It's on display at the NSA Museum in Maryland, in the same room as the Cray and the Connection Machine that are there representing now-obsolete technology. Worth a visit if you're in the area.
A standard one? Probably not.
;)
But I imagine that if you had a chip fab available, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to apply modern manufacturing techniques to develop a single CPU package with multiple, multi-gigahertz 6502 processors.
Who said it had to be stock hardware?
Besides the (deliberate) confusion of characters which harkens back to typewriters, what's wrong with Monaco?
I always thought that it was a very nice typeface, even when the original it's based upon was used by IBM Selectrics.
I remember the 'Jonathan' design prototypes Apple developed in the 80's. Essentially the computer would consist of modules that plugged into a common backplane, extending the plane as it went.
It looked a lot like a row of books standing on a desk. Working out the various buses would be an interesting challenge, (just put everything onto fiber optics?) but it could be very small or large, depending on user tastes and what hardware they'd acquired. And parts could easily be reused or replaced.
Naturally, being a really cool idea, nothing came of it. (particularly since Apple was considering opening the standard to everyone)
There's some pictures in the book "Apple Design" but I haven't seen any online.
Easy enough.
I bought a bare logic board and PSU from a third party, who had originally obtained it from, AFAIK, Motorola. (it was a 'Tanzania' board, notably also used in the Motorola StarMax and Power Mac 4400)
No OS whatsoever.
Then I went out, picked up a case, drives, cards, etc., and a copy of the entire OS in-box. Installed like a dream, on a computer that hadn't shipped with MacOS at all.
In practice, I suppose you can claim that MacOS and OS X are typically sold as upgrades since it is unusual for someone to not already have it. But you sure as hell can buy it seperate of the hardware. I've done it more than once.
I like the coins, but if we did drop the $1 bill, we should definately start printing up more $2 bills to take up slack, or perhaps a $2.50 bill.
Sadly, our really large-denomination bills have pretty crappy backs; guess that's unavoidable given when they date from.
Well, not entirely. If you did something that was illegal in TX while in TX (or otherwise in certain forms of contact with TX) you may be subject to TX law. It's fairly thorny.
Fair use is indeed a right.
Firstly, barring restrictions imposed by copyright, the guarantee of freedom of speech prevents restrictions (very broadly) on speech. Even speech which is a verbatim repitition of some other person's speech.
Secondly, as has been repeatedly recognized by even the Supreme Court, the public's right to benefit from copyrighted creative works is of greater importance than the right of the author to benefit. Ideally of course, the two can be balanced; but in the end, if one has to trump, it's ours. If an author wishes to claim copyright protections for himself, it does not require a great leap of the imagination to arrive at the position that the public must be able to actually make use of the work, in order to enjoy their right to actually make use of the work. (usage here includes use, copying, etc.)
If there is some inherent or external condition that impairs use -- such as that the work does not exist, or that the only remaining copies are under lock and key -- this is highly unfortunate, but perhaps tolerable. A work deliberately published in a way to impair the unrestricted uses and copying to which it is intended that it surely will eventually be put? Intolerable. Unacceptable. Undeserving of copyright in the first place.
Not quite.
Most users are right handed, most right handed users keep their mouse to the right of their keyboard, but COMMAND V can be easily typed with their left hand, regardless of whether their right hand is mousing or not, whereas, SHIFT INSERT cannot, on a typical keyboard.
The quartet of Z X C and V were never chosen for mnemonic reasons; it's their position on the keyboard relative to a metakey, and the behavior patterns of the user that are important.
Depends on when. Virtually anywhere there are overhead electrical cables for powering trolleys or streetcars, e.g. the electric busses all over western Cambridge, there used to be trolleys.
The Green Line used to have an A branch, traces of which are still around. It went to Watertown, IIRC, via Brighton Center. And of course, the Red Line was extended in both directions, and there's been plenty of work on the southern end of the Orange Line.
At any rate, the rail network used to be somewhat larger. I'm upset that there have been proposals bandied about to shut down the E line.
It's possible, though I wouldn't put money on it, that a throttled down server is not a customary software distribution method as required by the GPL that Ximian is bound to.
Definately a longshot, but you never know.
Hilariously of course, DVD keepcases are designed to be the height and depth of VHS tapes, even though there's a lot of wasted space and plastic in there as well. Something like a CD jewelcase would work just as well. Where's the protest movement then?
No, home folders are a dumb idea. Instead each user should own the entire filesystem. BUT each user has their own virtual filesystem, which is just an abstraction on top of whatever exists beneath.
Thus I can keep folders at the root level of the hard drive, and you can keep the SAME folders on the desktop. If I delete them, it just unlinks them from my vfs and leaves them in yours.
Restricting where users can work is pointless.
Of course, taxonomy handles cross-references rather better than computers too. Why doesn't the damn thing place a link of Jimi Hendrix's cover of "All Along the Watchtower" in the Bob Dylan folder? Stupid box.
It is for this reason that you have autocompletion. In fact, not just crappy-ass autocompletion where you have to manually trigger it, but an automatic autocompletion, as seen in many web browsers. (even including the pull down menu of alternatives)
Who said CLIs have to use telnet? Telnet's an attempt to make a virtual 60's era teletype machine. CLIs can benefit greatly from total integration into the GUI. (e.g. right clicking on commands to get a list of arguments to select, commands in the CLI having effects in the GUI, etc.)
Why not simply have a virtualized filesystem that lies atop some other mechanism that the user need not touch, so that the desktop really CAN be the rook. And users can move around any files they want to, without causing those files to move around from the way that other users have arranged them.
Frankly, it's highly dubious that there's no alternative that cannot satisfy both camps: a powerful, efficient interface that takes less time to learn.
Remember, time that it takes to learn how to use, or remember how to use a UI is time wasted. Low learning curves improve efficiency.