Experience is a matter of the person an can't be taught, in the college nor in the industry. One has to grow its own.
OTOH, college may provide background knowledge (mathematics, system architecture...) that may be lacking in the labor world but is useful for designin' complex systems. This information doesn't tell how to implement the details - but can face you in the right direction.
I answered this above. I will decide what is right or wrong in order to support my further acts. Those definitions will only hold to me.
My post did not intent anytime to tell what others should do. It stated MY concerns about whether I should contribute to the project or not.
People should be stopped from doing harmful things to others, because that reduces the others' freedom. The way to do it is with decentralized action from each one in that society. That implies everyone acting like me, deciding what will they support and what to reject. So the freedoms are protected, anyone can exert them but society will decide if it is tolerated. This is the essence of freedom, a consensual establishment.
Re:Freedom to only do Right Is Not Freedom!
on
Freenet 0.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
Ah. So are you the person who gets to tell us what is "right" and what is "wrong?"
My post did not intent anytime to tell what YOU should do. It stated MY concerns about whether I should contribute to the project or not. Kinda rhetorical - by now I have my Freenet node up and running in not transient mode. So the right and wrong definitions given are those valid for me.
The "dark side" of freedom is a red herring. If we are free, we are free to do things others disagree with. The only limits should be when those freedoms reduce the freedoms of others (that was what the founding fathers intended, after all).
My concern was motivated for just that precise thought. Who decides where is that limit placed? It has to be done by social consensus - but maybe this technology permit a few to do too much damage to people without any possibility of social control. I don't think it does, but the subject must be adressed seriously.
My ethic debates between allowing the opressed to avoid control and encouraging terrorist/pedophilic/bad guys to increase their activities. I'm going to support the Freenet as long as the second is not severe. Someone posted below: "If you give people choices, they may make bad choices. I don't believe that makes choice bad." Neither I think so, as long as society is able to counteract the relly bad choices of a few people. This applies to goverment the same as to any single individual.
People should be stopped from doing harmful things to others, because that reduces the others' freedom. The way to do it is with decentralized action from each one in that society. I will do my best to support the good uses of Freenet while making sure that it really is not an Evil Thing.
The FreeNet principles are a good things, but I'm concerned about the possible wrong uses of freedom.
I'm not worried about nazi propaganda, I think is a good thing that the normal citizen have access to this information in order to study it. But pedophilia images and personal information can also be published through this channel with no ways to remove it. My only hope in this case is that these crimes can be pursued by police through other normal ways.
On the other hand, the fact is that the more popular information is better found, and the marginal info is hard to obtain.
Moreover, the control of the net is in the hands of users. If this technology became a widely used criminal tool, people would decide to turn off their servers and the proyect would die. The purpose of the FreeNet will be decided by the majority.
If the code of IE had been available, there would have been many public modified compatible versions - made by the 1% who cares about source- and people would have had the choice to switch from one to other. This would have prevented the IE-browse only web pages.
The 1978 Spanish Constitution establishes that Spain is a unique nation divided in separate Autonomous Communities, which are roughly like US states. We have just left a totalitarian regime that denied traditional cultural identities of the historical regions, bu the new regime is designed to favour those identities.
The Communities have wide rights of self-goverment, including:
land management, urbanism and housing
public works
transports
culture preservation
public health
tourism
Meanwhile, the nation reserves for itself competences in:
Just give me icewm and I'm happy. Gnome and KDE are bloatware and add *nothing* to the desktop that a simple window manager doesn't. I don't need drag and drop bullshit when I have xterms.
You're wrong. Desktop, above window manager, are not mainly intended for the user: it's for the developer. The main goal of a desktop environment is having a repository of components from wich to choose, and therefore making design of a new application just a mattern of putting together the pieces.
I've heard that a scientist's (i can't remember her name) approach to conversation-support AI was to set up a neural net at random, and teach it to talk by a Reward-Penalty training. The system achieved to talk in a set of hundred-size words.
What's your oppinion on this kind of machine learning? Do you think it has a chance to evolve into a real Turing Test proficient machine?
It's a Nice Thing than Mozilla goes on dropping new releases after 1.0, because the release often approach of free software brings new features quite often.
If someone there is worried about people facing this 1.1 new release when, in press releases they have been told about 1.0, then don't worry.
The big milestone of 1.0 is about compatibility: the interfaces have been frozen so further development will be easy to do. This is a concert only for enterprises developing applications based on Mozilla technology (PDAs, portable aps, embedded devices), not for the desktop end user.
A copyright law we can understand
on
Coding Fair Use
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Like this UserFriendly's
version of the law that the RIAA want:
- 'Thou must comprehend that the "I have a right to do anything I wish with the music in this CD" attitude is harming the industry'
- 'By ripping MP3 Thou art harming the poor artists who render their souls into such sweet tunes'
- 'Think of the starving musician who hath slaved into the dark hours! Think of the powdered cheese food thou art taking out of his mouth when Thou doth copy of his music!'
- 'Don't trouble Thyself sending them money... We can pass the money on to him for Thee!'
Since so many of the Adult sites seem to have their "Please leave now..." links pointed at disney.com or nickelodeon.com or something.... will they end up in the adult communities?
Don't worry... the cicle won't be complete until disney.com links to many of the Adult sites! 8)
I agree. It would be like re-engineering the actual ones to their basic components and let you choose wich ones want to use. This work extends the meaning of the GPL/BSD/Artistic/others licenses, not restrict them. You could easily redo a GPL-like legal license with say, obligation to say "don't spit" in every source file.
With a well developed interface for the modules, you should not have problems of deciding whether a chosen pair of licenses may or may not interact.
But as I mention in my other comment downwards, the main use of these model is not in software, but in artistic/scientific material. Module compatibility is only a problem with rewritable/pluggable material, wich is often not the case with music or literature!
As I mention in my other comment, the main use of these model is not in software, but in artistic/scientific material.
Referring to soft licenses, it would be like re-engineering the actual ones to their basic components and let you choose wich ones want to use. This work extends the meaning of the GPL/BSD/Artistic/others licenses, not restrict them. You could easily redo a GPL-like legal license with say, obligation to say "don't spit" in every source file.
With a well developed interface for the modules, you should not have problems of deciding whether a chosen pair of licenses may or may not interact. But this is only a problem with rewritable/pluggable material, wich is often not the case with music or literature!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the correct link is this one.
Experience is a matter of the person an can't be taught, in the college nor in the industry. One has to grow its own.
OTOH, college may provide background knowledge (mathematics, system architecture...) that may be lacking in the labor world but is useful for designin' complex systems. This information doesn't tell how to implement the details - but can face you in the right direction.
I answered this above. I will decide what is right or wrong in order to support my further acts. Those definitions will only hold to me.
My post did not intent anytime to tell what others should do. It stated MY concerns about whether I should contribute to the project or not.
People should be stopped from doing harmful things to others, because that reduces the others' freedom. The way to do it is with decentralized action from each one in that society. That implies everyone acting like me, deciding what will they support and what to reject. So the freedoms are protected, anyone can exert them but society will decide if it is tolerated. This is the essence of freedom, a consensual establishment.
My post did not intent anytime to tell what YOU should do. It stated MY concerns about whether I should contribute to the project or not. Kinda rhetorical - by now I have my Freenet node up and running in not transient mode. So the right and wrong definitions given are those valid for me.
The "dark side" of freedom is a red herring. If we are free, we are free to do things others disagree with. The only limits should be when those freedoms reduce the freedoms of others (that was what the founding fathers intended, after all).
My concern was motivated for just that precise thought. Who decides where is that limit placed? It has to be done by social consensus - but maybe this technology permit a few to do too much damage to people without any possibility of social control. I don't think it does, but the subject must be adressed seriously.
My ethic debates between allowing the opressed to avoid control and encouraging terrorist/pedophilic/bad guys to increase their activities. I'm going to support the Freenet as long as the second is not severe. Someone posted below: "If you give people choices, they may make bad choices. I don't believe that makes choice bad." Neither I think so, as long as society is able to counteract the relly bad choices of a few people. This applies to goverment the same as to any single individual.
People should be stopped from doing harmful things to others, because that reduces the others' freedom. The way to do it is with decentralized action from each one in that society. I will do my best to support the good uses of Freenet while making sure that it really is not an Evil Thing.
Quite agree.
The FreeNet principles are a good things, but I'm concerned about the possible wrong uses of freedom.
I'm not worried about nazi propaganda, I think is a good thing that the normal citizen have access to this information in order to study it. But pedophilia images and personal information can also be published through this channel with no ways to remove it. My only hope in this case is that these crimes can be pursued by police through other normal ways.
On the other hand, the fact is that the more popular information is better found, and the marginal info is hard to obtain.
Moreover, the control of the net is in the hands of users. If this technology became a widely used criminal tool, people would decide to turn off their servers and the proyect would die. The purpose of the FreeNet will be decided by the majority.
-
Wonderful Microsoft New Product for Browsing IE 3.0! Buy it now!
-
Netscape 4.0 - You already know how us. Upgrade for only 99$
- RowBoat 3.0 - It's our first product but we gonna hit the market!
- ..
Who cares of 4 hippies advocacing GNU/GPL/BSD/TLA?The anser is - forking.
If the code of IE had been available, there would have been many public modified compatible versions - made by the 1% who cares about source- and people would have had the choice to switch from one to other. This would have prevented the IE-browse only web pages.
the magic words ar for others. If you get a license that allows YOU to install multiple copies, that doesn't apply to other people.
Chip technology always seemed rather ugly to me. Now these pieces of glass have a quite appealing look like those in the Sci-Fi movies.
Will we see soon an aqua-themed computer box?
"Euskal Herria" means "the basque people" in the Euskera language.
BTW, the name of the terrorist organization ETA is from "Euskadi ta Askatasuna" and means "Euskadi and freedom".
The Communities have wide rights of self-goverment, including:
- land management, urbanism and housing
- public works
- transports
- culture preservation
- public health
- tourism
Meanwhile, the nation reserves for itself competences in:- alienage and asylum rights
- defense and public security
- civil and work laws
- currency
- foreign offices
- national statistics and referendums
Read the Preamble and Part VIII for details.so mod up the parent.
You're wrong. Desktop, above window manager, are not mainly intended for the user: it's for the developer. The main goal of a desktop environment is having a repository of components from wich to choose, and therefore making design of a new application just a mattern of putting together the pieces.
...so none at MS can read it and get the idea! ;-)
Only phrase??
I :-)) at your ingenuousness.
You silly (_._) ! :-/ be |-D . :-) boys. ^_~
But don't
& be O
I've heard that a scientist's (i can't remember her name) approach to conversation-support AI was to set up a neural net at random, and teach it to talk by a Reward-Penalty training. The system achieved to talk in a set of hundred-size words.
What's your oppinion on this kind of machine learning? Do you think it has a chance to evolve into a real Turing Test proficient machine?
If someone there is worried about people facing this 1.1 new release when, in press releases they have been told about 1.0, then don't worry. The big milestone of 1.0 is about compatibility: the interfaces have been frozen so further development will be easy to do. This is a concert only for enterprises developing applications based on Mozilla technology (PDAs, portable aps, embedded devices), not for the desktop end user.
My first karma point! 8'DDDDD
- 'Thou must comprehend that the "I have a right to do anything I wish with the music in this CD" attitude is harming the industry'
- 'By ripping MP3 Thou art harming the poor artists who render their souls into such sweet tunes'
- 'Think of the starving musician who hath slaved into the dark hours! Think of the powdered cheese food thou art taking out of his mouth when Thou doth copy of his music!'
- 'Don't trouble Thyself sending them money... We can pass the money on to him for Thee!'
That implies you'll have to push-push-drag-spin the TV buttons to see the next scene?
It has everthing it needs to become an Office substitute. Don't you realize? It comes with a blue & white packaging!!!
Don't worry... the cicle won't be complete until disney.com links to many of the Adult sites! 8)
I agree. It would be like re-engineering the actual ones to their basic components and let you choose wich ones want to use. This work extends the meaning of the GPL/BSD/Artistic/others licenses, not restrict them. You could easily redo a GPL-like legal license with say, obligation to say "don't spit" in every source file.
With a well developed interface for the modules, you should not have problems of deciding whether a chosen pair of licenses may or may not interact.
But as I mention in my other comment downwards, the main use of these model is not in software, but in artistic/scientific material. Module compatibility is only a problem with rewritable/pluggable material, wich is often not the case with music or literature!
As I mention in my other comment, the main use of these model is not in software, but in artistic/scientific material.
Referring to soft licenses, it would be like re-engineering the actual ones to their basic components and let you choose wich ones want to use. This work extends the meaning of the GPL/BSD/Artistic/others licenses, not restrict them. You could easily redo a GPL-like legal license with say, obligation to say "don't spit" in every source file.
With a well developed interface for the modules, you should not have problems of deciding whether a chosen pair of licenses may or may not interact. But this is only a problem with rewritable/pluggable material, wich is often not the case with music or literature!