Confirmed: Artefact is British/AU/CA/NZ, Artifact is US. As for the True Cross, the one everyone thought was the True Cross (and probably wasn't, really) was destroyed centuries ago, and you can buy what claim to be relics of it on eBay.
How can I remove my site's pages from the Wayback Machine?
The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection. By placing a simple robots.txt file on your Web server, you can exclude your site from being crawled as well as exclude any historical pages from the Wayback Machine.
See our exclusion policy.
You can find exclusion directions at exclude.php. If you cannot place the robots.txt file, opt not to, or have further questions, email wayback2@archive.org.
In other words, by your NOT including a robots.txt file, you are implicitly granting them permission to cache your content. Also, the content is cached as it was published, complete with the appropriate markings, and is only publicly accessible content, so you'd be hard press to argue there is any economic harm from the caching, which means there would be likely be no damages from a successful copyright suit, which means a copyright suit would be pretty damned unlikely.
... Is it still a big bloated piece of crappy code???
Currently it's a 29.2M download for everything (Sun Java, Winamp, you name it). Bigger and more bloated than I'd want, but there are reduced versions. Mozilla is a much more bearable 10.4 MB, but I don't think that includes Java or Flash.
That last sentence is supposed to read "So, please, could we at least apply a more rigorous process to the choosing of Ask Slashdot subjects than we all think the patent office applies to patent applications." Sorry. (Some might mistaken that typo as meaning that I'm somehow connected to the patent process, and I'm not).
Femto's energy is applied in the right direction: but if he wants to fight the status quo in intellectual property, he should probably become an intellectual property lawyer first, so he can fight the reality and not merely his misperception thereof.
Ultimately, all forms of "property" are abstract. Is your car still your car when it's in a public parking garage at the airport 6,000 miles away on vacation? Even though you do not have possession of it? Of course it is.
Let's take a simple question here: if an abstract principle cannot be property, why is it that the NJ Nets can trade Keith Van Horn and Todd MacCulloch for Dikembe Mutombo? What is the property here? Obviously it isn't the people, as ownership of people is a violation of the 13th amendment. They are trading the contracts - the property changing hands is the contract of Dikembe Mutombo, for the consideration of the property of the contract of Todd MacCulloch and the property of the contract of Keith Van Horn. And by contract, we do not mean merely the piece of paper on which Dikembe Mutombo's signature is written, but the abstract principle of that contract.
The real problem with the term "intellectual property" is that it conflates many different kinds of "property" - copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets, licenses - all of which have different spheres of significance, and all of which are treated differently under the law.
So the replacement terms are obvious: "copyright", "patent", "trademark", "trade secrets", "licenses".
Femto also seems to be confused with a number of other issues regarding "intellectual property". A posting he made in another thread suggested that the EFF might set up some kind of database of prior art:
Maybe EFF/FSF's contribution can be to set up a wiki which can be used to make a permanant, easily searchable, record of all these ideas?
The problem here is that the wiki is by definition editable by any contributor, and therefore cannot be relied upon as a record of past events. This means it could not possibly be a useful tool to prove prior art. What one needs to prove prior art is a literature search - a search of published scientific literature, as the fact that it is published will provide proof of date and proof of widespread awareness. Ultimately, what Femto is suggesting here would serve precisely the same purpose that patent registration serves; the solution is not to have another registration that is independent of (and likely, unless sufficient resources are provided, inferior to) the government registry, but to invent a process which will reform the existing registry.
Later in the same posting, he writes:
If a patent is only gong to be used as a bargaining chip, it probably doesn't have to be particlarly strong, so it might be possible to D.I.Y. and eliminate legal fees. That way, it might be affordable to patent some of the 'better' ideas.
A DIY patent is very, very unlikely to be accepted. The patent application process is part of a specialized professional discourse, and a patent that is not written "properly" simply will be rejected out of hand. Sometimes I believe that the most important reason we have so many problems with the patent process is because the discourse of patents has become so specialized that the ability to read a patent is almost exclusive of the ability to create one - one can have time to be an expert in patents, or one can have time to be an expert scientist or engineer, but very few have the time and wits to be both. So a patent that describes a new process in a field in which the examiner is not familiar is not immediately recognized as obvious (most of the patents being complained about on Slashdot are invalid, if invalid at all, because they violate the necessity that an invention, to be patentable, be non-obvious), but is accepted because the form of the patent description is correct - everything is in its proper place, and everything hangs together.
Now, if Femto were talking copyrights here - that's easy; a copyright just involves shipping a couple of copies of the publication with a simple form attached. Copyrights do not require any form of specialized knowledge. But patents are much harder to write. Look at
I really meant Last. Win2K had more drivers etc, but was slower and broke other code. WinXP was worse than Win2K on both these counts, and introduced more useless baloons as well.
Joe ServicePack has no use for Active Directory, Management Consoles, Bastardized Kerberos, etc.. NT4 security was enough for him.
You're mixing and matching server and client OSes here, man. Keep WinXP out of the equation, until you have W2K3 to complain about.
Does this mean that KDE in general could run on Mac? ie.: replace the 'bouncy bar' with the KDE window manager, multiple screens, etc. Or is that a window manager/X-windows thing that won't work on top of quartz?
I'm nearly certain you can run KDE on a Mac with fink and X11 (I am certain that you can run Gnome on a Mac this way, having done so myself). You can use KDE apps on a Mac in X11 rootless if you install KDE via fink. But I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to run Aqua apps from a KDE desktop, only from an Aqua desktop (regardless of whether or not X11 is running in rootless mode with KDE apps).
You guys have it easy. In our day, the grades were kept on a floppy (for use in a TRS-80), and you actually had to liberate the floppy from the teacher's briefcase to check it.
Just to indicate how *bad* 802.11 is, I tried to connect a neighbor into my home network with 802.11, and to go (I kid you not!) 75 Ft through the wood construction house in the middle, we had to get special directional antennas.
In theory, the range is 100 M. In practice, it's more like 20 - 30 M, depending upon how much local interference there is and the like. For its main intended purpose, one-building wireless networking, it works well.
My cellular phone, however, gets reasonable service just about anywhere, even standing in the middle of our metal-and-plaster construction local hospital, and the nearest cell tower is over a mile away. (I know where it is)
What's the size-and-mass ratio between that cell tower and the directional antenna on your access point?
Believe me, attitude matters more than technology. That's why *nix lost the desktop in the first place
When did *nix EVER have the desktop? I seem to remember this progression:
CP/M
Apple
DOS
MacOS
Windows 3
Windows 95/NT
Windows 98/NT4
Windows 98SE/2K
Windows XP
The only places Unix was widely used on the desktop were IRIX machines and NeXT boxen, the former in a niche market and the latter at the high end of the price spectrum (and so mostly in universities and other institutions). Most places that had "UNIX on the desktop" had terminals hooked up to a UNIX mini, and they were in close competition with the VT100s and the VAXen.
OS X 10.0.4 came with machine. OS X 10.1.0 payed $20 10.1.1-10.1.5 or so: free 10.2 payed $129 10.2.1-10.2.6 free 10.3 will pay $129 10.3.1-10.3.x probably free.
As for the Win32 price, you're comparing OS X to Win Home. OS X is more comparable to Win Pro, at a $199 pricetag. And the fact is that the difference between 10.2 and 10.3 is going to be as significant as that between 2K and XP.
And then there's the family license for OS X: $199. Comparable license cost for Windows XP Pro: $994 or so.
The real kicker is people who don't realize that Apple sells computers, not operating systems. The $129 for OS X is just an annual tax on bleeding edgedness (and unlike Microsoft's business licenses, it's not a FORCED upgrade; it's not like you're told "we're going to stop support OS X.2 on Monday, and your license requires you to upgrade to X.3 by then"). The key to Apple's business always has been selling hardware. If they switch to Intel, they're doomed to compete with Sony for the high end, or Dell for the low end. If you want something cheap, just buy your Wintel commodity hardware and slap Linux or FreeBSD and a nice little window manager on.
Re:FreeBSD 5.0 as a lower-level enhancement?
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 1
Darwin = FreeBSD with the kernel replaced by Mach and with a bunch of NeXTish and Appleish stuff piled on top.
Compare his postings to those on the other sites. His is much more/.-oriented - better comprehension of the developer specs, etc. He deserves all the Karma he's getting.
Re:Sigh. It's the price again.
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 1
How much is a Dell with a 1.6GHz Itanium, though? That's the comparison you should be making.
I wouldn't call Radiohead a "big crap artist". They have some of the most loyal fans out there. If Hail to the Thief had been on the iTunes Music Store, I would have bought it there. It's not, so I ended up going to best buy to pick it up.
Yeah, you ended up buying a "CD" with DRM innit.
What DRM? I bought Hail to the Thief, ripped it to my iPod, and listened to it there. I didn't see no stinking DRM...
Slashdot Mirror
Confirmed: Artefact is British/AU/CA/NZ, Artifact is US. As for the True Cross, the one everyone thought was the True Cross (and probably wasn't, really) was destroyed centuries ago, and you can buy what claim to be relics of it on eBay.
Archive .org FAQ
How can I remove my site's pages from the Wayback Machine?
The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection. By placing a simple robots.txt file on your Web server, you can exclude your site from being crawled as well as exclude any historical pages from the Wayback Machine.
See our exclusion policy.
You can find exclusion directions at exclude.php. If you cannot place the robots.txt file, opt not to, or have further questions, email wayback2@archive.org.
In other words, by your NOT including a robots.txt file, you are implicitly granting them permission to cache your content. Also, the content is cached as it was published, complete with the appropriate markings, and is only publicly accessible content, so you'd be hard press to argue there is any economic harm from the caching, which means there would be likely be no damages from a successful copyright suit, which means a copyright suit would be pretty damned unlikely.
IANAL.
Currently it's a 29.2M download for everything (Sun Java, Winamp, you name it). Bigger and more bloated than I'd want, but there are reduced versions. Mozilla is a much more bearable 10.4 MB, but I don't think that includes Java or Flash.
Works fine in MozillaFirebird. So either this is a distinction between one 1.4-sibling and another, or ...
Thanks, ABC, but I do think that was my point.
"The joke about Nietzche being dead is dead" - me. Especially when the person making the joke does not know how to spell Nietzsche.
But don't worry, this posting will not kill you, so it will make you stronger.
That last sentence is supposed to read "So, please, could we at least apply a more rigorous process to the choosing of Ask Slashdot subjects than we all think the patent office applies to patent applications." Sorry. (Some might mistaken that typo as meaning that I'm somehow connected to the patent process, and I'm not).
Femto's energy is applied in the right direction: but if he wants to fight the status quo in intellectual property, he should probably become an intellectual property lawyer first, so he can fight the reality and not merely his misperception thereof.
Ultimately, all forms of "property" are abstract. Is your car still your car when it's in a public parking garage at the airport 6,000 miles away on vacation? Even though you do not have possession of it? Of course it is.
Let's take a simple question here: if an abstract principle cannot be property, why is it that the NJ Nets can trade Keith Van Horn and Todd MacCulloch for Dikembe Mutombo? What is the property here? Obviously it isn't the people, as ownership of people is a violation of the 13th amendment. They are trading the contracts - the property changing hands is the contract of Dikembe Mutombo, for the consideration of the property of the contract of Todd MacCulloch and the property of the contract of Keith Van Horn. And by contract, we do not mean merely the piece of paper on which Dikembe Mutombo's signature is written, but the abstract principle of that contract.
The real problem with the term "intellectual property" is that it conflates many different kinds of "property" - copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets, licenses - all of which have different spheres of significance, and all of which are treated differently under the law. So the replacement terms are obvious: "copyright", "patent", "trademark", "trade secrets", "licenses".
Femto also seems to be confused with a number of other issues regarding "intellectual property". A posting he made in another thread suggested that the EFF might set up some kind of database of prior art:
Maybe EFF/FSF's contribution can be to set up a wiki which can be used to make a permanant, easily searchable, record of all these ideas?
The problem here is that the wiki is by definition editable by any contributor, and therefore cannot be relied upon as a record of past events. This means it could not possibly be a useful tool to prove prior art. What one needs to prove prior art is a literature search - a search of published scientific literature, as the fact that it is published will provide proof of date and proof of widespread awareness. Ultimately, what Femto is suggesting here would serve precisely the same purpose that patent registration serves; the solution is not to have another registration that is independent of (and likely, unless sufficient resources are provided, inferior to) the government registry, but to invent a process which will reform the existing registry.
Later in the same posting, he writes:
If a patent is only gong to be used as a bargaining chip, it probably doesn't have to be particlarly strong, so it might be possible to D.I.Y. and eliminate legal fees. That way, it might be affordable to patent some of the 'better' ideas.
A DIY patent is very, very unlikely to be accepted. The patent application process is part of a specialized professional discourse, and a patent that is not written "properly" simply will be rejected out of hand. Sometimes I believe that the most important reason we have so many problems with the patent process is because the discourse of patents has become so specialized that the ability to read a patent is almost exclusive of the ability to create one - one can have time to be an expert in patents, or one can have time to be an expert scientist or engineer, but very few have the time and wits to be both. So a patent that describes a new process in a field in which the examiner is not familiar is not immediately recognized as obvious (most of the patents being complained about on Slashdot are invalid, if invalid at all, because they violate the necessity that an invention, to be patentable, be non-obvious), but is accepted because the form of the patent description is correct - everything is in its proper place, and everything hangs together.
Now, if Femto were talking copyrights here - that's easy; a copyright just involves shipping a couple of copies of the publication with a simple form attached. Copyrights do not require any form of specialized knowledge. But patents are much harder to write. Look at
I always used 0001235467.
Yours is SO much simpler.
Obligatory Spaceballs quote:
"1-2-3-4-5? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life. That's the kinda thing an idiot would have on his luggage."
I really meant Last. Win2K had more drivers etc, but was slower and broke other code. WinXP was worse than Win2K on both these counts, and introduced more useless baloons as well.
Joe ServicePack has no use for Active Directory, Management Consoles, Bastardized Kerberos, etc.. NT4 security was enough for him.
You're mixing and matching server and client OSes here, man. Keep WinXP out of the equation, until you have W2K3 to complain about.
And you will complain about it ...
Does this mean that KDE in general could run on Mac? ie.: replace the 'bouncy bar' with the KDE window manager, multiple screens, etc. Or is that a window manager/X-windows thing that won't work on top of quartz?
I'm nearly certain you can run KDE on a Mac with fink and X11 (I am certain that you can run Gnome on a Mac this way, having done so myself). You can use KDE apps on a Mac in X11 rootless if you install KDE via fink. But I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to run Aqua apps from a KDE desktop, only from an Aqua desktop (regardless of whether or not X11 is running in rootless mode with KDE apps).
You guys have it easy. In our day, the grades were kept on a floppy (for use in a TRS-80), and you actually had to liberate the floppy from the teacher's briefcase to check it.
Not that I ever did.
Just to indicate how *bad* 802.11 is, I tried to connect a neighbor into my home network with 802.11, and to go (I kid you not!) 75 Ft through the wood construction house in the middle, we had to get special directional antennas.
In theory, the range is 100 M. In practice, it's more like 20 - 30 M, depending upon how much local interference there is and the like. For its main intended purpose, one-building wireless networking, it works well.
My cellular phone, however, gets reasonable service just about anywhere, even standing in the middle of our metal-and-plaster construction local hospital, and the nearest cell tower is over a mile away. (I know where it is)
What's the size-and-mass ratio between that cell tower and the directional antenna on your access point?
Don't tell us -- file a bug!
What makes you think I HAVEN'T filed a bug already?
Well, actually I haven't yet, but I was going to ...
Good point, even if I already knew it.
Wait a minute:
Believe me, attitude matters more than technology. That's why *nix lost the desktop in the first place
When did *nix EVER have the desktop? I seem to remember this progression:
CP/M
Apple
DOS
MacOS
Windows 3
Windows 95/NT
Windows 98/NT4
Windows 98SE/2K
Windows XP
The only places Unix was widely used on the desktop were IRIX machines and NeXT boxen, the former in a niche market and the latter at the high end of the price spectrum (and so mostly in universities and other institutions). Most places that had "UNIX on the desktop" had terminals hooked up to a UNIX mini, and they were in close competition with the VT100s and the VAXen.
I'm getting artifacts on the bottom of the frame when I have the text box too close to it. A rendering bug.
Let's see, my OS upgrades on this Machine:
OS X 10.0.4 came with machine.
OS X 10.1.0 payed $20
10.1.1-10.1.5 or so: free
10.2 payed $129
10.2.1-10.2.6 free
10.3 will pay $129
10.3.1-10.3.x probably free.
As for the Win32 price, you're comparing OS X to Win Home. OS X is more comparable to Win Pro, at a $199 pricetag. And the fact is that the difference between 10.2 and 10.3 is going to be as significant as that between 2K and XP.
And then there's the family license for OS X: $199. Comparable license cost for Windows XP Pro: $994 or so.
The real kicker is people who don't realize that Apple sells computers, not operating systems. The $129 for OS X is just an annual tax on bleeding edgedness (and unlike Microsoft's business licenses, it's not a FORCED upgrade; it's not like you're told "we're going to stop support OS X.2 on Monday, and your license requires you to upgrade to X.3 by then"). The key to Apple's business always has been selling hardware. If they switch to Intel, they're doomed to compete with Sony for the high end, or Dell for the low end. If you want something cheap, just buy your Wintel commodity hardware and slap Linux or FreeBSD and a nice little window manager on.
Darwin = FreeBSD with the kernel replaced by Mach and with a bunch of NeXTish and Appleish stuff piled on top.
Compare his postings to those on the other sites. His is much more /.-oriented - better comprehension of the developer specs, etc. He deserves all the Karma he's getting.
How much is a Dell with a 1.6GHz Itanium, though? That's the comparison you should be making.
The low-end pro model. The iMacs will still be around, cheaper than that. And that's for a 64-bit machine.
You're trying to tell me that Jonathan Ive designed that? Pic
A little early there, tiger. The G5s are showing NOW.
I wouldn't call Radiohead a "big crap artist". They have some of the most loyal fans out there. If Hail to the Thief had been on the iTunes Music Store, I would have bought it there. It's not, so I ended up going to best buy to pick it up.
Yeah, you ended up buying a "CD" with DRM innit.
What DRM? I bought Hail to the Thief, ripped it to my iPod, and listened to it there. I didn't see no stinking DRM ...