There is actually a big issue there -- too many people own the IP in Linux. If you take *just* the kernel (and a GNU/Linux distro contains a ton more software than that) there are probably several thousand people who own code in there. And not all of it is well-documented who owns it. If you had to find all those people, it couldn't be done. Which is why the license can't practically be changed (without throwing out a lot of code where it's unclear who owns all of it) to the GPL 3 or any proprietary license.
But like I said, this isn't something SOX requires. And you'd have a hard time writing a list of all the owners of Windows code too.
According to SOX you need to give an account on who owns all your IP.
OK.
Here is the problem. You run linux and your software is an asset used to help run your company. Who owns it?
I still don't see the problem. It's not my IP, so I don't have to account for it.
Really, you'd have the same problem with code from Microsoft and other proprietary software vendors. Much of the code they sell is sub-licensed code owned by other companies. Heck, some of it is even BSD-licensed code.
In almost EVERY argument against the GPL, you can substitute any other license for "GPL", and the argument would still hold true.
One of the biggest arguments against the GPL is that if you use it in your own code, you have to agree to its terms. In the case of the GPL, those terms mean that your code must be GPLed. Other licenses set other terms; many licenses don't even ALLOW you to use their code in your code. In any case, if you don't follow the terms, you can be sued for copyright violation. So you always have a choice, no matter what the license -- either follow the license, or get sued.
Sure, but can you replicate that data? That is, even if you've recorded my heart rhythm, doesn't mean that it's terribly easy to replay it to the sensor.
This should resolve some of the problems with fingerprint scanners. It'd be really difficult to duplicate someone's heart rhythm. And cutting out someone's heart wouldn't work at all.
I read that as "Andrew Stallman" at first. I thought maybe RMS had a child. Probably a love child from the 60s. Perhaps he had bathed once and gotten lucky. Or maybe all that free love actually worked for him. (I'm kidding. Mostly.)
You're not old you just haven't gone paperless yet. It is difficult.
You make it sound like being paperless is the goal. I suppose that's a decent goal to have, in order to help the environment. But I have a bigger goal -- to read what I need/want, when and where I want, comfortably. And in many cases, books are still a lot better at meeting that goal. Granted, the Internet helps me achieve that goal a lot of the time, but not always. I'd consider going paperless a secondary goal for myself.
As far as Rasmus' AJAX tutorial, I think it's good for what it does. It shows you the very kernel of the AJAX idea, and shows you that it's not all that difficult. But a good book like the one reviewed (I've read about half of it) helps you explore more of the possibilities of AJAX. It covers different techniques you can use, pitfalls, best practices, many examples, use cases, etc. Comparing the 30-second tutorial to the book is rather simplistic.
I don't find Rasmus' AJAX tutorial all that bad. His point is that it's not all that hard to do AJAX. I do agree that he's not up on the latest JavaScript best practices though, so he ends up doing JS things the wrong way sometimes.
Call me an old fogie (I'm not THAT old!) but I prefer real books in a lot of circumstances. Especially when trying to get a full/complete understanding of a topic. Reading a few hundred pages on-screen gets to be painful on the eyes. And it's easier to take a book a lot of places - outside, on a plane during take-off, the toilet, on a date.;)
Now if it were a reference manual, then I'd be more likely to agree. But even there, a lot of us like to lay the hard-copy book down on our desks while we program. Just last night at the local Ruby user group, the guy behind me pulled out his well-worn copies of the Ruby and Rails books. [Come to think of it, you were probably there -- I just don't know what you look like.] He even had good memory of where in the book and on the page the info he was looking for. Don't underestimate the mind's use of physical information.
Wow. That's an interesting thought. And they could use a precedent that the USA set, in order capture Americans on American soil. Remember Manuel Noriega?
No, this is shaping up to be more like the MD (Mini Disc) versus DCC (Digital Compact Cassette) format war. Or the DVD-A vs. SACD format war. Neither will win. And the early adopters will be the big losers. (I own one of the first portable MD recorders; it cost me $800.)
It's fairly common among construction workers to paint their tools, each with an individual color. My dad's color is fluorescent hot pink. He never lost too many tools.;)
Have you seen the prices they charge for videos on iTunes? $1.99 for a single episode of a TV show. I strongly suspect that the margins (and thus profits) for media-less distribution are higher than having to schlep around physical media. I don't think the content owners would be all that sad if they had to only sell the higher-margin stuff with less hassle.
Still, I think (and hope) it will be a big black eye when BOTH of the new standards fail. (Although both SACD and DVD-A have failed as well, and nobody seems to have noticed.)
How long is instant? I see the term thrown around a lot, but it's never been clear to me how long it is. I suppose the question is how long can it take before the user would consider it not to be instant. My guess would be on the order of 100 ms in most cases. Which isn't much time to get data through a network.
And yes, this is a serious question for networking types who have to consider user experience.
Love your disclaimer. And I have to agree with you for the most part. I think the Libertarian Party should change its name to the Sane Party, because what you point out is just common sense.
However, I think the anti-discrimination laws of the 1960s helped our society to remove a lot of the racism. Granted, the changes in society helped get the laws passed, but I think it flowed both ways -- a virtuous cycle. And perhaps integrating the government facilities, especially the schools, would have done enough.
I'd argue that the main problem is that the anti-discrimination laws have done their part, and are no longer helpful. They've changed the minds of most people enough. And now they are changing more minds toward resentment.
Another thing I'd point out, is that back in the 1950s and earlier, when a black person was traveling, they'd often not be able to find any place to serve them. In that case, I think it was better for them to get bad service than no service at all.
I actually saw 4 DeLoreans in 1 day about 2 years ago. Near my house. In no way related to each other. One was for sale at a fancy car dealer. One was in a state of dis-repair at a repair shop. The 2 others were on the road. I test drove the one at the dealer. I came close to buying it.
Ah. So you refrained from using the N-word in order to not offend *others*? I don't find it hypocritical -- it just seemed kind of odd at the time. I think it really just goes to show that the social context has a lot to do with how we view words. So while the term "Caucasian" may have an original meaning which makes it offensive, the social context in which it is now used does not have the same offensive connotations.
The problem with "the c-word" is that there's already an unmentionably dirty word that starts with "c".;)
One thing I like to point out when it comes to discussions of race, is this. Anthropologically speaking, race is not a very well-defined concept, as there is a spectrum of any characteristic you might want to measure to define race. But if you want to try, you're actually likely to come up with the "black" race as at least 3 separate races: the Khoi-San, the Pygmies, and the rest of the sub-Saharan African natives. And why is it that everyone seems to leave out the Australian Aboriginal people?
I agree with your points. (And thank you for providing references for why "Caucasian" is offensive.) But if you find the words "Caucasian" and "nigger" equally offensive, why do you refrain from fully writing out only one of them?
This is an easy problem to solve. If the telcos want to provide tiered access to their lines, let them. But if they base their service on the content of the traffic, they're no longer a common carrier, are they? So take away their common carrier status, leaving them liable for all the traffic that traverses their network. I don't see any reason to allow them to have their cake and eat it too. But I think they should get to decide which side of the fence they would like to operate on.
Slashdot Mirror
There is actually a big issue there -- too many people own the IP in Linux. If you take *just* the kernel (and a GNU/Linux distro contains a ton more software than that) there are probably several thousand people who own code in there. And not all of it is well-documented who owns it. If you had to find all those people, it couldn't be done. Which is why the license can't practically be changed (without throwing out a lot of code where it's unclear who owns all of it) to the GPL 3 or any proprietary license.
But like I said, this isn't something SOX requires. And you'd have a hard time writing a list of all the owners of Windows code too.
Parent post - (Score: 5, Succinct)
In almost EVERY argument against the GPL, you can substitute any other license for "GPL", and the argument would still hold true.
One of the biggest arguments against the GPL is that if you use it in your own code, you have to agree to its terms. In the case of the GPL, those terms mean that your code must be GPLed. Other licenses set other terms; many licenses don't even ALLOW you to use their code in your code. In any case, if you don't follow the terms, you can be sued for copyright violation. So you always have a choice, no matter what the license -- either follow the license, or get sued.
Sure, but can you replicate that data? That is, even if you've recorded my heart rhythm, doesn't mean that it's terribly easy to replay it to the sensor.
Hmm. I suppose you could be right. I guess multi-factor is still definitely a good idea.
This should resolve some of the problems with fingerprint scanners. It'd be really difficult to duplicate someone's heart rhythm. And cutting out someone's heart wouldn't work at all.
I read that as "Andrew Stallman" at first. I thought maybe RMS had a child. Probably a love child from the 60s. Perhaps he had bathed once and gotten lucky. Or maybe all that free love actually worked for him. (I'm kidding. Mostly.)
As far as Rasmus' AJAX tutorial, I think it's good for what it does. It shows you the very kernel of the AJAX idea, and shows you that it's not all that difficult. But a good book like the one reviewed (I've read about half of it) helps you explore more of the possibilities of AJAX. It covers different techniques you can use, pitfalls, best practices, many examples, use cases, etc. Comparing the 30-second tutorial to the book is rather simplistic.
I don't find Rasmus' AJAX tutorial all that bad. His point is that it's not all that hard to do AJAX. I do agree that he's not up on the latest JavaScript best practices though, so he ends up doing JS things the wrong way sometimes.
Call me an old fogie (I'm not THAT old!) but I prefer real books in a lot of circumstances. Especially when trying to get a full/complete understanding of a topic. Reading a few hundred pages on-screen gets to be painful on the eyes. And it's easier to take a book a lot of places - outside, on a plane during take-off, the toilet, on a date. ;)
Now if it were a reference manual, then I'd be more likely to agree. But even there, a lot of us like to lay the hard-copy book down on our desks while we program. Just last night at the local Ruby user group, the guy behind me pulled out his well-worn copies of the Ruby and Rails books. [Come to think of it, you were probably there -- I just don't know what you look like.] He even had good memory of where in the book and on the page the info he was looking for. Don't underestimate the mind's use of physical information.
Wow. That's an interesting thought. And they could use a precedent that the USA set, in order capture Americans on American soil. Remember Manuel Noriega?
No, this is shaping up to be more like the MD (Mini Disc) versus DCC (Digital Compact Cassette) format war. Or the DVD-A vs. SACD format war. Neither will win. And the early adopters will be the big losers. (I own one of the first portable MD recorders; it cost me $800.)
It's fairly common among construction workers to paint their tools, each with an individual color. My dad's color is fluorescent hot pink. He never lost too many tools. ;)
Have you seen the prices they charge for videos on iTunes? $1.99 for a single episode of a TV show. I strongly suspect that the margins (and thus profits) for media-less distribution are higher than having to schlep around physical media. I don't think the content owners would be all that sad if they had to only sell the higher-margin stuff with less hassle.
Still, I think (and hope) it will be a big black eye when BOTH of the new standards fail. (Although both SACD and DVD-A have failed as well, and nobody seems to have noticed.)
How long is instant? I see the term thrown around a lot, but it's never been clear to me how long it is. I suppose the question is how long can it take before the user would consider it not to be instant. My guess would be on the order of 100 ms in most cases. Which isn't much time to get data through a network.
And yes, this is a serious question for networking types who have to consider user experience.
Love your disclaimer. And I have to agree with you for the most part. I think the Libertarian Party should change its name to the Sane Party, because what you point out is just common sense.
However, I think the anti-discrimination laws of the 1960s helped our society to remove a lot of the racism. Granted, the changes in society helped get the laws passed, but I think it flowed both ways -- a virtuous cycle. And perhaps integrating the government facilities, especially the schools, would have done enough.
I'd argue that the main problem is that the anti-discrimination laws have done their part, and are no longer helpful. They've changed the minds of most people enough. And now they are changing more minds toward resentment.
Another thing I'd point out, is that back in the 1950s and earlier, when a black person was traveling, they'd often not be able to find any place to serve them. In that case, I think it was better for them to get bad service than no service at all.
I actually saw 4 DeLoreans in 1 day about 2 years ago. Near my house. In no way related to each other. One was for sale at a fancy car dealer. One was in a state of dis-repair at a repair shop. The 2 others were on the road. I test drove the one at the dealer. I came close to buying it.
Ah. So you refrained from using the N-word in order to not offend *others*? I don't find it hypocritical -- it just seemed kind of odd at the time. I think it really just goes to show that the social context has a lot to do with how we view words. So while the term "Caucasian" may have an original meaning which makes it offensive, the social context in which it is now used does not have the same offensive connotations.
;)
The problem with "the c-word" is that there's already an unmentionably dirty word that starts with "c".
One thing I like to point out when it comes to discussions of race, is this. Anthropologically speaking, race is not a very well-defined concept, as there is a spectrum of any characteristic you might want to measure to define race. But if you want to try, you're actually likely to come up with the "black" race as at least 3 separate races: the Khoi-San, the Pygmies, and the rest of the sub-Saharan African natives. And why is it that everyone seems to leave out the Australian Aboriginal people?
I agree with your points. (And thank you for providing references for why "Caucasian" is offensive.) But if you find the words "Caucasian" and "nigger" equally offensive, why do you refrain from fully writing out only one of them?
This is an easy problem to solve. If the telcos want to provide tiered access to their lines, let them. But if they base their service on the content of the traffic, they're no longer a common carrier, are they? So take away their common carrier status, leaving them liable for all the traffic that traverses their network. I don't see any reason to allow them to have their cake and eat it too. But I think they should get to decide which side of the fence they would like to operate on.
Um. I think "throwing money" at them is the problem. Throwing money at a problem is rarely a good long-term solution.
Yeah. Perhaps that Warren Buffet guy is on to something.