If that's your definition, ('zero day' == ) then it still hasn't been used correctly, since the linked article is already a day old.
and Given that the phrase 'zero day' is made of two single syllable words...
I want to know who the first big, completely online TV producer is going to be. Just produce the show, sell ads, and offer for download (or maybe sell the ads, do product placement, then produce the show). If the site requires registration, the advertisers have more data available to them than Nielson ratings -- there's no sampling.
Heck, no one will get stinking rich off of it, but there's bound to be money to be made. BT it and have your bandwidth bill cut by two-thirds.
OK. Since you seem to think that you know what you're talking about, I'll basically reiterate my points again for you, making absolutely clear this time how I feel they're the same so that the weak-minded can follow along:
Traditional method: Man spends enormous amount of time and effort over many years to produce a new type of animal or plant having unique properties not available before, resulting in market value. The resulting product is not patentable. GE: Man spends a fair amount of time and energy (but noticably less time) producing a new animal or plant having unique properties not available before, resulting in market value. The resulting product is somehow magically patentable.
Does that clear it up for you? The method used to produce the new prouct shouldn't have any bearing on whether the resulting product is patentable or not. The method itself may or may not be patentable, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Required car anaolgy. Whether you bang out a new engine by hand on an anvil or use a robot to do the assemly makes no difference in the patent process.
I hope that I've helped you grasp the simple logic of my "assertion."
Monsanto invested a lot of time and money making their seeds. They did.
You know what? For millenia, men have spent their entire lives breeding stock or hybriding plants in order to get what they wanted. Did they own the rights to every offspring? No. They got to sell that animal or plant once. They could keep the genetic line in their possession and only sell meat or flour or whatever, but once that thing was out in the world, it was everyone's.
Since you brought up code.... In addition to limited terms, software makers shouldn't get the double whammy of trade secret AND copyright. If they copyright their program, they should be required to release the code (also under copyright) so that users can look it over after the binary is no longer supported.
Not to mention that they seem to be taking credit for what was originally a fork. FF wasn't even a Mozilla project. the use of the name Phoenix was implying that Mozilla was dead and there was a new browser rising from the ashes. For those of you that don't remember, Phoenix -> Firebird -> Firefox.
I agree that Mozilla's branding of FF and promotional deals were great for them, and that everyone is copying that, but let's not pretend it was all planned from the beginning.
Oh, you mean the ones that have been fired over the contents of their blogs? Not him, but I can see the article you linked as supporting evidence for my point.;)
In reality, I'm sure Google's leadership has done some heavy analysis on exactly how much openness benefits them.
and The search engine company has kept its search formula a closely guarded secret for two reasons: competition and to prevent abuse
Security through obscurity isn't a good plan, and Google knows that.
Star Wars would be correctly called "space opera" in the tradition of Flash Gordon.
Since I don't want to make an entirely new post, I'll answer autoritatively the question of whether prequels were intended or not. After New Hope and before Empire, I read an interview with Lucas describing his idea for the movies after Jedi. I think the interview was in Dynamite! magazine (a teen rag). There were to be three more movies, and the interview let out the secret of how Vader came to be in his suit -- a battle with Kenobi in an active volcano, ending with Vader losing and falling into the lava.
Clearer:
Your response was regarding linking proprietary programs to a GPLed program.
The original question was about linking GPLed libraries to non-GPLed programs.
The quoted part is about linking to libraries. That's because linking at compile time DOES incorporate headers from the library into the code, requiring programs linking to GPLed libraries to be GPLed themselves. This is the exact reason why the LGPL was created with the exception for linking.
I blogged about this project last month, so I've had time to think about the "why"s of it. My conclusions were:
1. Whether it's a Tomboy project or not is really irrelevant because the speech-to-text part will probably be a library, anyway.
2. Putting the functionality in a note-taking application is probably a good choice because the software doesn't need to do real-time conversion. You record the note, close it, allow the software to convert to speech while you're working on stuff, and when you come back two days later to look at the idea you rattled off, the text is magically there. If the software is written correctly, it would even take your changes to the text as training forthe engine.
I'm going to promote GeexBox. It uses almost no resources, is light on the hard disk, and can use uPnP with ushare on the server to share music and videos.
Well, since they were trying to get out of the piracy situation using FLOSS in the first place....
Actually, that was a really good time for Thailand. You saw lots of people talking about piracy and how to stop it. There's much less conversation about it now that everyone's back to buying "XP + 1000 apps" CDs off the street. Process that however you will.
Interestingly, OSX was being heavily pirated when I was there in February. Most of the software stands had an entire section devoted to OSX and applications. That's something different, anyway.
I agree that I'd like to see Microsoft's cash reserves depleted as much as possible so that the next time the EU fines them $X billion, it'll hurt a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Banshee, one of the really popular audio players, is based on Mono. When Banshee-1 comes out, a lot of people will be using it. Trust me.
... ahem ... Ubuntu 8.04 is a Mono app.
F-Spot, the default photo app for
Beagle is Mono.
Tomboy Notes is Mono.
The way I see it, most of the brand new, quickly developing application software is based on Mono.quickly
If that's your definition, ('zero day' == ) then it still hasn't been used correctly, since the linked article is already a day old. ...
and
Given that the phrase 'zero day' is made of two single syllable words
OneSmartFellow isn't today.
This must be on Windows ....
That's why you should be using Gnash. Monoculture (all Flash being played by Adobe Flash player) is a bad thing when an infection occurs.
I want to know who the first big, completely online TV producer is going to be. Just produce the show, sell ads, and offer for download (or maybe sell the ads, do product placement, then produce the show). If the site requires registration, the advertisers have more data available to them than Nielson ratings -- there's no sampling.
Heck, no one will get stinking rich off of it, but there's bound to be money to be made. BT it and have your bandwidth bill cut by two-thirds.
I agree. They should be just like Flickr. Have porn, but just hide it by default. Porn rocks! ;)
OK. Since you seem to think that you know what you're talking about, I'll basically reiterate my points again for you, making absolutely clear this time how I feel they're the same so that the weak-minded can follow along:
Traditional method: Man spends enormous amount of time and effort over many years to produce a new type of animal or plant having unique properties not available before, resulting in market value. The resulting product is not patentable.
GE: Man spends a fair amount of time and energy (but noticably less time) producing a new animal or plant having unique properties not available before, resulting in market value. The resulting product is somehow magically patentable.
Does that clear it up for you? The method used to produce the new prouct shouldn't have any bearing on whether the resulting product is patentable or not. The method itself may or may not be patentable, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Required car anaolgy. Whether you bang out a new engine by hand on an anvil or use a robot to do the assemly makes no difference in the patent process.
I hope that I've helped you grasp the simple logic of my "assertion."
Biology shouldn't be patentable. Period.
Monsanto invested a lot of time and money making their seeds. They did.
You know what? For millenia, men have spent their entire lives breeding stock or hybriding plants in order to get what they wanted. Did they own the rights to every offspring? No. They got to sell that animal or plant once. They could keep the genetic line in their possession and only sell meat or flour or whatever, but once that thing was out in the world, it was everyone's.
Tell me one good reason why GE is different.
Since you brought up code .... In addition to limited terms, software makers shouldn't get the double whammy of trade secret AND copyright. If they copyright their program, they should be required to release the code (also under copyright) so that users can look it over after the binary is no longer supported.
Not to mention that they seem to be taking credit for what was originally a fork. FF wasn't even a Mozilla project. the use of the name Phoenix was implying that Mozilla was dead and there was a new browser rising from the ashes. For those of you that don't remember, Phoenix -> Firebird -> Firefox.
I agree that Mozilla's branding of FF and promotional deals were great for them, and that everyone is copying that, but let's not pretend it was all planned from the beginning.
Anyway, here's his response.
Your comment contradicts many MS bloggers.
In reality, I'm sure Google's leadership has done some heavy analysis on exactly how much openness benefits them.
and
The search engine company has kept its search formula a closely guarded secret for two reasons: competition and to prevent abuse
Security through obscurity isn't a good plan, and Google knows that.
But it is offtopic. "Should I name my baby Ken or Ralph?" "You should adopt. There are so many orphans out there."
Star Wars would be correctly called "space opera" in the tradition of Flash Gordon.
Since I don't want to make an entirely new post, I'll answer autoritatively the question of whether prequels were intended or not. After New Hope and before Empire, I read an interview with Lucas describing his idea for the movies after Jedi. I think the interview was in Dynamite! magazine (a teen rag). There were to be three more movies, and the interview let out the secret of how Vader came to be in his suit -- a battle with Kenobi in an active volcano, ending with Vader losing and falling into the lava.
At least Lucas had that much planned c.1980.
Clearer:
Your response was regarding linking proprietary programs to a GPLed program.
The original question was about linking GPLed libraries to non-GPLed programs.
The quoted part is about linking to libraries. That's because linking at compile time DOES incorporate headers from the library into the code, requiring programs linking to GPLed libraries to be GPLed themselves. This is the exact reason why the LGPL was created with the exception for linking.
I blogged about this project last month, so I've had time to think about the "why"s of it. My conclusions were:
1. Whether it's a Tomboy project or not is really irrelevant because the speech-to-text part will probably be a library, anyway.
2. Putting the functionality in a note-taking application is probably a good choice because the software doesn't need to do real-time conversion. You record the note, close it, allow the software to convert to speech while you're working on stuff, and when you come back two days later to look at the idea you rattled off, the text is magically there. If the software is written correctly, it would even take your changes to the text as training forthe engine.
I wrote up the SoC's projects which will probably end up in Gnome (and by extension, Ubuntu) about a month ago.
http://www.ibeentoubuntu.com/2008/04/where-do-we-go-from-here-now-that-gnome.html
You can try this.
I'm going to promote GeexBox. It uses almost no resources, is light on the hard disk, and can use uPnP with ushare on the server to share music and videos.
I'm bringing that one back!
Well, since they were trying to get out of the piracy situation using FLOSS in the first place ....
Actually, that was a really good time for Thailand. You saw lots of people talking about piracy and how to stop it. There's much less conversation about it now that everyone's back to buying "XP + 1000 apps" CDs off the street. Process that however you will.
Interestingly, OSX was being heavily pirated when I was there in February. Most of the software stands had an entire section devoted to OSX and applications. That's something different, anyway.
I agree that I'd like to see Microsoft's cash reserves depleted as much as possible so that the next time the EU fines them $X billion, it'll hurt a lot.
So what happens when the local government wants to localize the UI for a northern hill tribe with a different dialect? Do they request this from MS?