One other question. Where are all the Slashdotters who spend half of each patent discussion criticising Coble? He made a useful, coherent sensible arguement, which is actually the norm. Oh well.
I'm certain I have no idea who/what you are talking about.
What is the argument for coputter programs deserving a different sort of protection
No I haven't read Gibson, but I enjoy being stereotyped nonetheless.:)
I'm not saying the point of view is completely invalid, however, just because Dyson is a recognized physicist does not make him an expert in social problems.
"It's somewhat incongruous for a bookseller to be opining on the patent system," said William T. Ellis, a partner in the Washington office of Foley & Lardner.
This sent a chill down my spine. It really set the tone for the whole article. "We know what is best, now shut up." And this to O'Reilly. They really don't know what they are up against.
This is not the first time a scientist has become famous and then starts spouting about areas of opinion and everyone listens to him, because hey, that's so an so. If you actually go to the Templeton site and read about what he had to say... well I'll show you:
Dyson opposed funding for the now-defunct $8 billion Supercollider atom smasher and has consistently spoken out against "big science" projects whose costs are out of proportion to their scientific value. In particular, he opposes the International Space Station, which he describes as a welfare program for the middle class.
...
he has chastised science for concentrating too much technology in "making toys for the rich" -- cellular phones, ever-smaller laptop computers, and the like -- rather than helping to spread knowledge, well-being, and wealth around the world so that one day "every Egyptian village can be as wealthy as Princeton."
This "long-range moral and social fallout of today's scientific miracles" which fail "to produce benefits for the poor in recent decades is due to two factors working in combination," he wrote in Imagined Worlds. "The pure scientists have become more detached from the mundane needs of humanity, and the applied scientists have become more attached to immediate profitability." New medical technologies, he adds, "too attractive to forbid and too expensive to be made generally available, will exacerbate the inequalities that now exist within and between societies."
I mean come on. Really. And this isn't the first scientist whose ideas have been held up because he is a famous scientist in some other completely different field.
Incidentally, I don't think most of the science vs. religioun posts on here don't really apply to what Dyson is getting at here.
Your definition of spam is very limited. In the Monty Python skit (oops, I mentioned Python, didn't I?) everything on the menu contained spam. Likewise, something crossposted to every newsgroup is spam, or sent to every email address is spam. It just so happens that spam is usually unsolicited email. Hot Grits guy is posting spam (you get it with every story). You posting to every mention of python in a thread (ok, TWO) is, IMHO, spam. I never would have said anything about it if you hadn't done it as spam. A couple of us (ok, TWO) also made that the point of replying to you, the spam factor. It made it clear (since that is the trend between the replies) you were targetting python advocates. Ok, enough on this topic from me.
Ok now we really are offtopic.:) But I think it is worth discussing since you seem pretty reasonable.
If it really is offtopic, the moderators decide that it is offtopic. They don't need you to tell them how to moderate.
Metamoderation: Metamoderation is the place to criticize unfair moderation. Oops, I guess you can't moderate the absense of moderation, so my comment was a non-sequiter. However. Most posts like yours are "How can this be offtopic, moderators are smoking crack!" In that case metamoderation is the answer; however, 99% of the time it is Anonymous Cowards that whine about it, and there is no reason to straighten them out (they won't read it, and they can't metamoderate anyway). The similarity made me mention it accidentally.
This was a C++ programmer wondering if he should move to perl for large projects. The people who followed up know the object oriented similarities of C++ and Python, I presume, and said he might be better off using Python. This is not offtopic to the question. The discussion really is about the merits of languages.
You just don't see that because you have some kind of beef with Python and/or Python advocates. (I am not a Python advocate, I've never used it, but I've used Perl and I'm relearning C++ (learning what is new in C++ since 1991 that is, STL, exceptions, etc.) I've read about Python and have a general idea of its philosophy so I can see where they are coming from)
You would moderate them down because you disagree with them. That is against the moderation guidelines. If anything was offtopic, it should be the original question. Anything after that is fair game: opinions on what language to use.
What if everyone replied to every post they thought should be moderated (let along disagreed with), "moderate this UP/DOWN" (I don't like the calls to "MODERATE THIS UP" either) it just adds to the noise.
Ok, we may disagree whether or not the python people were offtopic. However, I hope I have at least convinced you that you ought not post comments saying that parent post should be moderated a certain way (I guess this would be a meta "OFFTOPIC" post, heh). Go ahead, post and flame the posters if you want with the same reasons you listed, but don't tell the moderators what to do.
Until you get moderation points why don't you keep your moderating opinions to yourself. If you don't like it, have you metamoderated today? I see you are spamming across all replies to a particular thread. Just a suggestion, if you view in threads mode, you don't have to dig into a discussion that you are not interested in.
I saw Bill Joy speak at a relatively recent Sun Technology Days (read: Marketing) in Seattle. He badmouthed Open Source (to which the audience applauded) and any language that isn't Java. I wasn't impressed. I pretty much decided there that I hated him, a blowhard leaning on his former achievements. He is very arrogant.
I pay $8 to get into the movies (one person, approx 2 hours). I pay $30 a month for cable. Heck, I pay $50 a month for my internet connection (DSL + ISP). An EQ subscription gives you many many many more hours of [mindless] entertainment per dollar. It's $10 a month (not $10-20 like you said). Sure there are MUDs you can play for free (EQ is just a MUD in 3D) why don't you play those instead? Verant/Sony continues to get subscription money and they can pour tons of resources into server hardware, improving the game, etc. If you think $10 a month is too much to pay, do you ever actually buy any games?
It would be nice if they didn't charge you $40 to get EQ to begin with though. You'd think they'd make more in the long run if the original CD was less.
That's the thing. Every player should be allowed to be a hero, even if it isn't realistic. This is a game not a simulation. Ultima Online is a little bit less fun due to the fact that so many characters end up building chairs for a living to get ahead.:)
In the health care industry there is a loose (i.e. loosely followed) message standard called HL7 (health level 7) which is a delimited format. However they have been working on 3.0 which is based on XML. I have heard that Microsoft is very much interested and involved in this new standard. Also I went to an XML seminar (read: marketing) where they described the BizTalk (business world XML messaging) XML standard as well as their (vaporware as of yet?) XML message server. I get the feeling MS sees XML being an important standard across all industries.
I gave the license a once-over look and I don't think it is any kind of Free software, either from a BSD, GPL, or OSD perspective.
Yes it has the advertising clause a la old-school BSD license. It does provide the right to redistribute modifications, however it does not give you the right to restrict the rights of those you sell your version of the program to, so it is not really like BSD at all. It would be more like GPL except there are other things that make it not like GPL.
Firstly, you do not have the right to run the software for any purpose you wish. It says "Educational use only." I assume this means, running in an educational environment as opposed to education from the program itself but it is still a discriminator license that would NOT meet the open source definition.
Unlike any Free software license I've ever seen, you cannot charge fees to license the software. However they leave gaping loopholes for what you can charge for so it is not that big a deal.
I see no mention of source code (does that apply to this product? I'm only looking at the license posted and not what the product itself is) so I'm not sure if it qualifies as free software in the GPL sense. It isn't free in the BSD I-can-do-whatever-I-want-including-making-closed-v ersions sense either.
The article goes to great pains to explain that MS never said it was like open source and if they did they would get flamed the way Sun did. So what do I see next on Slashdot? "Microsoft Trying To Look Open Source With CE"
In one scene, the female astronaut flies out into space to rescue her husband. As we all [should] know, acceleration is provided by the jetpack fuel. But not in this movie... in this movie if you want to move 100 yards in space, you need 100 units of fuel. If you want move 50 yards in space you need 50 units of fuel. Thus, she doesn't have enough fuel to get there and back. When she stops firing her thrusters she stops getting closer to her husband. In real life, you can accelerate and coast to your destination without using fuel. Bah. Did they play out the scene with her reaction to his death long enough? I'm sure it was a real tear jerker scene to people who weren't thrown off by the bad physics. Oh wait, it still was a lame scene? Ok. Armageddon may have had 10 times worse physics than this movie, but at least they were excited to be in space unlike these dead weights. (insert droning voice here) "We're losing pressure, let's work the problem people."
I have a DSL "modem" that uses NAT. It's kind of nice that I can hook up multiple computers to the internet at home, but I run into other problems. It is a pain trying to log onto IRC because identd does not get through. Also, I can't really run any kind of server at home and expect it to work because NAT won't let anything through, and I think even if I tinkered with the tables in the modem, the IP address to the outside world is dynamic. I think with uswest.net, if I want to have a static IP and all that, I will have to order business-level service ($$$) instead of home luser service.
Your point is addressed directly by O'Reilly's response letter. Namedly, Tim O'Reilly doesn't think the patent covers as much as Tim originally thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Minor linux kernel update gets press, major freebsd doesn't.. causes daemon-mongering
You mean THIS ANNOUNCEMENT?
One other question. Where are all the Slashdotters who spend half of each patent discussion criticising Coble? He made a useful, coherent sensible arguement, which is actually the norm. Oh well.
I'm certain I have no idea who/what you are talking about.
What is the argument for coputter programs deserving a different sort of protection
Ahem.
http://www.oreillynet.com/patents/
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/amazon.html
No I haven't read Gibson, but I enjoy being stereotyped nonetheless. :)
I'm not saying the point of view is completely invalid, however, just because Dyson is a recognized physicist does not make him an expert in social problems.
"It's somewhat incongruous for a bookseller to be opining on the patent system," said William T. Ellis, a partner in the Washington office of Foley & Lardner.
This sent a chill down my spine. It really set the tone for the whole article. "We know what is best, now shut up." And this to O'Reilly. They really don't know what they are up against.
This is not the first time a scientist has become famous and then starts spouting about areas of opinion and everyone listens to him, because hey, that's so an so. If you actually go to the Templeton site and read about what he had to say... well I'll show you:
Dyson opposed funding for the now-defunct $8 billion Supercollider atom smasher and has consistently spoken out against "big science" projects whose costs are out of proportion to their scientific value. In particular, he opposes the International Space Station, which he describes as a welfare program for the middle class.
...
he has chastised science for concentrating too much technology in "making toys for the rich" -- cellular phones, ever-smaller laptop computers, and the like -- rather than helping to spread knowledge, well-being, and wealth around the world so that one day "every Egyptian village can be as wealthy as Princeton."
This "long-range moral and social fallout of today's scientific miracles" which fail "to produce benefits for the poor in recent decades is due to two factors working in combination," he wrote in Imagined Worlds. "The pure scientists have become more detached from the mundane needs of humanity, and the applied scientists have become more attached to immediate profitability." New medical technologies, he adds, "too attractive to forbid and too expensive to be made generally available, will exacerbate the inequalities that now exist within and between societies."
I mean come on. Really. And this isn't the first scientist whose ideas have been held up because he is a famous scientist in some other completely different field.
Incidentally, I don't think most of the science vs. religioun posts on here don't really apply to what Dyson is getting at here.
One more thing I forgot to address: SPAM.
Your definition of spam is very limited. In the Monty Python skit (oops, I mentioned Python, didn't I?) everything on the menu contained spam. Likewise, something crossposted to every newsgroup is spam, or sent to every email address is spam. It just so happens that spam is usually unsolicited email. Hot Grits guy is posting spam (you get it with every story). You posting to every mention of python in a thread (ok, TWO) is, IMHO, spam. I never would have said anything about it if you hadn't done it as spam. A couple of us (ok, TWO) also made that the point of replying to you, the spam factor. It made it clear (since that is the trend between the replies) you were targetting python advocates. Ok, enough on this topic from me.
Ok now we really are offtopic. :) But I think it is worth discussing since you seem pretty reasonable.
:)
If it really is offtopic, the moderators decide that it is offtopic. They don't need you to tell them how to moderate.
Metamoderation: Metamoderation is the place to criticize unfair moderation. Oops, I guess you can't moderate the absense of moderation, so my comment was a non-sequiter. However. Most posts like yours are "How can this be offtopic, moderators are smoking crack!" In that case metamoderation is the answer; however, 99% of the time it is Anonymous Cowards that whine about it, and there is no reason to straighten them out (they won't read it, and they can't metamoderate anyway). The similarity made me mention it accidentally.
This was a C++ programmer wondering if he should move to perl for large projects. The people who followed up know the object oriented similarities of C++ and Python, I presume, and said he might be better off using Python. This is not offtopic to the question. The discussion really is about the merits of languages.
You just don't see that because you have some kind of beef with Python and/or Python advocates. (I am not a Python advocate, I've never used it, but I've used Perl and I'm relearning C++ (learning what is new in C++ since 1991 that is, STL, exceptions, etc.) I've read about Python and have a general idea of its philosophy so I can see where they are coming from)
You would moderate them down because you disagree with them. That is against the moderation guidelines. If anything was offtopic, it should be the original question. Anything after that is fair game: opinions on what language to use.
What if everyone replied to every post they thought should be moderated (let along disagreed with), "moderate this UP/DOWN" (I don't like the calls to "MODERATE THIS UP" either) it just adds to the noise.
Ok, we may disagree whether or not the python people were offtopic. However, I hope I have at least convinced you that you ought not post comments saying that parent post should be moderated a certain way (I guess this would be a meta "OFFTOPIC" post, heh). Go ahead, post and flame the posters if you want with the same reasons you listed, but don't tell the moderators what to do.
Posting with No Score +1 Bonus.
Until you get moderation points why don't you keep your moderating opinions to yourself. If you don't like it, have you metamoderated today? I see you are spamming across all replies to a particular thread. Just a suggestion, if you view in threads mode, you don't have to dig into a discussion that you are not interested in.
I saw Bill Joy speak at a relatively recent Sun Technology Days (read: Marketing) in Seattle. He badmouthed Open Source (to which the audience applauded) and any language that isn't Java. I wasn't impressed. I pretty much decided there that I hated him, a blowhard leaning on his former achievements. He is very arrogant.
I pay $8 to get into the movies (one person, approx 2 hours). I pay $30 a month for cable. Heck, I pay $50 a month for my internet connection (DSL + ISP). An EQ subscription gives you many many many more hours of [mindless] entertainment per dollar. It's $10 a month (not $10-20 like you said). Sure there are MUDs you can play for free (EQ is just a MUD in 3D) why don't you play those instead? Verant/Sony continues to get subscription money and they can pour tons of resources into server hardware, improving the game, etc. If you think $10 a month is too much to pay, do you ever actually buy any games?
It would be nice if they didn't charge you $40 to get EQ to begin with though. You'd think they'd make more in the long run if the original CD was less.
That's the thing. Every player should be allowed to be a hero, even if it isn't realistic. This is a game not a simulation. Ultima Online is a little bit less fun due to the fact that so many characters end up building chairs for a living to get ahead. :)
Sorry, my mom said I have to be nice to the people on the computer. Disregard my last message.
Is every OS really equal or is that just postmodernism?
In the health care industry there is a loose (i.e. loosely followed) message standard called HL7 (health level 7) which is a delimited format. However they have been working on 3.0 which is based on XML. I have heard that Microsoft is very much interested and involved in this new standard. Also I went to an XML seminar (read: marketing) where they described the BizTalk (business world XML messaging) XML standard as well as their (vaporware as of yet?) XML message server. I get the feeling MS sees XML being an important standard across all industries.
I gave the license a once-over look and I don't think it is any kind of Free software, either from a BSD, GPL, or OSD perspective.
v ersions sense either.
Yes it has the advertising clause a la old-school BSD license. It does provide the right to redistribute modifications, however it does not give you the right to restrict the rights of those you sell your version of the program to, so it is not really like BSD at all. It would be more like GPL except there are other things that make it not like GPL.
Firstly, you do not have the right to run the software for any purpose you wish. It says "Educational use only." I assume this means, running in an educational environment as opposed to education from the program itself but it is still a discriminator license that would NOT meet the open source definition.
Unlike any Free software license I've ever seen, you cannot charge fees to license the software. However they leave gaping loopholes for what you can charge for so it is not that big a deal.
I see no mention of source code (does that apply to this product? I'm only looking at the license posted and not what the product itself is) so I'm not sure if it qualifies as free software in the GPL sense. It isn't free in the BSD I-can-do-whatever-I-want-including-making-closed-
Starts at $5,000,000,000.00
Quantity 66
Seller (Rating) motorola001 (0)
Payment Visa/MasterCard, American Express, Discover, Money Order/Cashiers Checks, Personal Checks
Shipping Not applicable
A REAL COLLECTORS ITEM. COMPLETE SET. ONE OF A KIND. LIKE NEW CONDITION. HARDLY BEEN USED.
The article goes to great pains to explain that MS never said it was like open source and if they did they would get flamed the way Sun did. So what do I see next on Slashdot? "Microsoft Trying To Look Open Source With CE"
Funny topic line... Hackers is one of my favorite movies to re-watch.
"This is a wakeup call to the Nintendo generation. We require free access to information. Well that comes with a little responsibility."
(or something)
The Patent Office
Accepts troll patent. What's next?
Natalie Portman?!
In one scene, the female astronaut flies out into space to rescue her husband. As we all [should] know, acceleration is provided by the jetpack fuel. But not in this movie... in this movie if you want to move 100 yards in space, you need 100 units of fuel. If you want move 50 yards in space you need 50 units of fuel. Thus, she doesn't have enough fuel to get there and back. When she stops firing her thrusters she stops getting closer to her husband. In real life, you can accelerate and coast to your destination without using fuel. Bah. Did they play out the scene with her reaction to his death long enough? I'm sure it was a real tear jerker scene to people who weren't thrown off by the bad physics. Oh wait, it still was a lame scene? Ok. Armageddon may have had 10 times worse physics than this movie, but at least they were excited to be in space unlike these dead weights. (insert droning voice here) "We're losing pressure, let's work the problem people."
I have a DSL "modem" that uses NAT. It's kind of nice that I can hook up multiple computers to the internet at home, but I run into other problems. It is a pain trying to log onto IRC because identd does not get through. Also, I can't really run any kind of server at home and expect it to work because NAT won't let anything through, and I think even if I tinkered with the tables in the modem, the IP address to the outside world is dynamic. I think with uswest.net, if I want to have a static IP and all that, I will have to order business-level service ($$$) instead of home luser service.
It's kind of like the pony express I suppose.
The problem of course is the phones and airtime were too expensive, and they didn't work indoors.
I have a poster up in my house called "The Spirit of Iridium." Looks like that is all it is going to be... an idea.
By your logic, slashdot should change the Microsoft icon too. If you want unbiased, go to... oh wait, no one is unbiased. Oh well. :)
damn nVidia
when I heard scrambled source code
Sorry I bought one.
Your point is addressed directly by O'Reilly's response letter. Namedly, Tim O'Reilly doesn't think the patent covers as much as Tim originally thought.