"The employee did not pay for any of those things, and is not entitled to them. "
The employee's hard work *did* pay for them. If the employee is not payed, and the creditors (which knew the risk and are big enough to take the hit and still feed their families, easily) are, then something is fucked up, and the employee is justified in correcting it.
Today in the shower, I was thinking about the original article.
I remembered a quote from Einstein about the development of the bomb: "Had I but known, I would have been a locksmith." So, had he but known and been born 50 years later, maybe he would have been Phil Zimmerman:)
Shooting a gun inside an airplane is moronic. Besides, except for the 4th plane, nobody expected the slamming into buildings bit. So, nobody would have risked her life to stop hijackers who would have been caught and caused no lasting harm anyway.
And in the case of the 4th plane, there's evidence that they did fight before the F16 took them out.
Assuming g[x] is based on some codebreaking technique which the academic community doesn't know but the NSA does. For a time, differential cryptography would have worked. So, DES before the NSA made it more secure could have been used for this.
Still, the academic community could catch up any time, so this is not a good strategy.
Other forms of back doors exist - consider PGP ADKs (assuming the implementation weren't broken). They don't reduce the security of the system significantly, but they do provide a backdoor. Of course, this assumes that their use can be mandated, which we all know is impossible.
As opposed to proprietary software? What guarantee is there? Well, with Free Software, if you can afford it, you can hire someone to maintain it. With proprietary software, if the vendor dies and nobody buys the product and dev team, you're screwed.
I've found another GPL violation and right now I'm waiting for the very well known company to dig
themselves in a bit deeper but I ran into a problem. How do I know its GPL'ed? I can't reverse engineer their code so how would I ever know?
Send the FSF mail at licensing@gnu.org. They will investigate it and take the proper action.
Well, it means that few people will use it, so there will be a small library of pre-made components to work from, and a small set of work to learn from. It means that employers will have to work hard to find employees who know it, rather than being able to hire from a large base of people who already know it.
Your reply to my question would be acceptable, except in a Lisp v. Java discussion. Your answer to my implied question of "what can Lisp offer to in this arena to compete with Java" is "use Java". Well, OK....
Java's event-driven GUI system is easy to code for, but is limited by the simplistic event model. Still, it does not make much totally impossible, so in my book, it is decent.
I am not sure what you mean by a packing layout manager (but you can tell me next time you see me on IRC).
I do see a list of toolkits, but they all seem to be based on terrible base toolkits, like Tk or WxWindows, or are not portable at all.
CLIM is a good idea, but I cannot find any free (beer) implementations, which seriously limits its usefulness.
Swing has the property that, since it is written almost entirely in Java, it can be ported with little effort. Bindings need not be written for each component, but only for windows (Xlib meaning) and a few other things. Unfortunately, this tends to make it a bit slow, but that's not a concern for me.
Because of what we think sensible defaults are. 99% of sites want to be spidered. 99% of people don't want spam. Also, because the web is seen as public and email is seen as private.
At least *this* Nader voter would not have voted for Gore even if Nader were not an option.
If Gore had wanted to win, he would have wooed voters like me, instead of shitting on us with the Defense Of Marriage Act and the like. The fucking moronic thing is that my local gay and lesbian activist group *still* asked me to vote for Gore.
" If trademark duplication can diminish reputation, and this makes such duplication undesirable, surely copyright violation can diminish the copyright-holders reputation too (if, for example, the copyrighted work was modified to
include inaccuracies, or otherwise subverted)."
Those things are not about copyright but about attribution. In fact, until 1990, US copyright laws didn't say anything about attribution.
"Additionally, copyright violation can certainly reduce the copyright holder's income from said work. Is income to be held to lower value than reputation?"
But income is not due to them. If copyright laws were intended to provide income to those who create works, they would simply provide income. Of course, the issue with trademarks isn't that unauthorized usage diminishes reputation, but that it does so dishonestly. Consider Javascript, named to ride on the hype about Java.
"You say that copyright is government-sanctioned theft from the commons of thought. Are trademarks not government-sanctioned theft from the commons of imagery, or 'devices'?"
If abused, absolutely. But a trademark ought not to stop the use of a mark in general, but only in unfair competition with the originator - and since the name of a company or its logo is not particularly expressive, it does not bother me that companies have a more limited namespace from which to choose their names. But of course abuse has been very rampant these days.
"And where do you stand on patents?"
We need to find ways of encouraging research which actually work. Patents these days constrain innovation more often than they promote it. When patents are successful (such as the drug industry, kinda), they still cause suffering.
It is very important to separate the issues of intellectual honesty (fair credit and attribution) from those of restriction and from those of payment.
Nobody controls the meaning of the term free, but nobody would disagree that a license being on the Free Software License list is a sufficient, but not necessary condition of being a Free license.
Even Microsoft would call the X11-like license which PfaEdit is released under a Free license.
What more could you want?
Now, about my.sig: Copyright is government-sanctioned theft from the commons of thought. An idea cannot be stolen by being copied, since every user of the idea still has it. An idea can only be stolen by being locked up, so that some people cannot use the idea. Maybe I should change it to be "Intellectual Property Is Theft", but I don't like that term, for obvious reasons. (Also, trademarks, so long as they are not abused, are not theft, since duplicating them can diminish reputation)
It is not somewhat Free, it is truly Free. Their license is listed among the Free Software Foundations license list. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
They have also developed a substantial amount of art. You can't have art and story completely separate - they need to be intertwined. And their example "quest" was so hack-and-slash typical...
I understand that Blizzard knows how to make violence-oriented games. I loved Starcraft, and woulld love to play SC2, if they ever build it. This doesn't mean they know how to make RPGs. As far as I can tell, nobody has successfully made a MMORPG which features any significant amount of RPing for the majority of players.
This trailer is an advertising move for Blizzard. So, looking at what Blizzard is emphasizing in its ads is a good way to learn what they think is important in building a game. Clearly, they see good technology and lots of violence as more important than a good player-driven story and good characters. So, they should be making RTS games, instead of trying to make RPGs.
EQ *was* original. Not good, but original. It was the first 3d graphical MUD of any quality - and so, original.
Of course, whether it's a waste of time (compared to MUDs) or not depends on what you want out of a game. Good MUDs (usually actually MUSHes or MOOs) feature good stories, intense player participation, etc. Good MMOHs feature lots of blowing shit up. Which one you chose to play depends on what you want.
My sole point is that it's not accurate to call WoW a MMORPG, because there's *no role-playing*.
"Great characters"? No mention of it.
"Fascinating stories"? Not mentioned.
"Player-driven plot"? Yeah right.
So, where's the role-playing? As far as I can tell from the article, there isn't any. The trailer didn't show any talking. So, maybe MMOH with an H for Hackfest would be a better name.
Slashdot Mirror
"The employee did not pay for any of those things, and is not entitled to them. "
The employee's hard work *did* pay for them. If the employee is not payed, and the creditors (which knew the risk and are big enough to take the hit and still feed their families, easily) are, then something is fucked up, and the employee is justified in correcting it.
Today in the shower, I was thinking about the original article.
:)
I remembered a quote from Einstein about the development of the bomb: "Had I but known, I would have been a locksmith." So, had he but known and been born 50 years later, maybe he would have been Phil Zimmerman
Shooting a gun inside an airplane is moronic. Besides, except for the 4th plane, nobody expected the slamming into buildings bit. So, nobody would have risked her life to stop hijackers who would have been caught and caused no lasting harm anyway.
And in the case of the 4th plane, there's evidence that they did fight before the F16 took them out.
Well, he's wrong there, too. And anyway, he said:
"there's no such thing as a shared secret"
Um, of course there is such a thing as a shared secret.
http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~dohna/ssbib.html
g[x] is not necessarily obvious given f[x].
Assuming g[x] is based on some codebreaking technique which the academic community doesn't know but the NSA does. For a time, differential cryptography would have worked. So, DES before the NSA made it more secure could have been used for this.
Still, the academic community could catch up any time, so this is not a good strategy.
Other forms of back doors exist - consider PGP ADKs (assuming the implementation weren't broken). They don't reduce the security of the system significantly, but they do provide a backdoor. Of course, this assumes that their use can be mandated, which we all know is impossible.
Naw, surrealism was never really my cup of fur
(ok, I admit I ripped that off of fortune)
No, it checks if the http_uri, not the content contains those strings.
And "4.37 am (Arabs with Knives and West German Skies)", by Roger Waters is also not listed....
Conspiracy!
"Americans still have to swear on the bible in US courthouses."
False. At least in my state (PA), you may swear on the holy book of your choice, or just affirm if your religion forbids swearing oaths.
"No guarantee that development will happen."
As opposed to proprietary software? What guarantee is there? Well, with Free Software, if you can afford it, you can hire someone to maintain it. With proprietary software, if the vendor dies and nobody buys the product and dev team, you're screwed.
Send the FSF mail at licensing@gnu.org. They will investigate it and take the proper action.
Well, it means that few people will use it, so there will be a small library of pre-made components to work from, and a small set of work to learn from. It means that employers will have to work hard to find employees who know it, rather than being able to hire from a large base of people who already know it.
Your reply to my question would be acceptable, except in a Lisp v. Java discussion. Your answer to my implied question of "what can Lisp offer to in this arena to compete with Java" is "use Java". Well, OK....
Java's event-driven GUI system is easy to code for, but is limited by the simplistic event model. Still, it does not make much totally impossible, so in my book, it is decent.
I am not sure what you mean by a packing layout manager (but you can tell me next time you see me on IRC).
I do see a list of toolkits, but they all seem to be based on terrible base toolkits, like Tk or WxWindows, or are not portable at all.
CLIM is a good idea, but I cannot find any free (beer) implementations, which seriously limits its usefulness.
Swing has the property that, since it is written almost entirely in Java, it can be ported with little effort. Bindings need not be written for each component, but only for windows (Xlib meaning) and a few other things. Unfortunately, this tends to make it a bit slow, but that's not a concern for me.
Where are the good, cross-platform GUI toolkits for Lisp?
See the Ticketmaster case: copyright notices are not binding on spiders.
k et s-2000-03-27.html
Grep for "terms and conditions" in:
http://www.gigalaw.com/library/ticketmaster-tic
Because of what we think sensible defaults are. 99% of sites want to be spidered. 99% of people don't want spam. Also, because the web is seen as public and email is seen as private.
At least *this* Nader voter would not have voted for Gore even if Nader were not an option.
If Gore had wanted to win, he would have wooed voters like me, instead of shitting on us with the Defense Of Marriage Act and the like. The fucking moronic thing is that my local gay and lesbian activist group *still* asked me to vote for Gore.
" If trademark duplication can diminish reputation, and this makes such duplication undesirable, surely copyright violation can diminish the copyright-holders reputation too (if, for example, the copyrighted work was modified to
include inaccuracies, or otherwise subverted)."
Those things are not about copyright but about attribution. In fact, until 1990, US copyright laws didn't say anything about attribution.
"Additionally, copyright violation can certainly reduce the copyright holder's income from said work. Is income to be held to lower value than reputation?"
But income is not due to them. If copyright laws were intended to provide income to those who create works, they would simply provide income. Of course, the issue with trademarks isn't that unauthorized usage diminishes reputation, but that it does so dishonestly. Consider Javascript, named to ride on the hype about Java.
"You say that copyright is government-sanctioned theft from the commons of thought. Are trademarks not government-sanctioned theft from the commons of imagery, or 'devices'?"
If abused, absolutely. But a trademark ought not to stop the use of a mark in general, but only in unfair competition with the originator - and since the name of a company or its logo is not particularly expressive, it does not bother me that companies have a more limited namespace from which to choose their names. But of course abuse has been very rampant these days.
"And where do you stand on patents?"
We need to find ways of encouraging research which actually work. Patents these days constrain innovation more often than they promote it. When patents are successful (such as the drug industry, kinda), they still cause suffering.
It is very important to separate the issues of intellectual honesty (fair credit and attribution) from those of restriction and from those of payment.
Nobody controls the meaning of the term free, but nobody would disagree that a license being on the Free Software License list is a sufficient, but not necessary condition of being a Free license.
.sig: Copyright is government-sanctioned theft from the commons of thought. An idea cannot be stolen by being copied, since every user of the idea still has it. An idea can only be stolen by being locked up, so that some people cannot use the idea. Maybe I should change it to be "Intellectual Property Is Theft", but I don't like that term, for obvious reasons. (Also, trademarks, so long as they are not abused, are not theft, since duplicating them can diminish reputation)
Even Microsoft would call the X11-like license which PfaEdit is released under a Free license.
What more could you want?
Now, about my
It is not somewhat Free, it is truly Free. Their license is listed among the Free Software Foundations license list. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
They have also developed a substantial amount of art. You can't have art and story completely separate - they need to be intertwined. And their example "quest" was so hack-and-slash typical...
I understand that Blizzard knows how to make violence-oriented games. I loved Starcraft, and woulld love to play SC2, if they ever build it. This doesn't mean they know how to make RPGs. As far as I can tell, nobody has successfully made a MMORPG which features any significant amount of RPing for the majority of players.
This trailer is an advertising move for Blizzard. So, looking at what Blizzard is emphasizing in its ads is a good way to learn what they think is important in building a game. Clearly, they see good technology and lots of violence as more important than a good player-driven story and good characters. So, they should be making RTS games, instead of trying to make RPGs.
EQ *was* original. Not good, but original. It was the first 3d graphical MUD of any quality - and so, original.
Of course, whether it's a waste of time (compared to MUDs) or not depends on what you want out of a game. Good MUDs (usually actually MUSHes or MOOs) feature good stories, intense player participation, etc. Good MMOHs feature lots of blowing shit up. Which one you chose to play depends on what you want.
My sole point is that it's not accurate to call WoW a MMORPG, because there's *no role-playing*.
"Great characters"? No mention of it.
"Fascinating stories"? Not mentioned.
"Player-driven plot"? Yeah right.
So, where's the role-playing? As far as I can tell from the article, there isn't any. The trailer didn't show any talking. So, maybe MMOH with an H for Hackfest would be a better name.