This kills me, first, it seems more like they were investors than employeeds, 350k isnt exactly a months salary even for me:)
Did you misread the article? It says they haven't seen a paycheck since late 2000. Loki filed for bankruptcy in August 2001. So somebody is out $350k for nine months work. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Free Software is devestating to the diverse "middle ground" of software that sells in the $20-$100 range. When GPL software dominates a market, we are left with low-quality free packages on one end and expensive "industry standard" or "specialized" software on the other.
Can you give an example of this?
The other problem is that when GPL projects fail to keep pace with technology, there is the danger that people will make arguments that the government needs to step in and take over the project. This is the secret hearts desire of the Free Software movement, which is just socialism with a hi-tech veneer. Already, there are too many government workers writing software who should instead be using a diverse array of packages from different vendors, linked together by open standards (open standards are law, but executables are *not*. That's a critical distinction that Lessig fails to make, but we aren't here to talk about Lessig).
Can you give an example of this?
Forgive the repetitiveness of my post, but you seem to be spouting quasi-political dogma without any actual relevance to this debate. Obviously you're entitled to your views, but I don't believe they're even vaguely related to the subject at hand.
The problem comes with standards and interfaces. If Joe Bloggs, govt funded researcher, develops some nice SW and you want to use it and I want to use it, it's in our best interests (as individuals) to comply with whatever APIs and standards Joe used. That way we get the benefit of others (like you or I) who might work to improve it. That doesn't necessarily appeal to a commercial concern. It might be in their best interests to subvert Joe's APIs on the grounds that if they can make their "improved" version of Joe's software dominant, they might gain some commercial benefit. In an industry like ours, such a commercial benefit to one organization clearly can be detrimental to the market as a whole. That's why I would, in the general case, prefer government funded software to be GPLed.
Actually, no it wasn't:-) It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre who said this, stating that she was trying to paraphrase Voltaire's views. But I see (see, not agree with) your point.
He worked in intelligence during the operation, apparently without his superiors knowing who he was. When asked to deny that he had passed information on to his Father to help him evade capture, he refused to do so.
By the way, if you're going to call someone an idiot, take care to do it under your handle. Otherwise people will think you're just an Anonymous Coward. Oh wait... never mind.
My program is participating. What I do is to go through all the games it has played recently at ICC and try to determine which openings it seems to play sensibly. I have a two-level opening book. The "big" book has a load of high-rated GM games in it. The "preferred" book is the list of opening lines I want PostModernist to play.
For a commercial opponent, I look for games my program has won against it (very few and far between) and try to get it to play the same lines.
I don't do that for other amateur entrants, although my normal "preferred" book will often include recent novelties to see if PM can handle them.
It's not that difficult to make a chess engine. Unfortunately there are few books in print that would help a beginner, however. Generally a couple of weeks to get the engine playing legally plus a day or so to get the automatic intrerface working can get you online at ICC.
In previous tourneys, gnuchess has been added as an extra to make the number of participants even, as that means that no-one has to sit around with a bye. If we end up with an odd number of participants, I expect that gnuchess will make an appearance.
It's irrelevant that the format hasn't changed. The point is that Microsoft can change the format. Strategically it's not smart for organizations to encourage (even by omission) the use of Word for emails because they can have no control over the format.
Unfortunately, he's very convincing to non-techie people. A friend of mine who does an IT-support job was telling me about this brilliant speaker she saw at a conference. He had gone on about robots and cyborgs and artificial intelligence and all sorts of things. It was only when she mentioned that he was working on turning himself into a cyborg that the penny dropped and I was able to point out that not everyone was convinced by his "experiments".
By the way, The Register isn't available via its usual URL at the moment. So here's a direct link to some of their Kevin Warwick coverage.
To anyone visiting Manchester in the North West of England, I'd recommend visiting the Turing Memorial. It's good to go in the evening, because in the dark the statue is very lifelike. I do an evening class in the building behind the statue (see photo) and even I jump sometimes when I cross the park on my way back, even though I've walked past the statue only two hours before!
Before you all get started, please don't assume that we brits support this in any way, shape or form. Every self-respecting British geek despises BT for their obstructive approach to broadband internet provision. At every possible stage they have dragged their feet in an effort to keep competitors out. A few years ago their chairman made a speech in which he claimed that the internet was still not "fit for purpose". Of course, the "purpose" he had in mind was making billions for BT. This patent claim is just another attempt by BT to make money with having to compete fairly with other organizations.
That's almost certainly true; the trick is to get the spammer to pay to find this out. Also, there is the case where the guy says any further email contact will incur costs blah blah blah. Then there is a prior "contract", although I'd guess that it wouldn't stand up in court.
In England at least, a juggernaut is a term for any large truck, especially if you are complaining
about the noise it makes or the speed it is going etc.
Errrr... Here's a useful link: CIA world factbook. Specifically, look at:
Area comparative: Slightly smaller than Texas.
This is a big country, with mountain ranges to hide in and tens of thousands of hostile troops. You don't just "drop sleep gas" and stroll in and pick up OBL.
Nobody is moaning at you for using commercial software when there is no alternative. We're moaning at the commercial software vendors for exploiting you.
As far as I can see, the difference is in the stated goals of the W3C. They state explicitly that one of the design principles of the Web is:
1.Interoperability: Specifications for the Web's languages and protocols must be compatible with one another and allow (any) hardware and software used to access the Web to work together.
And they further state that:
These principles guide the work carried out within W3C Activities.
This would seem to be at odds with incorporating patents into standards. As far as I can tell, the IETF doesn't include any such principle. What I can find about their mission seems to be far more pragmatic.
I would say that the W3C is in a difficult position. They fear that they will be sidelined if they don't find some way to incorporate patented technologies into their standards. However, this sort of action has the effect of draining the credibility out of a standards body, because it divides the community which wishes to use the technology for which the body is responsible. I believe that the W3C should avoid ratifying anything which has patents attached, unless the patent-holder allows the technology to be used on a royalty-free basis.
I'm afraid I have to disagree here. I've been watching this on UK and US television stations and they too have struggled to cope with the scale of the reports they have been getting. It seems to me that Slashdot has been no more or less inaccurate than the professional news services, and as such have been providing a very useful service, given that many news websites have been overwhelmed.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you misread the article? It says they haven't seen a paycheck since late 2000. Loki filed for bankruptcy in August 2001. So somebody is out $350k for nine months work. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Can you give an example of this?
The other problem is that when GPL projects fail to keep pace with technology, there is the danger that people will make arguments that the government needs to step in and take over the project. This is the secret hearts desire of the Free Software movement, which is just socialism with a hi-tech veneer. Already, there are too many government workers writing software who should instead be using a diverse array of packages from different vendors, linked together by open standards (open standards are law, but executables are *not*. That's a critical distinction that Lessig fails to make, but we aren't here to talk about Lessig).
Can you give an example of this?
Forgive the repetitiveness of my post, but you seem to be spouting quasi-political dogma without any actual relevance to this debate. Obviously you're entitled to your views, but I don't believe they're even vaguely related to the subject at hand.
yet another?
The problem comes with standards and interfaces. If Joe Bloggs, govt funded researcher, develops some nice SW and you want to use it and I want to use it, it's in our best interests (as individuals) to comply with whatever APIs and standards Joe used. That way we get the benefit of others (like you or I) who might work to improve it. That doesn't necessarily appeal to a commercial concern. It might be in their best interests to subvert Joe's APIs on the grounds that if they can make their "improved" version of Joe's software dominant, they might gain some commercial benefit. In an industry like ours, such a commercial benefit to one organization clearly can be detrimental to the market as a whole. That's why I would, in the general case, prefer government funded software to be GPLed.
Home users are one thing, companies are another. If your company employs lots of temps to do bits of word processing, this must be a cheap solution.
Actually, no it wasn't :-) It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre who said this, stating that she was trying to paraphrase Voltaire's views. But I see (see, not agree with) your point.
By the way, if you're going to call someone an idiot, take care to do it under your handle. Otherwise people will think you're just an Anonymous Coward. Oh wait... never mind.
Does the film include the fact that Aideed's son was part of the American intelligence corps?
:-)
Lots of programs do "learn" which openings they are good at, but mine doesn't yet.
For a commercial opponent, I look for games my program has won against it (very few and far between) and try to get it to play the same lines.
I don't do that for other amateur entrants, although my normal "preferred" book will often include recent novelties to see if PM can handle them.
It's not that difficult to make a chess engine. Unfortunately there are few books in print that would help a beginner, however. Generally a couple of weeks to get the engine playing legally plus a day or so to get the automatic intrerface working can get you online at ICC.
In previous tourneys, gnuchess has been added as an extra to make the number of participants even, as that means that no-one has to sit around with a bye. If we end up with an odd number of participants, I expect that gnuchess will make an appearance.
It's irrelevant that the format hasn't changed. The point is that Microsoft can change the format. Strategically it's not smart for organizations to encourage (even by omission) the use of Word for emails because they can have no control over the format.
By the way, The Register isn't available via its usual URL at the moment. So here's a direct link to some of their Kevin Warwick coverage.
Probably this isn't helpful, but in the UK they are saying "may be unsuitable for children under eight years old".
Yep! A nice 1-0 over Wolverhampton Wanderers last night :-)
To anyone visiting Manchester in the North West of England, I'd recommend visiting the Turing Memorial. It's good to go in the evening, because in the dark the statue is very lifelike. I do an evening class in the building behind the statue (see photo) and even I jump sometimes when I cross the park on my way back, even though I've walked past the statue only two hours before!
Before you all get started, please don't assume that we brits support this in any way, shape or form. Every self-respecting British geek despises BT for their obstructive approach to broadband internet provision. At every possible stage they have dragged their feet in an effort to keep competitors out. A few years ago their chairman made a speech in which he claimed that the internet was still not "fit for purpose". Of course, the "purpose" he had in mind was making billions for BT. This patent claim is just another attempt by BT to make money with having to compete fairly with other organizations.
That's almost certainly true; the trick is to get the spammer to pay to find this out. Also, there is the case where the guy says any further email contact will incur costs blah blah blah. Then there is a prior "contract", although I'd guess that it wouldn't stand up in court.
In England at least, a juggernaut is a term for any large truck, especially if you are complaining
about the noise it makes or the speed it is going etc.
This is a big country, with mountain ranges to hide in and tens of thousands of hostile troops. You don't just "drop sleep gas" and stroll in and pick up OBL.
Or were you joking?
Nobody is moaning at you for using commercial software when there is no alternative. We're moaning at the commercial software vendors for exploiting you.
This tells you how to download the SuSE distro from the net. The page also gives their rationale for this approach to net distribution.
To make God laugh, tell him your plans.
I would say that the W3C is in a difficult position. They fear that they will be sidelined if they don't find some way to incorporate patented technologies into their standards. However, this sort of action has the effect of draining the credibility out of a standards body, because it divides the community which wishes to use the technology for which the body is responsible. I believe that the W3C should avoid ratifying anything which has patents attached, unless the patent-holder allows the technology to be used on a royalty-free basis.
To make God laugh, tell him your plans.
All IMHO, of course.