Debian is one of the first GNU/Linux distro's, and possibly the most geek-oriented. In particular I believe the Blockstackers Intergalactic crew favors it.
It is also the distro most friendly to the root Free Software community, and one of the only ones to include the full name of the operating system, "GNU/Linux", while so many other people (including Linux.com) cheerfully omit the crucial first 4 characters. As one of the greatest friends of Stallman and Co., it would be a huge blow for them to come out against the FSF and the GNU Project and start removing GNU manuals from 'main' or 'contrib'.
The problem, as summarized and debated in the linked thread (which you should all GO READ) is that you cannot take even a small part out of a GFDL document without including all the invariant sections, even if doing so would be pointless and irrelevant. Imagine, for example, writing an article in which you wanted to quote large portions of a GNU manual--so much so that it fell outside the category of "fair use." You couldn't do so under GFDL without including the political views of the GNU Project espoused at the beginning of every GNU manual. (I.e. "Free Software Needs Free Documentation.") It is this that makes the GFDL non-free by the terms of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. If invariant sections or front/back matter were removable it would go "a long way" to making it DFSG-free.
On the other hand, nothing in the core free software philosophy says that using copyright to protect political views and other things is in-and-of-itself bad. Remember, the reason that the crusade for free software was begun is this: Instant copying via computers means that it is now more beneficial to society to exercise their inherent right to copy, than it is to restrict that right to promote innovation through monopoly. What a mouthful.:)
Nothing about the Free Software philosophy says that every single thing ever written should be freely redistributable. If I write a political essay you better believe that I'm copyrighting it so no one else can change it. I don't have a problem with them distributing it gratis or for a fee, but they sure better not change my words around. That is what copyright is good for, and what the "Invariant Sections" in the GFDL is designed to allow.
For example, say I write a math text. In the introduction, I state my views on the current state of mathematics education and my proposed solutions, some of which are embodied in the book. I certainly don't want anyone changing that and passing it off as my authorship. To make my book properly fit the "Free" philosophy, I should allow 2 things:
The mathematical content of my book be freely redistributable and modifiable by anyone. GFDL does this.
Allow people to remove my "invariant sections" and whatever else if they so desire, but not to modify them. GFDL does not do this.
Furthermore, I should be able to do the following and maintain harmony with the "free" philosophy:
Prevent people from modifying my political statements or personal views which I included with the text. The DFSG does not allow this.
It is clear that while the GFDL is not up to par with the "Free" philosophy, the DFSG prohibits authors from exercising their right to protect their personal views and speech from modification. This right--to protect your personal views and expression (which source code is not, by the way)--is just as important to free speech as the freedoms outlined in the GPL.
In summary, both the GFDL and the DFSG have problems maintaining harmony with the "Free" philosophy as it should be applied to documentation. I think the GFDL has a fundamental problem with not allowing "Invariant Sections" to be ommitted, and the DFSG has a problem by not allowing an author to preserve personal views. The second problem likely comes from applying a software definition (the DFSG) to documentation. Source code is not the same thing as other writings, and the DFSG does not currently make a distinction.
Hopefully both parties here will realize what changes need to be made--and make them.
While a healthy skepticism about all things is generally good, the vast majority of people, especially on this site, will simply accuse anyone they disagree with of bias. This kind of smear makes it impossible to have a rational discussion of any sort. You have all got to realize that sometimes research won't support your position. Just because someone has data you don't agree with doesn't mean they are evil tools of the government/corporations/Orwellian evil/the Zerg. There are quite a few scientists who are not motivated by money, beliefs, or a particular ideology.
That's important. Let me repeat that.
There are quite a few scientists who are not motivated by money or a particular ideology.
I should know, after all. I am one. I also know others!
I have realized that if, in science, you attempt to defend any particular position because you like it or believe in it, you *will* end up skewing the data to support you. This is bad, I think. Many other scientists think the same way and try to pursue the data to where it leads, regardless of politics or personal views. This can be unpopular, but it is VERY frustrating when people accuse valid data and research of bias...because they don't agree with it. Again, people on this site and elsewhere have the extremely bad habit of picking a side an defending it, and looking at the data later. "Bad beats."
The continuous, general anti-science rhetoric by deliberately ignorant people on this site is also tiring and silly. It acts as a red flag of illiteracy to the rest of the world as well. If anyone on this site wants to be noticed, they should restrain their criticism of science to legitimate questions, not accusations of bias with little grounding in fact.
The main theses of this particular article have been ignored by basically everyone on this site. The main point is that if we are coming out of an *ICE AGE*, then reports that the world is warming quickly probably exaggerate the effect purely by accident--of course we're warming up if we were cold earlier! Evidence that the world's climate undergoes natural shifts of much magnitude casts doubt on the severity of the current warming trend and gives rise to the possibility that it is entirely (or at least mostly) natural. While theory obviously dictates that humans are having an effect, this article is pointing out that the current warming trend may not be all due to humans.
Now, I'd have to see the article itself (and it's Sunday so I ain't going to the office or library) to make a full judgment, but people on here spewing against it without that same research are simply spewing political rhetoric--not valid conclusions.
The best piece of advice I ever took was discarding political ideology in favor of the facts.
Now, let me get back to my frickin' research. Thanks.
--
Christian Sieber
"And yet, it moves." -- Galileo Galilei
Clearly the future of Linux in the world is securing govt. contracts and other ways of making publicly known without people going out and having to put it on their desktops. Another good example of this is Red Hat's deal with the Indian govt. to put Linux on all their school computers. India is not a small country folks, and once they start pumping out computer-literate people loyal to Linux, the tide will shift.
Steps like this are key to solving the Linux Equation. Clearly Linux is superior in every way to Windows (especially for the government) but without a critical mass it will never take over. Hopefully efforts like this (and the one in Germany) will push it past the critical mass stage and Linux will become The OS and not just another OS.
Re:Language Still Beyond AI
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
One of the fundamental problems with language processing is that our language is not built for machines, it evolved to serve humans, which have sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. Machines, being without those elements, aren't capable of interpreting our language in the same way we are.
IMO, what we should be focusing on is trying to build a machine "intelligence" in the same way our brain is constructed, and once we can achieve that, it will become easier to "teach" things like what sight is and what language means.
Look, thermodynamics isn't the most relevant thing here. We're talking about energy sources and fuel, not energy in general. Obviously we all know that its impossible to truly create energy (dE(universe) = 0).
The point here is fuel, and there are two types of fuel: Efficient and Inefficient. An inefficient fuel is one in which you must spend more energy to obtain and process the fuel into usable energy than you get back when you're done. An efficient fuel is the opposite. You put less energy in than you get out.
Right now, fossil fuels are an excellent example of efficient fuels. We put minimal effort in and get an incredible return. However, once we run out of what the Earth has stored over the last several million years, fossil fuels will become extremely inefficient, so it is to our advantage to find much more plentiful efficient fuels.
If this technology makes hydrogen into a more efficient fuel then we should probably support it, as there is a LOT of hydrogen around.:)
However, maybe it shouldn't. A judge in these cases is supposed to be able to decide based on the facts alone. I regard the fact that body language and other "lawyerly tricks" can sway any decision as quite unfortunate. I think that if this can eliminate those things its a positive rather than a negative.
Obviously real AI is a long long way off, and that is the only thing that could possible replace a human lawyer, much less a judge. Moral programming anyone? No thanks.
It seems obvious that Cornell has some involvement with both the patent and the professor or they wouldn't even have a case to sue. I'm betting that Cornell University is not going to sue anyone without an extremely strong case.
It seems probable to me that the professor is seeking Cornell's help because he needs the resources to effectively build and prosecute his case, and Cornell stands to benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Debian is one of the first GNU/Linux distro's, and possibly the most geek-oriented. In particular I believe the Blockstackers Intergalactic crew favors it.
It is also the distro most friendly to the root Free Software community, and one of the only ones to include the full name of the operating system, "GNU/Linux", while so many other people (including Linux.com) cheerfully omit the crucial first 4 characters. As one of the greatest friends of Stallman and Co., it would be a huge blow for them to come out against the FSF and the GNU Project and start removing GNU manuals from 'main' or 'contrib'.
That's why.
Take care,
--
Christian Sieber
The problem, as summarized and debated in the linked thread (which you should all GO READ) is that you cannot take even a small part out of a GFDL document without including all the invariant sections, even if doing so would be pointless and irrelevant. Imagine, for example, writing an article in which you wanted to quote large portions of a GNU manual--so much so that it fell outside the category of "fair use." You couldn't do so under GFDL without including the political views of the GNU Project espoused at the beginning of every GNU manual. (I.e. "Free Software Needs Free Documentation.") It is this that makes the GFDL non-free by the terms of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. If invariant sections or front/back matter were removable it would go "a long way" to making it DFSG-free.
On the other hand, nothing in the core free software philosophy says that using copyright to protect political views and other things is in-and-of-itself bad. Remember, the reason that the crusade for free software was begun is this: Instant copying via computers means that it is now more beneficial to society to exercise their inherent right to copy, than it is to restrict that right to promote innovation through monopoly. What a mouthful. :)
Nothing about the Free Software philosophy says that every single thing ever written should be freely redistributable. If I write a political essay you better believe that I'm copyrighting it so no one else can change it. I don't have a problem with them distributing it gratis or for a fee, but they sure better not change my words around. That is what copyright is good for, and what the "Invariant Sections" in the GFDL is designed to allow.
For example, say I write a math text. In the introduction, I state my views on the current state of mathematics education and my proposed solutions, some of which are embodied in the book. I certainly don't want anyone changing that and passing it off as my authorship. To make my book properly fit the "Free" philosophy, I should allow 2 things:
Furthermore, I should be able to do the following and maintain harmony with the "free" philosophy:
It is clear that while the GFDL is not up to par with the "Free" philosophy, the DFSG prohibits authors from exercising their right to protect their personal views and speech from modification. This right--to protect your personal views and expression (which source code is not, by the way)--is just as important to free speech as the freedoms outlined in the GPL.
In summary, both the GFDL and the DFSG have problems maintaining harmony with the "Free" philosophy as it should be applied to documentation. I think the GFDL has a fundamental problem with not allowing "Invariant Sections" to be ommitted, and the DFSG has a problem by not allowing an author to preserve personal views. The second problem likely comes from applying a software definition (the DFSG) to documentation. Source code is not the same thing as other writings, and the DFSG does not currently make a distinction.
Hopefully both parties here will realize what changes need to be made--and make them.
Take care,
--
Christian Sieber
While a healthy skepticism about all things is generally good, the vast majority of people, especially on this site, will simply accuse anyone they disagree with of bias. This kind of smear makes it impossible to have a rational discussion of any sort. You have all got to realize that sometimes research won't support your position. Just because someone has data you don't agree with doesn't mean they are evil tools of the government/corporations/Orwellian evil/the Zerg. There are quite a few scientists who are not motivated by money, beliefs, or a particular ideology.
That's important. Let me repeat that.
There are quite a few scientists who are not motivated by money or a particular ideology.
I should know, after all. I am one. I also know others!
I have realized that if, in science, you attempt to defend any particular position because you like it or believe in it, you *will* end up skewing the data to support you. This is bad, I think. Many other scientists think the same way and try to pursue the data to where it leads, regardless of politics or personal views. This can be unpopular, but it is VERY frustrating when people accuse valid data and research of bias...because they don't agree with it. Again, people on this site and elsewhere have the extremely bad habit of picking a side an defending it, and looking at the data later. "Bad beats."
The continuous, general anti-science rhetoric by deliberately ignorant people on this site is also tiring and silly. It acts as a red flag of illiteracy to the rest of the world as well. If anyone on this site wants to be noticed, they should restrain their criticism of science to legitimate questions, not accusations of bias with little grounding in fact.
The main theses of this particular article have been ignored by basically everyone on this site. The main point is that if we are coming out of an *ICE AGE*, then reports that the world is warming quickly probably exaggerate the effect purely by accident--of course we're warming up if we were cold earlier! Evidence that the world's climate undergoes natural shifts of much magnitude casts doubt on the severity of the current warming trend and gives rise to the possibility that it is entirely (or at least mostly) natural. While theory obviously dictates that humans are having an effect, this article is pointing out that the current warming trend may not be all due to humans.
Now, I'd have to see the article itself (and it's Sunday so I ain't going to the office or library) to make a full judgment, but people on here spewing against it without that same research are simply spewing political rhetoric--not valid conclusions.
The best piece of advice I ever took was discarding political ideology in favor of the facts.
Now, let me get back to my frickin' research. Thanks.
--
Christian Sieber
"And yet, it moves." -- Galileo Galilei
In seriousness though, is this another sinister plot by Microsoft or are there things Linux can glean from this?
Steps like this are key to solving the Linux Equation. Clearly Linux is superior in every way to Windows (especially for the government) but without a critical mass it will never take over. Hopefully efforts like this (and the one in Germany) will push it past the critical mass stage and Linux will become The OS and not just another OS.
IMO, what we should be focusing on is trying to build a machine "intelligence" in the same way our brain is constructed, and once we can achieve that, it will become easier to "teach" things like what sight is and what language means.
The point here is fuel, and there are two types of fuel: Efficient and Inefficient. An inefficient fuel is one in which you must spend more energy to obtain and process the fuel into usable energy than you get back when you're done. An efficient fuel is the opposite. You put less energy in than you get out.
Right now, fossil fuels are an excellent example of efficient fuels. We put minimal effort in and get an incredible return. However, once we run out of what the Earth has stored over the last several million years, fossil fuels will become extremely inefficient, so it is to our advantage to find much more plentiful efficient fuels.
If this technology makes hydrogen into a more efficient fuel then we should probably support it, as there is a LOT of hydrogen around. :)
However, maybe it shouldn't. A judge in these cases is supposed to be able to decide based on the facts alone. I regard the fact that body language and other "lawyerly tricks" can sway any decision as quite unfortunate. I think that if this can eliminate those things its a positive rather than a negative. Obviously real AI is a long long way off, and that is the only thing that could possible replace a human lawyer, much less a judge. Moral programming anyone? No thanks.
It seems probable to me that the professor is seeking Cornell's help because he needs the resources to effectively build and prosecute his case, and Cornell stands to benefit.