While I agree that wireless tablets are probably one way to replace the ubiquitous clip boards that you see everywhere there will be some changes necessary to the marketing literature: 1) BFOD - Critical error causing patient to lose vital signs and throw "General Protection Fault" 2) Do you want to go to the afterlife today? 3) AfterLife.NET AND 4) 1 Degree of separation between life and death...
I work in a Corporate R&D lab and we're pushing open source technologies here, but you have to be patient and strategic.
First off, are you trying to make programmers convert? If so then you're in a losing battle. People will almost always stick with what they're comfortable with. You'll only get them to look at something else if it is 1 or 2 orders of magnitude simpler to use.
Set an example with your work. If you can do your work using OS tools and you can do it quicker, cheaper, and easier then that's how you convince people. Comments like, "But VB is lame. MS is the anti-christ. etc..." do NOT a good case for conversion make.
Finally, if you can't do it in OS then don't. If you're stuck because of specific hardware/OS issues then don't try to fight the beast on those for now. Pick projects and things that you can migrate and move those instead. (Move the intranet site to JSP or PHP or whatnot on Linux/BSD/Apache. Throw out some NT/2000 Domain boxes and use SAMBA instead.) If you can show the advantages of OS tools for certain tasks then you can get people thinking about it. If you can't do it because of the hardware you're using then you're just going to appear as a stubborn zealot to your colleagues.
Give the Sco vs IBM position paper a read (http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html) it's quite informative. One of the main contentions is that the functionality in Linux far exceeds any matching functionality in SCO's code. That being the case you would wonder how they were able to borrow code from SCO?
(The best explanation so far [I believe from here on SlashDot]: IBM coders used cut and paste instead.)
The idea behind standards are that you can take at least one portion of your infrastructure as given and innovate on top of it.
Examples: Standard: HTTP and HTML Innovation: Web Portals While the progress of HTTP and HTML MAY have been quicker if they weren't tied to a "slow moving/stodgy" standards group this would have meant that things like Web Portals would have been hampered by trying to figure out what transport technology and client technology to embrace. (Heck you probably wouldn't have had a portal in the first place, just more BBS's.:-D)
Standard: US Electricity 110 V. Innovation: Lava lamp. (Yeah, arguable.) A bit absurd, but the idea here is that you can innovate on the actual lamp rather than worrying about the incoming current and plug shape, etc. A better example may be those replacement flourescent bulbs that you can get now.
So, yeah standards do in fact inhibit innovation in certain areas. The thing is, that innovation does have to be slowed down. You need to have some sort of foundation in which to build the REALLY innovative stuff on top of.
...rumors were that MS Research was going to originally call it FU!
If ya kick 'em in the balls hard enough...
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 1
If the alternative to writing a quick ACL changer is multiple days of intense hacking, vs. a couple hours with the right pokes at private members
Sorry, but you've definitely stumbled on to one of the more direct ways to motivate people.
We're not in the sandbox.
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 1
I think you're mistaking the function of the sandbox.
The sandbox is designed to restrict the activities outside of the VM (File access, etc.) This "exploit" seems to be more in dealing with accessing private methods and functions in objects.
So, you create your nice neat little package of objects using factory classes, protected constructors, and private methods to tightly control what people can actually do with the code from you. Now, this says that people can just blithely ignore all of that encapsulation and use the objects and methods however they darn well please.
We have the classic GPL/Copyright confusion going on here again.
Think of it this way: Copyright is the house. GPL is a door into the house.
By publishing copyrighted work under the GPL that means that you give people to come in and do whatever they want to the house within the boundaries of the license. You still own the original house and can build another door into it that has less abilities.
You cannot, however, close the original GPL door.
You could build an extension onto the house that doesn't use any of the originally GPL'd portions and keep access to that extension away from the GPL door, but you can't close off the original parts of the house.
Trade Secrets are even trickier. You need to protect trade secrets. If you fail to protect them and lose them then they're gone. If you do take reasonable measures to protect them and they're stolen illegally then you can prosecute. (Look at that DirecTV suit where the law clerk photocopied the documents.)
So, the argument can be made that by SCO/Caldera's act of distributing Linux they inadvertenly GPL'd any and all IP that they may have included in the work. The argument can also be made that the original person who published the work under the GPL didn't have the right to do that. The problem is that SCO is a publisher too.
Personally I think we should just get ourselves back to the easy questions like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
SCO's been working with Linux, they joined the United Linux group and all.
Also, the code for the various parts of Linux have been available for quite a long time. Why this "sudden discovery" of IP problems? Obviously this isn't something that just appeared with the latest versions of the various distros...
Finally, if the stolen code is so bloody obvious then why not show even one example of where there is direct copying. This wouldn't affect their legal strategy one bit (despite claims to the otherwise) and would grant them so much more credibility.
As it stands it still seems like SCO's jumping up and down and shouting "BUY ME NOW!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!"
Hillary Rosen ordered an exhumation of the body of Edgar Allen Poe after finding an MP3 file entitled HouseOfUsher.mp3 that was authored by the "nefarious pirate" Mr. Poe.
"Obviously we cannot let long dead artists continue to flaunt copyright law in this manner," quoted Ms. Rosen. "Fortunately, with our new changes to copyright we will ensure that Corporations remain in control of creative work like these in the future. Especially after the artist has passed on."
The "irony" was that the one that Gore won was based on the criteria that the Bush campaign was pushing at the time.
It's all completely and utterly irrelevant.
The margin of victory was too far inside the margin of error. Why would Gore winning by 12 votes be more credible than Bush winning by 100? (If anything a smaller margin for a Gore victory would be even less credible as you're even deeper into the statistical noise zone.)
Florida was merely the final result of an election where frankly neither candidate did much to enthuse the populace.
Final note: we wouldn't have even had to have worried about Florida if Gore could have even carried his home state. (Personally I found the fact that more people in CT voted for Lieberman than for Gore/Lieberman to be very illustrative of the Gore campaign.)
Where it spends it's time spewing EM waves into the user's crotch:) True, but at least the crotch can return fire. (Especially if it has a vibrate mode.)
The first clue should have been that Andreas Katsulas (sp?) was on this episode. Trust Trek to take a great orrator and not give him any good lines.
B5 had an episode (one of the stand-alones) where the doctor operated on a child and saved him explicitely against the orders of the child's parents. In that case the result was that they released the child with the family acting all nice and happy and the family then took him back to their quarters and performed a ritual suicide on the "shell" since the soul had already escaped.
Now in that one you had real conflict with the hyppocratic oath being dragged into the fray to boot.
...Delta Quadrant to try and get away from all things Trek?
So now, riddle me this. If they're feeling so hampered by the Trek universe then WHY CAST THE SHOW IN THAT UNIVERSE IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?
We know the answer is name recognition, but how damn cheap can you get? I can see the original pitch meeting:
Well, you see we'll use the name of the ship and Starfleet, but there won't be a Federation and there won't be a Prime Directive (cause those are too darn limiting). Oh, but we will introduce them to time travel, cloaking, and replicators...But we have to keep their technology primitive so that it's not "name your ray from the deflector dish" saves the day episodes all the time.
Accept it will be, it will just have to be someone else's deflector dish (or cloaking field) that does the heavy lifting.
Pure hogwash. If they didn't want to deal with the problems of the Trek universe than they damn well should have been honest about it from the get go.
In the case of Linux they're claiming that IBM polluted the code with the SCO-gained IP. That being the case it's hard to sue Red Hat or another distro first (not to mention they're in the United Linux group) as their case hinges on proving the IBM point.
So, they might as well shoot high right from the get go.
Anyway this is all just a giant cry of: "Buy me NOW!!!! PLEASE!!!!"
The pre-DMCA approach was to file a John Doe lawsuit and present it to a Judge. They'd view the facts and then if the case warrants it issue a subpoena to the ISP/eBay/whatever to make them release the information.
This is essentially what the DMCA does minus the Judge and the vetting of the evidence. (This is the problem that Verizon is currently fighting. Though specifically they claim that since the content isn't hosted on their machines then the normal turbo-subpoena process doesn't apply.)
So, you can if you really want go through the proper legal channels and get the abusers information.
The first thing I'd recommend is for everyone here who has an eBay account to give the user a negative review containing the body of the copyleft license and how (s)he's violating it.
> I'm just curious when MoneyDinner, MoneyMovie, and MoneyGoBackToMyPlace are scheduled for release!
And soon after that (I hope) is MoneyShot!
Well, if you want MoneyComeBackAnotherTime then you want to make sure that the release of MoneyShot doesn't follow too closely after MoneyGoBackToMyPlace.:-D
Slashdot Mirror
Be the first kid on your street to collect them all!
Sandra Day O'Connor, I choose you! Hit them with your 14th ammendment attack.
Think of all of the merchandising fees we could make...
While I agree that wireless tablets are probably one way to replace the ubiquitous clip boards that you see everywhere there will be some changes necessary to the marketing literature:
1) BFOD - Critical error causing patient to lose vital signs and throw "General Protection Fault"
2) Do you want to go to the afterlife today?
3) AfterLife.NET
AND
4) 1 Degree of separation between life and death...
1) UNIX IP License.
:-D
2) Plan to clean up code.
All they have to do is start swapping files.
I work in a Corporate R&D lab and we're pushing open source technologies here, but you have to be patient and strategic.
First off, are you trying to make programmers convert? If so then you're in a losing battle. People will almost always stick with what they're comfortable with. You'll only get them to look at something else if it is 1 or 2 orders of magnitude simpler to use.
Set an example with your work. If you can do your work using OS tools and you can do it quicker, cheaper, and easier then that's how you convince people. Comments like, "But VB is lame. MS is the anti-christ. etc..." do NOT a good case for conversion make.
Finally, if you can't do it in OS then don't. If you're stuck because of specific hardware/OS issues then don't try to fight the beast on those for now. Pick projects and things that you can migrate and move those instead. (Move the intranet site to JSP or PHP or whatnot on Linux/BSD/Apache. Throw out some NT/2000 Domain boxes and use SAMBA instead.) If you can show the advantages of OS tools for certain tasks then you can get people thinking about it. If you can't do it because of the hardware you're using then you're just going to appear as a stubborn zealot to your colleagues.
How about this: ($)CO
They always put the negative numbers/losses in ()'s.
Everyone can throw in $5 dollars and guess how many times they'll change their story between now and then.
Give the Sco vs IBM position paper a read (http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html) it's quite informative. One of the main contentions is that the functionality in Linux far exceeds any matching functionality in SCO's code. That being the case you would wonder how they were able to borrow code from SCO?
(The best explanation so far [I believe from here on SlashDot]: IBM coders used cut and paste instead.)
Remember, Hot Fudge Sundae falls on a Tuesdae...
FIRST PO>......*BLIP*
The idea behind standards are that you can take at least one portion of your infrastructure as given and innovate on top of it.
:-D)
Examples:
Standard: HTTP and HTML
Innovation: Web Portals
While the progress of HTTP and HTML MAY have been quicker if they weren't tied to a "slow moving/stodgy" standards group this would have meant that things like Web Portals would have been hampered by trying to figure out what transport technology and client technology to embrace. (Heck you probably wouldn't have had a portal in the first place, just more BBS's.
Standard: US Electricity 110 V.
Innovation: Lava lamp. (Yeah, arguable.)
A bit absurd, but the idea here is that you can innovate on the actual lamp rather than worrying about the incoming current and plug shape, etc. A better example may be those replacement flourescent bulbs that you can get now.
So, yeah standards do in fact inhibit innovation in certain areas. The thing is, that innovation does have to be slowed down. You need to have some sort of foundation in which to build the REALLY innovative stuff on top of.
...rumors were that MS Research was going to originally call it FU!
If the alternative to writing a quick ACL changer is multiple days of intense hacking, vs. a couple hours with the right pokes at private members
Sorry, but you've definitely stumbled on to one of the more direct ways to motivate people.
I think you're mistaking the function of the sandbox.
The sandbox is designed to restrict the activities outside of the VM (File access, etc.) This "exploit" seems to be more in dealing with accessing private methods and functions in objects.
So, you create your nice neat little package of objects using factory classes, protected constructors, and private methods to tightly control what people can actually do with the code from you. Now, this says that people can just blithely ignore all of that encapsulation and use the objects and methods however they darn well please.
We have the classic GPL/Copyright confusion going on here again.
Think of it this way: Copyright is the house. GPL is a door into the house.
By publishing copyrighted work under the GPL that means that you give people to come in and do whatever they want to the house within the boundaries of the license. You still own the original house and can build another door into it that has less abilities.
You cannot, however, close the original GPL door.
You could build an extension onto the house that doesn't use any of the originally GPL'd portions and keep access to that extension away from the GPL door, but you can't close off the original parts of the house.
Trade Secrets are even trickier. You need to protect trade secrets. If you fail to protect them and lose them then they're gone. If you do take reasonable measures to protect them and they're stolen illegally then you can prosecute. (Look at that DirecTV suit where the law clerk photocopied the documents.)
So, the argument can be made that by SCO/Caldera's act of distributing Linux they inadvertenly GPL'd any and all IP that they may have included in the work. The argument can also be made that the original person who published the work under the GPL didn't have the right to do that. The problem is that SCO is a publisher too.
Personally I think we should just get ourselves back to the easy questions like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
SCO's been working with Linux, they joined the United Linux group and all.
Also, the code for the various parts of Linux have been available for quite a long time. Why this "sudden discovery" of IP problems? Obviously this isn't something that just appeared with the latest versions of the various distros...
Finally, if the stolen code is so bloody obvious then why not show even one example of where there is direct copying. This wouldn't affect their legal strategy one bit (despite claims to the otherwise) and would grant them so much more credibility.
As it stands it still seems like SCO's jumping up and down and shouting "BUY ME NOW!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!"
Hillary Rosen ordered an exhumation of the body of Edgar Allen Poe after finding an MP3 file entitled HouseOfUsher.mp3 that was authored by the "nefarious pirate" Mr. Poe.
"Obviously we cannot let long dead artists continue to flaunt copyright law in this manner," quoted Ms. Rosen. "Fortunately, with our new changes to copyright we will ensure that Corporations remain in control of creative work like these in the future. Especially after the artist has passed on."
The "irony" was that the one that Gore won was based on the criteria that the Bush campaign was pushing at the time.
It's all completely and utterly irrelevant.
The margin of victory was too far inside the margin of error. Why would Gore winning by 12 votes be more credible than Bush winning by 100? (If anything a smaller margin for a Gore victory would be even less credible as you're even deeper into the statistical noise zone.)
Florida was merely the final result of an election where frankly neither candidate did much to enthuse the populace.
Final note: we wouldn't have even had to have worried about Florida if Gore could have even carried his home state. (Personally I found the fact that more people in CT voted for Lieberman than for Gore/Lieberman to be very illustrative of the Gore campaign.)
Where it spends it's time spewing EM waves into the user's crotch :)
True, but at least the crotch can return fire. (Especially if it has a vibrate mode.)
The first clue should have been that Andreas Katsulas (sp?) was on this episode. Trust Trek to take a great orrator and not give him any good lines.
B5 had an episode (one of the stand-alones) where the doctor operated on a child and saved him explicitely against the orders of the child's parents. In that case the result was that they released the child with the family acting all nice and happy and the family then took him back to their quarters and performed a ritual suicide on the "shell" since the soul had already escaped.
Now in that one you had real conflict with the hyppocratic oath being dragged into the fray to boot.
Finally a use for all of those cheesy Batleth immitations that you see people carrying around at the cons. :-D
...Delta Quadrant to try and get away from all things Trek?
So now, riddle me this. If they're feeling so hampered by the Trek universe then WHY CAST THE SHOW IN THAT UNIVERSE IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?
We know the answer is name recognition, but how damn cheap can you get? I can see the original pitch meeting:
Well, you see we'll use the name of the ship and Starfleet, but there won't be a Federation and there won't be a Prime Directive (cause those are too darn limiting). Oh, but we will introduce them to time travel, cloaking, and replicators...But we have to keep their technology primitive so that it's not "name your ray from the deflector dish" saves the day episodes all the time.
Accept it will be, it will just have to be someone else's deflector dish (or cloaking field) that does the heavy lifting.
Pure hogwash. If they didn't want to deal with the problems of the Trek universe than they damn well should have been honest about it from the get go.
In the case of Linux they're claiming that IBM polluted the code with the SCO-gained IP. That being the case it's hard to sue Red Hat or another distro first (not to mention they're in the United Linux group) as their case hinges on proving the IBM point.
So, they might as well shoot high right from the get go.
Anyway this is all just a giant cry of: "Buy me NOW!!!! PLEASE!!!!"
The pre-DMCA approach was to file a John Doe lawsuit and present it to a Judge. They'd view the facts and then if the case warrants it issue a subpoena to the ISP/eBay/whatever to make them release the information.
This is essentially what the DMCA does minus the Judge and the vetting of the evidence. (This is the problem that Verizon is currently fighting. Though specifically they claim that since the content isn't hosted on their machines then the normal turbo-subpoena process doesn't apply.)
So, you can if you really want go through the proper legal channels and get the abusers information.
The first thing I'd recommend is for everyone here who has an eBay account to give the user a negative review containing the body of the copyleft license and how (s)he's violating it.
> I'm just curious when MoneyDinner, MoneyMovie, and MoneyGoBackToMyPlace are scheduled for release!
:-D
And soon after that (I hope) is MoneyShot!
Well, if you want MoneyComeBackAnotherTime then you want to make sure that the release of MoneyShot doesn't follow too closely after MoneyGoBackToMyPlace.
So that's how those pictures of mating llamas got on my hard drive!
It sounds like you were just putting the finishing touches on the latest O'Reilly book:
Pr0n in a Nutshell.