Remember to tell people that before you evangelize them on Live CD's, or they'll come away thinking that it's Linux that's slow.
Sadly, it's a mistake I made at the apartment complex where I live. They have two computers connected via cable modem to the Internet for use by the residents. One's running Win2K, the other Win98. Needless to say, the Win98 machine started crapping out after every single piece of spyware on the planet was eventually installed. They knew I was into computers, so they asked me to take a look. I sold them on the idea of using a Live CD (Knoppix) on the premise that never again would they have to worry about residents screwing around with the system.
For awhile, this worked, but eventually people started getting frustrated. I think the speed in loading applications was the major factor (another was fear that one of the residents would walk away with the CD.) They've since gotten management to buy another copy of Win2K.
Yes, I failed it. I assumed that they would understand that since it was running from a CD, that the experience would be slower.
In hindsight, I should have exploited Knoppix's ability to be installed to the hard drive. It would have given them most of what they wanted, and it would've run at an acceptible speed.
(yes, I know, *all* Linuxes can be installed to the hard drive, but the Knoppix install is basically the CD image sitting on the hard drive as read-only, which for this application had its virtues.)
It's tragic in another sense... the apartment complex has a large number of people from all over the world who generally end up staying for relatively short periods of time, so their English isn't first rate. Good--and easy to use--i18n support would be a great help to many of them to be sure. I could have actually gotten interested in working on this aspect of Linux (really, KDE) as I've torn out quite a bit of hair trying to come to terms with this problem set, and having people who actually *use* foreign languages as my testers would have been invaluable, to say the least (I don't know a foreign language.)
I watched the press conference on NASA-TV and they talked about how the thing wouldn't go to sleep at night and so it got me to wondering about the low power question. Obviously they have the rover power off when power gets to a certain level, but what if that level is slightly off?
In other words, if the onboard CPU has enough power and continues to run but the memory doesn't have enough power, doesn't that cause all kinds of wackiness?
They keep talking about the data pointing to simultaneous faults... well, as programmers we know these are the very worst kinds of bugs to deal with, but with something as (I'm assuming) well written as their code, so doesn't that point to a memory problem? I mean, the think is working flat-out beautifully one moment, and then the next moment it goes tits up.
The other question I had concerned this motor they had turned on but which didn't complete its sequence. When they command the motor to do something, do they tell it to run for some interval of time, or do they tell it to achieve a specific position? I was thinking that if it's the latter, and then if it gets stuck somehow, this could create the low power situation as the motor just grinds away.
I read the fucking article. It *is* the format that Microsoft seeks the patent on... if you can control the way somebody accesses a file, you effectively control the format.
The simple example is patenting the text file. You would say that no, they aren't actually patenting the format, but that's essentially meaningless if they patent the technique of reading the file sequentially from beginning to end one byte at a time.
I never said they were trying to patent XML. What I did say was that they were trying to patent the data expressed by XML (or at least that was my intent.) To me, an application of XML is just as much a file format as is, say, saving the data in flat binary, or as text, etc.
Did I miss a memo, or is this a truly sinister precedent? It suggests that every kind of application will now be able to patent the way it saves data, thereby denying others the opportunity to import data from that file.
It also destroys what was the entire rationale for XML, doesn't it? What's the point of a convenient medium through which information may be exchanged if everybody starts patenting their DTD's?
Brace yourself for the next version of DOM/SAX/XPath that not only checks to see if the document is well-formed and/or valid, but that also constrains your access to that document based on some new kind of hybrid between DRM and XML Schema.
UnauthorizedAccessException: You do not have the credentials necessary to access attribute 'bar' of element 'foo'. Your IP address has been logged.
It's shit like this that makes me want to get out of computers and get into chemistry.
If those of us who have concerns about the direction of so-called intellectual property laws don't take the time to actually read and understand those laws...
and then say:
So.... Why protect databases made by educational institutions? I dunno.
So you want to criticize me for not reading and understanding the law here in one breath, and in the next you gladly confess your own ignorance of this very same law.
That's beautiful.
Your lame assertions notwithstanding, I read the legislation. I paid particular attention to two features, first, the fact that law is not excluded, even though something like a domain registry is, and second, that the exclusion concerning government-sourced data has a loophole the size of Wyoming.
Moreover, it doesn't say that only educational institutions can copyright this stuff. Educational institutions are included, but the wording clearly indicates that anyone can obtain the copyright in the course of engaging in "education."
As would be the case for a private firm selling access to the law. They would be engaging in education.
Indeed, as it is written, they would have a virtual monopoly on education in this particular subject matter.
I see you chose not to include the very next paragraph:
(2) EXCEPTION- Nothing in this section shall preclude protection under this Act for a database gathered, organized, or maintained by an employee or agent of an entity described in paragraph (1) that is acting outside the scope of such employment or agency, or by a Federal, State, or local educational institution, or its employees or agents, in the course of engaging in education, research, or scholarship.
Why protect activities related to education, research, or scholarship?
I only bring this up because I'm searching for a reason why they would do this, and I believe that lawyers and politicians feel very threatened by the public having cheap and ready access to the law.
My expectation is that once this law goes into effect, you'll see a number of states remove whatever databases they have that deal with law and assign those rights to a private company, which will be able to charge exhorbitant fees for access, and go after anyone who does the same on the basis that they copied their work, even if the material was independently compiled because there is no easy way to tell a copy of a copy from a copy of an original.
Anyone trying to create their own law database would find themselves in court, and because of the expense, they'd give up before ever going to trial.
This will be a win for Lexis I think.
(and yes, I *like* my tin-foil hat.)
Re:SCO being a member of United Linux...
on
United Linux Dead
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
But they want everybody who uses Linux to pay up, including the people who used the distros produced by the other players in United Linux, even though those distributions were free when SCO joined United Linux.
I think the better analogy is this: CocaCola sells cola. Pepsi and Royal Crown come along and they start selling cola too. Then they all decide to create an organization called United Cola to work on better, um, making their colas taste the same (or something.) Then CocaCola later decides to sue Pepsi and Royal Crown for making cola!
They can't do that! Their joining United Cola gave tacit approval to Pepsi and Royal Crown to make cola.
You can't just bait people like this. People start investing in Pepsi and Royal Crown based on CocaCola's implicit consent. Factories are built, delivery trucks are bought, etc.
There was a time to say "No", and SCO instead said "Yes." So let's move on.
Re:SCO being a member of United Linux...
on
United Linux Dead
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But that's my point... doesn't their membership in UL necessarily obviate any IP claims they have on Linux?
IANAL, but isn't it like how you have to actively defend your trademark, or you lose all your rights to it?
SCO being a member of United Linux...
on
United Linux Dead
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...is like Madonna running a mirror for suprnova.org, isn't it?
Or to put it another way, why would SCO join an organization designed to standardize the way in which their IP rights are violated?
Unless of course they have no IP claims to begin with. Which they don't. And we know that. And so did SCO, at one point in time.
I don't understand why that fact alone doesn't throw this whole case out.
Thinking clearly is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for a programmer.
Of course it is.
Programming obviously involves a lot of domain-specific knowledge.
Only when the project at hand requires it. There are an infinite number of projects that don't.
Most of the times, code doesn't break because the programmer didn't think clearly, but because he was unaware of the full range of inputs.
Because he didn't think the problem through.
You might as well say that programmers get minute-by-minute feedback on the quality of their typing. It is true, but for a skilled programmer, it is largely irrelevant.
A skilled programmer being someone who has gone through the discipline of being a bad programmer, which is basically learning about all the different ways of approaching a problem, good, and bad.
The skilled programmer primarily gets feedback on the quality of his model.
The quality of his model depends on the quality of his thought processes, doesn't it?
What air cover? What do you think air cover is going to accomplish? Cutting down on the time it takes for HQ to learn that the truck has been hit by an RPG?
What good is air cover going to do? One RPG is all it takes... ain't a thing that air cover is going to do about that (or do you propose gunning down every passing vehicle/individual en route?)
Besides, the RPG's are a threat to most all vehicles in threater. The guerrilas are clearly going for American lives, not fuel, and since you're looking at one man per fuel truck, it makes for a low-priority target.
So no costs for air cover.
And see my reply to a previous poster... I was wrong to say that the salary being paid here is $50K. We'll just get an enlisted man to drive the truck.
Assign an enlisted man to drive the truck. We pay them peanuts after all, and Bush has rescinded/reduced combat pay.
So instead of $50 thou, we're looking at what? $15K?
As for the guerrilas with the RPG's, as we've seen now repeatedly, ALL vehicles in theater are subject to that threat. Ergo, an escort would be pointless.
The drive from Kuwait to Baghdad is approximately 400 miles. This means a truck can do at least one round trip between Kuwait and Baghdad per day.
That means that over the course of a year, this one truck with a driver that is paid, say, $50,000 a year, can haul 1,825,000 gallons of gas for a price of approximately $200,000 ($120,000 for the truck, $50,000 for the driver, and say $30,000 for incidentals... fuel, windshield wipers, those mud flap things with the pictures of naked woman on them... whatever.)
this is one of the FEW things that deserve a patent. just because it uses a common design (the wheel) does not mean that its application is not patantable.
So we get to patent things that use a common design, i.e., we get to patent things that have already been invented. It's been used for hundreds of years--no, strike that, it's been used for fucking millenia--but hey, it's Steve Jobs, so, like, let's all bend over.
You know, the tragic thing is that Apple keeps getting all this applause for innovation, but I can't think of a single idea they've contributed to the industry. Not one. Everything has been ripped off from others. *Everything.*
Microsoft does the same thing, sure, but they don't get away with claiming they innovate. Apple does.
I'm not arguing whether it is nice or not. I'm simply saying that it doesn't deserve a patent. I mean, c'mon, it's a wheel! People need to start getting a grip on reality here.
The fact that it responds differently to the rate of motion isn't original either. This is a tried-and-proven technique that goes all the way back to DOS, if not earlier.
The track pad can be easily programmed to behave in just this manner. Indeed, it depends on the software being used... in fact, I think this very approach was used by Strata3D to better allow for the manipulation of objects in 3D space.
It's stylish, it's useful, it's simple... but it isn't original. It's a wheel! And whether it's solid-state or made out of oak, it is still the same concept, a concept that has been with us for hundreds of years.
I shit you not, every time somebody would call on this line, a fucking klaxon goes off.
This company was extremely strange in other ways. The guy who founded it made tents for the Israeli army. He comes into my office one day and sees me debugging code. Mind you, this was a Mac shop, and the debugger on the Mac (Macsbug) does have an unusual appearance. He takes one look at it, and tells me I have a bug. Well, no shit, that's why I'm using the debugger! He says no, that the debugger is a bug, and that he can tell because of the way it makes my screen appear, and to please remove it immediately.
And how did he get his funding? A really big investment firm whose name shall remain, um, nameless. Turns out that one day they decide they're curious about what this guy is doing, so they send one of their drones over to take a look around. We sit him down in front of the lead programmer's computer, and show him the software that was being worked on. Mind you, this was a fairly involved piece of software, and though I didn't like the framework being used (THINK Class Library) it was nevertheless rather impressive. The drone followed the presentation carefully, or so it appeared, intently staring at the screen during each step of the presentation. Finally, about half an hour later, the presentation ends, and the drone is asked if he has any questions.
So he asks one.
"What's that little box in the lower right-hand corner for?"
He was talking about the grow box. You know, the thing that makes the window grow bigger and smaller.
So we demonstrate how you can change the size of the window. This, it turns out, was the most amazing thing he had ever seen! He starts nodding appreciatively, as if he's sure their investment in this company is a good thing after all. Then he leaves.
Slashdot Mirror
See for yourself.
Remember to tell people that before you evangelize them on Live CD's, or they'll come away thinking that it's Linux that's slow.
Sadly, it's a mistake I made at the apartment complex where I live. They have two computers connected via cable modem to the Internet for use by the residents. One's running Win2K, the other Win98. Needless to say, the Win98 machine started crapping out after every single piece of spyware on the planet was eventually installed. They knew I was into computers, so they asked me to take a look. I sold them on the idea of using a Live CD (Knoppix) on the premise that never again would they have to worry about residents screwing around with the system.
For awhile, this worked, but eventually people started getting frustrated. I think the speed in loading applications was the major factor (another was fear that one of the residents would walk away with the CD.) They've since gotten management to buy another copy of Win2K.
Yes, I failed it. I assumed that they would understand that since it was running from a CD, that the experience would be slower.
In hindsight, I should have exploited Knoppix's ability to be installed to the hard drive. It would have given them most of what they wanted, and it would've run at an acceptible speed.
(yes, I know, *all* Linuxes can be installed to the hard drive, but the Knoppix install is basically the CD image sitting on the hard drive as read-only, which for this application had its virtues.)
It's tragic in another sense... the apartment complex has a large number of people from all over the world who generally end up staying for relatively short periods of time, so their English isn't first rate. Good--and easy to use--i18n support would be a great help to many of them to be sure. I could have actually gotten interested in working on this aspect of Linux (really, KDE) as I've torn out quite a bit of hair trying to come to terms with this problem set, and having people who actually *use* foreign languages as my testers would have been invaluable, to say the least (I don't know a foreign language.)
I thought it was because the recording studios violated the license Kazaa is distributed under, which I guess counts as a copyright violation.
I wish them the best of luck.
I watched the press conference on NASA-TV and they talked about how the thing wouldn't go to sleep at night and so it got me to wondering about the low power question. Obviously they have the rover power off when power gets to a certain level, but what if that level is slightly off?
In other words, if the onboard CPU has enough power and continues to run but the memory doesn't have enough power, doesn't that cause all kinds of wackiness?
They keep talking about the data pointing to simultaneous faults... well, as programmers we know these are the very worst kinds of bugs to deal with, but with something as (I'm assuming) well written as their code, so doesn't that point to a memory problem? I mean, the think is working flat-out beautifully one moment, and then the next moment it goes tits up.
The other question I had concerned this motor they had turned on but which didn't complete its sequence. When they command the motor to do something, do they tell it to run for some interval of time, or do they tell it to achieve a specific position? I was thinking that if it's the latter, and then if it gets stuck somehow, this could create the low power situation as the motor just grinds away.
I read the fucking article. It *is* the format that Microsoft seeks the patent on... if you can control the way somebody accesses a file, you effectively control the format.
The simple example is patenting the text file. You would say that no, they aren't actually patenting the format, but that's essentially meaningless if they patent the technique of reading the file sequentially from beginning to end one byte at a time.
I never said they were trying to patent XML. What I did say was that they were trying to patent the data expressed by XML (or at least that was my intent.) To me, an application of XML is just as much a file format as is, say, saving the data in flat binary, or as text, etc.
It also destroys what was the entire rationale for XML, doesn't it? What's the point of a convenient medium through which information may be exchanged if everybody starts patenting their DTD's?
Brace yourself for the next version of DOM/SAX/XPath that not only checks to see if the document is well-formed and/or valid, but that also constrains your access to that document based on some new kind of hybrid between DRM and XML Schema.
It's shit like this that makes me want to get out of computers and get into chemistry.
You say:
If those of us who have concerns about the direction of so-called intellectual property laws don't take the time to actually read and understand those laws...
and then say:
So.... Why protect databases made by educational institutions? I dunno.
So you want to criticize me for not reading and understanding the law here in one breath, and in the next you gladly confess your own ignorance of this very same law.
That's beautiful.
Your lame assertions notwithstanding, I read the legislation. I paid particular attention to two features, first, the fact that law is not excluded, even though something like a domain registry is, and second, that the exclusion concerning government-sourced data has a loophole the size of Wyoming.
Moreover, it doesn't say that only educational institutions can copyright this stuff. Educational institutions are included, but the wording clearly indicates that anyone can obtain the copyright in the course of engaging in "education."
As would be the case for a private firm selling access to the law. They would be engaging in education.
Indeed, as it is written, they would have a virtual monopoly on education in this particular subject matter.
See?
Why protect activities related to education, research, or scholarship?
I only bring this up because I'm searching for a reason why they would do this, and I believe that lawyers and politicians feel very threatened by the public having cheap and ready access to the law.
My expectation is that once this law goes into effect, you'll see a number of states remove whatever databases they have that deal with law and assign those rights to a private company, which will be able to charge exhorbitant fees for access, and go after anyone who does the same on the basis that they copied their work, even if the material was independently compiled because there is no easy way to tell a copy of a copy from a copy of an original.
Anyone trying to create their own law database would find themselves in court, and because of the expense, they'd give up before ever going to trial.
This will be a win for Lexis I think.
(and yes, I *like* my tin-foil hat.)
But they want everybody who uses Linux to pay up, including the people who used the distros produced by the other players in United Linux, even though those distributions were free when SCO joined United Linux.
I think the better analogy is this: CocaCola sells cola. Pepsi and Royal Crown come along and they start selling cola too. Then they all decide to create an organization called United Cola to work on better, um, making their colas taste the same (or something.) Then CocaCola later decides to sue Pepsi and Royal Crown for making cola!
They can't do that! Their joining United Cola gave tacit approval to Pepsi and Royal Crown to make cola.
You can't just bait people like this. People start investing in Pepsi and Royal Crown based on CocaCola's implicit consent. Factories are built, delivery trucks are bought, etc.
There was a time to say "No", and SCO instead said "Yes." So let's move on.
But that's my point... doesn't their membership in UL necessarily obviate any IP claims they have on Linux?
IANAL, but isn't it like how you have to actively defend your trademark, or you lose all your rights to it?
...is like Madonna running a mirror for suprnova.org, isn't it?
Or to put it another way, why would SCO join an organization designed to standardize the way in which their IP rights are violated?
Unless of course they have no IP claims to begin with. Which they don't. And we know that. And so did SCO, at one point in time.
I don't understand why that fact alone doesn't throw this whole case out.
Sure, the Aqua interface is beautiful, but when mounted in a walnut panel?
What is the problem? Why can't they let us pick green, or pink, or what this car owner would probably like: some shade of brown.
(p.s. I love the picture of the four programmers entering Apple's Cupertino headquarters. Notice how the front door is even Aqua blue?)
A text editor? A game? A script that find duplicates in my vast collection of pr0n? A screensaver? A DBMS?
The thought process can be flawless, but if it's based on incorrect information, then the result will be junk.
I'm feeding a troll I think.
Obviously, part of a flawless thought process is ensuring that whatever information you need to complete a project isn't junk.
Enough with you.
Thinking clearly is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for a programmer.
Of course it is.
Programming obviously involves a lot of domain-specific knowledge.
Only when the project at hand requires it. There are an infinite number of projects that don't.
Most of the times, code doesn't break because the programmer didn't think clearly, but because he was unaware of the full range of inputs.
Because he didn't think the problem through.
You might as well say that programmers get minute-by-minute feedback on the quality of their typing. It is true, but for a skilled programmer, it is largely irrelevant.
A skilled programmer being someone who has gone through the discipline of being a bad programmer, which is basically learning about all the different ways of approaching a problem, good, and bad.
The skilled programmer primarily gets feedback on the quality of his model.
The quality of his model depends on the quality of his thought processes, doesn't it?
Then download some more.
The guys who are escorting the trucks are military, so they get paid peanuts anyways (don't even get combat pay, thanks to the Bushie.)
So we're talking two, maybe three Humvees for a convoy of what, a dozen trucks?
The overhead is negligible.
(and btw, I take back the idea of paying the driver $50K... you just assign an enlisted man to do that too.)
What air cover? What do you think air cover is going to accomplish? Cutting down on the time it takes for HQ to learn that the truck has been hit by an RPG?
What good is air cover going to do? One RPG is all it takes... ain't a thing that air cover is going to do about that (or do you propose gunning down every passing vehicle/individual en route?)
Besides, the RPG's are a threat to most all vehicles in threater. The guerrilas are clearly going for American lives, not fuel, and since you're looking at one man per fuel truck, it makes for a low-priority target.
So no costs for air cover.
And see my reply to a previous poster... I was wrong to say that the salary being paid here is $50K. We'll just get an enlisted man to drive the truck.
You know what, I was wrong.
Assign an enlisted man to drive the truck. We pay them peanuts after all, and Bush has rescinded/reduced combat pay.
So instead of $50 thou, we're looking at what? $15K?
As for the guerrilas with the RPG's, as we've seen now repeatedly, ALL vehicles in theater are subject to that threat. Ergo, an escort would be pointless.
Here's a tank truck that can carry 5000 gallons of gas. You can get one for less than $120,000.
The drive from Kuwait to Baghdad is approximately 400 miles. This means a truck can do at least one round trip between Kuwait and Baghdad per day.
That means that over the course of a year, this one truck with a driver that is paid, say, $50,000 a year, can haul 1,825,000 gallons of gas for a price of approximately $200,000 ($120,000 for the truck, $50,000 for the driver, and say $30,000 for incidentals... fuel, windshield wipers, those mud flap things with the pictures of naked woman on them... whatever.)
That works out to about $.10 per gallon.
The Pentagon is paying $40 per gallon.
Check this out.
He first asks:
Are you retarded?
And then goes on to say the following:
this is one of the FEW things that deserve a patent. just because it uses a common design (the wheel) does not mean that its application is not patantable.
So we get to patent things that use a common design, i.e., we get to patent things that have already been invented. It's been used for hundreds of years--no, strike that, it's been used for fucking millenia--but hey, it's Steve Jobs, so, like, let's all bend over.
You know, the tragic thing is that Apple keeps getting all this applause for innovation, but I can't think of a single idea they've contributed to the industry. Not one. Everything has been ripped off from others. *Everything.*
Microsoft does the same thing, sure, but they don't get away with claiming they innovate. Apple does.
Why is that?
Yes, I've used it. It's a nice device.
I'm not arguing whether it is nice or not. I'm simply saying that it doesn't deserve a patent. I mean, c'mon, it's a wheel! People need to start getting a grip on reality here.
The fact that it responds differently to the rate of motion isn't original either. This is a tried-and-proven technique that goes all the way back to DOS, if not earlier.
The track pad can be easily programmed to behave in just this manner. Indeed, it depends on the software being used... in fact, I think this very approach was used by Strata3D to better allow for the manipulation of objects in 3D space.
It's stylish, it's useful, it's simple... but it isn't original. It's a wheel! And whether it's solid-state or made out of oak, it is still the same concept, a concept that has been with us for hundreds of years.
I shit you not, every time somebody would call on this line, a fucking klaxon goes off.
This company was extremely strange in other ways. The guy who founded it made tents for the Israeli army. He comes into my office one day and sees me debugging code. Mind you, this was a Mac shop, and the debugger on the Mac (Macsbug) does have an unusual appearance. He takes one look at it, and tells me I have a bug. Well, no shit, that's why I'm using the debugger! He says no, that the debugger is a bug, and that he can tell because of the way it makes my screen appear, and to please remove it immediately.
And how did he get his funding? A really big investment firm whose name shall remain, um, nameless. Turns out that one day they decide they're curious about what this guy is doing, so they send one of their drones over to take a look around. We sit him down in front of the lead programmer's computer, and show him the software that was being worked on. Mind you, this was a fairly involved piece of software, and though I didn't like the framework being used (THINK Class Library) it was nevertheless rather impressive. The drone followed the presentation carefully, or so it appeared, intently staring at the screen during each step of the presentation. Finally, about half an hour later, the presentation ends, and the drone is asked if he has any questions.
So he asks one.
"What's that little box in the lower right-hand corner for?"
He was talking about the grow box. You know, the thing that makes the window grow bigger and smaller.
So we demonstrate how you can change the size of the window. This, it turns out, was the most amazing thing he had ever seen! He starts nodding appreciatively, as if he's sure their investment in this company is a good thing after all. Then he leaves.
I think this is when I started smoking pot.