Wall St. Geek.com has some analysis up that shows that Apple stock rises before annoucements, but rarely keeps the momentum afterwards. In fact, after major announcements (including the original iPod), the stock sank. Here's the link.
If you run an X server on Mac OS X, it should run fine. Rule of thumb: if you can run the gimp on a platform, you can run SashXB on the platform (with some slight modifications, if necessary).
Bottom line: SashXB is open source. If you have a Mac OS X box and the time, try it. Better yet, use the Cocoa MozEmbed and make it run natively.
For those of you interested, there's a book recently published by IBM about the Windows version of Sash. You can buy it online or download the entire thing from here.
That's irrelevant to SashXB, though. SashXB uses standard JavaScript and HTML (which is supported brilliantly in Mozilla) and does not even require network access to run the weblications. A weblication runs inside of a container called a Location, which uses a JavaScript interpreter to handle calls from a HTML DOM or a glade layout. So, although the entire application may be written in JavaScript, it is far from a traditional web application.
I would suggest that everyone try out SashXB before they make a judgement. Try the FTP client, it rocks.
Let the community have/buy it.
on
Deja For Sale
·
· Score: 1
I'd hate to see the same thing happen to Deja.com that happened to the International Lyrics Server (lyrics.ch). The ILS provided content created by the community that, according to some laws, belonged to the artists. Deja.com provides content created by the community that is owned by the community. Deja.com is commercial now... I can handle that. But the ILS sucks now that it's "songfile.com". I couldn't stand to see that happen.
Of course, the "right" thing to do would be to donate the archive to the people who created it, the community. I'm quite certain that there could be legal issues with selling other people's content. I'm in Deja.com and I never signed over the rights to my content. If they are selling it, I want a piece of it.
Or, perhaps the community could "buy" it from them. While I don't think that many people would be eager to donate some cash to pay for the company, I think that a series of donations could give a small infusion to get it going and banner ads would be enough to run the server/database on a daily basis. Or, most likely, you could find a company willing to donate the resources to run the site.
When working for a large corporation a couple months ago, I had the opportunity to meet with the IP lawyers to discuss a couple patent applications I was considering submitting. One of the ideas, though, was originally created by one of my partners who had already left the company. Though he had the idea, I made it happen.
However, the IP lawyers informed me that if my name appears as one of the inventors on the patent application and I didn't invent it, then the patent can and will get nullified in court. Additionally, this could be considered fraud in some countries, causing more problems.
So, if you sign the patent application for something you did not invent, it doesn't matter whether you endorse it or not... the application is not valid.
Ironically, I was having this same conversation with Juris Hartmanis the other day. When he was heading the NSF study on the future of computing, everyone was going nuts about the forecast of quantum computers destroying our current infrastructure. However, he was confident that no one alive today will ever see a quantum computer. If we make leaps and strides in physics, we may be able to build a 100 million dollar one, but that's about as practical it will get in our lifetime.
However, it's an interesting problem in computer science to think that there could be a computer that is fast enough to shred even our most "secure" algorithms. But, realize that even non-factoring-based encryption methods will be vulnerable, for a quantum computer could essentially solve any problem by brute force. However, there are computer scientists studying truly "quantum" encryption methods. The basis behind these algorithms, though, is the assumption that we have super-fast networks, too. For, I assume, they require a much, much larger cyphertext-to-text ratio.
So, instead of relying on our hardware to be slow, we will need to establish good theory (and software) to provide security and privacy.
It looks like this thing is for real, but there's a bit too much confusion. Essentially, it looks like a web site operator would need to get one of these licenses if they either write their own gif-making software or if the people/products that they use to get GIF's make the images without giving Unisys a piece of the cake. So, if you use Photoshop, you're fine. However, I'm not sure what the implications would be for something like the GIMP. Since I'm not sure if the creators of the GIMP paid Unisys their "fair share," I think it would be on me to pay the fee. Damn.
My best advice is for everyone (and I do mean everyone) to contact the Unisys Licensing Department at 215-986-5693 (or fax at 215-986-3090) to ensure that you're safe. If they expect me to pay anything, I'll be sure to keep whoever answers the phone talking for a couple hours. I'm sure they'll have enough people to handle a phone slashdotting. Or maybe not. We'll see.
Did the same thing to my Palm V. I had to reset the memory by holding down the power button while resetting. Then, with nothing on the machine at all, it STILL killed it. It looks amazing, though. I can't wait until someone fixes it... because I'll use it 99% of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Wall St. Geek.com has some analysis up that shows that Apple stock rises before annoucements, but rarely keeps the momentum afterwards. In fact, after major announcements (including the original iPod), the stock sank. Here's the link.
If you run an X server on Mac OS X, it should run fine. Rule of thumb: if you can run the gimp on a platform, you can run SashXB on the platform (with some slight modifications, if necessary).
Bottom line: SashXB is open source. If you have a Mac OS X box and the time, try it. Better yet, use the Cocoa MozEmbed and make it run natively.
For those of you interested, there's a book recently published by IBM about the Windows version of Sash. You can buy it online or download the entire thing from here.
That's irrelevant to SashXB, though. SashXB uses standard JavaScript and HTML (which is supported brilliantly in Mozilla) and does not even require network access to run the weblications. A weblication runs inside of a container called a Location, which uses a JavaScript interpreter to handle calls from a HTML DOM or a glade layout. So, although the entire application may be written in JavaScript, it is far from a traditional web application.
I would suggest that everyone try out SashXB before they make a judgement. Try the FTP client, it rocks.
I'd hate to see the same thing happen to Deja.com that happened to the International Lyrics Server (lyrics.ch). The ILS provided content created by the community that, according to some laws, belonged to the artists. Deja.com provides content created by the community that is owned by the community. Deja.com is commercial now... I can handle that. But the ILS sucks now that it's "songfile.com". I couldn't stand to see that happen. Of course, the "right" thing to do would be to donate the archive to the people who created it, the community. I'm quite certain that there could be legal issues with selling other people's content. I'm in Deja.com and I never signed over the rights to my content. If they are selling it, I want a piece of it. Or, perhaps the community could "buy" it from them. While I don't think that many people would be eager to donate some cash to pay for the company, I think that a series of donations could give a small infusion to get it going and banner ads would be enough to run the server/database on a daily basis. Or, most likely, you could find a company willing to donate the resources to run the site.
When working for a large corporation a couple months ago, I had the opportunity to meet with the IP lawyers to discuss a couple patent applications I was considering submitting. One of the ideas, though, was originally created by one of my partners who had already left the company. Though he had the idea, I made it happen.
However, the IP lawyers informed me that if my name appears as one of the inventors on the patent application and I didn't invent it, then the patent can and will get nullified in court. Additionally, this could be considered fraud in some countries, causing more problems.
So, if you sign the patent application for something you did not invent, it doesn't matter whether you endorse it or not... the application is not valid.
Ironically, I was having this same conversation with Juris Hartmanis the other day. When he was heading the NSF study on the future of computing, everyone was going nuts about the forecast of quantum computers destroying our current infrastructure. However, he was confident that no one alive today will ever see a quantum computer. If we make leaps and strides in physics, we may be able to build a 100 million dollar one, but that's about as practical it will get in our lifetime.
However, it's an interesting problem in computer science to think that there could be a computer that is fast enough to shred even our most "secure" algorithms. But, realize that even non-factoring-based encryption methods will be vulnerable, for a quantum computer could essentially solve any problem by brute force. However, there are computer scientists studying truly "quantum" encryption methods. The basis behind these algorithms, though, is the assumption that we have super-fast networks, too. For, I assume, they require a much, much larger cyphertext-to-text ratio.
So, instead of relying on our hardware to be slow, we will need to establish good theory (and software) to provide security and privacy.
After reviewing this site:
http://corp2.unisys.com/LeadStor y/lzw-license.html
It looks like this thing is for real, but there's a bit too much confusion. Essentially, it looks like a web site operator would need to get one of these licenses if they either write their own gif-making software or if the people/products that they use to get GIF's make the images without giving Unisys a piece of the cake. So, if you use Photoshop, you're fine. However, I'm not sure what the implications would be for something like the GIMP. Since I'm not sure if the creators of the GIMP paid Unisys their "fair share," I think it would be on me to pay the fee. Damn.
My best advice is for everyone (and I do mean everyone) to contact the Unisys Licensing Department at 215-986-5693 (or fax at 215-986-3090) to ensure that you're safe. If they expect me to pay anything, I'll be sure to keep whoever answers the phone talking for a couple hours. I'm sure they'll have enough people to handle a phone slashdotting. Or maybe not. We'll see.
Did the same thing to my Palm V. I had to reset the memory by holding down the power button while resetting. Then, with nothing on the machine at all, it STILL killed it.
It looks amazing, though. I can't wait until someone fixes it... because I'll use it 99% of the time.