In the California community college system, at least at Fullerton College, we had a complete array of undergraduate CS courses. Everything you would normally get in the first two years... introductory programming, data structures, and the general math courses that are required were available.
I was able to get my AA in Computer Science, and transfer most of my credits to University to come in as a Junior in Computer Science. There were still lots of classes to take, but that's just because CS is a heavy unit major.
You need to see the counselors at both the university you intend to transfer to and the community college you are transferring from to make sure you are getting the classes you need and nothing more, and that you transfer at the right point. -- John.
That just means the U. you attended overemphasized theory. In the Cal State system, specifically, CSUF, we got all the theory but they also required programming classes, and that we be able to write code all the way through the program. It was not something that they expected you to pick up on your own...
I suppose that's why all electrical engineers design incredibly complex circuitry completely in text?
Sure they can and do these days with VHDL. But I'm really surprised that there are so many people chiming in claiming that you cannot show/design anything complex with a diagram.
It's done all the time on the hardware side. Just because no one has done a great job at designing such a thing for software that has caught on, doesn't mean it cannot be done.
Note that on the hardware side they also have the reuse problem solved pretty well. It is a normal thing for EEs to take complex things like CPUs, DSPs, video controllers, network controllers, etc. and integrate them into your design (visually!).
Oops... re-read the QEMU site, KQEMU is non-free and closed source. I took away something from KQEMU discussion that was incorrect.
But the intent as stated by Fabrice is to get sponsorship so that eventually KQEMU can eventually be Free. So, essentially KQEMU module is a kind of ransomware.
How about not waiting and getting to work on QEMU?
QEMU has the right emphasis from the beginning. To make something that is fast and usable.
And that's what it is, on several platforms. It's got the momentum, why divide up resources? QEMU will run on more platforms, and is getting the same virtualization goodies as Xen. The tiny virtualization kernel is open source but non-free till Fabrice can get some funding, but have some faith based on his entire body of Free software contributions that it will also become free.
Stability of Linux is only a small part of the story. But you're not right anyway. An emulator is a nice cozy environment for an OS. It should be more stable there than running natively.
The bigger advantage for users is the number of applications freely available for Linux.
What comes with a new Windows machine? Usually a lot of "lite" versions of various payware. Word processor, maybe. Eventually the system gets hosed and even those may be lost.
I don't think most users have any idea what it's like to think "I wish I had a program that did ____" and then apt-cache search'ing for it 3 or 4 programs that do it ready to be downloaded...
And Knoppix has a lot of stuff just available in the menus right off the bat. Just give the users the caveat that, yeah, this isn't going to be real fast, but it will give you an idea of what is available.
a) QEMU is all open source. A small part recently added is non-free but still open-source. b) QEMU is the fastest (99%) Free emulator, and QEMU is getting faster all the time. There is a strong emphasis on speed by Fabrice c) Yes Knoppix will run slower under emulation than natively, and Knoppix doesn't run as fast as a native Linux install. But there are obvious speedups laying around. This looks like a first cut by some developer.
But I think there is one obvious case where this can be useful, in the particular situation where a machine is locked down so that you can't boot install CDs without a password, and the user does not have admin priveleges. Also, it may be useful for users who aren't willing to boot a Linux CD since they are afraid that it will wipe something out.
Following the QEMU list, this was done some time back by a Japanese developer Kuniyasu Suzaki I believe.
Discussions ensued about how to make it faster... some patches are available to directly mount the compressed Knoppix volume so that portion doesn't need to be emulated. Also, the SaveVM feature was improved, so rather than boot knoppix, just keep a compressed VM ram image on the Knoppix CD. That makes it boot instantaneously.
QEMU is the fastest thing going as far as Free emulators, given more improvements on the virtualization side, I think this will be *the* way to run Knoppix for Windows users that just want to try it out. The speed will come in time.
Some of us pushed for features like User Mode Networking in QEMU just for this purpose. Windows users in larger corporations often do not have administrator level rights, so they can't install any special drivers. So Knoppix under QEMU can get right to the net on any Windows box that will run a.EXE from CD.
DS-9 was one huge story arc which ran throughout (political, military developments between Bajor/Cardassia/Dominion/Feds), and ran mini ones all through the show. The big story arc continues in the books. The arc actually started with ST:TNG.
So why say "DS9's later seasons?" I see that a lot around here, and it is flat wrong. DS-9 had continuity all the way through, I recall a big two or three parter from 2nd season "The Circle," epic character development over the series ex: Odo, Sisko, and Dukat.
For theatrical productions, acting is NOT a minor detail. DS-9 proved that you can have intriguing, engaging stories and have good acting too.
Too bad Enterprise took so long to find its way. They had good acting but mediocre scripts for a bit too long... opposite problem of B5.
If you want good acting, and good writing, ignore B5 and go straight to the DS-9 box sets.
I wanted to like B5 and couldn't get into it for the exact same reasons you lay out. The acting and dialogue is absolutely abysmal. The B5 stories are very good, but not good enough to make the show watchable (for me).
You must be talking about Woody (the Stable version).
If you want latest-and-greatest you run Testing or Unstable. For example, would you call Knoppix obsolete? Knoppix is based on Debian.
I find the so-called unstable version (Sid) very stable, and up-to-date. I've seen breakage every once in a while, but I can count the occurences on one hand...
I run Woody for web servers. It's rock solid. If I want something new I compile it or use backported.DEB's. Generally though I only have need for latest-and-greatest on my desktop.
Yeah I see your idea, of mandatory registration, but I think that has already been rejected as unworkable. First of all, it's not very egalitarian -- a big corporation would have a much easier time maintaining compliance than the small fry author or developer. The corp can have people devoted to getting stuff registered and keeping it registered.
Yes copyright is to protect the individual and it is also to make sure the public domain is enriched (at least that's the original idea). But if someone creates something I don't care how much legal knowledge they have about getting things registered, or whether they have cash for the fee. They created it, give them some protection automatically. It's the right thing to do.
On the other hand how can we know if the work is abandoned/orphaned if no one registers or renews their copyright? Well if it makes lots of dough, then registration/renewal becomes feasible and important. But before that time, it's too much of a gamble to go to the trouble. Most creative works aren't worth much of anything in cash value.
So I'm suggesting that maintain automatic protection as we have it now, but shorten the term. Then require registration, but not at the risk of all-out losing copyright protection. That's the old system, and it's already been rejected, for good reason. There needs to be balance somewhere, and that's what I was suggesting.
Similar to the Canadian system, but the escrow account for 'fees' in cast of a legal challenge is a bad idea I think.
It seems like some middle ground could be reached. I can see how some would see a work automatically falling out of copyright if not registered as a "trap" for the unwary.
What if the work didn't fall out of copyright completely, if not registered, but into a gray area for some number of years, say 15. Then if someone tries to contact the copyright holder officially, some number of times, with no success, they automatically qualify for safe harbor from prosecution for violation of copyright. Now if THEY are notified by the author and continue to distribute infringing copies, then they are subject to prosecution.
But the copyright holder retains their copyright in all cases.
Given the era of the internet, publishing is effectively free. We don't have to stockpile copies of creative works, tying up money in the process. So it wouldn't be a big deal for the infringer... he hadn't put much into it anyway.
Eventually, with no interest from the copyright holder the work would become public domain, but hey-- if they are that out of it, it's probably because they aren't making use of the monopoly granted them, and the public's interest should be considered more important.
I'm sure there are rough edges to this idea, and that it is in no way original, but I'm sure any problems could be hashed out.
If something can be done about this problem it would be an incredible step forward in copyright law.
Hopefully they will also consider "abandonware" not just books.
I was lucky enough to be able to get in touch with the author of my favorite computer book to get permission republish the work under a Creative Commons license: Thinking Forth. Computer books are notorious for going out of print but they have high value to vintage computer users, and some like TF are valuable classics in and of themselves.
Not everyone is so fortunate though. Usually the copyright holder is impossible to get hold of or they have no interest in even discussing it. Or else you are dealing with a legal department that just wants to keep any possible liabilities to a minimum. No benefit to them, so not worth it to deal with you.
For example, a common interface for old laptops (Model 100, 102, 200, 600, NEC 8201A, NEC8300, NEC 8500 etc.) was a main screen which shows a tabular list of say, 30 files and programs. You moved around with the arrow keys and picked what you wanted to work on. When you enter a program it forces you to pick a filename. You never need to "Save," similar to PalmOS.
No subdirectories. If you exit your program, you're back at the simple menu.
If you hit on a text file, guess what... it opens up in the text editor. If you hit enter on a BASIC program, it launches the program in BASIC.
Since there are no subdirectories, all your files are in plain view, so you don't lose them or waste time organizaing them. If you need to group a set of them you saved them to floppies or cassette, and those are easy to keep track of, since they are not abstract, but tangible things. That is intuitively understandable and comfortable for people.
Modern PCs have way too many "modes" and abstractions and ways to lose your information. Sure, if you're organized it is mangageable. But it sure would be better for everyone if the computer did its job and helped you stay organized. And the interface really should be data centric rather than program centric or programmer centric.
And I don't think a desktop full of icons is the way to do it either. You need to have interfaces manageable at a human level. Allowing a desktop with an arbitrarily large number of files is just too much.
By setting limitations, you do reduce possibilities, and flexibility but you also reduce the choices users are required to make, while forcing them into some kind of organization they are capable of dealing with. I like Raskins idea of a "Humane Interface." That should be the goal. I don't think he has "got it" personally, but it's the proper goal.
An interesting fantasy. When do you say O'Brien joined the cast of DS-9? When Worf did? That's total crap... O'Brien was on the show from the first episode on.
And to say that the Dominion story arcs is a reaction to B5 is pretty silly, since the big story arcs started with the Cardassian-Bajoran development The Circle, The Maquis, etc. The dark, gritty atmosphere was there from the beginning.
B5 a better show? From first episodes I found it unwatchable because the acting was pure crap, aside than Garibaldi and the ex-Romulan. Now I couldn't tell if the scripts were cheese or not, but with the bad actors they had it sounded like cheese to me. Things started to shape up when the Scarecrow showed up, but by then I'd had so hard a time watching it that I had given up and the show had become "too great for (me) to comprehend"
I really don't think Trek has ever had anything to fear from B5.
As far as directors from TNG working on DS-9... they worked on Voyager too. Voyager was crappy because it was a dumb idea from the start, and for some reason there was a lot of cheesy scripts. Nothing to work with.
In any event, regardless of why DS-9 was great, it was great, and surpassed B5 on many levels.
And I actually liked the Ferengi storylines... one, they are comic relief, two they always challenge the Federation goody-two-shoes idealism, just as the Garak and Section 51 episodes do. I think your narrow tastes are affecting your appreciation of quality.
Enterprise is getting better in reaction to negative comments from fans, I think, and it is having a *very* positive affect, if you have been watching.
I don't really give a crap about Battlestar Galactica, but enjoy...
Those who didn't watch it seem pretty unified in their negative opinions. Those who did watch it know that it is the best of all treks so far.
That show was the *only* one that got off to a solid start, right off the bat. It had politics, religion, long, complex story arcs, etc. I really can't think of anything negative to say about that show.
No Voyager, early TNG and TOS... well, jam packed with cheese, and that's the one thing I can't stand in any sci-fi.
Enterprise has occasionally been boring but that's the worst I can say about it. I find it enjoyable most of the time.
I agree... most of the people complaining about Enterprise don't watch it. Too bad that doesn't mean they will STFU about the show... please jackasses, go watch Battlestar Galactica and shut up about Star Trek.
Personally I didn't like the big "expanse" plotline, but generally I've like seeing the early formation of the Federation... lots of Andorian, Vulcan episodes, some Tellarites, Orions... stuff we never got to see in TNG or DS9. More of that developing this season.
I hope Enterprise will last many more seasons... sure it got off to a slow start, but it has never been cheesy like Voyager, or TOS. It's always been middling to good, occasionally very good.
Haven't you been paying attention? Sonny Bono Copyright Extension? Eldred v. Ashcroft?
Big Media through lobbying has shown that they can and will extend their copyright forever and never allow anything into the public domain again.
They benefit from material they don't own but which went into the public domain before copyright or before the current copyright regime. But they fight tooth and nail, and are not willing to let the works they control go out of copyright and into the public domain. In what way is that not hypocritical?
One would hope that having some code that lets the person deploying the clients or servers add a database of forbidden filenames would be reasonable care. Or have the code to interface to some service which has the names available.
It is very strange that they are targeting developers and not those employing the software. But in the end, it is those deploying the software that will be disabling or not implementing the features which affect which files are permitted to be shared.
Well, who is going to decide what is "doing good" and what isn't?
I don't think that's a practically useful distinction.
Industrial espionage is an issue. Theft of trade secrets is illegal, and I suppose that's OK (I'd prefer copyright and Patent as the only ways to protect intellectual property, but, whatever...). What I'm arguing against is forcing a journalist (which is what this guy is, period) to reveal his sources.
Apple would be completely in the right to find out who is leaking their trade secrets and prosecute them. I just don't think they should be able to put the squeeze on journalists no matter how much that would make their legal efforts easier.
Slashdot Mirror
In the California community college system, at least at Fullerton College, we had a complete array of undergraduate CS courses. Everything you would normally get in the first two years... introductory programming, data structures, and the general math courses that are required were available.
I was able to get my AA in Computer Science, and transfer most of my credits to University to come in as a Junior in Computer Science. There were still lots of classes to take, but that's just because CS is a heavy unit major.
You need to see the counselors at both the university you intend to transfer to and the community college you are transferring from to make sure you are getting the classes you need and nothing more, and that you transfer at the right point.
-- John.
That just means the U. you attended overemphasized theory. In the Cal State system, specifically, CSUF, we got all the theory but they also required programming classes, and that we be able to write code all the way through the program. It was not something that they expected you to pick up on your own...
-- John.
But how does it compare with this:
http://www.planetnz.com/palmheads/tandy.php
20 hours battery life with AA non-proprietary batteries, and skip the wonky character recognition...
I'm really looking forward to the day when modern portables are actually, well, portable...
I suppose that's why all electrical engineers design incredibly complex circuitry completely in text?
Sure they can and do these days with VHDL. But I'm really surprised that there are so many people chiming in claiming that you cannot show/design anything complex with a diagram.
It's done all the time on the hardware side. Just because no one has done a great job at designing such a thing for software that has caught on, doesn't mean it cannot be done.
Note that on the hardware side they also have the reuse problem solved pretty well. It is a normal thing for EEs to take complex things like CPUs, DSPs, video controllers, network controllers, etc. and integrate them into your design (visually!).
-- John.
Oops... re-read the QEMU site, KQEMU is non-free and closed source. I took away something from KQEMU discussion that was incorrect.
But the intent as stated by Fabrice is to get sponsorship so that eventually KQEMU can eventually be Free. So, essentially KQEMU module is a kind of ransomware.
-- John.
How about not waiting and getting to work on QEMU?
QEMU has the right emphasis from the beginning. To make something that is fast and usable.
And that's what it is, on several platforms. It's got the momentum, why divide up resources? QEMU will run on more platforms, and is getting the same virtualization goodies as Xen. The tiny virtualization kernel is open source but non-free till Fabrice can get some funding, but have some faith based on his entire body of Free software contributions that it will also become free.
-- John.
Stability of Linux is only a small part of the story. But you're not right anyway. An emulator is a nice cozy environment for an OS. It should be more stable there than running natively.
The bigger advantage for users is the number of applications freely available for Linux.
What comes with a new Windows machine? Usually a lot of "lite" versions of various payware. Word processor, maybe. Eventually the system gets hosed and even those may be lost.
I don't think most users have any idea what it's like to think "I wish I had a program that did ____" and then apt-cache search'ing for it 3 or 4 programs that do it ready to be downloaded...
And Knoppix has a lot of stuff just available in the menus right off the bat. Just give the users the caveat that, yeah, this isn't going to be real fast, but it will give you an idea of what is available.
a) QEMU is all open source. A small part recently added is non-free but still open-source.
b) QEMU is the fastest (99%) Free emulator, and QEMU is getting faster all the time. There is a strong emphasis on speed by Fabrice
c) Yes Knoppix will run slower under emulation than natively, and Knoppix doesn't run as fast as a native Linux install. But there are obvious speedups laying around. This looks like a first cut by some developer.
But I think there is one obvious case where this can be useful, in the particular situation where a machine is locked down so that you can't boot install CDs without a password, and the user does not have admin priveleges. Also, it may be useful for users who aren't willing to boot a Linux CD since they are afraid that it will wipe something out.
Following the QEMU list, this was done some time back by a Japanese developer Kuniyasu Suzaki I believe.
.EXE from CD.
Discussions ensued about how to make it faster... some patches are available to directly mount the compressed Knoppix volume so that portion doesn't need to be emulated. Also, the SaveVM feature was improved, so rather than boot knoppix, just keep a compressed VM ram image on the Knoppix CD. That makes it boot instantaneously.
QEMU is the fastest thing going as far as Free emulators, given more improvements on the virtualization side, I think this will be *the* way to run Knoppix for Windows users that just want to try it out. The speed will come in time.
Some of us pushed for features like User Mode Networking in QEMU just for this purpose. Windows users in larger corporations often do not have administrator level rights, so they can't install any special drivers. So Knoppix under QEMU can get right to the net on any Windows box that will run a
-- John.
DS-9 was one huge story arc which ran throughout (political, military developments between Bajor/Cardassia/Dominion/Feds), and ran mini ones all through the show. The big story arc continues in the books. The arc actually started with ST:TNG.
So why say "DS9's later seasons?" I see that a lot around here, and it is flat wrong. DS-9 had continuity all the way through, I recall a big two or three parter from 2nd season "The Circle," epic character development over the series ex: Odo, Sisko, and Dukat.
For theatrical productions, acting is NOT a minor detail. DS-9 proved that you can have intriguing, engaging stories and have good acting too.
Too bad Enterprise took so long to find its way. They had good acting but mediocre scripts for a bit too long... opposite problem of B5.
If you want good acting, and good writing, ignore B5 and go straight to the DS-9 box sets.
I wanted to like B5 and couldn't get into it for the exact same reasons you lay out. The acting and dialogue is absolutely abysmal. The B5 stories are very good, but not good enough to make the show watchable (for me).
-- John.
Debian obsolete?
.DEB's. Generally though I only have need for latest-and-greatest on my desktop.
You must be talking about Woody (the Stable version).
If you want latest-and-greatest you run Testing or Unstable. For example, would you call Knoppix obsolete? Knoppix is based on Debian.
I find the so-called unstable version (Sid) very stable, and up-to-date. I've seen breakage every once in a while, but I can count the occurences on one hand...
I run Woody for web servers. It's rock solid. If I want something new I compile it or use backported
Copyrighted works are also bartered.
How would you deal with copyright protection for GPLed software?
I think it doesn't have to do with *sale* so much as *available.* Available for sale is only one kind of availability.
Yeah I see your idea, of mandatory registration, but I think that has already been rejected as unworkable. First of all, it's not very egalitarian -- a big corporation would have a much easier time maintaining compliance than the small fry author or developer. The corp can have people devoted to getting stuff registered and keeping it registered.
Yes copyright is to protect the individual and it is also to make sure the public domain is enriched (at least that's the original idea). But if someone creates something I don't care how much legal knowledge they have about getting things registered, or whether they have cash for the fee. They created it, give them some protection automatically. It's the right thing to do.
On the other hand how can we know if the work is abandoned/orphaned if no one registers or renews their copyright? Well if it makes lots of dough, then registration/renewal becomes feasible and important. But before that time, it's too much of a gamble to go to the trouble. Most creative works aren't worth much of anything in cash value.
So I'm suggesting that maintain automatic protection as we have it now, but shorten the term. Then require registration, but not at the risk of all-out losing copyright protection. That's the old system, and it's already been rejected, for good reason. There needs to be balance somewhere, and that's what I was suggesting.
Similar to the Canadian system, but the escrow account for 'fees' in cast of a legal challenge is a bad idea I think.
-- John.
It seems like some middle ground could be reached. I can see how some would see a work automatically falling out of copyright if not registered as a "trap" for the unwary.
What if the work didn't fall out of copyright completely, if not registered, but into a gray area for some number of years, say 15. Then if someone tries to contact the copyright holder officially, some number of times, with no success, they automatically qualify for safe harbor from prosecution for violation of copyright. Now if THEY are notified by the author and continue to distribute infringing copies, then they are subject to prosecution.
But the copyright holder retains their copyright in all cases.
Given the era of the internet, publishing is effectively free. We don't have to stockpile copies of creative works, tying up money in the process. So it wouldn't be a big deal for the infringer... he hadn't put much into it anyway.
Eventually, with no interest from the copyright holder the work would become public domain, but hey-- if they are that out of it, it's probably because they aren't making use of the monopoly granted them, and the public's interest should be considered more important.
I'm sure there are rough edges to this idea, and that it is in no way original, but I'm sure any problems could be hashed out.
If something can be done about this problem it would be an incredible step forward in copyright law.
Hopefully they will also consider "abandonware" not just books.
I was lucky enough to be able to get in touch with the author of my favorite computer book to get permission republish the work under a Creative Commons license: Thinking Forth. Computer books are notorious for going out of print but they have high value to vintage computer users, and some like TF are valuable classics in and of themselves.
Not everyone is so fortunate though. Usually the copyright holder is impossible to get hold of or they have no interest in even discussing it. Or else you are dealing with a legal department that just wants to keep any possible liabilities to a minimum. No benefit to them, so not worth it to deal with you.
I'd say things have gotten worse since the 80's.
For example, a common interface for old laptops (Model 100, 102, 200, 600, NEC 8201A, NEC8300, NEC 8500 etc.) was a main screen which shows a tabular list of say, 30 files and programs. You moved around with the arrow keys and picked what you wanted to work on. When you enter a program it forces you to pick a filename. You never need to "Save," similar to PalmOS.
No subdirectories. If you exit your program, you're back at the simple menu.
If you hit on a text file, guess what... it opens up in the text editor. If you hit enter on a BASIC program, it launches the program in BASIC.
Since there are no subdirectories, all your files are in plain view, so you don't lose them or waste time organizaing them. If you need to group a set of them you saved them to floppies or cassette, and those are easy to keep track of, since they are not abstract, but tangible things. That is intuitively understandable and comfortable for people.
Modern PCs have way too many "modes" and abstractions and ways to lose your information. Sure, if you're organized it is mangageable. But it sure would be better for everyone if the computer did its job and helped you stay organized. And the interface really should be data centric rather than program centric or programmer centric.
And I don't think a desktop full of icons is the way to do it either. You need to have interfaces manageable at a human level. Allowing a desktop with an arbitrarily large number of files is just too much.
By setting limitations, you do reduce possibilities, and flexibility but you also reduce the choices users are required to make, while forcing them into some kind of organization they are capable of dealing with. I like Raskins idea of a "Humane Interface." That should be the goal. I don't think he has "got it" personally, but it's the proper goal.
An interesting fantasy. When do you say O'Brien joined the cast of DS-9? When Worf did? That's total crap... O'Brien was on the show from the first episode on.
And to say that the Dominion story arcs is a reaction to B5 is pretty silly, since the big story arcs started with the Cardassian-Bajoran development The Circle, The Maquis, etc. The dark, gritty atmosphere was there from the beginning.
B5 a better show? From first episodes I found it unwatchable because the acting was pure crap, aside than Garibaldi and the ex-Romulan. Now I couldn't tell if the scripts were cheese or not, but with the bad actors they had it sounded like cheese to me. Things started to shape up when the Scarecrow showed up, but by then I'd had so hard a time watching it that I had given up and the show had become "too great for (me) to comprehend"
I really don't think Trek has ever had anything to fear from B5.
As far as directors from TNG working on DS-9... they worked on Voyager too. Voyager was crappy because it was a dumb idea from the start, and for some reason there was a lot of cheesy scripts. Nothing to work with.
In any event, regardless of why DS-9 was great, it was great, and surpassed B5 on many levels.
And I actually liked the Ferengi storylines... one, they are comic relief, two they always challenge the Federation goody-two-shoes idealism, just as the Garak and Section 51 episodes do. I think your narrow tastes are affecting your appreciation of quality.
Enterprise is getting better in reaction to negative comments from fans, I think, and it is having a *very* positive affect, if you have been watching.
I don't really give a crap about Battlestar Galactica, but enjoy...
Those of us who watched it.
Those who didn't watch it seem pretty unified in their negative opinions. Those who did watch it know that it is the best of all treks so far.
That show was the *only* one that got off to a solid start, right off the bat. It had politics, religion, long, complex story arcs, etc. I really can't think of anything negative to say about that show.
No Voyager, early TNG and TOS... well, jam packed with cheese, and that's the one thing I can't stand in any sci-fi.
Enterprise has occasionally been boring but that's the worst I can say about it. I find it enjoyable most of the time.
I agree... most of the people complaining about Enterprise don't watch it. Too bad that doesn't mean they will STFU about the show... please jackasses, go watch Battlestar Galactica and shut up about Star Trek.
Personally I didn't like the big "expanse" plotline, but generally I've like seeing the early formation of the Federation... lots of Andorian, Vulcan episodes, some Tellarites, Orions... stuff we never got to see in TNG or DS9. More of that developing this season.
I hope Enterprise will last many more seasons... sure it got off to a slow start, but it has never been cheesy like Voyager, or TOS. It's always been middling to good, occasionally very good.
Haven't you been paying attention? Sonny Bono Copyright Extension? Eldred v. Ashcroft?
Big Media through lobbying has shown that they can and will extend their copyright forever and never allow anything into the public domain again.
They benefit from material they don't own but which went into the public domain before copyright or before the current copyright regime. But they fight tooth and nail, and are not willing to let the works they control go out of copyright and into the public domain. In what way is that not hypocritical?
Yeah Hollywood whines about their copyrights being violated, but once again the public domain is where they get their best source material.
-- John.
It's a good question.
One would hope that having some code that lets the person deploying the clients or servers add a database of forbidden filenames would be reasonable care. Or have the code to interface to some service which has the names available.
It is very strange that they are targeting developers and not those employing the software. But in the end, it is those deploying the software that will be disabling or not implementing the features which affect which files are permitted to be shared.
Well, who is going to decide what is "doing good" and what isn't?
I don't think that's a practically useful distinction.
Industrial espionage is an issue. Theft of trade secrets is illegal, and I suppose that's OK (I'd prefer copyright and Patent as the only ways to protect intellectual property, but, whatever...). What I'm arguing against is forcing a journalist (which is what this guy is, period) to reveal his sources.
Apple would be completely in the right to find out who is leaking their trade secrets and prosecute them. I just don't think they should be able to put the squeeze on journalists no matter how much that would make their legal efforts easier.
No, what Apple is doing really *is* wrong, if you value the ability of any journalist to keep his sources of information confidential.
Trade secrets, tortious interference, subpoenas+contempt... these are the guises under which confidentiality of source is currently under attack.
This is why we need a shield law for journalists when it comes to revealing confidential sources.