What if this Tiger-Cats is bought by another business?
As a native of Hamilton, I think I can speak on this point. Robert Young is also a native of Hamilton, and I highly doubt he bought the 'cats for financial reasons, but rather for sentimentality; ie home-town pride. He's therefore unlikely to sell the team in order to make a quick buck.
And considering he has a net worth of $2,000,000,000, I doubt he'll ever be forced to by financial reasons.
That is interesting. I would even say that a 'convention' to open a programs source is somewhat more palatable idea (to some) than a 'right' to view it, as it emphasizes that their are benefits to be had by doing so.
Some might then suggest that this contradicts my original argument, since now calling something a convention makes it more attractive. However, I never said that calling anything a convention makes it less attractive then when it is called a right; rather, I was trying to emphasize that calling something a convention would help it to be viewed in a saner, more pragmatic manner.
In the case of IP, they would be taken less seriously; in the case of F/OSS, more seriously.
Unfortunately, I think that fight was lost some time in the 19th century when the term "Intellectual Property" was coined in a successful move to extend copyright terms.
They changed the language then, and we can change it again today. All that's required for the language to change is for enough people to start using the new language.
We'll never be able to deny IP rights as long as we call them rights. After all, denying someone their rights is wrong by definition.
We have to recognize, and incorporate into our dialogue, that these concepts are better termed IP conventions; ie, things which are adopted because they are convenient in practice.
Only then will we be able to cogently argue against them when they cease to be convenient for the public as a whole, and decide how to adjust them to maximize their convenience.
And if you're not in the U.S., don't expect to get a chance to. Though the site at first glance seems to allow you to download it, it first requires you to create an IBM user account, which requires that you provide a fair amount of information about you and your company (guess they can't imagine, nor care, that private individuals might perchance be interested in it).
Once you've done that, and you actually go to the download page for the product, it requires that you provide even more info on your company.
Finally, after providing all that information, it tells you that the software is subject to tight US export controls, and that your request is being reviewed.
Bah! What a fucking waste of my time. I guess I shouldn't have been honest and said I was in Canada.
This is just info-porn addiction in a new medium. 15 years ago we were discussing the same topic with regards to people who obsessively watch cable news channels. Sure, the internet version will have it's own unique twists, but let's have some sense of history, please.
Your right in that this doesn't give us the ability to do really novel gene manipulation.
But it does give us the ability to create the equivalent of patch files for bad/defective genes when a good/functional version of the gene is available.
There are many genetic diseases where the mistake in the DNA is well characterized, and it is very clear exactly what difference between the normal version of the gene and the defective version causes the disease, even if we don't have a full understanding of what the hell gene does; we just know to a high degree of certainty that a particular error causes a particular phenotype.
This new technology, if it lives up to the hype it's given here, could mean we can fix these kinds of diseases.
I'm not saying that open ended scientific research isn't important, I'm a firm believer in such research's need, but is the US military really the best organization to decide on how to direct it?
Consider that, even when the pentagon is funding open ended research, the deciders on how to grant the funding, in the back of their minds, know that they work for the military, and will act accordingly, however subconscious their motivations may be.
It would seem to be a lot more sensible to have an organization with broader goals to decide on how to fund open ended science.
You don't go far enough. There isn't ANY isolated behaviour which could completely contradict evolutionary theory. This is because we know, from the theory of molecular evolution, that their is always some small possibility that some otherwise unlikely trait could not only evolve but become common. Even if it is harmful.
why would a sub committee that is dealing with copyrights also be going after people doing phishing attacks
Because they want to group both sets of violators into the same category. It helps to demonize your opponents if you can say they're in the same category as actual demons.
Also, presumably they're going to propose legislation that tries do deal with all of these crimes, so you won't be able to reject the new DRM legislation without also rejecting the new anti-phishing legislation. So even legislators how have some reservations about DRM laws will be tempted to jump on board.
Funny you should say that. I was thinking the same thing, but for a different reason; that being why didn't the submission mention the technology which the 'nano-size probes' are based on.
By introducting a new, desirable design element feature into a stagnant product, Microsoft makes the product more desirable. But the ratio of desirability level to number of design elements is less in the combined product than in the new feature alone. However, the user has to either buy the whole product or no product at all, so if the new feature is critical, they must purchase it; they can't pay less because they don't want to use the bad components.
However, consider a software pricing model based on how often a piece of software is used? If a product is only desired for a particular feature, and that feature is not required in every case where that product type would be used (say, when you don't need SharePoint functionality), then alternatives to the product could be used any other time.
Under this scheme, the amount of money a software producing company could derive from their product would be proportional to how often that product was used. And if the user experience for the product isn't always preferable to that of it's alternatives, then the alternatives will be used much more of the time, and the company would derive much less profit.
Consider it like a software subscription, only much more finely grained. People could set up accounts with a software service provider, and only have to pay for when and how much they used the software.
This could change the software industry's economics in other ways too. For example, while someone won't buy an office suite if they only make one slide show every few months, they might be willing to use the service if they only pay for a few hours worth.
Mozilla is based on Netscape code that was opened up... It took time... for the code to get cleaned up.
Actually, it took a short amount of time for the mozilla project developers to abandon the netscape codebase and start over on developing mozilla from scratch(though I'm not sure if no netscape code made it into the new mozilla code or not).
It then took a fair amount of time for the project to then reimplement most of netscape and create the firefox which I'm typing into right now.
I often wondered if the child would be damaged by this...enough people in the world already believe in rubbish like psychics, spirits, acupuncture, homeopathy and so on, is this just going to make the situation worse?
Yeah, cuz I never recovered from my Mother reading me fairy tales as a child.
The one use case a binary XML encoding does address well is the need of a number of vendors to sell expensive tools for working with data and hide people's data from them. XML is just too obvious and too cheap to justify lots of expenditures on tools. If you hide the text inside an opaque binary format that programmers need special (even patented) tools to view, why then, companies can sell tools again! Surprisingly, I don't find this use case too compelling.:-)
Is this not the situation which we'll have if there isn't a binary xml standard? The whole point of having a binary xml standard, or maybe it's better described as a standard mapping from text xml to binary xml, is so that we don't have proliferation of a bunch of proprietary binary xml formats trying to fill the void left by the lack of such a standard.
Deliberate obfuscation of released source is a violation of the GPL, because obfuscated source is not the actual source; it is not what would be used for further development.
This is laid out in the open source definition, of which the GPL fits, which explicitly forbids obfuscated source.
Whether and how this applies to changelogs is another matter, since those could be interpreted as not being part of the source.
However, if the changelog is important for understanding the source, then I would interpret the GPL as regarding the changelog as part of the source code for the project, and therefore subject to the redistribution clause of the GPL.
If you want a hyper positive future imagined by Aldous Huxley, check out his novel "Island", which he wrote after he got over his "drugs are bad, technology is bad" phase. In that novel he envisions a society which uses boilogical, mental and social engineering to create a near ideallic society, one of the few utopias I've read about that seems both plausible and desirable.
The moment we accepted modern medicine we preventeed people from dying who "naturally" would have died. For example a type 1 diabetic, his children now have an increased suceptability. Continue this for 100 genertations and we have a problem. Now we can either solve the problem before it happens or treat the person after the fact. Treament after the fact means that their children will be born with the same mutations, and will require treatment too. Now if we just repair the mutated genes in the embryo then problem solved.
I can see the exact opposite happening: How your body regulates the insulin levels determines how you metabolize sugar, which effects how fat you will get. Some people's don't regulate it as well, or at least not the same, as others, so they absorb rushes of sugar, which causes a crash which gives them the hunger to eat more, and they get fatter.
I could easily see a world where artificial insulin pumps are so advanced that they regulate insulin BETTER than a human pancreus, as it can be tuned using external scientific data about their environment and how they should adjust to it. In this world, people will opt to go for a more advanced artificial pancreaus, rather than a clunky biological one with no connection to human knowledge.
We'll see the same thing with other functions, as we already have with cars and trains replacing legs. We'll see our bodies not only increasingly mechanical, but networked, as that allows them to access external data to optimise our states.
The reason why we have a pulse is because it's hard for evolution to result in turbines or continuously spinning things.
That may very well be the reason why pulsing circulation evolved, but that doesn't mean that we can simply drop in a pulseless replacement system and expect everything to be hunky dory.
For instance: At the pulse there is a peak in blood pressure, which causes the water and small molecules in your blood to osmose across the walls of small blood vessels into the surrounding tissue; between two pulses the pressure drops, causing the surrounding tissue's water and small molecules to osmose back into the blood vessels. This back and forth cycle helps to circulate the cellular environments fluids. Presumably, a pulseless circulatory system would keep a constant pressure, eliminating this flow; who knows what that will do to the cellular environments which are used to that.
So while nature might have evolved pulsing circulation due to architectural limitations, it may have made good use of the pulsing once it was in place.
If it's non-obvious and contrived, is it reasonable to assume that Microsoft could be lifting, or at least peeking at, code from the mozilla project and replicating it in their own browser?
The more complicated the systems are the more people are needed to keep it running.
This is generally true of systems humans have built in the past, but is not true of complex systems in general. For example: human bodies are some of the most complex systems that exist, and they essentially maintain themselves.
Once humans get better at designing homeostatic systems, something which major firms like IBM are working towards with their "autonomous computing" initiative, we'll see the amount of people required to maintain complex systems plummet.
What kind of (part-time) work can you get as a college student to gain experience (Cisco, Exchange, SQL, etc) that will be marketable in the real world?
I graduated April 2003 and I was able to find a fantastic job in what could be termed "corpademia"(half academic/half corporate).
I didn't really study the things mentioned above, so I can't comment on their usefulness. What gave me the experience which got me this job was working part time in a research lab for a professor, in some cases doing research myself, in others in a support capacity, developing the computational tools which facilitated the research by other members of the lab.
Much is said about inovative companies, but University research labs are places where a lot of cutting edge technologies are developed and first applied. This makes sense because researchers have to be innovative to stand out from their peers, and they also generally are given the freedom to try out new, untested technologies/techniques, because the profit concerns aren't as great.
I myself, with little experience in hardware or software beyond my coursework, was given the task of designing, building and administering a linux cluster with a dozen processors, got to attend workshops on HPC and parallel processing, and then got to adapt the lab's in house bioinformatics software to work on parallel High Performance Computing systems, experience I can't imagine getting anywhere else. These things got me my current job.
So that's my experience, YMMV, but best of luck to you!
Slashdot Mirror
As a native of Hamilton, I think I can speak on this point. Robert Young is also a native of Hamilton, and I highly doubt he bought the 'cats for financial reasons, but rather for sentimentality; ie home-town pride. He's therefore unlikely to sell the team in order to make a quick buck.
And considering he has a net worth of $2 ,000,000,000, I doubt he'll ever be forced to by financial reasons.
Some might then suggest that this contradicts my original argument, since now calling something a convention makes it more attractive. However, I never said that calling anything a convention makes it less attractive then when it is called a right; rather, I was trying to emphasize that calling something a convention would help it to be viewed in a saner, more pragmatic manner.
In the case of IP, they would be taken less seriously; in the case of F/OSS, more seriously.
They changed the language then, and we can change it again today. All that's required for the language to change is for enough people to start using the new language.
and it's from the BS alliance ...
We have to recognize, and incorporate into our dialogue, that these concepts are better termed IP conventions; ie, things which are adopted because they are convenient in practice.
Only then will we be able to cogently argue against them when they cease to be convenient for the public as a whole, and decide how to adjust them to maximize their convenience.
And if you're not in the U.S., don't expect to get a chance to. Though the site at first glance seems to allow you to download it, it first requires you to create an IBM user account, which requires that you provide a fair amount of information about you and your company (guess they can't imagine, nor care, that private individuals might perchance be interested in it).
Once you've done that, and you actually go to the download page for the product, it requires that you provide even more info on your company.
Finally, after providing all that information, it tells you that the software is subject to tight US export controls, and that your request is being reviewed.
Bah! What a fucking waste of my time. I guess I shouldn't have been honest and said I was in Canada.
This is just info-porn addiction in a new medium. 15 years ago we were discussing the same topic with regards to people who obsessively watch cable news channels. Sure, the internet version will have it's own unique twists, but let's have some sense of history, please.
But it does give us the ability to create the equivalent of patch files for bad/defective genes when a good/functional version of the gene is available.
There are many genetic diseases where the mistake in the DNA is well characterized, and it is very clear exactly what difference between the normal version of the gene and the defective version causes the disease, even if we don't have a full understanding of what the hell gene does; we just know to a high degree of certainty that a particular error causes a particular phenotype.
This new technology, if it lives up to the hype it's given here, could mean we can fix these kinds of diseases.
Consider that, even when the pentagon is funding open ended research, the deciders on how to grant the funding, in the back of their minds, know that they work for the military, and will act accordingly, however subconscious their motivations may be.
It would seem to be a lot more sensible to have an organization with broader goals to decide on how to fund open ended science.
For more background, look up Neutral theory of molecular evolution.
Because they want to group both sets of violators into the same category. It helps to demonize your opponents if you can say they're in the same category as actual demons.
Also, presumably they're going to propose legislation that tries do deal with all of these crimes, so you won't be able to reject the new DRM legislation without also rejecting the new anti-phishing legislation. So even legislators how have some reservations about DRM laws will be tempted to jump on board.
The answer, of course, is quantum dot technology
However, consider a software pricing model based on how often a piece of software is used? If a product is only desired for a particular feature, and that feature is not required in every case where that product type would be used (say, when you don't need SharePoint functionality), then alternatives to the product could be used any other time.
Under this scheme, the amount of money a software producing company could derive from their product would be proportional to how often that product was used. And if the user experience for the product isn't always preferable to that of it's alternatives, then the alternatives will be used much more of the time, and the company would derive much less profit.
Consider it like a software subscription, only much more finely grained. People could set up accounts with a software service provider, and only have to pay for when and how much they used the software.
This could change the software industry's economics in other ways too. For example, while someone won't buy an office suite if they only make one slide show every few months, they might be willing to use the service if they only pay for a few hours worth.
Actually, it took a short amount of time for the mozilla project developers to abandon the netscape codebase and start over on developing mozilla from scratch(though I'm not sure if no netscape code made it into the new mozilla code or not).
It then took a fair amount of time for the project to then reimplement most of netscape and create the firefox which I'm typing into right now.
Yeah, cuz I never recovered from my Mother reading me fairy tales as a child.
Is this not the situation which we'll have if there isn't a binary xml standard? The whole point of having a binary xml standard, or maybe it's better described as a standard mapping from text xml to binary xml, is so that we don't have proliferation of a bunch of proprietary binary xml formats trying to fill the void left by the lack of such a standard.
Or am I missing something here?
archive.org people!!!
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. "
If the changelog is a component of the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, then it is classified as part of the source code.
Now, why threaten witholding or obfuscating the changelog, in this situation, if it isn't preferred when making modifications?
This is laid out in the open source definition, of which the GPL fits, which explicitly forbids obfuscated source.
Whether and how this applies to changelogs is another matter, since those could be interpreted as not being part of the source.
However, if the changelog is important for understanding the source, then I would interpret the GPL as regarding the changelog as part of the source code for the project, and therefore subject to the redistribution clause of the GPL.
If you want a hyper positive future imagined by Aldous Huxley, check out his novel "Island", which he wrote after he got over his "drugs are bad, technology is bad" phase. In that novel he envisions a society which uses boilogical, mental and social engineering to create a near ideallic society, one of the few utopias I've read about that seems both plausible and desirable.
I can see the exact opposite happening: How your body regulates the insulin levels determines how you metabolize sugar, which effects how fat you will get. Some people's don't regulate it as well, or at least not the same, as others, so they absorb rushes of sugar, which causes a crash which gives them the hunger to eat more, and they get fatter.
I could easily see a world where artificial insulin pumps are so advanced that they regulate insulin BETTER than a human pancreus, as it can be tuned using external scientific data about their environment and how they should adjust to it. In this world, people will opt to go for a more advanced artificial pancreaus, rather than a clunky biological one with no connection to human knowledge.
We'll see the same thing with other functions, as we already have with cars and trains replacing legs. We'll see our bodies not only increasingly mechanical, but networked, as that allows them to access external data to optimise our states.
That may very well be the reason why pulsing circulation evolved, but that doesn't mean that we can simply drop in a pulseless replacement system and expect everything to be hunky dory.
For instance: At the pulse there is a peak in blood pressure, which causes the water and small molecules in your blood to osmose across the walls of small blood vessels into the surrounding tissue; between two pulses the pressure drops, causing the surrounding tissue's water and small molecules to osmose back into the blood vessels. This back and forth cycle helps to circulate the cellular environments fluids. Presumably, a pulseless circulatory system would keep a constant pressure, eliminating this flow; who knows what that will do to the cellular environments which are used to that. So while nature might have evolved pulsing circulation due to architectural limitations, it may have made good use of the pulsing once it was in place.
If it's non-obvious and contrived, is it reasonable to assume that Microsoft could be lifting, or at least peeking at, code from the mozilla project and replicating it in their own browser?
Naw; if that were true, IE wouldn't suck so much.
This is generally true of systems humans have built in the past, but is not true of complex systems in general. For example: human bodies are some of the most complex systems that exist, and they essentially maintain themselves.
Once humans get better at designing homeostatic systems, something which major firms like IBM are working towards with their "autonomous computing" initiative, we'll see the amount of people required to maintain complex systems plummet.
I graduated April 2003 and I was able to find a fantastic job in what could be termed "corpademia"(half academic/half corporate).
I didn't really study the things mentioned above, so I can't comment on their usefulness. What gave me the experience which got me this job was working part time in a research lab for a professor, in some cases doing research myself, in others in a support capacity, developing the computational tools which facilitated the research by other members of the lab.
Much is said about inovative companies, but University research labs are places where a lot of cutting edge technologies are developed and first applied. This makes sense because researchers have to be innovative to stand out from their peers, and they also generally are given the freedom to try out new, untested technologies/techniques, because the profit concerns aren't as great.
I myself, with little experience in hardware or software beyond my coursework, was given the task of designing, building and administering a linux cluster with a dozen processors, got to attend workshops on HPC and parallel processing, and then got to adapt the lab's in house bioinformatics software to work on parallel High Performance Computing systems, experience I can't imagine getting anywhere else. These things got me my current job.
So that's my experience, YMMV, but best of luck to you!