At first, I think "Okay, they could legitimately need a license for either of SCO's Unix products". Then, I realized something: Both of SCO's Unix product lines are completely inferior to every other form of Unix on the market. SCO's one strong point--uniproccessor speed--is surpassed by the BSD-licensed BSDs, which Microsoft has been legally borrowing code from for nearly a decade.
A far more believable reason to license this code is to make a political statement: that you support IP as a barterable asset instead of a development/creation incentive. MS made their fortune under a distribution network that mimics the idea of IP-as-asset.
This perspective is profitable but on extremely shaky ground right now As quoted, "[s]ince other software vendors who depend on software licenses haven't been exactly falling all over themselves to support our position, seeing something that supported it was welcome." In other words, this lawsuit is their first good opportunity to throw their support with another party to support this idea. Unfortunately for MS, it's also a pretty pathetic opportunity.
The best part about this is that MS didn't have to buy the license at all. They tried it, then they bought it to support a company they (conditionally) respect. Bloody pirates.
They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question.
SCO's strongest claim against IBM is based on trade secret law, not copyright.
1976 Copyright law does not require copyright notice to be posted, and as both SCO and IBM are US companies, Berne Convention be damned.
SCO's claims have nothing to do with the GPL license. The only impact GPL may have is in a resolution to solve the problem: can the alleged code be extracted from a public work? This question requires that 1) code can be considered trade secret, and 2) the code is still a trade secret, after SCO's complete ineptitude to enforce anything resembling secrecy over seven years.
The foundation of their religeon is one of the most enlightened in western culture. It's just circumstance that at one point, in recent history, they decided electricity wasn't for man, and decided not to use it.
I'm interested in the answer. I haven't seen many books heavy in the math. However, I've got two books I love, which explain the concepts very well for people without a strong mathematics background.
Wolf, Fred Alan. Taking the Quantum Leap. Perennial Library, Harper & Row Publishers. ISBN: 0-06-096310-7
Wolf, Fred Alan. Parallel Universes. A Touchstone Book, published by Simom & Schuster. ISBN: 0-671-69601-7 (-8 for hardback)
Be warned, Parallel Universes has an almost insultingly big font, if you're one to take offense at large point sizes. Taking the Quantum Leap has a comfortable font, without being tiny-textbook sized.
First of all, it's an artificial cost, and it's extremely likely that, in the future, tax exemptions would be given to corporations for "service announcements" or some other slit-tounge perversion of language.
Foremost, however, a penny per post is hardly enough to curb spam. A thousand dollars is piss for the coverage it provides, especially compared with newspaper and television advertisement. More likely, it'd imply legality to spam, and more legitimate businesses would begin funding the straight-to-/dev/null bandwidth decimator.
More fundamentally, there's an assumption that it's possible to tax the source, and that international tax is architecturally sound and desirable. One of two things would be required for this proposition to work:
E-mail systems would have to be rearchitectured into source-trustable system
An international taxation system would need to be built.
The lovely part of #1 is that it'd solve the spam problem in the first place. The only thing gained by the promise of taxes is government funding and ("gained" is now debatable) government involvement in the design. If #1 is put in place, the tax system is immediately superfulous.
#2 is worse. This would be the first official economic distribution structure for a globally run government. While I'm not intristicly opposed to the concept of world government, I think that this is the absolute worst possible seed for any government in any form at any time. We do not want a government whose origin is in a banalty that is obsolete the second it is possible to enforce collection.
You suggest that credit is being stolen or snuffed, right now? Reiser is proposing to plaster advertising everywhere possible. He already puts advertising into kernel messasges, and there's a big stinking advertisment in the ReiserFS kernel infopage.
Credit is given due, and anyone who cares can find out who wrote what piece of code (thanks to the miracle of comments). Reiser wants to plaster author names as advertising.
Honestly, I don't think he's mentally healthy. I've written other comments on this.
Re:the purpose of free software for many IS credit
on
Credit and Free Software
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Using Ayn Rand's clarified definition, I'd say selfish reasons are the best and most prominent reasons to write good software. Still using Ayn Rand-compliant vocabulary, Reiser is being very selfless.
Translation: people write software for the feeling of self-fullfillment, self-actualization, and personal pride. This is a personal experiece that does not require anyone else's opinion to realize; you know you've given everything you could. Reiser, however, requires the recognition of others, needs his "greatness" (extremely debatable) to be recognized and advertised by others. This is what people mean by "his ego problems". He is "without self", or "selfless".
More on a practical point, Hans Reiser has been completely unable to prove that (1) the current setup is insufficient, (2) anything would be gained by modifying the current setup, and (3) his proposals would do less harm than good.
Further, I have supreme doubts that reputation is the driving force for the best programers. Respect of your peers is a reward. Delivering bad code would cause you to lose respect, and that lose would be a source of fear. Fear does not drive good development. Self-actualization drives good development, and that is incompatible with fear of resentment. Good programers (s/programers/anything) may enjoy the respect of their peers, but that is quite different from fear for your reputation. Reiser is fearful, and ReiserFS is a testament to bad code.
As another commenter wrote "This can be tastefully done easily" as Hans has never done. My first exposure to Reiser was the kernel module info page, which, paraphrased and summarized said "if you want features, pay us money and we'll put them in". I had never seen an advertisement in GPL software before, and thank god I haven't seen one since. That stunk of unprofessional, badly designed code. The evidence is in the word-of-mouth reviews: ReiserFS has become incompatible with itself several times even after it was accepted into Linux (WHY?), people lose data, the tools constantly change: sometimes safe flags become dangerous flags between point releases.
If there's a point to be made, Reiser is not the one to make it.
For example, you could use the Evil Bit in TCP/IP packet headers. Non-evil, non-malicious programs should ignore any traffic marked with the evil bit. This protects those devices. If the RIAA is circumventing this protection bit (by ignoring it), you can slap them with a DMCA lawsuit.
The joke is that "autocon, autogen, automake, binutils, gcc, emacs/xemacs, KDE, Gnome, gdb, gnu tar, cpio, ghostscript, gzip, bzip2, and any other essential GNU tools" already require "patching everything to run on their dead platform."
Some may disagree, but wikipedia has done me a world of good. Almost every entry is informative, and I even have a wiki quicksearch in Phoenix. If I want to know what, say "Condorcet's Method" is, I type "wiki Condorcet's Method" in Phoenix' address bar, and *POP*, I'm learning.
Wikipedia is also a damned good hypertext resource. Every page is linked to and links to other related pages, some are overviews which include the current element. I've spent a few hours pursueing links. I don't have to fight the interface, or wait for some crappy flash animation to do its work; the whole site gives me little thrills of glee.
Also, it's wiki, so if something isn't right, you can fix it.
Everything2 is also a useful resource. Wikipedia doesn't always have information on what you're looking for, but everything2 almost always does. However, E2 isn't a very reliable source, so you need to take everything with a bigger grain of salt than wiki.
I think it's ironic. The RIAA [supp. Music Oligopoly] makes music that most easily and losslessly compressed by any lossy compressor. The best part is that MP3 is a sub-band encoder, and most of this pop-trash is composed in frequency ranges. That is, you have the base in the low band, the instruments in the mid-band, and some whiney boy/girl in the high band, with some techno-esque "WEEEoooooooeEEEEE" special effects laced in. Honestly, you couldn't intentionally make a better sample for MP3.
Throw a singer in there with some real vocal range, and MP3 starts crying.
I've got an SB Extigy and some Sennheiser HD580s. Admittedly, the headphones are more than a bit audiophile. I can't hear the difference between pop MP3s and pop CDs. However, I don't like simple accoustic.:) I like rock or metal where you can actually hear the harmonics playing between the guitar strings, which is an attribute you usually find in classical. MP3 trashes that kind of delicate interplay. Ogg Vorbis, however... =D
The abillity to pick and choose individual songs from a huge diverse catalog.
The abillity to listen to those songs on their chosen device.
The abillity to backup, create mix CD/tapes/8-f'intracks, and store/index their songs.
Okay, I'll bite.
I think anyone with at least a modicrum of IQ understands this. The direct problem is that corporations do not have IQs, they have people who run them, and the big-cheese of the RIAA have a lot of people that run them.
To put it another way: Musical recordings, songs, lyrics, accompanying video, and trademarks, are all potentially valuable intellectual property. That is, they're valuable assets to the rich, potential income, retirement collateral, virtual wealth. The Big-Five own a lot of this IP. Copyright extensions mean that this vault of IP wealth has aquired a deep-rooted stability. Consequently, a lot of wealthy people invest in these corporations, to build their asset portfolios. The result? The Big-5 are million-headed hydras, who can not control their own assets. Beside the point, I feel I should point out that many of these assets physically rot before the copyright expires, because IP is percieved as eternal-until-public-domain.
So, my point is that you have two things impeding these corporate mammoths from mobilizing in the face of change. First, these corporations do not have the power to act independantly of their shareholders. Second, IP is the backbone of rich fools, and they deathly fear anything that can undermine the value of their assets.
As to the second, you can see where laws like the DMCA and the Canadian (and soon to be American) Media Tax come from. The rich, mostly unorganized and unenlightened about technological improvements, finance and lobby for laws that will [not] protect American financial assets (IP), and thus the economy closest to the average politician, who is an almost always an investor.
This is a "natural" course of events in a capitalist society, but it's about as natural as a blood clot or a cancer. Idealy, such a situation will kill itself off. When the stock market crashed [which it has done repeatedly since it came into being], each time, a massive number of novices invested poorly, without interest in the material of their investments, and without vision of what they were investing in, beyond money. This is what has happened to the massive backbones of the RIAA. Now see, the few bright people running the big-names have very little control over their company's policies, and more agile, privately owned companies are springing up to fill the economic void the corporations are physically incapable of ever delivering. What will prevent a stock market crash is that 1) these companies will probably go public, and 2) Music IP is still not the live vein of the US economy, despite what lobbiests want believed. I believe these smaller corporations, cdbaby and theendrecords, for instance, will save both music and that domain of the economy. Musicians couldn't care less about the later, despite the unfortunate dependancy.
I'd like to advance another theory, while I'm at it. As I said, normally a healthy capitalist society would eject such a malady as the present Music Oligopoly. Each of the Big-5 aquired telecommunications companies in its past. Telecommunications companies posses government-granted monopolies. Economists fear monopolies because of how drastically they damage capitalist economies, and there is good evidence to support that fear. Monopolies were granted to telecom industries to advance both public and economic welfare. Those companies were aquired by companies whose profession is the buying, selling, and leasing of limited monopolies [IP]. I think there's a very important fact to be had here, it deserves a study. Aside, I think it's obvious enough tha
Depending on how you define "global", potentially 1948: Read Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Though the UN declaration is pretty damned modest, it does include freedom of expression.
A good RNG sounds nice and all, and there's no doubt good crypographic benefits to these features.
I can read the good features well enough. I mislike parts of the language, however...
Does this impliment any of the subversive elements of the architecture formerly known as Palladium? [now called "next-generation secure computing base", because "Palladium" is far too easy to get a linguisticly-controlled mental handle on]
The C3 processor has had my interests in the form of EPIA. However, I'd sooner burn in hell than put a Canadian penny towards Palladium, as proposed by the TCPI and Microsoft.
In more particular words, I've been unable disect from the market-lingo if this architecture contains the "protected execution space" and such features that could deny cryptographically unsigned activity, instead of giving me the tools of verification.
The symbol for zero is relatively recent. The concept is pretty basic. The Greeks had zero, the Romans did not. The Romans lacked zero simply because they did not calculate on paper, did not philosophize on the concept of mathematics, and only applied it. So, mathematic knowledge was passed along as part of the use of the abacus [of which, the Romans masterful adapters and producers], and Roman Numerals were used to record the results. They certainly understood zero, could reach it on the abacus, and there's no shortage of Latin words for "nothing".
Just in case, I'll include the list of short stories. I highly recommend you contact my professor to find out why he chose these stories. Our classes have a great deal of discussion and debate, and it'll be important for you to understand the focus-of-the-week. I'm presenting the list as it appears, without the weekly divisions.
The Shortest Story In The World
Essay: How Science Fiction Got Its Name, by Jack Williamson, p1127
The Fall of the House of Usher, by Edgar Allen Poe, p16
Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley
Essay: About Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Words, by Samuel R. Delany (In the Library on Reserve)
An Express to the Future, by Jules Verne, p370
The Star, by H. G. Wells, p373
The Ray of Displacement, by Harriet Spofford, p380
The War of the Worlds, by H. G. Wells
Robot Nemesis, by E.E. "Doc" Smith, p544
Robbie, by Isaac Asimov, p574
Fondly Fahrenheit, by Alfred Bester, pp821
A Princess of Mars, by Edgar Rice Burroughs, p390
The Weapons Shop, by A. E. Van Vogt, p599 [note by me: Jeffersonian theme in this and The Plague Star]
Without a Thought, by Fred Saberhagen, p868
The Plague Star, George martin, p1048
Dust Rag, by Hal Clement, p839
The Cold Equations, by Tom Godwin (ON reserve in the Library)
Surface Tension, by James Blish
That Only a Mother, by Judith Merril
The Jigsaw Man, by Larry Niven
The Purchase of Earth, by Jack Williamson, p1116
We Can Remember It For You WHolesale, by Philip K. Dick, p880 [story Total Recall was based on]
Arena, by Fredrick Brown (On reserve in the Library)
Driftglass, by Samuel Delany, p894
Bloodchild, by Octavia Butler, p1035
When It Changed, by Joanna Russ, p964
Childhood's End, by Arthur C. Clarke
Burning Chrome, by WIlliam Gibson, p1006
The Engine at Heartspring's Corner, by Roger Zelanzy, p964
My professor would probably be excited to work with you on a high-school SF lit course.
English 256: Science Fiction Literature
Art Schuhart Asst. Prof. of English English 256-01 Office: CC122A Office Hours: MW 1:30-2:30pm TR 10am-12pm
The remainder of the contact information is at http://www.nvcc.edu/
Required Texts: The Prentice Hall Anthology of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Garyn Roberts, ed. Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley The War of the Worlds, by H. G. Wells Childhood's End, by Arthur C. Clarke
Prerequisite is ENG 111 and 112 or division approval. Examines the literary and social aspects of science fiction, emphasizing development of ideas and techniques through the history of the genre. Involves critical reading and writing. Lecture 3 hours per week.
Organized as a historical survey, this course will introduce the student to the diverse genre of science fiction lterature. Beginning with Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, we will trace the growth of "sf" from its Romantic/Gothic roots into the modern day, paying particular attention to that form of sf known as "hard science fiction".
Students in this course will read 4 siminal sf novels, as well as a number of stories. Included in this reading will be representative works of sf criticism, and other forms of literature such as poetry, drama, and hypertext. As well, students will view some film.
Course Objectives: Students will...
Become familiar with the major historical developments of sf
Become familiar with the common themes in sf literature
Become familiar with the common techniques of sf literature
Become more critical readers of sf literature
Learn about the sf publishing industry and culture
I'm pretty sure you're being facetious, but I'll bite, For Educational Purposes.:)
France had an interesting problem, before a popular political reform. They had 7+ candidates in one presidential election, most likeable, with a few unpleasant and one racist downright-unlikable person. France, at this time, used the same voting system we do, called plurality voting. I bet you can guess who won. Of all the voting systems known, plurality is the most likely to give a false representation of voter preference. France no longer uses plurality voting in presidential elections, though they don't use Condorcet's Method either.
Debian uses Condorcet's Method. In this method, voters rank all candidates in their order of preference, and candidates can even tie for nth place on the ballot. The system considers which candidate is prefered over whom, and not their actual "rank" on the ballot. That is, if you tied four candidates for first place, and a fifth candidate for second place, you are only voicing that you prefer any of those four over the fifth candidate.
The election is resolved by running every candidate against every other candidate. That means, given n candidates, (n^2)-n "pair-wise" elections are held. Given 5 candidates, 20 elections. Given 8 candidates, 56 elections. Think of it this way: Given Bush or Gore, who would you pick? Given Bush or Perot, who would you pick? Given Bush or Sharpton, who would you pick? There can be multiple ways to chose the winner of the election. The candidate with the most victories is considered the winner. The candidate with the fewest losses is considered the least disliked. Most of the time, there is not a tie, and these two are the same candidate.
Tallying the votes is a little more obtuse. The easiest way to manually tally the votes uses a grid. From top the bottom and left to right, list the candidates. The rows will be the runners, and the columns will be the opponents. Going left to right, top to bottom, mark each box where the runner was prefered to the opponent. If they were tied, do not mark the box. Do this for each ballot. You will then add the grids resulting from each ballot. Consider each mark a '1', and each unmarked box a '0'. The result is the "Sum Grid".
From the "Sum Grid", you can draw a number of conclusions. Each grid shows the number of voters that prefer the runner to the opponent. Compare the runner's votes to the opponent's votes. The runner with the most victories can be considered the most popular. When there's a tie for first place, the candidate with the least losses could be considered a good choice--the least disliked. You could also add the numbers from each row for an indescriminate popularity vote. The popularity choice doesn't draw any useful conclusions, and can be any candidate except the one with the most losses. There are other possibilities. Condorcet's largest problem is resolving ties for first place.
MP, "Gnutella2," has hi-jacked the Gnutella name. Normally, "Gnutella" would be a registered trademark, making this sort of nominal theft illegal. The intent of trademark law is to prevent this sort of action. We are so disgusted with IP laws that we won't use them, even [rare case] when they're the Right Thing.
I suppose a judge would laugh at a "copyright theft enabler" using IP laws in this way, despite the legitimacy of the claim.
I find it odd. The Trademark Law, and nominal protection of Copy Right Law, are the most agreeable parts of IP law. Even a bad tool can do the right thing. I suppose it's not in Gnutella's blood to use existing bad tools. [This article occurs next to an XFree86 re-organization pitch]
In 1984-ish fashion, I propose we push "Copy Right" in the place of "Copyright." [further off topic] Law and politics are full of perversions of language to control debate and discussion. By changing the emphasis in "Copyright," we move the focus of the concept back to the Right of Copying. The phrase "Copyright," is a conceptual black box to most people, or a fixed reality of some sort. People consider it inviolable, and it's difficult to discuss. By changing the phrase to "Copy Right," its very nature becomes open and questionable. The concept's nature, as a right, is clarified, and the scope of that right is brought under common suspicion.
Slashdot Mirror
At first, I think "Okay, they could legitimately need a license for either of SCO's Unix products". Then, I realized something: Both of SCO's Unix product lines are completely inferior to every other form of Unix on the market. SCO's one strong point--uniproccessor speed--is surpassed by the BSD-licensed BSDs, which Microsoft has been legally borrowing code from for nearly a decade.
A far more believable reason to license this code is to make a political statement: that you support IP as a barterable asset instead of a development/creation incentive. MS made their fortune under a distribution network that mimics the idea of IP-as-asset.
This perspective is profitable but on extremely shaky ground right now As quoted, "[s]ince other software vendors who depend on software licenses haven't been exactly falling all over themselves to support our position, seeing something that supported it was welcome." In other words, this lawsuit is their first good opportunity to throw their support with another party to support this idea. Unfortunately for MS, it's also a pretty pathetic opportunity.
The best part about this is that MS didn't have to buy the license at all. They tried it, then they bought it to support a company they (conditionally) respect. Bloody pirates.
SCO's claims have nothing to do with the GPL license. The only impact GPL may have is in a resolution to solve the problem: can the alleged code be extracted from a public work? This question requires that 1) code can be considered trade secret, and 2) the code is still a trade secret, after SCO's complete ineptitude to enforce anything resembling secrecy over seven years.
IANAL
The foundation of their religeon is one of the most enlightened in western culture. It's just circumstance that at one point, in recent history, they decided electricity wasn't for man, and decided not to use it.
I'm interested in the answer. I haven't seen many books heavy in the math. However, I've got two books I love, which explain the concepts very well for people without a strong mathematics background.
Wolf, Fred Alan. Taking the Quantum Leap. Perennial Library, Harper & Row Publishers. ISBN: 0-06-096310-7
Wolf, Fred Alan. Parallel Universes. A Touchstone Book, published by Simom & Schuster. ISBN: 0-671-69601-7 (-8 for hardback)
Be warned, Parallel Universes has an almost insultingly big font, if you're one to take offense at large point sizes. Taking the Quantum Leap has a comfortable font, without being tiny-textbook sized.
First of all, it's an artificial cost, and it's extremely likely that, in the future, tax exemptions would be given to corporations for "service announcements" or some other slit-tounge perversion of language.
Foremost, however, a penny per post is hardly enough to curb spam. A thousand dollars is piss for the coverage it provides, especially compared with newspaper and television advertisement. More likely, it'd imply legality to spam, and more legitimate businesses would begin funding the straight-to-/dev/null bandwidth decimator.
More fundamentally, there's an assumption that it's possible to tax the source, and that international tax is architecturally sound and desirable. One of two things would be required for this proposition to work:
The lovely part of #1 is that it'd solve the spam problem in the first place. The only thing gained by the promise of taxes is government funding and ("gained" is now debatable) government involvement in the design. If #1 is put in place, the tax system is immediately superfulous.
#2 is worse. This would be the first official economic distribution structure for a globally run government. While I'm not intristicly opposed to the concept of world government, I think that this is the absolute worst possible seed for any government in any form at any time. We do not want a government whose origin is in a banalty that is obsolete the second it is possible to enforce collection.
It's a shitfuck idea.
You suggest that credit is being stolen or snuffed, right now? Reiser is proposing to plaster advertising everywhere possible. He already puts advertising into kernel messasges, and there's a big stinking advertisment in the ReiserFS kernel infopage.
Credit is given due, and anyone who cares can find out who wrote what piece of code (thanks to the miracle of comments). Reiser wants to plaster author names as advertising.
Honestly, I don't think he's mentally healthy. I've written other comments on this.
Using Ayn Rand's clarified definition, I'd say selfish reasons are the best and most prominent reasons to write good software. Still using Ayn Rand-compliant vocabulary, Reiser is being very selfless.
Translation: people write software for the feeling of self-fullfillment, self-actualization, and personal pride. This is a personal experiece that does not require anyone else's opinion to realize; you know you've given everything you could. Reiser, however, requires the recognition of others, needs his "greatness" (extremely debatable) to be recognized and advertised by others. This is what people mean by "his ego problems". He is "without self", or "selfless".
More on a practical point, Hans Reiser has been completely unable to prove that (1) the current setup is insufficient, (2) anything would be gained by modifying the current setup, and (3) his proposals would do less harm than good.
Further, I have supreme doubts that reputation is the driving force for the best programers. Respect of your peers is a reward. Delivering bad code would cause you to lose respect, and that lose would be a source of fear. Fear does not drive good development. Self-actualization drives good development, and that is incompatible with fear of resentment. Good programers (s/programers/anything) may enjoy the respect of their peers, but that is quite different from fear for your reputation. Reiser is fearful, and ReiserFS is a testament to bad code.
As another commenter wrote "This can be tastefully done easily" as Hans has never done. My first exposure to Reiser was the kernel module info page, which, paraphrased and summarized said "if you want features, pay us money and we'll put them in". I had never seen an advertisement in GPL software before, and thank god I haven't seen one since. That stunk of unprofessional, badly designed code. The evidence is in the word-of-mouth reviews: ReiserFS has become incompatible with itself several times even after it was accepted into Linux (WHY?), people lose data, the tools constantly change: sometimes safe flags become dangerous flags between point releases.
If there's a point to be made, Reiser is not the one to make it.
For example, you could use the Evil Bit in TCP/IP packet headers. Non-evil, non-malicious programs should ignore any traffic marked with the evil bit. This protects those devices. If the RIAA is circumventing this protection bit (by ignoring it), you can slap them with a DMCA lawsuit.
Deterrence?
Oh, I get it! We're trying to stop the proliferation of technological knowhow by striking fear into evil-doers.
When the means doesn't fit the motive, look for the real motive.
Yeah, I'm off-topic.
Guess who's doing it?
Some may disagree, but wikipedia has done me a world of good. Almost every entry is informative, and I even have a wiki quicksearch in Phoenix. If I want to know what, say "Condorcet's Method" is, I type "wiki Condorcet's Method" in Phoenix' address bar, and *POP*, I'm learning.
Wikipedia is also a damned good hypertext resource. Every page is linked to and links to other related pages, some are overviews which include the current element. I've spent a few hours pursueing links. I don't have to fight the interface, or wait for some crappy flash animation to do its work; the whole site gives me little thrills of glee.
Also, it's wiki, so if something isn't right, you can fix it.
Everything2 is also a useful resource. Wikipedia doesn't always have information on what you're looking for, but everything2 almost always does. However, E2 isn't a very reliable source, so you need to take everything with a bigger grain of salt than wiki.
I think it's ironic. The RIAA [supp. Music Oligopoly] makes music that most easily and losslessly compressed by any lossy compressor. The best part is that MP3 is a sub-band encoder, and most of this pop-trash is composed in frequency ranges. That is, you have the base in the low band, the instruments in the mid-band, and some whiney boy/girl in the high band, with some techno-esque "WEEEoooooooeEEEEE" special effects laced in. Honestly, you couldn't intentionally make a better sample for MP3.
Throw a singer in there with some real vocal range, and MP3 starts crying.
I've got an SB Extigy and some Sennheiser HD580s. Admittedly, the headphones are more than a bit audiophile. I can't hear the difference between pop MP3s and pop CDs. However, I don't like simple accoustic. :) I like rock or metal where you can actually hear the harmonics playing between the guitar strings, which is an attribute you usually find in classical. MP3 trashes that kind of delicate interplay. Ogg Vorbis, however... =D
Okay, I'll bite.
I think anyone with at least a modicrum of IQ understands this. The direct problem is that corporations do not have IQs, they have people who run them, and the big-cheese of the RIAA have a lot of people that run them.
To put it another way: Musical recordings, songs, lyrics, accompanying video, and trademarks, are all potentially valuable intellectual property. That is, they're valuable assets to the rich, potential income, retirement collateral, virtual wealth. The Big-Five own a lot of this IP. Copyright extensions mean that this vault of IP wealth has aquired a deep-rooted stability. Consequently, a lot of wealthy people invest in these corporations, to build their asset portfolios. The result? The Big-5 are million-headed hydras, who can not control their own assets. Beside the point, I feel I should point out that many of these assets physically rot before the copyright expires, because IP is percieved as eternal-until-public-domain.
So, my point is that you have two things impeding these corporate mammoths from mobilizing in the face of change. First, these corporations do not have the power to act independantly of their shareholders. Second, IP is the backbone of rich fools, and they deathly fear anything that can undermine the value of their assets.
As to the second, you can see where laws like the DMCA and the Canadian (and soon to be American) Media Tax come from. The rich, mostly unorganized and unenlightened about technological improvements, finance and lobby for laws that will [not] protect American financial assets (IP), and thus the economy closest to the average politician, who is an almost always an investor.
This is a "natural" course of events in a capitalist society, but it's about as natural as a blood clot or a cancer. Idealy, such a situation will kill itself off. When the stock market crashed [which it has done repeatedly since it came into being], each time, a massive number of novices invested poorly, without interest in the material of their investments, and without vision of what they were investing in, beyond money. This is what has happened to the massive backbones of the RIAA. Now see, the few bright people running the big-names have very little control over their company's policies, and more agile, privately owned companies are springing up to fill the economic void the corporations are physically incapable of ever delivering. What will prevent a stock market crash is that 1) these companies will probably go public, and 2) Music IP is still not the live vein of the US economy, despite what lobbiests want believed. I believe these smaller corporations, cdbaby and theendrecords, for instance, will save both music and that domain of the economy. Musicians couldn't care less about the later, despite the unfortunate dependancy.
I'd like to advance another theory, while I'm at it. As I said, normally a healthy capitalist society would eject such a malady as the present Music Oligopoly. Each of the Big-5 aquired telecommunications companies in its past. Telecommunications companies posses government-granted monopolies. Economists fear monopolies because of how drastically they damage capitalist economies, and there is good evidence to support that fear. Monopolies were granted to telecom industries to advance both public and economic welfare. Those companies were aquired by companies whose profession is the buying, selling, and leasing of limited monopolies [IP]. I think there's a very important fact to be had here, it deserves a study. Aside, I think it's obvious enough tha
Depending on how you define "global", potentially 1948: Read Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Though the UN declaration is pretty damned modest, it does include freedom of expression.
Hey, it's okay. I paid for you, too.
s/TCPI/TCPA
A good RNG sounds nice and all, and there's no doubt good crypographic benefits to these features.
I can read the good features well enough. I mislike parts of the language, however...
Does this impliment any of the subversive elements of the architecture formerly known as Palladium? [now called "next-generation secure computing base", because "Palladium" is far too easy to get a linguisticly-controlled mental handle on]
The C3 processor has had my interests in the form of EPIA. However, I'd sooner burn in hell than put a Canadian penny towards Palladium, as proposed by the TCPI and Microsoft.
In more particular words, I've been unable disect from the market-lingo if this architecture contains the "protected execution space" and such features that could deny cryptographically unsigned activity, instead of giving me the tools of verification.
Or they're counting cd burners and losses due to piracy.
The symbol for zero is relatively recent. The concept is pretty basic. The Greeks had zero, the Romans did not. The Romans lacked zero simply because they did not calculate on paper, did not philosophize on the concept of mathematics, and only applied it. So, mathematic knowledge was passed along as part of the use of the abacus [of which, the Romans masterful adapters and producers], and Roman Numerals were used to record the results. They certainly understood zero, could reach it on the abacus, and there's no shortage of Latin words for "nothing".
Don't forget to scan your registery and remove any refererences to that real cron thing... realsched or something
Just in case, I'll include the list of short stories. I highly recommend you contact my professor to find out why he chose these stories. Our classes have a great deal of discussion and debate, and it'll be important for you to understand the focus-of-the-week. I'm presenting the list as it appears, without the weekly divisions.
English 256: Science Fiction Literature
Art Schuhart
Asst. Prof. of English
English 256-01
Office: CC122A
Office Hours: MW 1:30-2:30pm
TR 10am-12pm
The remainder of the contact information is at http://www.nvcc.edu/
Required Texts:
The Prentice Hall Anthology of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Garyn Roberts, ed.
Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley
The War of the Worlds, by H. G. Wells
Childhood's End, by Arthur C. Clarke
(Frankenstein and War of the Worlds are Dover Thrift Editions)
Prerequisite is ENG 111 and 112 or division approval. Examines the literary and social aspects of science fiction, emphasizing development of ideas and techniques through the history of the genre. Involves critical reading and writing. Lecture 3 hours per week.
Organized as a historical survey, this course will introduce the student to the diverse genre of science fiction lterature. Beginning with Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, we will trace the growth of "sf" from its Romantic/Gothic roots into the modern day, paying particular attention to that form of sf known as "hard science fiction".
Students in this course will read 4 siminal sf novels, as well as a number of stories. Included in this reading will be representative works of sf criticism, and other forms of literature such as poetry, drama, and hypertext. As well, students will view some film.
Course Objectives:
Students will...
I'm pretty sure you're being facetious, but I'll bite, For Educational Purposes. :)
France had an interesting problem, before a popular political reform. They had 7+ candidates in one presidential election, most likeable, with a few unpleasant and one racist downright-unlikable person. France, at this time, used the same voting system we do, called plurality voting. I bet you can guess who won. Of all the voting systems known, plurality is the most likely to give a false representation of voter preference. France no longer uses plurality voting in presidential elections, though they don't use Condorcet's Method either.
Debian uses Condorcet's Method. In this method, voters rank all candidates in their order of preference, and candidates can even tie for nth place on the ballot. The system considers which candidate is prefered over whom, and not their actual "rank" on the ballot. That is, if you tied four candidates for first place, and a fifth candidate for second place, you are only voicing that you prefer any of those four over the fifth candidate.
The election is resolved by running every candidate against every other candidate. That means, given n candidates, (n^2)-n "pair-wise" elections are held. Given 5 candidates, 20 elections. Given 8 candidates, 56 elections. Think of it this way: Given Bush or Gore, who would you pick? Given Bush or Perot, who would you pick? Given Bush or Sharpton, who would you pick? There can be multiple ways to chose the winner of the election. The candidate with the most victories is considered the winner. The candidate with the fewest losses is considered the least disliked. Most of the time, there is not a tie, and these two are the same candidate.
Tallying the votes is a little more obtuse. The easiest way to manually tally the votes uses a grid. From top the bottom and left to right, list the candidates. The rows will be the runners, and the columns will be the opponents. Going left to right, top to bottom, mark each box where the runner was prefered to the opponent. If they were tied, do not mark the box. Do this for each ballot. You will then add the grids resulting from each ballot. Consider each mark a '1', and each unmarked box a '0'. The result is the "Sum Grid".
From the "Sum Grid", you can draw a number of conclusions. Each grid shows the number of voters that prefer the runner to the opponent. Compare the runner's votes to the opponent's votes. The runner with the most victories can be considered the most popular. When there's a tie for first place, the candidate with the least losses could be considered a good choice--the least disliked. You could also add the numbers from each row for an indescriminate popularity vote. The popularity choice doesn't draw any useful conclusions, and can be any candidate except the one with the most losses. There are other possibilities. Condorcet's largest problem is resolving ties for first place.
"None" could be an option.
I'm going tangent, and potentially off-topic.
MP, "Gnutella2," has hi-jacked the Gnutella name. Normally, "Gnutella" would be a registered trademark, making this sort of nominal theft illegal. The intent of trademark law is to prevent this sort of action. We are so disgusted with IP laws that we won't use them, even [rare case] when they're the Right Thing.
I suppose a judge would laugh at a "copyright theft enabler" using IP laws in this way, despite the legitimacy of the claim.
I find it odd. The Trademark Law, and nominal protection of Copy Right Law, are the most agreeable parts of IP law. Even a bad tool can do the right thing. I suppose it's not in Gnutella's blood to use existing bad tools. [This article occurs next to an XFree86 re-organization pitch]
In 1984-ish fashion, I propose we push "Copy Right" in the place of "Copyright." [further off topic] Law and politics are full of perversions of language to control debate and discussion. By changing the emphasis in "Copyright," we move the focus of the concept back to the Right of Copying. The phrase "Copyright," is a conceptual black box to most people, or a fixed reality of some sort. People consider it inviolable, and it's difficult to discuss. By changing the phrase to "Copy Right," its very nature becomes open and questionable. The concept's nature, as a right, is clarified, and the scope of that right is brought under common suspicion.