One option is to pay an experienced independent (ie. someone who doesn't sell their own hardware or have affiliation with a hardware vendor) person to make the decision for you. If it costs 5% of the purchase price and the person saves you from buying a lemon (or even saves you 6% on th system) hasn't that been a good investment?
Perhaps consider using a team member from a free software clustering project as your consultant (check credential though)? That way you hopefully get someone who is an expert and will be up front with you.
IMO that's a good thing, which I don't think you should ever change. It keeps costs low, which reduces the need for donations, which reduces potential for corruption. It also allows 'average citizens' toget involved on an equal footing.
>2. Email comms probably aren't the best things to keep completely online and open. People have an expectation that their communications with someone are reasonably private unless they've consented to having them made public.
Hmmm. I would question this assumption. Agreed, one should not post private communication without consent, but what if it was made obvious upfront that ALL communication is public? It may seem unrealistic but I reckon it would work. It would make corruption very difficult. It would make the truth mandatory (as many eyes make all bugs shallow so many eyes make all lies shallow). It would encourage participation as people could trully judge whether the party is something they want to get involved with.
I've sometimes wondered what would be the effect of a politician keeping themselves wired for sound and video at all times and broadcasting on the web in real time, like a political version of the now defunct Jennicam. Guranteed it would get publicity, maybe even enough to win a senate seat. It would be interesting to see how the speaker would deal with a member who refused to turn off their webcam.
I seem to have gotten quite the wrong idea about some aspects of the neteffect party. Rather than requiring people to trawl through the forum, perhaps update the website to better convery what the party is about? Sure I should have read the sight more closely, but I probably read more than most people will abnd surely you don't want them getting the wrong impression?
I've read quiet a bit of your web site. Personally I find it a bit airy-fairy. It needs less words and more meaning to those words.
I find the web site to be "non-tansparent" in that it has little information on the status of the party and what is really going on. If you're one guy operating out of a corner of your bedroom be up front about that. Be uncompromising in your approach to openness. That will set you apart from the other parties. Why not have *everything* visible on your website?
A list of all donations received, how much and where from.
An email archive of all communication you have ever made with anyone about the party.
An undertaking to put the best people forward for the job, even if those people don't include you.
I understand that some of the shortcomings might be due to lack of time to maitain the website. Why not delegate the job? (I'm not volunteering.)
What about a wiki, or similar, where policy is developed? Mailing lists for the same? At the moment the website gives the impression that the party is very much under your control. If this isn't the case make the structure of the website reflect that better.
In the spirit of software reuse, have you *REALLY* looked into how the existing parties work and whether joining one of them might be a more productive option? Your position (as fas as I can tell) doesn't seem to be that far removed from the Greens. (No I'm not a Greens member.)
I hope this criticism is constructive. No doubt some of what I have said is idealistic, but IMHO it's worth striving for an ideal even if you never get there. I'm all for your effort and admire what you are trying to do. Keep plugging away! I still wouldn't vote for you right now though as I don't think you have yet figured what you represent.
It goes without saying that all of the above is my fallible personal opinion.
The flip side to this is that we as a community need to produce quality free (as in freedom) replacements for all copyrighted works. Music, books, movies, software, you name it. Don't force the masses away from DRM, lead them away.
We don't have to produce the same volume as the proprietory closed source people, just a smaller quantity of high quality stuff. Enough to drag people's eyeballs and ears away from DRM encumbered stuff long enough for them to realise there is another world out there.
There is serious money to be had here for the entrepreneurs. Think about it, if your product has lower barriers to use you have to pick up at least a portion of the market. Most of the cost of producing a copyrighted work is the advertising. Removing DRM allows word of mouth to do its work, elminiating the need for an advertising budget. The savings on advertising will more than offset the "cost" of those who chose regularly access your work and not pay.
It requires BOTH countries to sign it to come into force. Bush's signature means the US is onboard, but Australia has yet to complete its end.
Apparently the two countries have to exchange letters on 1st October certifying that they have all prerequisites (including legislation) in place. Then the agreement comes into force on 1st January 2005. No legislation. No letters. No FTA.
A pity about the FTA dying (I'm all for free trade). If the US+AU governments hadn't tried to use the FTA legislation as a vehicle for other purposes we could have had reasonable legislation AND free trade. If the current deal fails (please!), hopefully the next government will negotiate a REAL deal with no excess baggage.
The opposition has attached two
non-negotiable conditions
to their support of the "Free" Trade Agreement legislation. The government has said will not agree
to one of these conditions. This might delay the passage of the legislation until after the
next election, by which time the balance of power could have changed and the legislation can
be considered on its merits instead of political manoeuvring. If the deadlock is never resolved
the legislation might die a natural death.
Anyone get the feeling that IBM's new busines model is to donate any unused code to an open source software foundation and claim a corresponding amount ($85M in this case) on tax?
> If you live everyday like it is your last you will have never prepared for the future. Instead I think you would want to live everyday as "how you would like to be remembered if you were to die tomorrow".
I disagree. I think that is an implicitly selfish position. Here are my reasons:
a) It implies that there is no future past your own death (tomorrow). That is false. Instead you can choose to live your life to the benefit of others, who will survive you.
b) Personally, I think that one's own reputation being top priority is a tad narcissistic. Okay, you might end up with a good reputation, but that should be as a result of helping others, not by design. Here's a thought experiment. If one's own reputation is the overriding factor, would it be acceptable to live an 'evil' life behind a respectable farcade?
Don't fall into the trap of automatically associating death with morbidity and assuming that hope is lost in the face of death. If death instills a sense of fear (apart from wonder of the unknown), I would contend that all is not right in life.
In my view, living life as if you are going to die tomorrow can have the following effects:
It forces you to live for the benefit of others. (What use is screwing others for wealth? You're dead tomorrow. At the same time you have to have enough wealth to look after those who depend on you.)
It forces you to live for today. Don't put things of as you will be dead tomorrow. Don't get caught up in a career you hate or defer spending time with those you love.
The biggest shortcoming in my position (apart from the fact I find it too difficult to live up to myself) is that one has to avoid a selfish preoccupation with tomorrow's death.
What's a computational neuroscientist do? Does the field aim to create a complete computer simulation of a brain, or is it more in the area of applying biological/neural techniquies to man made machines?
How does a molecule 'learn'? Is there some permanent rearrangement of the molecules in the protein? Is it the case that the energy of the molecule has several local minima, and the process of 'learning' is actually making the protein jump into a new 'energy valley'? I'm curious.
FPGAs still lag ASICs in terms of speed, logic density and power consumption.
Yes, I can see that for specialised applications FPGAs might surplant ASICs. As feature sizes shrink and mask costs go up, the production volume at which FPGAs are cheaper will only increase.
For less specialised applications, such as consumer goods, I think a 'universal SoC' might still happen. In large quantities I suspect the cost of an FPGA might be similar to that of a universal SoC. The SoC would win out in speed ('fuses' slow FPGAs down) and power consumption (the unused parts of the SoC can be turned off).
I do remember though that HP was working on a nanotube based ASIC process in which it turned out that every chip was an FPGA. From memory it involved laying carbon nanotubes aross each other and fuses were formed wherever tubes crossed each other.
I wonder if we will see the rise of a 'universal chip' that contains every consumer device known to mankind. It will be cheaper to manufacture billions of this all-in-one chip than to tool up to produce individual more specialised chips by the million.
The universal chip will be installed in every device then 'underclocked' so it only exposes the functionality that a consumer has paid for.
If it happens, it might make for some interesting hacks.
I prefer bit/s/Hz, as I consider it to be more consistent than bps/Hz. Why should one 'per' be represented by a 'p' while another is represented by a slash? I use slash over 'p' as it allows direct cancelling of units during calculations.
I also prefer Hertz to cycles as Hertz is an SI unit but cycles is not.
I'm not going to be a unit Nazi and say that either your opinions are wrong. I am of the opinion though that consistent use of SI units comes into its own when carrying units though complex calculations.
First time I've ever heard the term funky applied to unit analysis. Next you'll be telling me that it can be used to attract members of the opposite sex!
300Mps in the lab is meaningless. If you have a GHz of spectrum available one can easily achieve 300Mbit/s using 20 year old technology.
The proper question is "What is the spectral efficiency?"
Spectral efficiency is a measure of the data throughput per unit of bandwidth. It is measured in bits per second per Hertz (bit/s/Hz).
Existing WLANS get around 4-5 bit/s/Hz under ideal conditions. State of the art lab demonstrations get in the range 20-40 bit/s/Hz. To put this in context, 20-40 bit/s/Hz is the equivalent of >400Mbit/s in an existing 22MHz WiFi channel.
So, does anyone know the spectral efficiency of Motorola's system?
You have just illustrated a shortcoming of proprietory software. MS (or predecessor) wrote a library, licensed it to Adobe and that is where it stayed.
*If* MS and Adobe were free software projects, Adobe would have gotten its simplified PNG library and had a product to market just as quickly. Another person could then have come along and at a later date and implemented the remaining filters. In this way Adobe gets a working product quickly, but at a later any missing features get filled in.
As it is the proprietory model delivered the fast product, but missed out on the 'incremental improvement' stage.
To play devil's advocate with myself,as it just occured to me that a second analogy might also apply:
I give you the binary, source and $1,000,000. At the time I also ask you to agree that if you redistribute the source you have to give the $1,000,000 back.
Does giving $1,000,000 back, that isn't yours anyway, constitute a restriction? Is an incentive different to a restriction? I think my brain is going to explode...
Perhaps the best course of action is to fork the code and ignore Sveasoft? It's also worth noting that Sveasoft's business model doesn't prevent someone who is concerned about software freedom from ignoring Sveasoft's incentive and distributing the current source to a forked project.
It seems to come down to whether cancelling the subscription is a restriction.
In my *opinion* it is. This would be especially so if a subscription has cost money, so the cancellation translates into a direct financial penalty.
Here's an analogy (dangerous). I give you the binary and source in exchange for a bond of $1,000,000 and you signing a contract that if you redistribute the source you forfeit your $1,000,000 bond. Is this in violation of the GPL? I would say yes, as the bond represents a restriction.
As I see it, the sitiuation with Sveasoft is the same, only the value of the bond is access to future binaries (not $1,000,000).
I guess a judge would have to rule whether the magnitude of the 'bond' is large enough to be considered a restriction.
My understanding is that the only way to get the source code is to have a subscription.
Is having a subscription a prerequisite for getting the binary? Does a subscription cost money? Is the $49 how much it costs Sveasoft to make the CD? The answers can be "yes", "yes", "yes" and things are still okay.
If you redistriute the source code, Sveasoft says "subscription cancelled", so the act of redistribution has just cost you something (the remainer of your subscription).
You received the code under the conditions of the GPL, which allows copying and also says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Cancellation of the subscription can be seen as a cost, which I would interpret to be a restriction (which is not allowed).
Yes, Sveasoft is free to cancel a subscription, but the reason for cancellation cannot be for exercising rights granted by the GPL. Otherwise Sveasoft has violated the GPL. The 'after the event' nature of the restriction still doesn't change the fact that it is a restriction.
I will correct myself on the above, rather than a free subscription, the binary has to come with an AT COST subscription. There is always a debate as to what costs are. Maybe $49 can be demonstrated to be the cost of distribution.
By my reading it is illegal for Sveasoft to cancel a subscription if source is redistributed, as it can then be demonstrated that the $49 isn't really a cost. They would possibly be on safer ground if they charged $49 for *each* download of the source and argued that $49 is how much it costs them to handle one download.
In summary, Sevasoft is wrong to make a link between source code access and redistribution. THAT is what the GPL outlaws.
The GPL does not allow additional restrictions, such as demanding money for the source code after the bianry has been distributed.
Sveasoft cannot refuse source access FOR THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A BINARY FROM THEM. Refusal to pay for a subscription is not a valid reason for restricting source access (once binaries have been sold). Consequently the GPL implies that every binary bought from Sveasoft must come with a free subscription to the source code. Sveasoft are not free to cancel this subscription if the source is redistributed.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps consider using a team member from a free software clustering project as your consultant (check credential though)? That way you hopefully get someone who is an expert and will be up front with you.
IMO that's a good thing, which I don't think you should ever change. It keeps costs low, which reduces the need for donations, which reduces potential for corruption. It also allows 'average citizens' toget involved on an equal footing.
>2. Email comms probably aren't the best things to keep completely online and open. People have an expectation that their communications with someone are reasonably private unless they've consented to having them made public.
Hmmm. I would question this assumption. Agreed, one should not post private communication without consent, but what if it was made obvious upfront that ALL communication is public? It may seem unrealistic but I reckon it would work. It would make corruption very difficult. It would make the truth mandatory (as many eyes make all bugs shallow so many eyes make all lies shallow). It would encourage participation as people could trully judge whether the party is something they want to get involved with.
I've sometimes wondered what would be the effect of a politician keeping themselves wired for sound and video at all times and broadcasting on the web in real time, like a political version of the now defunct Jennicam. Guranteed it would get publicity, maybe even enough to win a senate seat. It would be interesting to see how the speaker would deal with a member who refused to turn off their webcam.
I seem to have gotten quite the wrong idea about some aspects of the neteffect party. Rather than requiring people to trawl through the forum, perhaps update the website to better convery what the party is about? Sure I should have read the sight more closely, but I probably read more than most people will abnd surely you don't want them getting the wrong impression?
I find the web site to be "non-tansparent" in that it has little information on the status of the party and what is really going on. If you're one guy operating out of a corner of your bedroom be up front about that. Be uncompromising in your approach to openness. That will set you apart from the other parties. Why not have *everything* visible on your website?
I understand that some of the shortcomings might be due to lack of time to maitain the website. Why not delegate the job? (I'm not volunteering.)
What about a wiki, or similar, where policy is developed? Mailing lists for the same? At the moment the website gives the impression that the party is very much under your control. If this isn't the case make the structure of the website reflect that better.
In the spirit of software reuse, have you *REALLY* looked into how the existing parties work and whether joining one of them might be a more productive option? Your position (as fas as I can tell) doesn't seem to be that far removed from the Greens. (No I'm not a Greens member.)
I hope this criticism is constructive. No doubt some of what I have said is idealistic, but IMHO it's worth striving for an ideal even if you never get there. I'm all for your effort and admire what you are trying to do. Keep plugging away! I still wouldn't vote for you right now though as I don't think you have yet figured what you represent.
It goes without saying that all of the above is my fallible personal opinion.
We don't have to produce the same volume as the proprietory closed source people, just a smaller quantity of high quality stuff. Enough to drag people's eyeballs and ears away from DRM encumbered stuff long enough for them to realise there is another world out there.
There is serious money to be had here for the entrepreneurs. Think about it, if your product has lower barriers to use you have to pick up at least a portion of the market. Most of the cost of producing a copyrighted work is the advertising. Removing DRM allows word of mouth to do its work, elminiating the need for an advertising budget. The savings on advertising will more than offset the "cost" of those who chose regularly access your work and not pay.
Apparently the two countries have to exchange letters on 1st October certifying that they have all prerequisites (including legislation) in place. Then the agreement comes into force on 1st January 2005. No legislation. No letters. No FTA.
A pity about the FTA dying (I'm all for free trade). If the US+AU governments hadn't tried to use the FTA legislation as a vehicle for other purposes we could have had reasonable legislation AND free trade. If the current deal fails (please!), hopefully the next government will negotiate a REAL deal with no excess baggage.
The opposition has attached two non-negotiable conditions to their support of the "Free" Trade Agreement legislation. The government has said will not agree to one of these conditions. This might delay the passage of the legislation until after the next election, by which time the balance of power could have changed and the legislation can be considered on its merits instead of political manoeuvring. If the deadlock is never resolved the legislation might die a natural death.
Anyone get the feeling that IBM's new busines model is to donate any unused code to an open source software foundation and claim a corresponding amount ($85M in this case) on tax?
I disagree. I think that is an implicitly selfish position. Here are my reasons:
a) It implies that there is no future past your own death (tomorrow). That is false. Instead you can choose to live your life to the benefit of others, who will survive you.
b) Personally, I think that one's own reputation being top priority is a tad narcissistic. Okay, you might end up with a good reputation, but that should be as a result of helping others, not by design. Here's a thought experiment. If one's own reputation is the overriding factor, would it be acceptable to live an 'evil' life behind a respectable farcade?
Don't fall into the trap of automatically associating death with morbidity and assuming that hope is lost in the face of death. If death instills a sense of fear (apart from wonder of the unknown), I would contend that all is not right in life.
In my view, living life as if you are going to die tomorrow can have the following effects:
The biggest shortcoming in my position (apart from the fact I find it too difficult to live up to myself) is that one has to avoid a selfish preoccupation with tomorrow's death.
I look forward to a rebuttal!
Remember that everyone is a potential dead person. Live your life as if you are going to be dead tomorrow.
Trade deal a free kick for US software racketeers
What's a computational neuroscientist do? Does the field aim to create a complete computer simulation of a brain, or is it more in the area of applying biological/neural techniquies to man made machines?
How does a molecule 'learn'? Is there some permanent rearrangement of the molecules in the protein? Is it the case that the energy of the molecule has several local minima, and the process of 'learning' is actually making the protein jump into a new 'energy valley'? I'm curious.
Yes, I can see that for specialised applications FPGAs might surplant ASICs. As feature sizes shrink and mask costs go up, the production volume at which FPGAs are cheaper will only increase.
For less specialised applications, such as consumer goods, I think a 'universal SoC' might still happen. In large quantities I suspect the cost of an FPGA might be similar to that of a universal SoC. The SoC would win out in speed ('fuses' slow FPGAs down) and power consumption (the unused parts of the SoC can be turned off).
I do remember though that HP was working on a nanotube based ASIC process in which it turned out that every chip was an FPGA. From memory it involved laying carbon nanotubes aross each other and fuses were formed wherever tubes crossed each other.
The universal chip will be installed in every device then 'underclocked' so it only exposes the functionality that a consumer has paid for.
If it happens, it might make for some interesting hacks.
I also prefer Hertz to cycles as Hertz is an SI unit but cycles is not.
I'm not going to be a unit Nazi and say that either your opinions are wrong. I am of the opinion though that consistent use of SI units comes into its own when carrying units though complex calculations.
First time I've ever heard the term funky applied to unit analysis. Next you'll be telling me that it can be used to attract members of the opposite sex!
The proper question is "What is the spectral efficiency?"
Spectral efficiency is a measure of the data throughput per unit of bandwidth. It is measured in bits per second per Hertz (bit/s/Hz).
Existing WLANS get around 4-5 bit/s/Hz under ideal conditions. State of the art lab demonstrations get in the range 20-40 bit/s/Hz. To put this in context, 20-40 bit/s/Hz is the equivalent of >400Mbit/s in an existing 22MHz WiFi channel.
So, does anyone know the spectral efficiency of Motorola's system?
No doubt they have taken patents out, despite audio holograms being described in a speech at Dennis Garbor's 1971 Nobel prize ceremony. Presumably there are papers out there dating from 1950 as well.
People have also been using computers to generate holograms for years, so the algorithms can hardly be new.
*If* MS and Adobe were free software projects, Adobe would have gotten its simplified PNG library and had a product to market just as quickly. Another person could then have come along and at a later date and implemented the remaining filters. In this way Adobe gets a working product quickly, but at a later any missing features get filled in.
As it is the proprietory model delivered the fast product, but missed out on the 'incremental improvement' stage.
I give you the binary, source and $1,000,000. At the time I also ask you to agree that if you redistribute the source you have to give the $1,000,000 back.
Does giving $1,000,000 back, that isn't yours anyway, constitute a restriction? Is an incentive different to a restriction? I think my brain is going to explode...
Perhaps the best course of action is to fork the code and ignore Sveasoft? It's also worth noting that Sveasoft's business model doesn't prevent someone who is concerned about software freedom from ignoring Sveasoft's incentive and distributing the current source to a forked project.
In my *opinion* it is. This would be especially so if a subscription has cost money, so the cancellation translates into a direct financial penalty.
Here's an analogy (dangerous). I give you the binary and source in exchange for a bond of $1,000,000 and you signing a contract that if you redistribute the source you forfeit your $1,000,000 bond. Is this in violation of the GPL? I would say yes, as the bond represents a restriction.
As I see it, the sitiuation with Sveasoft is the same, only the value of the bond is access to future binaries (not $1,000,000).
I guess a judge would have to rule whether the magnitude of the 'bond' is large enough to be considered a restriction.
Is having a subscription a prerequisite for getting the binary? Does a subscription cost money? Is the $49 how much it costs Sveasoft to make the CD? The answers can be "yes", "yes", "yes" and things are still okay.
If you redistriute the source code, Sveasoft says "subscription cancelled", so the act of redistribution has just cost you something (the remainer of your subscription).
You received the code under the conditions of the GPL, which allows copying and also says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Cancellation of the subscription can be seen as a cost, which I would interpret to be a restriction (which is not allowed).
Yes, Sveasoft is free to cancel a subscription, but the reason for cancellation cannot be for exercising rights granted by the GPL. Otherwise Sveasoft has violated the GPL. The 'after the event' nature of the restriction still doesn't change the fact that it is a restriction.
By my reading it is illegal for Sveasoft to cancel a subscription if source is redistributed, as it can then be demonstrated that the $49 isn't really a cost. They would possibly be on safer ground if they charged $49 for *each* download of the source and argued that $49 is how much it costs them to handle one download.
In summary, Sevasoft is wrong to make a link between source code access and redistribution. THAT is what the GPL outlaws.
Sveasoft cannot refuse source access FOR THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A BINARY FROM THEM. Refusal to pay for a subscription is not a valid reason for restricting source access (once binaries have been sold). Consequently the GPL implies that every binary bought from Sveasoft must come with a free subscription to the source code. Sveasoft are not free to cancel this subscription if the source is redistributed.
Filing date of patent = April 20, 2000
From the dselect ChangeLog:
Deselect has priority by at least 5 years.
That's the problem with the patent system. Teleshuttle Technologies has had a free ride from Debian and now wants everything to itself.
Perhaps some of the sites blocked aren't child porn?