With this release, a total of 44 CLARAty modules (~100K lines of code) are now available under the JPL Open Source License. The writers of the press release goofed. Is it the "JPL Open Source License" or the "Open Source License" JPL selected? The capitalization suggests the former. In reality, it's the CLARAty Open Source License
To download the software, you have to install what looks to be a version control package called YaM LITE.
Visiting the software page revealed something else: Only part of CLARAty is open sourced. The so-called "private" modules are not going to be released:
The CLARAty private repository contains modules that are governed by different restrictions. Most modules are slated for open source and are awaiting review for public release. Others are governed by intellectual property restrictions and are targeted for internal use within NASA or for government programs only. Very few modules are governed by ITAR restrictions and require special approval. for access.
Meth labs aren't victimless, those television commercials I keep seeing tell me so. They'll blow up my house, or expose me to noxious fumes, or something.
To be honest, though, that could easily be solved by making the stuff in controlled circumstances at licensed facilities.
As for the other effects of drugs, well, those can be handled the same way effects for perscription drugs are. Appropriate vetting by the FDA, and controlling the circumstances of use. Think an OD is victimless? Aside from the whole friends/family angle, who pays for the emergency personnel who respond to the call and the ME who examines the body?
I couldn't care less if someone I don't know wants to fritter away their income on LSD (Though I suspect that legal, controlled manufacture of the stuff would bring prices down.). It's their money, and as long as they don't burst into my apartment screaming about the evil ants chasing them, I don't care. (Hence the comment about controlled circumstances of use.)
The article...er...blog entry is painfully vague, and even the summary fails to include a link to the W3Cs comments. Am I supposed to take a blogger's comments at face value, with only a few choice out-of-context quotes?
There better be a Slashback article in response to this...
Instead of ranting like an idiot, he sat around for 3 hours and talked to experts, pundits, wonks and Norm Ornstein. I had to look up who Norm Ornstein is, so I could find out why he warranted his own category.
That's pretty cool. I haven't read through the Constitution since early high school, and you can imagine how little interest I might have had, then. I don't think any of my civics classes in high school or college mentioned that the states could perform an end-run around the Legislative branch in proposing Amendments.
Get the states mad enough and they can call a Constitutional Convention and effectively rewrite the Constitution to strip the federal government of power. Not going to happen. The federal government has a much stronger and more loyal military today than it had in 1789. The individual military power of states today, consisting of local militias, municipal and state police forces and maybe a few National Guard bases, can't measure up to the power wielded by the federal government.
What military power was once held by individuals has been legislated away in the name of reducing gun violence. Any exceptions are licensed, and thus known and tracked.
No, there's not going to be another revolution in the United States under the current government. At least, not a violent one. We'd have to be conquered, and then leave enough of a bad taste for occupation in the conqueror's mouth to force them to withdraw, let us overthrow the arranged-for "local" government, and establish our own.
Kinda like what's happening in Iraq.
Then, after a few years, we'll be ready for another constitutional convention.
Just the same, though, I wouldn't like to be conquered by either China or the Neo-Soviets, and they're the two countries we're most likely to go to enter a major war, with.
And, to be even more honest, I don't see either of them bothering with occupation. Too expensive. They'd use tactical nukes on places of symbolic, political and economic importance, and let the surviving population stew in a territory without the resources to compete globally.
How exactly does the judge think this could be accomplished in practice? With proprietary software? Not easily. (Though you can get access to process memory via/proc, if you really want to.)
With Open Source, it's much easier. Behold, another reason to use Open Source.
You mean, the military had to clear you and put you under an NDA because your brother works for them? No, but if I spread them around I may be arrested for espionage. The NDA is right there in the constitution, under the definition of "treason".
Leaked state secrets aren't outright illegal. Depends. My brother's got a job in the military that deals extensively with nuclear secrets. I'm expressly prohibited from repeating things I might accidentally learn.
It might be a different story if I were a journalist, but it might not. Take a look at what happened to one of the reporters dealing with the Valerie Plame scandal.
The plans raise many troubling legal issues including privacy concerns, false positive filtering, and liability for failure to filter ...and loss of common-carrier status.
Get real, indeed. The summary writer clearly doesn't understand the situation. There's no reason for Microsoft to open the code for office in a manner that allows community copying.
My prediction? Microsoft is going to convert their Office product to a series of ActiveX applets and serve it up through Internet Explorer. Homes and small businesses will access the applets over broadband Internet connections, and larger businesses will be offered a chance to license an Office server either as an application or rack device.
The only reason they haven't so far is because broadband penetration in their target markets isn't high enough yet. At some point, they're going to decide that a sufficient percentage of their market has broadband, and they'll discontinue client-side-installed Office software.
It's unfortunate for them that broadband didn't spread more quickly. This administration gives them the perfect atmosphere of leniency. If they could have released an online Office two years ago, they could have established their position as the de facto way of doing business before a potentially more strict administration came along.
As the other poster said, the only way the transmission of force would be instantaneous would be if the pole were perfectly rigid. However, that's not really possible.
The best way to think about it would be to look at your pole as a series of springs and masses attached end-to-end. It will take time for the wave from your energy input on one end to propagate through and reach the other end. And since it consists of moving masses, that wave cannot travel as fast as the speed of light.
I understood that...my point was that they don't have the authority to put the fork under a different license, as they don't own the copyright to the entire code base.
However, if someone else makes a change and re-releases under GPLv3, you can't use it in your fork. IANAL, but I don't believe they can do that.
My code, even if licensed under GPLv2, is still copyrighted by me. If they fork and change it, only the changes belong to them; Most of the code base still belongs to me. And unless I permit it, they're not allowed to arbitrarily switch the license. (Unless I was silly and included the "Or any later version" clause in the license declaration, which I've done in the past. But that's not a required component of GPLv2.)
Now, they can fork it and rewrite it from the ground up, removing all the lines I wrote. At that point, it's their code, they can do whatever they want with it. But for most projects, that's a lot of work.
At what point was this? With all the contributors there have been to Linux, it may not have been his to sell.
If I found an open source project, write a few thousand lines of code, and then accept patches and contributions from other people, I no longer have the authority to sell the entire codebase, only the portions of it that only I've written.
Such is copyright. And that's most likely why GNU's tools' source code copyright is assigned to the Free Software Foundation, so they can change their license when they want to without contacting and getting permission of the hundreds of folks who've contributed to those tools.
An important question to ask is how the cost compares to the industry's losses; and if we only implement this in one country (i.e., the U.S.), I don't see it stopping loss significantly. With this type of system, there would be a moderate per-venue investment, followed by a low maintenance cost. The initial investment gets depreciated over the lifetime of the system, but I don't see the maintenance cost being a significant fraction of medium (theater) or large (stadium) expenses.
If our cost is equal to or greater than the reduction in loss, it's a bad deal; I don't know enough economics to know what the optimum point (cost is 50%, 70%, of reduction of loss) would be. That's more a per-case business decision. Each stadium, arena and theater would have to decide for itself if the investment is worth it to them.
Now if it was marketed in theaters as "shut those idiots' cellphones off", that could add to the customer value, but I haven't experienced much interruption that way, and I've seen no study on how many people do yak on their phones during a movie. I've been to perhaps five movies in the last year, and I only recall someone chatting on their cell phone once. On the other hand, I do remember phones ringing when I saw 300 at an IMAX. They were usually quickly silenced, but still.
The other movies I went to had tiny crowds of maybe 20 people, so there weren't many cells to begin with. On the other hand, I heard several cell phones go off at a Trans-Siberian Orchestra concert I went to last year, and I saw at least two people recording video on their phones. (Dunno if they were live-streaming.)
I'd be very reluctant to jam cellphones at sporting (and other large-crowd) events, though. I remember once missing two and a half innings of a Cubs game (yeah, no great loss) just trying to get some beer & dogs. This was before we had cellphones, and my wife was really starting to worry. I'd want her to be able to call, even if just to find out I was still in line. With a configurable system, that becomes the decision of the venue as well. Normally noisy events like sports aren't really detracted by phone calls, while concerts and movies can be. Then there's the possibility of filtering out certain services like photo and video at the network level, so one could make a phone call at a sporting event, but not send multimedia content. They'd probably also want to filter out data services like the new PCMCIA cell modems.
Actually, that would be right in line with her behavior. See my other comment on her political habits. She's a professional politician, not a professional populace representative.
As long as letters to your senator or congress person result in a polite response rather than a SWAT team visit, things can't be all that bad. She never responded to any of my letters until just before her first reelection, during this last cycle. While I don't particularly care for the responses Carl Levin sends me, he at least has responded to nearly every one of my letters.
Though I was a teenager at the time, I also remember the campaign that got her elected. Her opponent didn't sling half as much mud as she did. Stabenow is a professional politician, not a professional constituency advocate.
I'm sorry but some of us have kids which have a much higher likelihood of having an issue (sever allergies in my case). So long as I put my phone on vibrate what does it matter to you or other movie goers if I have an emergency at home? Frankly, it wouldn't bother me at all. To be honest? I've never had a problem with cell phones in theaters. What I have a problem with is the advocacy of cell phone jammers. I'm only trying to offer a middle ground.
In my scenario, you may even qualify to have your phone put on the whitelist along with doctors, etc.
By that logic why bother getting a car seat? why bother immunizing babies? why bother banning lead paint,...... You're carrying my argument to an undue extreme. I've never heard of cell phones being described as necessary for preserving life, outside of 911 usage when there's no other communications available. Pagers have been around for over twenty years, are far less intrusive, and have suited the needs of medical folks and parents (my mother had one, for example.) for a long time.
Heck, only five years ago, I had a pager as a volunteer firefighter. Worked just fine.
I understand your scenario requires that you be contactable in the case that your kids have an allergy attack. My proposal is intended as an alternative to the oft-suggested and/or hated cell phone jammers. It's not intended to prevent legitimate activity, but to enable it by supplanting an alternative that would prevent it.
Bear with me; my job in study groups in grad school was to come up with the counterexamples to break my colleagues' proofs. I'm accustomed to poking holes in arguments. No problem, I tend to do the same thing. It's people like you who help Slashdot discussions evolve from demagoguery to honest debate. I enjoy conversations like this.
This putative organization would, presumably, be funded by the fees charged to the theaters, which will of course devolve to the ticket prices. Potentially, if it's organized like SoundExchange or ASCAP, i.e. an industry committee. Alternatively, it might be organized at the government level. That almost seems more likely, considering there have been efforts at the government level to legalize jammers.
How do callers (e.g., answering services, trauma centers) know to put their surgeons on the list? Would there be a single whitelist, serving all the competing router companies? Such a service would likely be widely covered in professional journals and industry news sources where such a restrictions have legitimate importance. That, and whatever organization was charged with maintaining the whitelist would find it to its advantage to do a massive targeted advertising campaign.
I certainly understand that, but perhaps going being incommunicado for two hours is an appropriate consequence for going to the movie without taking the kids along?
It would be no different than the many years before we had cell phones, and millions of Americans were raised just fine under those circumstances.
Not a whitelist provided by the customer, but by an organization charged with its maintenance. A surgeon's phone number could be placed on the global whitelist for inbound calls. The list itself would be downloaded weekly (or even monthly...it shouldn't change all that much) by the router.
Slashdot Mirror
To download the software, you have to install what looks to be a version control package called YaM LITE.
Visiting the software page revealed something else: Only part of CLARAty is open sourced. The so-called "private" modules are not going to be released: The CLARAty private repository contains modules that are governed by different restrictions. Most modules are slated for open source and are awaiting review for public release. Others are governed by intellectual property restrictions and are targeted for internal use within NASA or for government programs only. Very few modules are governed by ITAR restrictions and require special approval. for access.
Meth labs aren't victimless, those television commercials I keep seeing tell me so. They'll blow up my house, or expose me to noxious fumes, or something.
To be honest, though, that could easily be solved by making the stuff in controlled circumstances at licensed facilities.
As for the other effects of drugs, well, those can be handled the same way effects for perscription drugs are. Appropriate vetting by the FDA, and controlling the circumstances of use. Think an OD is victimless? Aside from the whole friends/family angle, who pays for the emergency personnel who respond to the call and the ME who examines the body?
I couldn't care less if someone I don't know wants to fritter away their income on LSD (Though I suspect that legal, controlled manufacture of the stuff would bring prices down.). It's their money, and as long as they don't burst into my apartment screaming about the evil ants chasing them, I don't care. (Hence the comment about controlled circumstances of use.)
The article...er...blog entry is painfully vague, and even the summary fails to include a link to the W3Cs comments. Am I supposed to take a blogger's comments at face value, with only a few choice out-of-context quotes?
There better be a Slashback article in response to this...
And I still don't know.
That's pretty cool. I haven't read through the Constitution since early high school, and you can imagine how little interest I might have had, then. I don't think any of my civics classes in high school or college mentioned that the states could perform an end-run around the Legislative branch in proposing Amendments.
What military power was once held by individuals has been legislated away in the name of reducing gun violence. Any exceptions are licensed, and thus known and tracked.
No, there's not going to be another revolution in the United States under the current government. At least, not a violent one. We'd have to be conquered, and then leave enough of a bad taste for occupation in the conqueror's mouth to force them to withdraw, let us overthrow the arranged-for "local" government, and establish our own.
Kinda like what's happening in Iraq.
Then, after a few years, we'll be ready for another constitutional convention.
Just the same, though, I wouldn't like to be conquered by either China or the Neo-Soviets, and they're the two countries we're most likely to go to enter a major war, with.
And, to be even more honest, I don't see either of them bothering with occupation. Too expensive. They'd use tactical nukes on places of symbolic, political and economic importance, and let the surviving population stew in a territory without the resources to compete globally.
I replaced your /dev/null node with a socket leading to my server.
/dev/null on my box. It might be interesting.)
(You know, I should try logging what goes into
With Open Source, it's much easier. Behold, another reason to use Open Source.
It might be a different story if I were a journalist, but it might not. Take a look at what happened to one of the reporters dealing with the Valerie Plame scandal.
Get real, indeed. The summary writer clearly doesn't understand the situation. There's no reason for Microsoft to open the code for office in a manner that allows community copying.
My prediction? Microsoft is going to convert their Office product to a series of ActiveX applets and serve it up through Internet Explorer. Homes and small businesses will access the applets over broadband Internet connections, and larger businesses will be offered a chance to license an Office server either as an application or rack device.
The only reason they haven't so far is because broadband penetration in their target markets isn't high enough yet. At some point, they're going to decide that a sufficient percentage of their market has broadband, and they'll discontinue client-side-installed Office software.
It's unfortunate for them that broadband didn't spread more quickly. This administration gives them the perfect atmosphere of leniency. If they could have released an online Office two years ago, they could have established their position as the de facto way of doing business before a potentially more strict administration came along.
As the other poster said, the only way the transmission of force would be instantaneous would be if the pole were perfectly rigid. However, that's not really possible.
The best way to think about it would be to look at your pole as a series of springs and masses attached end-to-end. It will take time for the wave from your energy input on one end to propagate through and reach the other end. And since it consists of moving masses, that wave cannot travel as fast as the speed of light.
At least, that's my understanding...
I understood that...my point was that they don't have the authority to put the fork under a different license, as they don't own the copyright to the entire code base.
My code, even if licensed under GPLv2, is still copyrighted by me. If they fork and change it, only the changes belong to them; Most of the code base still belongs to me. And unless I permit it, they're not allowed to arbitrarily switch the license. (Unless I was silly and included the "Or any later version" clause in the license declaration, which I've done in the past. But that's not a required component of GPLv2.)
Now, they can fork it and rewrite it from the ground up, removing all the lines I wrote. At that point, it's their code, they can do whatever they want with it. But for most projects, that's a lot of work.
At what point was this? With all the contributors there have been to Linux, it may not have been his to sell.
If I found an open source project, write a few thousand lines of code, and then accept patches and contributions from other people, I no longer have the authority to sell the entire codebase, only the portions of it that only I've written.
Such is copyright. And that's most likely why GNU's tools' source code copyright is assigned to the Free Software Foundation, so they can change their license when they want to without contacting and getting permission of the hundreds of folks who've contributed to those tools.
The other movies I went to had tiny crowds of maybe 20 people, so there weren't many cells to begin with. On the other hand, I heard several cell phones go off at a Trans-Siberian Orchestra concert I went to last year, and I saw at least two people recording video on their phones. (Dunno if they were live-streaming.) I'd be very reluctant to jam cellphones at sporting (and other large-crowd) events, though. I remember once missing two and a half innings of a Cubs game (yeah, no great loss) just trying to get some beer & dogs. This was before we had cellphones, and my wife was really starting to worry. I'd want her to be able to call, even if just to find out I was still in line. With a configurable system, that becomes the decision of the venue as well. Normally noisy events like sports aren't really detracted by phone calls, while concerts and movies can be. Then there's the possibility of filtering out certain services like photo and video at the network level, so one could make a phone call at a sporting event, but not send multimedia content. They'd probably also want to filter out data services like the new PCMCIA cell modems.
Actually, that would be right in line with her behavior. See my other comment on her political habits. She's a professional politician, not a professional populace representative.
Though I was a teenager at the time, I also remember the campaign that got her elected. Her opponent didn't sling half as much mud as she did. Stabenow is a professional politician, not a professional constituency advocate.
In my scenario, you may even qualify to have your phone put on the whitelist along with doctors, etc. By that logic why bother getting a car seat? why bother immunizing babies? why bother banning lead paint,
Heck, only five years ago, I had a pager as a volunteer firefighter. Worked just fine.
I understand your scenario requires that you be contactable in the case that your kids have an allergy attack. My proposal is intended as an alternative to the oft-suggested and/or hated cell phone jammers. It's not intended to prevent legitimate activity, but to enable it by supplanting an alternative that would prevent it.
Ouch. I wouldn't want to leave my kids with folks I deemed to be incompetent. What about your parents? (as opposed to your in-laws)
I certainly understand that, but perhaps going being incommunicado for two hours is an appropriate consequence for going to the movie without taking the kids along?
It would be no different than the many years before we had cell phones, and millions of Americans were raised just fine under those circumstances.
Not a whitelist provided by the customer, but by an organization charged with its maintenance. A surgeon's phone number could be placed on the global whitelist for inbound calls. The list itself would be downloaded weekly (or even monthly...it shouldn't change all that much) by the router.