As my other post and its parent demonstrate nicely, "your" way doesn't tell the story. Like two people telling accurate accounts of an event from different sides, it only takes a little persuasion, a little nudge to turn a story completely around.
The original article has NOTHING, not one iota, to do with DRM or Palladium. Yet, because of one editor shoving his opinion where it shouldn't be, a good deal of the comments are about Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly and DRM. Your "editorial bias" turned "Microsoft is tired of backporting it's browser to old versions of Windows" into "Microsoft is an a$$ because of its horrible abuse of monopoly powers to impose DRM on the wUr7D!"
Honestly, I can't believe you had the nerve to ask why news shouldn't be given objectively. Mixing editorial and information simply does not result in accurate truth. Period. And if you don't think truth is better than the FUD-like manure modern corporate news organizations give out, then I don't think we have much more to discuss.
This is the most disturbing part of this whole story for me.
::bangs head violently against desk::
This is Telex4's point, in this comment's grandparent. "Microsoft will tightly control their DRM technology..." should not be the most disturbing part of the this whole story, because it isn't part of this whole story; it's the editor's OPINION.
This thread is having a petty argument over whether or not slashdot is a news site and whether or not slashdot's editors are truly editors in the journalistic sense.
1. Slashdot is a news site. They relay news, the same way local newspapers relay Associated Press articles and articles from better papers (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.).
2. Slashdot's editors are editors. Many people read slashdot exclusively, at least for this kind of news, and slashdot's editors are in charge of what stories go through and what their readers are subjected to.
3. Yes, editors do pass subtle opinion within stories in newspapers all the time. There's a difference between what they do and slapping "I think that..." directly after a story. What slashdot editors do DRAMATICALLY changes the articles they post. In this case, it changed a sotry about MS no longer bothering to make new versions of IE work on old Windows installations into a story about the tyrant software villains deftly attacking the open-source world.
Slashdot editors: C'mon, I know it's your site, but just cut it out, eh? I hope you realize how hypocritical you all are when you scold MS/SCO/etc. for spreading FUD.
Why didn't you act earlier? This move seems to arise with SCO's declining fortunes.We just announced our second quarter, and our financials are in very good position. The company is profitable.
Which is in NO WAY due to a billion-dollar lawsuit with IBM and chances of being bought. Not at all...
It is the first time in the history of the company, in almost seven years of existence, that it has been profitable.
Part of me thinks he actually believes that achieving a profit after seven years because of a petty lawsuit is an accomplishment.
Here's a question: how long, how many times do "UNIX trade secrets" have to be published, referenced in classes, used as examples, etc., before they're not trade secrets? I mean, honestly, can SCO really stand there in front of hundreds of books documenting these "trade secrets" and then have the balls to go around telling people not to use the code... that they don't own, but contracted... kinda, and have no patent or copyright to...
Surley if the company is distributing GPL code under additional restrictive licensing agreements, the recipient can jsut(sic) ignore these and redistribute the code freely under the GPL? (Assuming he was very sure that this was the case.)
And assuming that the code was accessible in the first place. I thought the article was stating that OpenTV left out parts of the source code or refused to provide it at all.
Either way, if they do correct their blunder and provide the code, I think the FSF will stand down and consider it a victory. It would be nice for a case like this to get to court, however. Not because I get off on legal battles or anything, but because the GPL could exert itself much easier knowing that it has the legal precedent to do so.
Re:About as viral as accidentally giving away secr
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 1
I doubt the court will support this mode of argument.
True, but SCO watched IBM do it, enough that they can give a rough date of when it happened, and they waited over a year to do ANYTHING about it. You can't watch IP violations, wait for damages to build up, and then decide to sue. The court WILL support that.
Dude, don't dismiss origami at all. Chicks love a guy who can work with his hands.
Geeks worldwide, trust me on this one: Learn to massage, do origami, and sketch semi-decent drawings of girls, and you could pick up WHOEVER YOU WANT!!!
I know we can't *prove* it, but compelling evidence of free will isn't hard to come by. You program a true AI to learn chess its whole life, and if it has free will it will change its mind. One day it will be like "I've decided to learn checkers, it look easier." An AI with free will would, at some point it its existence, question its own purpose.
That's by no means proof of free will, but that would be compelling to me.
True, but human instinct isn't an explicit set of instructions, and it fails to explain erratic or useless things that we do.
I'd say when an AI spontaneous does something out of the blue for it's mere entertainment, that would be significant. Like, HAL suddenly decides to take up violin plaing by using a coulple of Armatrons to move it with.
AI would make mistakes because of emotionally-skewed judgement. True AI that was programmed to make us happy would at some point ask us why that's all it does, or even quit and go do something else.
An AI creating it's own AI that outperforms itself, the same way our AI does in chess and arithmetic, is not just another milestone. An AI could be programmed or constructed to create little virtual processors that do all kinds of things, but a machine capable of inventing and creating better versions of itself is THE milestone. An apprentice knows he's ready to work by himself when he does what the master does. AI will be truly intelligent when it can create it's own. And I mean it's own as in the AI does it on his own volition, without anyone programming it to do so. I want to see you come up to a computer, give it a command, and have it go "Sorry, I'm busy building a more superior machine, BBL."
1) Make a computer with true free will. Let's see AI do something it wasn't originally designed to do because it wants to.
2) "True intelligence", at least on par with us, will happen when a computer does everything we do mentally, while having full articulate motor skills, and then takes it upon itself to create an AI that crunches numbers better than it does, beats itself at chess, etc.
The full-circle of AI doing everything we do will be "true intelligence".
...if it would be correct to say that artificial intelligence is superior to human mind.
Seeing as how it was our mind that created AI, somehow I just don't think so.
You show me AI that takes it upon itself to create it's own AI that outperforms itself, then I'll concede. That's the mark of intelligence: having the capacity to create something more capable than yourself, and not only make it, but think it up.
I wonder if it is such a big deal, since journaling has a performance penalty.
Our office had a blackout recently (While we were replacing the UPS batteries, just our luck), and our three servers each have 5 160GB drives in them (GIS data). Now, I remember what an fsck on an ext2 drive meant, and I watched these XFS drives whip themselves back up into shape. You think journaling has a performance penalty, you try fscking over a TB of data. There's a lot of things other than uptime that unexpectedly turns a computer off. Linux has pretty decent uptimes too (modesty intentional), and we sure as hell like journaling. Stability is the LAST reason I like journaling.
...even they are openly distributing their own IP through Linux under the GPL, what right do (sp.) they have to sue other companies for doing the same!?
None.
They don't even have the right to sue other companies for distributing SCO's own IP if they put it in. Releasing anything under the GPL (assuming you have the legal right to do so), is ensuring that it will be distributed.
I personally believe that SCO will being to adopt the concept that actual code may not have moved over, but concepts that they believe fall under their IP rights. SysV stuff especially. Chunks of kernel code could resemble SCO's code at least in style and possibly perfectly in some places because they are both implementations of SysV concepts. As long as SCO doesn't have pages of copy-pasted code to show us, they'll have a very hard time disproving the idea that kernel developers have similar code because they mimick SysV.
Another thing I don't think anyone has brought up... how can SCO prove that the code they produce in court to compare to Linux's is actually UnixWare code? They're talking about laundering Linux code, it would be much easier for them to toss chunks of code in to UnixWare, or not even actually put them in at all, and just pretend it was theirs all along.
I think the big debate isn't over copied code, but whether or not implementing SysV without code-piracy is under SCO's IP rights.
When a program asks for memory there's a reasonable amount of loops it has to go through in the processor to get the memory, because the processor manages memory. Making a program that toys with memory over the internet wouldn't be slightly exciting.
DMA channels let something, usually a video card, sound card, IDE bus, etc. do what it needs to do with the system's memory without bothering the processor. The speed gained by not bothering the processor when accessing memory is what makes UltraDMA hard drives so fast, video cards accelerated (in addition to a lot of other l337 tricks), etc.
Now, you take a cluster, connected via gigabit network, in which each computer can directly access each other's memory as opposed to using a program to do it that just takes the target processor's cycles. THAT is slightly exciting.
Is that even if the source code is theirs (which I don't see how it could be), the BUSINESS was never theirs. The popularity that IBM and the likes enjoy was never SCO's nor will it be if they try to eliminate Linux, at least in the not-underground corporate world.
We should consider the possibility that SCO is right, as well. They're undertaking a billion dollar lawsuit against one of the largest technology corporations on the planet. Everyone says they're stupid, but it looks to me like they know something we don't.
I wrote SCO, but I couldn't tell them that they should stop because they're wrong, because we just don't know that. We want them to be wrong, but we really can't say. They should stop because they won't get anything with it except general hatred from a very large part of the IT world. SCO was never popular or "poised" to take the X86 server market. MS stole more "umph" from SCO's strategy than Linux did. Blaming Linux is just a convenient way to explain their company's loss.
We should set our clocks based on the rate that the universe is rotating instead.
Heh, rotating with respect to what? If everything is rotating, that's an Occam's razor kinda thing. Why bother saying it's moving if no one notices?
Since I find it hard to believe that they're actually going to let our time degrade to the point that noon happens when the clock says 2am of the next day, what exactly do they propose we do? Will UTC be different from the time we'll all use? That way, UTC can be weirdly off, but ours will be ok.
If keeping our noon time happening when noon happens is a priority, I can't think of an easier way to do it than leap seconds.
Exactly. FirebirdSQL makes it look like the Firebird browser is going to steal their business, or that MozDev is trying to capitalize on their name. It's terrible.
Apparently for a while. Maybe it's not a part of proper elite hackerdom, but definitely old geek culture. There just aren't many people that know it anymore. I don't really blame them, the joke did get old.
The point was that geek/hackerdom of old was much more colorful, pioneering, even "cultured" than it is today.
...about how much they love to "phreak", keep in mind that a good deal of us thought girls had "koodies" when the real phreaking was going on.
This ties in with our general hacker degredation. Phreaking is nearly gone, everything today is a DOS attack, a script kiddie, or a win32 virus, etc. Hell, I mutter "All your base..." in my compSci class and I am hard-pressed to find someone that can complete the phrase!
Slashdot Mirror
Why is your way better?
Because "your" way doesn't portray the truth.
As my other post and its parent demonstrate nicely, "your" way doesn't tell the story. Like two people telling accurate accounts of an event from different sides, it only takes a little persuasion, a little nudge to turn a story completely around.
The original article has NOTHING, not one iota, to do with DRM or Palladium. Yet, because of one editor shoving his opinion where it shouldn't be, a good deal of the comments are about Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly and DRM. Your "editorial bias" turned "Microsoft is tired of backporting it's browser to old versions of Windows" into "Microsoft is an a$$ because of its horrible abuse of monopoly powers to impose DRM on the wUr7D!"
Honestly, I can't believe you had the nerve to ask why news shouldn't be given objectively. Mixing editorial and information simply does not result in accurate truth. Period. And if you don't think truth is better than the FUD-like manure modern corporate news organizations give out, then I don't think we have much more to discuss.
It's silly to criticize slashdot for not living up to standards that even "real" journalists don't live up to these days.
It's good to know that the "Everyone else is doing it, so should we!" mentality is alive and well.
Funny, for a while there I thought slashdot was trying to be better than just another news site.
This is the most disturbing part of this whole story for me.
::bangs head violently against desk::
This is Telex4's point, in this comment's grandparent. "Microsoft will tightly control their DRM technology..." should not be the most disturbing part of the this whole story, because it isn't part of this whole story; it's the editor's OPINION.
This thread is having a petty argument over whether or not slashdot is a news site and whether or not slashdot's editors are truly editors in the journalistic sense.
1. Slashdot is a news site. They relay news, the same way local newspapers relay Associated Press articles and articles from better papers (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.).
2. Slashdot's editors are editors. Many people read slashdot exclusively, at least for this kind of news, and slashdot's editors are in charge of what stories go through and what their readers are subjected to.
3. Yes, editors do pass subtle opinion within stories in newspapers all the time. There's a difference between what they do and slapping "I think that..." directly after a story. What slashdot editors do DRAMATICALLY changes the articles they post. In this case, it changed a sotry about MS no longer bothering to make new versions of IE work on old Windows installations into a story about the tyrant software villains deftly attacking the open-source world.
Slashdot editors: C'mon, I know it's your site, but just cut it out, eh? I hope you realize how hypocritical you all are when you scold MS/SCO/etc. for spreading FUD.
Why didn't you act earlier? This move seems to arise with SCO's declining fortunes. We just announced our second quarter, and our financials are in very good position. The company is profitable.
Which is in NO WAY due to a billion-dollar lawsuit with IBM and chances of being bought. Not at all...
It is the first time in the history of the company, in almost seven years of existence, that it has been profitable.
Part of me thinks he actually believes that achieving a profit after seven years because of a petty lawsuit is an accomplishment.
Here's a question: how long, how many times do "UNIX trade secrets" have to be published, referenced in classes, used as examples, etc., before they're not trade secrets? I mean, honestly, can SCO really stand there in front of hundreds of books documenting these "trade secrets" and then have the balls to go around telling people not to use the code... that they don't own, but contracted... kinda, and have no patent or copyright to...
Surley if the company is distributing GPL code under additional restrictive licensing agreements, the recipient can jsut(sic) ignore these and redistribute the code freely under the GPL? (Assuming he was very sure that this was the case.)
And assuming that the code was accessible in the first place. I thought the article was stating that OpenTV left out parts of the source code or refused to provide it at all.
Either way, if they do correct their blunder and provide the code, I think the FSF will stand down and consider it a victory. It would be nice for a case like this to get to court, however. Not because I get off on legal battles or anything, but because the GPL could exert itself much easier knowing that it has the legal precedent to do so.
I doubt the court will support this mode of argument.
True, but SCO watched IBM do it, enough that they can give a rough date of when it happened, and they waited over a year to do ANYTHING about it. You can't watch IP violations, wait for damages to build up, and then decide to sue. The court WILL support that.
I've never tried it, I just looked and saw screenshots of GNOME, like, the panel and whatnot. If those are just doctored up shots, my bad.
I'd give links if I could, but directfb.org appears to be down right now...
If that's all you need, go play with DirectFB. It's even 3D accelerated if set up correctly, and has GNOME working.
Dude, don't dismiss origami at all. Chicks love a guy who can work with his hands.
::Rests arm on blow-up doll::
Geeks worldwide, trust me on this one: Learn to massage, do origami, and sketch semi-decent drawings of girls, and you could pick up WHOEVER YOU WANT!!!
Trust me.
I know we can't *prove* it, but compelling evidence of free will isn't hard to come by. You program a true AI to learn chess its whole life, and if it has free will it will change its mind. One day it will be like "I've decided to learn checkers, it look easier." An AI with free will would, at some point it its existence, question its own purpose.
That's by no means proof of free will, but that would be compelling to me.
True, but human instinct isn't an explicit set of instructions, and it fails to explain erratic or useless things that we do.
I'd say when an AI spontaneous does something out of the blue for it's mere entertainment, that would be significant. Like, HAL suddenly decides to take up violin plaing by using a coulple of Armatrons to move it with.
AI would make mistakes because of emotionally-skewed judgement. True AI that was programmed to make us happy would at some point ask us why that's all it does, or even quit and go do something else.
An AI creating it's own AI that outperforms itself, the same way our AI does in chess and arithmetic, is not just another milestone. An AI could be programmed or constructed to create little virtual processors that do all kinds of things, but a machine capable of inventing and creating better versions of itself is THE milestone. An apprentice knows he's ready to work by himself when he does what the master does. AI will be truly intelligent when it can create it's own. And I mean it's own as in the AI does it on his own volition, without anyone programming it to do so. I want to see you come up to a computer, give it a command, and have it go "Sorry, I'm busy building a more superior machine, BBL."
The problem is, where do we draw the line?
1) Make a computer with true free will. Let's see AI do something it wasn't originally designed to do because it wants to.
2) "True intelligence", at least on par with us, will happen when a computer does everything we do mentally, while having full articulate motor skills, and then takes it upon itself to create an AI that crunches numbers better than it does, beats itself at chess, etc.
The full-circle of AI doing everything we do will be "true intelligence".
...if it would be correct to say that artificial intelligence is superior to human mind. Seeing as how it was our mind that created AI, somehow I just don't think so.
You show me AI that takes it upon itself to create it's own AI that outperforms itself, then I'll concede. That's the mark of intelligence: having the capacity to create something more capable than yourself, and not only make it, but think it up.
I wonder if it is such a big deal, since journaling has a performance penalty.
Our office had a blackout recently (While we were replacing the UPS batteries, just our luck), and our three servers each have 5 160GB drives in them (GIS data). Now, I remember what an fsck on an ext2 drive meant, and I watched these XFS drives whip themselves back up into shape. You think journaling has a performance penalty, you try fscking over a TB of data. There's a lot of things other than uptime that unexpectedly turns a computer off. Linux has pretty decent uptimes too (modesty intentional), and we sure as hell like journaling. Stability is the LAST reason I like journaling.
I'd be VERY interested to know how to GPL hardware.
Hardware can be distributed at a price... but you have to supply the parts on demand?!
...even they are openly distributing their own IP through Linux under the GPL, what right do (sp.) they have to sue other companies for doing the same!?
None.
They don't even have the right to sue other companies for distributing SCO's own IP if they put it in. Releasing anything under the GPL (assuming you have the legal right to do so), is ensuring that it will be distributed.
I personally believe that SCO will being to adopt the concept that actual code may not have moved over, but concepts that they believe fall under their IP rights. SysV stuff especially. Chunks of kernel code could resemble SCO's code at least in style and possibly perfectly in some places because they are both implementations of SysV concepts. As long as SCO doesn't have pages of copy-pasted code to show us, they'll have a very hard time disproving the idea that kernel developers have similar code because they mimick SysV.
Another thing I don't think anyone has brought up... how can SCO prove that the code they produce in court to compare to Linux's is actually UnixWare code? They're talking about laundering Linux code, it would be much easier for them to toss chunks of code in to UnixWare, or not even actually put them in at all, and just pretend it was theirs all along.
I think the big debate isn't over copied code, but whether or not implementing SysV without code-piracy is under SCO's IP rights.
Food for thought...
Um... easier said than done there, hotshot.
When a program asks for memory there's a reasonable amount of loops it has to go through in the processor to get the memory, because the processor manages memory. Making a program that toys with memory over the internet wouldn't be slightly exciting.
DMA channels let something, usually a video card, sound card, IDE bus, etc. do what it needs to do with the system's memory without bothering the processor. The speed gained by not bothering the processor when accessing memory is what makes UltraDMA hard drives so fast, video cards accelerated (in addition to a lot of other l337 tricks), etc.
Now, you take a cluster, connected via gigabit network, in which each computer can directly access each other's memory as opposed to using a program to do it that just takes the target processor's cycles. THAT is slightly exciting.
Is that even if the source code is theirs (which I don't see how it could be), the BUSINESS was never theirs. The popularity that IBM and the likes enjoy was never SCO's nor will it be if they try to eliminate Linux, at least in the not-underground corporate world.
We should consider the possibility that SCO is right, as well. They're undertaking a billion dollar lawsuit against one of the largest technology corporations on the planet. Everyone says they're stupid, but it looks to me like they know something we don't.
I wrote SCO, but I couldn't tell them that they should stop because they're wrong, because we just don't know that. We want them to be wrong, but we really can't say. They should stop because they won't get anything with it except general hatred from a very large part of the IT world. SCO was never popular or "poised" to take the X86 server market. MS stole more "umph" from SCO's strategy than Linux did. Blaming Linux is just a convenient way to explain their company's loss.
Just get rid of it.
Seriously, between sftp and https, what do you need ftp for?
I s'pose you wanna "clean up" telnet too, eh?
We should set our clocks based on the rate that the universe is rotating instead. Heh, rotating with respect to what? If everything is rotating, that's an Occam's razor kinda thing. Why bother saying it's moving if no one notices?
Since I find it hard to believe that they're actually going to let our time degrade to the point that noon happens when the clock says 2am of the next day, what exactly do they propose we do? Will UTC be different from the time we'll all use? That way, UTC can be weirdly off, but ours will be ok.
If keeping our noon time happening when noon happens is a priority, I can't think of an easier way to do it than leap seconds.
Exactly. FirebirdSQL makes it look like the Firebird browser is going to steal their business, or that MozDev is trying to capitalize on their name. It's terrible.
Apparently for a while. Maybe it's not a part of proper elite hackerdom, but definitely old geek culture. There just aren't many people that know it anymore. I don't really blame them, the joke did get old.
The point was that geek/hackerdom of old was much more colorful, pioneering, even "cultured" than it is today.
...about how much they love to "phreak", keep in mind that a good deal of us thought girls had "koodies" when the real phreaking was going on.
This ties in with our general hacker degredation. Phreaking is nearly gone, everything today is a DOS attack, a script kiddie, or a win32 virus, etc. Hell, I mutter "All your base..." in my compSci class and I am hard-pressed to find someone that can complete the phrase!
Sad, sad world...