Most likely, this means that it will only end up in GPL projects, as a BSD-License can lead to some very shaky grey-area with this aspect of the source licensing.
From the PDF:
All licenses certified by opensource.org and listed on their website [link added to original text] as of 01/11/2005 are Open Source Software licenses for the purpose of this pledge..
Specifically, this means (unless someone else gets certified later today):
Academic Free License(please ignore this text, added to get round lameness filter on line length)
Where's IBM's lawyers and why haven't they sued Microsoft's pants off yet?
Remember that IP can be licensed to multiple parties with different conditions. It's entirely possible that IBM has already licensed some or all of these patents to commercial entitites (including Microsoft) on commercial terms.
I ended up writing my own Content Management System
See, this always annoys the hell out of me - why do so many people feel they have to write their own CMS from scratch when there are so many competent CMS platforms out there, both OSS and proprietory.
In 1999, this made sense, as to have a CMS, you were paying $200k+ for Broadvision, Vignette or Interwoven TeamSite. But now? You're joking, right? The only good reasons for writing your own now are:
You plan to sell it, and can make it better than the competition
To learn how to do it
Vanity
I strongly suspect the reason most people do it is the last one.
I find it pretty amazing that dreamweaver templates are still being used. My school started with templates and found them too buggy and complicated so we switched to contribute.
Errmmm what do you think is used to set up the templates and define editable regions for Contribute? Yep, DW templates. And that's why having DW templating in OSS tools is useful - so PLU® (People Like Us) can set up sites for PLT® (People Like Them: aka non-technical people or Clients) to maintain without PLU having to pay the large amount that DW costs - PLT can just buy the relatively affordable and easy to use Contribute.
I don't WANT a huge barge like an A6. I want a nice little Golf that scoots around peppily and happily and fits in tiny little parking spaces and doesn't use a ton of gas and is a heck of a lot more fun to drive than the aforementioned (relative) barge.
You do know that the A3 is an Audi-badged Golf right? And that the TT is also built on the same platform? (as is the Beetle, the Brora and one of the Seats). The A3 is one sweet little car - I had one (mmm a Quattro) for a few years until I moved to a Prius.
Couple of things (as well as the very valid points already made about trying to order a non-standard ThinkPad as a one off):
IBM internally is challenging itself to move to Desktop Linux. I doubt it'll be on the basis of re-imaging all those ThinkPads, but will instead be in the standard refresh programme: when you get your new ThinkPad, it'll be Linux.
If you look at any recent (last year or two) Thinkpad, you'll note a lack of Windows key - there's no assumption there that the OS will be Windows.
Being able to buy (or not) a Thinkpad with Linux or no OS will very soon no longer be an indicator of any IBM thinking - like the rest of personal computing, the ThinkPad range will be owned by Lenovo as of 2Q05.
(Disclosure: I work for IBM, but in an entirely unrelated area of IGS)
nor have I ever owned any firearm more powerful than a BB gun. But I want the right to acquire one if I feel sufficiently threatened (by anyone or anything.) That's what the Founding Fathers wanted, and so far as I'm aware there's been no Constitutional Amendment that says otherwise.
errrmmmm nope. Go read the 2nd amendment again. And this time, start at the beginning of it:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The logic goes as follows:
Premise 1: The security of a free state needs a well-regulated militia
Premise 2: A well-regulated militia needs the people to keep and bear arms
Conclusion: The people need to keep and bear arms to form a well-regulated militia and therefore ensure the security of a free state
So if you feel the security of the free state (NB not you personally) is sufficiently threatened that you feel a need to form a well-ordered militia, then go ahead and keep and bear your arms.
But as the nation as a whole - other than a very small minority - feels the security of the free state is quite well enough protected by the regular military, the military reserve, the national guard and various police forces, the need to form militias seems somewhat reduced.
Further, I'm wondering where you see the interpretation that such a militia is to defend the security of the free state against its government. And if it is, what chance does your militia stand against the regular military, military reserve, national guard and various police forces..?
Re:Someone has been reading too much Cryptonomicon
on
Intro to Encryption
·
· Score: 1
...and it should be noted, breaking it at any useful speed required the use of cribs - standard plaintext fragments (like the "Heil Hitler" signoff) that gave the breakers a start with each day.
this is one of the great things about Western society-- we inherited from our pagan ancestors a healthy separation of church and state.
*cough*EnlightenmentPhilosophersNotPagans*cough*.
You lot took it, along with much of the rest of the founding principles, from the French, specifically Voltaire and Montesquieu.
Those gentlemen were informed in turn by Paine, Hume and Locke, none of whom could be called pagans in the sense of a pre-christian heritage.
In the 17th and 18th Centuries, a secular state was a novel, radical concept, not some underlying thought from over a thousand years before (ie the time before Christianity became a state-sponsored religion). And even before that, state religions were standard practise, if only to deify the king/emperor.
The problem I have is that I like the high fidelity business type. I love shopping at the record stores where the employees and owners are music lovers. I get great service, a knowledgeable staff, and more often than not buy something that I wasn't shopping for in the first place and am quite happy about doing it.
Just because the owners know and love music doesn't mean that they don't deliberately use that love and knowledge as a commercial tool - it's pretty useful when you're targeting that second segment of the market.
The key question is: would they still be doing it if it weren't profitable within their target market? Answer: either (a) no or (b) not for very long, unless they have another income to subsidise their hobby.
When are/.ers going to realise: the purpose of commercial entities is not to spread knowledge of music, but to make profit.
There are two perfectly valid business strategies to do this:
Target a consumer segment that wants to buy a wide selection of music, which necessarily cannot be limited to the current top radioplay/chart list. To do this, you have to hold a much higher level of stock. To do this profitably, you have to have a higher gross margin to maintain a livable net margin.
The trouble is, unless you can carry a truly huge stock and shift it very fast (Hello, Amazon), you won't be doing the volume to have the buying power with the distributors. Therefore you must add your higher margin to higher costs. Result: high consumer prices.
Target a consumer segment that only cares about what's in the charts/on the radio.
This is a much bigger segment, and it's a much smaller set of product. Therefore, you can be much more efficient with your supply chain processes, you'll need less real estate for shelving, and you'll shift more volume so can negotiate more robustly with suppliers. You can therefore offer lower prices and still make respectable net margin as your costs are so low.
Both of these strategies are viable, and are only somewhat competitive. You're a consumer who likes non-chart music, so do you go to WalMart to find it? No, of course not. The existence or otherwise of WalMart is entirely irrelevant to your music buying habits. You worry about all those teenagers who only go to WM only finding chart music? They shop where their needs are met - if they wanted anything else, they'd go elsewhere.
But I think the biggest trap you've fallen into is the High Fidelity one - mistaking selling CDs for loving music. If you're a retailer who does it because you love the music and don't have a profit motive, then you have a hobby, my friend, not a business.
Amazon are very smart about this. They explicitly do not target people who love *read* books, but those who love to *buy* them.
Wal-Mart don't care about the music. It's just business - they supply a need profitably to provide a maximised return to their owners. This isn't A Bad and Evil Thing: their owners (ie the stockholders) legally require them to behave like this.
And this is the case for pretty much everyone involved: The people who press the CDs, the people who design the covers, the people who ship the CDs, the people who provide catering to the studios - everyone. Even among professional musicians, the strongest desire of all is to be paid, or didn't you notice the existence of the Musician's Union...
You're in business not to create revenue, but profit, so if one of your customers causes you negative profit (ie margin x units < 0), rather than positive, then you're a fool. It doesn't matter if you have $10m of revenue, if getting it costs you $11m.
If supplying Wal-Mart costs you $n per unit (ie margin $0), then the more units you supply to WM, the more profit you lose. In that situation, the *best* thing to do is find some other sucker to take that loss - crippling a competitor with that loss is a smart move.
Still, nice to see that businesses that are !me continue to be dim, rather like the people who consistently pay higher CPC rates to Google.
Forgot to mention: most of the UK press - including the Telegraph - have pretty clear divisions between news and editorial. The newspaper editorial positions above are much less obvious in news coverage, particularly in the upmarket newspapers aimed at an intelligent, educated readership:
Conservative in the UK has a very different meaning to that on the left hand side of the Atlantic. Both US political parties are to the right of mainstream UK politics.
Historically, the Telegraph has always been the newspaper reflecting the views of the generally well educated, landowning segment of the rich.
In the years since the Blair government came to power, it has moved from its former stated editorial position of 'broadly supportive of the [previous] Conservative [UK sense] government' to a mixture of generic libertarianism, support for their readership's areas of interest - foxhunting and maintaining heriditary peers in the House of Lords primarily - and increasingly rabid attacks on the Blair administration. In this last point, they appear to be taking baby lessons from the US Conservative approach.
The daily mail is the brit liberal paper, btw.
I can tell you don't read it, or rather, don't read it in context of the rest of the national press here. You're woefully misinformed: the Mail is somewhat to the Right of centre.
Here's an approximate right-to-left split of the national press (Sunday papers omitted for simplicity):
Right of Centre (in very approximate order, although papers in different markets are often hard to directly compare):
Daily Express
Daily Telegraph
Sun
Daily Mail
Times
Left of Centre (again, in approx leftward ascending order):
Independent (although on some issues, much further left than the Guardian)
Daily Mirror
Guardian
Alternatively, there's the traditional definition set of the national press quoted for the benefit of novices such as yourself, which is still sufficiently accurate to be a useful rule of thumb:
The Times:
Read by the people who run the country.
Daily Mirror:
Read by the people who think they run the country.
Guardian:
Read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
Morning Star:
Read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
Daily Mail:
Read by the wives of the people who own the country.
Financial Times:
Read by the people who own the country.
Daily Express:
Read by the people who think that the country ought to be run as it used to be.
Daily Telegraph:
Read by the people who think it still is.
The Sun:
Their readers don't care who runs the country as long as she has big tits.
SpamAssassin 2.x with well trained (>1 year of spam @ 100+ spams/day) Bayes: ~5% false negative (~95% spam filtering accuracy, 1 in 20 spams let through).
DSPAM with large training corpus (~10k spams from a honeypot) plus 6 weeks of real mail at same spam rate: 0.45% false negative (99.55% spam filtering accuracy, 1 in 222 spams let through).
I now publicise an inoculation honeypot address: yumyum@easyweb.co.uk for spammers to harvest, which adds super-strength training.
Further, I don't believe heuristic filtering works any more, particularly if you're using published heuristics/shared rules. Spammers adapt too quickly, and test their spam against known rulebases. The solution is I believe to go entirely statistical, allowing each user to have their own definition of spam that is untestable by spammers.
Oh look, here I am sat in front of Lotus Sametime at work, and I can see my father on AIM and my wife on iChat at home. All 3 of us can see each other and talk to each other, instigate 3 way chats etc.
From iChat, I can do video and audio with AIM perfectly smoothly (once AIM was configured to recognise the webcam - none of the simple "plug in iSight[1] and It Just Works(tm)")
This is running from a public AIM server, but would probably work as well from a private one.
[1] Other webcams *should* work just as well, but my experience is with the iSight, which *does*
Additionally, it is compiled from every song sold on the covered stores (iTMS, Real and OD2), rather than just a sampling of real world record shops.
It's therefore much harder to manipulate, although Westlife re-releasing their biggest hit for the occasion shows it can be done, but at least that was true sales (the fans were more manipulated than the stats).
You're assuming it was a photoshoot of the packaging. If that were the case, the band wouldn't be anywhere near it. However, if you RTFA (actually, RTF original A that Wired lifted the story from) it was a shoot of the band for Blender magazine.
Last Friday, U2 had their new CD - which they had just finished recording the weekend before - stolen during a photo shoot in the south of France. Only a handful of copies existed but guitarist Edge decided to play his personal CD on the studio stereo during a shoot for Blender magazine.
When they wandered out to take some locations pictures, Edge neglected to press "Eject". Apparently, the band were all posing in an empty swimming pool, 50 metres from the studio, when someone snatched the CD.
Slashdot Mirror
Hang on a sec while I check my old Laserwriter 4/600... interesting. Made by Canon.
From the PDF:
Specifically, this means (unless someone else gets certified later today):
Remember that IP can be licensed to multiple parties with different conditions. It's entirely possible that IBM has already licensed some or all of these patents to commercial entitites (including Microsoft) on commercial terms.
See, this always annoys the hell out of me - why do so many people feel they have to write their own CMS from scratch when there are so many competent CMS platforms out there, both OSS and proprietory.
In 1999, this made sense, as to have a CMS, you were paying $200k+ for Broadvision, Vignette or Interwoven TeamSite. But now? You're joking, right? The only good reasons for writing your own now are:
I strongly suspect the reason most people do it is the last one.
Errmmm what do you think is used to set up the templates and define editable regions for Contribute? Yep, DW templates. And that's why having DW templating in OSS tools is useful - so PLU® (People Like Us) can set up sites for PLT® (People Like Them: aka non-technical people or Clients) to maintain without PLU having to pay the large amount that DW costs - PLT can just buy the relatively affordable and easy to use Contribute.
Visual inspection of senior West Wing staffers shows that a high proportion of them run OSX laptops.
You do know that the A3 is an Audi-badged Golf right? And that the TT is also built on the same platform? (as is the Beetle, the Brora and one of the Seats). The A3 is one sweet little car - I had one (mmm a Quattro) for a few years until I moved to a Prius.
Couple of things (as well as the very valid points already made about trying to order a non-standard ThinkPad as a one off):
(Disclosure: I work for IBM, but in an entirely unrelated area of IGS)
Nope. Only for shooting him in the back and killing him.
errrmmmm nope. Go read the 2nd amendment again. And this time, start at the beginning of it:
The logic goes as follows:
So if you feel the security of the free state (NB not you personally) is sufficiently threatened that you feel a need to form a well-ordered militia, then go ahead and keep and bear your arms. But as the nation as a whole - other than a very small minority - feels the security of the free state is quite well enough protected by the regular military, the military reserve, the national guard and various police forces, the need to form militias seems somewhat reduced.
Further, I'm wondering where you see the interpretation that such a militia is to defend the security of the free state against its government. And if it is, what chance does your militia stand against the regular military, military reserve, national guard and various police forces..?
...and it should be noted, breaking it at any useful speed required the use of cribs - standard plaintext fragments (like the "Heil Hitler" signoff) that gave the breakers a start with each day.
Ahhh, consultants. Obviously they don't get Linux. And would never, ever recommend Linux on the Desktop.
Disclaimer: is my employer, but this is personal opinion.
*cough*EnlightenmentPhilosophersNotPagans*cough*.
You lot took it, along with much of the rest of the founding principles, from the French, specifically Voltaire and Montesquieu. Those gentlemen were informed in turn by Paine, Hume and Locke, none of whom could be called pagans in the sense of a pre-christian heritage.
In the 17th and 18th Centuries, a secular state was a novel, radical concept, not some underlying thought from over a thousand years before (ie the time before Christianity became a state-sponsored religion). And even before that, state religions were standard practise, if only to deify the king/emperor.
Fortunately, they anticipated the slashdotting, and provided their own mirror. It even has an apposite fqdn.
Just because the owners know and love music doesn't mean that they don't deliberately use that love and knowledge as a commercial tool - it's pretty useful when you're targeting that second segment of the market.
The key question is: would they still be doing it if it weren't profitable within their target market? Answer: either (a) no or (b) not for very long, unless they have another income to subsidise their hobby.
When are /.ers going to realise: the purpose of commercial entities is not to spread knowledge of music, but to make profit.
There are two perfectly valid business strategies to do this:
Target a consumer segment that wants to buy a wide selection of music, which necessarily cannot be limited to the current top radioplay/chart list.
To do this, you have to hold a much higher level of stock. To do this profitably, you have to have a higher gross margin to maintain a livable net margin.
The trouble is, unless you can carry a truly huge stock and shift it very fast (Hello, Amazon), you won't be doing the volume to have the buying power with the distributors. Therefore you must add your higher margin to higher costs. Result: high consumer prices.
Target a consumer segment that only cares about what's in the charts/on the radio.
This is a much bigger segment, and it's a much smaller set of product. Therefore, you can be much more efficient with your supply chain processes, you'll need less real estate for shelving, and you'll shift more volume so can negotiate more robustly with suppliers. You can therefore offer lower prices and still make respectable net margin as your costs are so low.
Both of these strategies are viable, and are only somewhat competitive. You're a consumer who likes non-chart music, so do you go to WalMart to find it? No, of course not. The existence or otherwise of WalMart is entirely irrelevant to your music buying habits. You worry about all those teenagers who only go to WM only finding chart music? They shop where their needs are met - if they wanted anything else, they'd go elsewhere.
But I think the biggest trap you've fallen into is the High Fidelity one - mistaking selling CDs for loving music. If you're a retailer who does it because you love the music and don't have a profit motive, then you have a hobby, my friend, not a business.
Amazon are very smart about this. They explicitly do not target people who love *read* books, but those who love to *buy* them.
Wal-Mart don't care about the music. It's just business - they supply a need profitably to provide a maximised return to their owners. This isn't A Bad and Evil Thing: their owners (ie the stockholders) legally require them to behave like this.
And this is the case for pretty much everyone involved: The people who press the CDs, the people who design the covers, the people who ship the CDs, the people who provide catering to the studios - everyone. Even among professional musicians, the strongest desire of all is to be paid, or didn't you notice the existence of the Musician's Union...
I'm not sure you get the basics of business here.
You're in business not to create revenue, but profit, so if one of your customers causes you negative profit (ie margin x units < 0), rather than positive, then you're a fool. It doesn't matter if you have $10m of revenue, if getting it costs you $11m.
If supplying Wal-Mart costs you $n per unit (ie margin $0), then the more units you supply to WM, the more profit you lose. In that situation, the *best* thing to do is find some other sucker to take that loss - crippling a competitor with that loss is a smart move.
Still, nice to see that businesses that are !me continue to be dim, rather like the people who consistently pay higher CPC rates to Google.
Forgot to mention: most of the UK press - including the Telegraph - have pretty clear divisions between news and editorial. The newspaper editorial positions above are much less obvious in news coverage, particularly in the upmarket newspapers aimed at an intelligent, educated readership:
I can tell you don't read it, or rather, don't read it in context of the rest of the national press here. You're woefully misinformed: the Mail is somewhat to the Right of centre.
Here's an approximate right-to-left split of the national press (Sunday papers omitted for simplicity):
Alternatively, there's the traditional definition set of the national press quoted for the benefit of novices such as yourself, which is still sufficiently accurate to be a useful rule of thumb:
The Times: Read by the people who run the country. Daily Mirror: Read by the people who think they run the country. Guardian: Read by the people who think they ought to run the country. Morning Star: Read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country. Daily Mail: Read by the wives of the people who own the country. Financial Times: Read by the people who own the country. Daily Express: Read by the people who think that the country ought to be run as it used to be. Daily Telegraph: Read by the people who think it still is. The Sun: Their readers don't care who runs the country as long as she has big tits.SpamAssassin 2.x with well trained (>1 year of spam @ 100+ spams/day) Bayes:
~5% false negative (~95% spam filtering accuracy, 1 in 20 spams let through).
DSPAM with large training corpus (~10k spams from a honeypot) plus 6 weeks of real mail at same spam rate:
0.45% false negative (99.55% spam filtering accuracy, 1 in 222 spams let through).
I now publicise an inoculation honeypot address: yumyum@easyweb.co.uk for spammers to harvest, which adds super-strength training.
I'm very happy with my move to DSPAM.
Further, I don't believe heuristic filtering works any more, particularly if you're using published heuristics/shared rules. Spammers adapt too quickly, and test their spam against known rulebases. The solution is I believe to go entirely statistical, allowing each user to have their own definition of spam that is untestable by spammers.
(Incidentally, ever seen the SpamAssassin header forgery spam now being used?
/me looks at desktop
Oh look, here I am sat in front of Lotus Sametime at work, and I can see my father on AIM and my wife on iChat at home. All 3 of us can see each other and talk to each other, instigate 3 way chats etc.
From iChat, I can do video and audio with AIM perfectly smoothly (once AIM was configured to recognise the webcam - none of the simple "plug in iSight[1] and It Just Works(tm)")
This is running from a public AIM server, but would probably work as well from a private one.
[1] Other webcams *should* work just as well, but my experience is with the iSight, which *does*
Let me see, my iTMS purchased music since the UK store opened includes:
Yes, you're right - all crap pop music.
Additionally, it is compiled from every song sold on the covered stores (iTMS, Real and OD2), rather than just a sampling of real world record shops.
It's therefore much harder to manipulate, although Westlife re-releasing their biggest hit for the occasion shows it can be done, but at least that was true sales (the fans were more manipulated than the stats).
Observation in Liverpool and Stoke does indeed confirm that indigenous behaviour consists of:
You're assuming it was a photoshoot of the packaging. If that were the case, the band wouldn't be anywhere near it. However, if you RTFA (actually, RTF original A that Wired lifted the story from) it was a shoot of the band for Blender magazine.