After listening to Stern and Powell on the clip: Stern is a childish, stupid jerk. Powell is a slick politician.
Powell handles himself well: he can talk sense on the fly. I'd say he has a lot upstairs. Much of what the FCC has been doing is pretty wrong, but that's what politicians do, and we can't even give Powell all the blame, since he's not the only FCC commissioner.
Stern didn't make much sense, and didn't want to hear anything that didn't fit his conspiracy theories. He sounded spiteful and small. At least his ``good luck to Michael Powell'' sounded sincere. Maybe he realizes that without the notoriety the FCC has given him, he probably wouldn't be moving to satellite radio.
Think about this: the record industry, the TV industry and the motion picture industry have all been hammering hard on Bush. After the election, he probably wouldn't have any moral qualms about signing any bill they didn't like.
Kerry, on the other hand, might still feel beholden to some of the big-name stars that have been stumping for him.
If copyright law and the DMCA are your single issue, I'm not at all sure that you want to vote Kerry.
Remember how they used to look for intelligent life? Now they've lowered their sights, and will settle for just life.
I guess they got so discouraged by not being able to find any intelligent life here on earth that they just gave up on finding it out there, too. Oh, well, if we had found intelligent life, we probably couldn't have figured out what to do with it anyway.
>>Some programs I wrote in Basic on an Apple II ran faster than when written in a modern language on a G4 Dual-processor Mac with hardware 1,000 times faster.
>That is quite odd of him to say.
Sounds plausible to me. Wordstar ran way faster on a Kaypro2 than it did on an IBM PC, despite the IBM having a more modern CPU and a 2.4-times-faster clock than the kaypro.
Wordstar on the original IBM PC (8 bit bus, 4.77MHz) was just as fast as Word on a P4 (32 bit bus, 1.8GHz) today. Except that the graphics have gotten a little better in the last 20 years, computers really haven't changed much for most of MS's customers, despite the clock rate being nearly 1000 times faster.
... but we sure as hell aren't (a) paying for heart surgery; and (b) taking off to India to get it.
Actually, you're (a) paying for it, in the form of high taxes, and (b) not getting it in Canada, so a lot of Canadians are going to anywhere but Canada and paying for it again!
The amazing part is that many clinics on the U.S. side of the border are there just to be convenient to their Canadian customers, who could eventually get the same care in Canada, if they survived the wait.
I've investigated moving to Canada, and healthcare is one of the things that keeps me in the U.S.
Well, he did address your question in the article.
He did use the Apache case as a counter-example, because that's one of the few cases where MS and Libre software compete, and Libre is the larger target. In that case, the smaller target comes out looking more vulnerable. Is there something special about Apache which makes you think that it wouldn't work that way for other Libre projects? If you know something we don't, by all means share it.
... I cannot think of any good way to measure this.
Oddly enough, Petreley covered that question, too.
We have a technical term for it
on
Saving Huygens
·
· Score: 5, Informative
"We have a technical term for what went wrong here," one of Huygens's principal investigators, John Zarnecki of Britain's Open University, would later explain to reporters: "It's called a cock-up."
Oooooh! I love that technical jargon.
Spoiler Warning:
... the Cassini team crafted a response plan that centered on reducing the Doppler shift sufficiently to keep the data signal within the recognition range of the receiver. They accomplished this trick by altering the planned trajectory of Cassini.
Now you know how they fixed it, so no need to read the article.
But I read a couple of the detractor's articles and realized that there are some things on a PC I just wouldn't want to share with others. While this is fine on my personal, one-man home computer, I wouldn't want to use a public computer with the Google Desktop installed.
Me too. So, I don't.
Seriously, you don't hold private conversations in public places. You don't send detailed, intimate love letters by posting them on a bulletin board (I hope you don't...). You don't use a public computer for sensitive emails. It's all the same principle: if you don't control who can see that area, you don't put your secrets in that area.
Monsterzero seems to be refusing to display the page if you come to it by cliking a slashdot link. So, clik this google search, then take the top link.
A couple of interesting links showed up while I was lloking for this, too. It seems that the holders of the *zilla copyright are about as uncouth as Godzilla itself: square-zilla and davezilla.
Researchers say the data does not show that MP3 is losing much of its popularity--files encoded in the format are just more disposable than rivals. People are still downloading boatloads of MP3 files--but they are discarding them at an even faster rate, the researchers said.
So, most of what we download is crap. What's new here?
... a custom version of Windows CE controlling everything from in-vehicle entertainment to satellite navigation.
This won't control any of the``car systems'', just the home entertainment system. Since your car won't be networked, and won't have any drivers added (the loose nut behind the wheel doesn't count), it won't be as insecure and unstable as Windows at home.
On the other hand, you will be paying the MS tax.
Leaving MS out of it, I think I'd pay extra for a car without all the crap built in. Fortunately for me, most folks would rather pay extra to get all the built in crap, so I'll be able to get the stripped-down model and save.
Re:Is it an open protocol?
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The General Public License gives you a license to use that code under certain terms.
Almost true. It gives you a license to distribute that code, under certain terms. No license is needed to use a copy. Read section 5 of the GPL for an elegant confirmation of that.
When they say "free, non-commercial use", and they talk about the GPL, they are making sense. The Linux kernel, which is GPL, may use their implementation.
Sorry, you're way off here. Redhat sells Linux, and their customers use it for commercial purposes. Therefore, the Redhat version of the Linux kernel can't use their implementation. The issue is moot, however, since the non-commercial restriction would make their license non-GPL-compatible. Their implementation couldn't be included even in a kernel which would see non-commercial use only.
Microsoft cannot use their implementation in any of its Windows OSes...
Wrong. If MS wanted to make a version which they would give free of charge to private individuals and charitable organizations, they could use it, since that would be entirely non-commercial, both in distribution and in use.
... without releasing the OS kernel under terms which are compatible with the GPL.
For MS, that would be a problem, but it's the GPL part, not the non-commercial part, that would bite them. As I said above, the non-commercial restriction would render this license incompatible with the GPL.
The GPL does not lend itself to "commercial use", because the "standard" model of software licensing is paying a price per use/copy of the binary, and the GPL doesn't work this way.
Sorry, you've mis-construed non-commercial. Non-commercial typically means not used in commerce. Believe it or not, is is possible to sell software for non-commercial use. If you run your business using the software, that's commercial use. By the way, you should tell Redhat and Novell that bit about the GPL not working for ``paying a price per use/copy of the binary'', that'll be a revelation to them.
Re:Is it an open protocol?
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
If it's not an open protocol (if they charge for use)...
It doesn't look good.
Their webpage says:``We are planning to release Rateless Codes for free, non-commercial use, in open source under the GNU Public License.'' They are seriously confused about the terms of their own license. The GPL doesn't lend itself to ``free, non-commercial use'': it lets the licensee use and distribute freely, at any price, for any use.
Either they'll loose that ``non-commercial use'' crap, or this will go nowhere.
From the article: "The structure of the HD-DVD format is similar to the current DVD format, which enables us to cost the new PC at a price similar to currently available models," Toshiba spokeswoman Junko Furuta said.
What marketroid told them that a near-miss for Quasimodo was a good brand name? Hmpf! ``Qosmio'' indeed.
Well, if we replace ``acceptable'' with ``optimal'', we might come a little closer to the truth, for most of us who aren't using it as our desktops.
Unfortunately, what they say about the future of OpenBSD is far too true:
One factor that mars OpenBSD's fair weather is its primary developer, Theo de Raadt. This individual is known to be highly unstable and even destructive at times. OpenBSD's very birth, as noted above, is owed to one of his infamous tantrums and many users have been flamed off the Internet due to his bad moods and compulsive control issues. Though excellent for network equipment, developers may wish to remain wary of this platform and its creator.
The attitude on the mailing lists is one of the big reasons that I've found OpenBSD not to be optimal for my desktop.
That's why ``... AMD seem to have better products and more innovative ideas.'' Since they're number two, they try harder. Once people have been saying ``No one ever got fired for buying AMD.'' for a while, expect them to stumble a few times.
Slashdot Mirror
Powell handles himself well: he can talk sense on the fly. I'd say he has a lot upstairs. Much of what the FCC has been doing is pretty wrong, but that's what politicians do, and we can't even give Powell all the blame, since he's not the only FCC commissioner.
Stern didn't make much sense, and didn't want to hear anything that didn't fit his conspiracy theories. He sounded spiteful and small. At least his ``good luck to Michael Powell'' sounded sincere. Maybe he realizes that without the notoriety the FCC has given him, he probably wouldn't be moving to satellite radio.
I know that I've seen a lot more public-office-holding militant fundamentalists of the atheist variety than the christian variety.
Here's a counter-question: why not?
Does 30W sound like a lot? My laptop uses a 57W powersupply, with a CPU at 1/4 the clockspeed.
Here is the MB860. Since they're using the Transmeta chip, power consumption must be a big deal. Here's the spec. for that:
Make up your mind. Is it ``immensely flexible'', or ``monolithic and slow-to-change''? I'm pretty sure it's not both.
As for ``too monolithic and slow-to-change to be easy to toss onto a new PC'', try Knoppix. It makes installing Debian easier than installing Windows.
Kerry, on the other hand, might still feel beholden to some of the big-name stars that have been stumping for him.
If copyright law and the DMCA are your single issue, I'm not at all sure that you want to vote Kerry.
I guess they got so discouraged by not being able to find any intelligent life here on earth that they just gave up on finding it out there, too. Oh, well, if we had found intelligent life, we probably couldn't have figured out what to do with it anyway.
>That is quite odd of him to say.
Sounds plausible to me. Wordstar ran way faster on a Kaypro2 than it did on an IBM PC, despite the IBM having a more modern CPU and a 2.4-times-faster clock than the kaypro.
Wordstar on the original IBM PC (8 bit bus, 4.77MHz) was just as fast as Word on a P4 (32 bit bus, 1.8GHz) today. Except that the graphics have gotten a little better in the last 20 years, computers really haven't changed much for most of MS's customers, despite the clock rate being nearly 1000 times faster.
By all accounts, that's a fair statement.
Actually, you're (a) paying for it, in the form of high taxes, and (b) not getting it in Canada, so a lot of Canadians are going to anywhere but Canada and paying for it again!
The amazing part is that many clinics on the U.S. side of the border are there just to be convenient to their Canadian customers, who could eventually get the same care in Canada, if they survived the wait.
I've investigated moving to Canada, and healthcare is one of the things that keeps me in the U.S.
Here are some numbers to refute the claim that foreign schools are better because they out-spend us
He did use the Apache case as a counter-example, because that's one of the few cases where MS and Libre software compete, and Libre is the larger target. In that case, the smaller target comes out looking more vulnerable. Is there something special about Apache which makes you think that it wouldn't work that way for other Libre projects? If you know something we don't, by all means share it.
Oddly enough, Petreley covered that question, too.
Oooooh! I love that technical jargon.
Spoiler Warning:
Now you know how they fixed it, so no need to read the article.
And, if you stop to think about where it comes from, that's a good thing!
Pascal was more than a programming language, it was a multi-platform operating system.
Me too. So, I don't.
Seriously, you don't hold private conversations in public places. You don't send detailed, intimate love letters by posting them on a bulletin board (I hope you don't...). You don't use a public computer for sensitive emails. It's all the same principle: if you don't control who can see that area, you don't put your secrets in that area.
How is any of this Google's problem?
A couple of interesting links showed up while I was lloking for this, too. It seems that the holders of the *zilla copyright are about as uncouth as Godzilla itself: square-zilla and davezilla.
So, most of what we download is crap. What's new here?
On the other hand, you will be paying the MS tax.
Leaving MS out of it, I think I'd pay extra for a car without all the crap built in. Fortunately for me, most folks would rather pay extra to get all the built in crap, so I'll be able to get the stripped-down model and save.
Almost true. It gives you a license to distribute that code, under certain terms. No license is needed to use a copy. Read section 5 of the GPL for an elegant confirmation of that.
When they say "free, non-commercial use", and they talk about the GPL, they are making sense. The Linux kernel, which is GPL, may use their implementation.
Sorry, you're way off here. Redhat sells Linux, and their customers use it for commercial purposes. Therefore, the Redhat version of the Linux kernel can't use their implementation. The issue is moot, however, since the non-commercial restriction would make their license non-GPL-compatible. Their implementation couldn't be included even in a kernel which would see non-commercial use only.
Microsoft cannot use their implementation in any of its Windows OSes ...
Wrong. If MS wanted to make a version which they would give free of charge to private individuals and charitable organizations, they could use it, since that would be entirely non-commercial, both in distribution and in use.
For MS, that would be a problem, but it's the GPL part, not the non-commercial part, that would bite them. As I said above, the non-commercial restriction would render this license incompatible with the GPL.
The GPL does not lend itself to "commercial use", because the "standard" model of software licensing is paying a price per use/copy of the binary, and the GPL doesn't work this way.
Sorry, you've mis-construed non-commercial. Non-commercial typically means not used in commerce. Believe it or not, is is possible to sell software for non-commercial use. If you run your business using the software, that's commercial use. By the way, you should tell Redhat and Novell that bit about the GPL not working for ``paying a price per use/copy of the binary'', that'll be a revelation to them.
It doesn't look good. Their webpage says:``We are planning to release Rateless Codes for free, non-commercial use, in open source under the GNU Public License.'' They are seriously confused about the terms of their own license. The GPL doesn't lend itself to ``free, non-commercial use'': it lets the licensee use and distribute freely, at any price, for any use.
Either they'll loose that ``non-commercial use'' crap, or this will go nowhere.
What marketroid told them that a near-miss for Quasimodo was a good brand name? Hmpf! ``Qosmio'' indeed.
Well, if we replace ``acceptable'' with ``optimal'', we might come a little closer to the truth, for most of us who aren't using it as our desktops.
Unfortunately, what they say about the future of OpenBSD is far too true:
The attitude on the mailing lists is one of the big reasons that I've found OpenBSD not to be optimal for my desktop.Yep.
That's why ``... AMD seem to have better products and more innovative ideas.'' Since they're number two, they try harder. Once people have been saying ``No one ever got fired for buying AMD.'' for a while, expect them to stumble a few times.