The banana POS (http://www.bananapos.com/pos/home.html) software has been around for a while, but does not seem to be developing at a rapid pace. Maybe it's already mature. Check it out.
"The Bible offers the old fish cliche -- give a man a fish and he'll eat today..."
I prefer my own: "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; give a man free access to the sum of all human knowledge and he'll learn a whole lot more than just how to catch fish."
A hand that won't get tired? My girlfriend will love this. And by "girlfriend," I mean myself. With three hand I'll be able to pleasure myself *and* post foul comments on Slashdot. W00t!
You all know that the mosquito sprayers will eventually be spraying a pleasant population subduing mist. Remember the ending of that movie I won't mention by name for those who haven't seen it?
Can we expect this in the Ubuntu Dapper release? Many people have been asking a graphical installer while other prefer the non-graphical installer. I just want the option.
What about electronic scanning of paper ballots. I remember in college some of my libral arts courses had massive amounts of students and we would take our multi-choice test on ScanTron cards. I don't see what would be so hard about putting a stack of cards through a reader. The voter would know that there vote is recorded on the card correctly, the counting would be quick and not error prone. All we would need to do is check the source code and we could all be happy, happy voters. Why not?
Re:I was at the conference and was in the audience
on
Open Source Not That Open?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The thing to remember is that not EVERYONE needs to change the source for ANYONE to benefit, ONLY one needs to change the source for EVERYONE to benefit.
Just so my stance is documented, I agree and I am concerned. We should not ban autoCAD. I'm not so sure about the tax thing. And we should not censor Slashdot or anything else.
Should AutoCAD be concerned when it's software is used to design weapons? Should I be concerned about paying taxes when that money is used to kill people because they live on the other side of an imaginary line? Should Slashdot editors be concerned when their forums are used to copyright infringe entire articles?
This makes no sense to me on several levels. Who would trust MS to make anti-virus software when they're the ones who wrote the software that allowed the viruses in the first place? If MS knows about a virus that exploits a programming error, why don't they just fix the error? Who would trust a company that has a financial motive to write virus-prone code?
This would be great for displaying an extinct species or a species that is difficult in captivity. Sure, it's not the real thing, but it is a nice alternative. Also, this sort of thing might be good for aquariums that have little funding to maintain many living fish.
I don't know why this would be useful, but it wure would be cool to have a robotic fish buddy while SCUBA diving.
I don't really care if I'm not able to run OS X on other hardware. I'm only concerned with being able to run other software on Apple hardware. The kernel can use as much DRM as it likes so long as the hardware does not use any while running another OS.
I enjoy their hardware, but am not a large fan of their OS. That's why I'm writing this from my PowerBook running Ubuntu.
This guy is an asshole. Going to his site will just make him look as if he has a good readership to his bosses. Read the article text below:
Creative Commons Humbug
07.18.05
Dvorak
Total posts: 36
By John C. Dvorak
Will someone explain to me the benefits of a trendy system developed by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford? Dubbed Creative Commons, this system is some sort of secondary copyright license that, as far as I can tell, does absolutely nothing but threaten the already tenuous "fair use" provisos of existing copyright law. This is one of the dumbest initiatives ever put forth by the tech community. I mean seriously dumb. Eye-rolling dumb on the same scale as believing the Emperor is wearing fabulous new clothes.
If you are unfamiliar with this thing, be sure to go to the Web site and see if you can figure it out. Creative Commons actually seems to be a dangerous system with almost zero benefits to the public, copyright holders, or those of us who would like a return to a shorter-length copyright law.
I have sent notes to this operation and never received a reply, in case you're wondering. Meanwhile, according to its Web site, the Creative Commons organization has money from the Hewlett Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation. For what?
I have begged critics of the system, such as The Register's Andrew Orlowski, to explain to me how Creative Commons works or what it's supposed to do that current copyright law doesn't do. He says, "It does nothing." Okay, then why are bloggers and do-gooders and various supporters making a point of tagging their material as being covered by Creative Commons? Is it just because it's cool and trendy--a code for being hip amongst a certain elite? There is no other answer.
There are several things that bother me about this initiative. First, Creative Commons is similar to a license. You sign up with the group and post a message saying that your material is protected or covered by Creative Commons. This means that others have certain rights to reuse the material under a variety of provisos, mostly as long as the reuse is not for commercial purposes. Why not commercial purposes? What difference does it make, if everyone is free and easy about this? In other words, a noncommercial site could distribute a million copies of something and that's okay, but a small commercial site cannot deliver two copies if it's for commercial purposes. What is this telling me?
This is nonsense. Before Creative Commons I could always ask to reuse or mirror something. And that has not changed. And I could always use excerpts for commercial or noncommercial purposes. It's called fair use. I can still do that, but Creative Commons seems to hint that with its license means that I cannot. At least not if I'm a commercial site and the noncommercial proviso is in effect. This is a bogus suggestion, because Creative Commons does not supersede the copyright laws. In fact, the suggestion is dangerous, because if someone were sued by the Creative Commons folks over normal fair use and Creative Commons won the suit, then we'd all pay the price, as fair use would be eroded further.
There's another thing that bugs me about Creative Commons. When you see its licenses the wording will say something like "Creative Commons License: Public domain." This means that the item is not covered by copyright but is in the public domain. So what's Creative Commons got to do with it? Public domain is public domain. It's not something granted by Creative Commons. Yet you see this over and over as if it were!
A good example is found on this page of the Prelinger Archives--a site that has a slew of old training films and miscellaneous campy productions. An information box at the start of a film review includes the notation: "Creative Commons license: Public Domain." Either this is incredibly pretentious or people do not know what public domain means. If I write something on my blog, for example, and decide not to cover it with th
Slashdot Mirror
The banana POS (http://www.bananapos.com/pos/home.html) software has been around for a while, but does not seem to be developing at a rapid pace. Maybe it's already mature. Check it out.
Great, now we have two missing links.
"The Bible offers the old fish cliche -- give a man a fish and he'll eat today..."
I prefer my own:
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; give a man free access to the sum of all human knowledge and he'll learn a whole lot more than just how to catch fish."
This is a classis here on Slashdot: http://www.realdoll.com/
A hand that won't get tired? My girlfriend will love this. And by "girlfriend," I mean myself. With three hand I'll be able to pleasure myself *and* post foul comments on Slashdot. W00t!
"At *Kansas* State the frustration is rampant"
Blame it on intelligent game design.
You all know that the mosquito sprayers will eventually be spraying a pleasant population subduing mist. Remember the ending of that movie I won't mention by name for those who haven't seen it?
Can we expect this in the Ubuntu Dapper release? Many people have been asking a graphical installer while other prefer the non-graphical installer. I just want the option.
What about electronic scanning of paper ballots. I remember in college some of my libral arts courses had massive amounts of students and we would take our multi-choice test on ScanTron cards. I don't see what would be so hard about putting a stack of cards through a reader. The voter would know that there vote is recorded on the card correctly, the counting would be quick and not error prone. All we would need to do is check the source code and we could all be happy, happy voters. Why not?
Here's a link to a page on the GPL that you might understand http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/ and this http://creativecommons.org/license/ will help you choose a license. Look at the lower left of the page for easily read non-CC licenses.
The thing to remember is that not EVERYONE needs to change the source for ANYONE to benefit, ONLY one needs to change the source for EVERYONE to benefit.
"publishing houses don't print garbag"
I thought the christian bible is the most widely printed text.
Is that bush flaming or is it just this post? Bah-zing!
Just so my stance is documented, I agree and I am concerned. We should not ban autoCAD. I'm not so sure about the tax thing. And we should not censor Slashdot or anything else.
Should AutoCAD be concerned when it's software is used to design weapons? Should I be concerned about paying taxes when that money is used to kill people because they live on the other side of an imaginary line? Should Slashdot editors be concerned when their forums are used to copyright infringe entire articles?
...gee whiz, future technology always seems so promising. Too bad it never seems to change from being only promising.
Not to flame, but rhyming is lame.
This makes no sense to me on several levels. Who would trust MS to make anti-virus software when they're the ones who wrote the software that allowed the viruses in the first place? If MS knows about a virus that exploits a programming error, why don't they just fix the error? Who would trust a company that has a financial motive to write virus-prone code?
This would be great for displaying an extinct species or a species that is difficult in captivity. Sure, it's not the real thing, but it is a nice alternative. Also, this sort of thing might be good for aquariums that have little funding to maintain many living fish.
I don't know why this would be useful, but it wure would be cool to have a robotic fish buddy while SCUBA diving.
Will I be able to cross over the poles of the map this time?
We all pay butt loads in tolls...well, maybe not anymore!
Yes
Where did you learn to dance like that?
I don't really care if I'm not able to run OS X on other hardware. I'm only concerned with being able to run other software on Apple hardware. The kernel can use as much DRM as it likes so long as the hardware does not use any while running another OS.
I enjoy their hardware, but am not a large fan of their OS. That's why I'm writing this from my PowerBook running Ubuntu.
I don't see any "Copyright 2005" in his article, so I guess that means I won't get in trouble for posting the article text about five minutes ago.
This guy is an asshole. Going to his site will just make him look as if he has a good readership to his bosses. Read the article text below:
Creative Commons Humbug
07.18.05
Dvorak
Total posts: 36
By John C. Dvorak
Will someone explain to me the benefits of a trendy system developed by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford? Dubbed Creative Commons, this system is some sort of secondary copyright license that, as far as I can tell, does absolutely nothing but threaten the already tenuous "fair use" provisos of existing copyright law. This is one of the dumbest initiatives ever put forth by the tech community. I mean seriously dumb. Eye-rolling dumb on the same scale as believing the Emperor is wearing fabulous new clothes.
If you are unfamiliar with this thing, be sure to go to the Web site and see if you can figure it out. Creative Commons actually seems to be a dangerous system with almost zero benefits to the public, copyright holders, or those of us who would like a return to a shorter-length copyright law.
I have sent notes to this operation and never received a reply, in case you're wondering. Meanwhile, according to its Web site, the Creative Commons organization has money from the Hewlett Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation. For what?
I have begged critics of the system, such as The Register's Andrew Orlowski, to explain to me how Creative Commons works or what it's supposed to do that current copyright law doesn't do. He says, "It does nothing." Okay, then why are bloggers and do-gooders and various supporters making a point of tagging their material as being covered by Creative Commons? Is it just because it's cool and trendy--a code for being hip amongst a certain elite? There is no other answer.
There are several things that bother me about this initiative. First, Creative Commons is similar to a license. You sign up with the group and post a message saying that your material is protected or covered by Creative Commons. This means that others have certain rights to reuse the material under a variety of provisos, mostly as long as the reuse is not for commercial purposes. Why not commercial purposes? What difference does it make, if everyone is free and easy about this? In other words, a noncommercial site could distribute a million copies of something and that's okay, but a small commercial site cannot deliver two copies if it's for commercial purposes. What is this telling me?
This is nonsense. Before Creative Commons I could always ask to reuse or mirror something. And that has not changed. And I could always use excerpts for commercial or noncommercial purposes. It's called fair use. I can still do that, but Creative Commons seems to hint that with its license means that I cannot. At least not if I'm a commercial site and the noncommercial proviso is in effect. This is a bogus suggestion, because Creative Commons does not supersede the copyright laws. In fact, the suggestion is dangerous, because if someone were sued by the Creative Commons folks over normal fair use and Creative Commons won the suit, then we'd all pay the price, as fair use would be eroded further.
There's another thing that bugs me about Creative Commons. When you see its licenses the wording will say something like "Creative Commons License: Public domain." This means that the item is not covered by copyright but is in the public domain. So what's Creative Commons got to do with it? Public domain is public domain. It's not something granted by Creative Commons. Yet you see this over and over as if it were!
A good example is found on this page of the Prelinger Archives--a site that has a slew of old training films and miscellaneous campy productions. An information box at the start of a film review includes the notation: "Creative Commons license: Public Domain." Either this is incredibly pretentious or people do not know what public domain means. If I write something on my blog, for example, and decide not to cover it with th