The problem with "truly free software" is that companies/people are free to make it non-free.
They are also free to make it more free. If I write BSD-licensed code, people are free to use it in GPL applications, Artistic licensed applications, Creative commons-licensed applications... If I release a device driver under GPL, it can not be ported to FreeBSD or Darwin.
It's one thing for companies actually selling movie downloads to use DRM since otherwise they wouldn't get any content to sell from the movie producers. But TIVO is not getting anything from the media companies. They are including DRM so that their box might get bundled by a cable provider rather than actually chosen by users on it's merit. They should have started a rebel business and sell boxes that record component HD signal from a cable box and switch channels using an IR transmitter. As it is, nobody will mourn their passing.
What does "same code" have to do with SAME FILES? There are plenty of opportunities for developers to edit different parts of the same file without stepping on each other's toes. On the other hand, someone changing a header file to remove a function can wreck major havoc on people who just wrote the code that relies on it.
Surely we all agree that, if semantically-aware source control tools are developed, it's a good idea to give developers exclusive locks on, say, basic blocks that they are actually modifying or function prototypes for functions they are calling in those blocks.
And what if it is wrong and malicious... an ex posts a bunch of photos (maybe photoshopped) or, my name is fairly rare and if you do a search for my name most of the results are for a writer of erotic literature.
Well, that's one case where any legislation would make modern Internet impossible. Google can not reliably distinguish an erotic novel from a sexy functional spec covering homosexual adapters to bridge male and female RS232 connectors. ISPs can not and should not screen every blog posting and afterwards it's too late to remove offending photos. We COULD go after commercial abuse, such as companies using unverified Google search results for hiring decisions. For the rest, people will just have to learn to be both skeptical about Internet - most of us already are with all the 409 scams - and accepting that all of us have sex, smoke pot and make dumb comments when drunk.
We have a plenty of current privacy concerns to worry about - unwanted indexing of old postings, surveillance cameras, abuse of SSNs and credit card purchase histories. Let facial recognition software become useful before we legislate it, otherwise the law will likely be both incomplete and overreaching due to lack of experience. Certainly, there should be no restrictions on people indexing their private photo libraries without asking for anyone's permission.
Except that the video of a baseball game isn't your property. You didn't pay anything to MLB for the right to see that video, unless you've partaken in one of those special package deals where you're specifically buying access to out-of-market games.
So which laws am I breaking? I didn't sign any contracts with MLB. They have provided me with a copy of the video voluntarily. I am not giving away copies of the video to other people. Sure wouldn't be copyright law at least.
MLB is using copyright laws to enforce their marketing agreements.
Well then, I am going to use sodomy laws to complain about Microsoft's deceptive marketing practices in regards to security. In both cases, it sounds good, but it's worthless legally. Copyright laws prevent me from making additional copies of the content and distributing them to others. My own copy is only subject to property laws - as MY property that is illegal for MLB or anyone else to muck with.
No, it would be like comparing a Saturn V launcher used in Apollo missions to a Space Shuttle. Bloat, frequent crashes and high cost in exchange for no new functionality, and often times loss of functionality, are apparent.
Yeah, and box cutters are also not allowed in planes - these days. In the meantime, anyone can drill some screws into rails and cause a toxic or even radioactive spill in an urban area. There are just so many attack vectors, even on today's planes, that you can not achieve good security just by closing ones that were already used. Having armed pilots behind closed doors and passengers who know they'll all die anyway if they don't fight terrorists would be probably enough to prevent a copycat of 9/11. But the real solution is halting mass recruitment of terrorists, cutting off their financial backing and make sure that people who advocate violence or have cult mentality to blindly follow whatever the church leaders say do not enter or stay in US.
But, in the meantime, the business is oil which we can't do without and the conflict is because Israel is a little democratic island in a sea of theocracy.
I didn't know Palestinians democratically chose to stay in concentration camps. Doesn't democracy normally extend to everyone living on a given peace of land, not just persons of a single nationality/religion?
Now you're raving. Surely, Pat Robertson would object to not being able to travel abroad.
Well, there wouldn't be any problem with him leaving...
Pilots would be blackmailed into opening cockpit doors at the threat of killing everyone in the cabin. Terrorists would learn lock picking. WTC would be brought down by a big truck with explosives instead of planes. Al-Quida would carry out a chemical or biological attack. Let's face it, targets are endless and internal security is only a small part of preventing terrorism. Withdrawing from Israeli-Palestinian conflict on one hand and refusing to do any business with Islamic countries on the other would deprive terrorists of both recruits and resources and have a much bigger effect on new attacks. We can also distinguish religious freedom from calls for violence against everyone and deport or deny visas to extremists of every faith - muslim, christian, scientology, falun gong...
The definition of an open standard is that a) Vendor A can create a product that works with another product from vendor B, without getting any special approval or secret information from B or anyone else and b) Vendor A's product will work with other/future products from vendor B or any other vendor that advertise compatibility with the same standard. Just being easier to learn by virtue of being similar to another system doesn't qualify as being standards-complaint if developers are locked out by secret keys.I can see how PS3 can claim an open standard for USB storage devices, but there is no openness whatsoever when it comes to accelerated 3D graphics or HD video output.
You buy music for your personal use, which includes fair use such as sharing it with your spouse or playing AAC files under Linux or on non-Apple devices. If your music gets stolen, wouldn't you want Apple to notify you and help you close that security breach as well a punish the thief?
With the founder leaving for Microsoft, would it? Too bad, there is a need for ability to configure a modern Linux system from scratch, with any number of options (X11? no X11? and so on). If nothing else, this helps makers of distributions for specialized devices.
One thing for sure - now, as then, the society/governments do not seem to be interested in vaccination and space travel. A shame really, given that AIDS vaccine or a manned trip to Mars are within reach of our current technology, especially we accept a slight risk to a few informed volunteers inherent in such endeavors.
You can not write an OpenGL program for PS3 without Sony's approval. You can not design an HDMI device for PS3 that does anything but direct display of received video. You can not install drivers for your USB devices or store content on attached SATA hard drives without Sony's approval. I am not sure how does this relate to open standards except using some of the same buzzwords as open products.
Just remember how clunky the devices were before iPod and how inconvenient online music sales were before iTMS. USB 1.0 use alone meant a PC hung for 10 minutes after you located mp3 files to transfer manually on your hard drive. The use of Firewire, although phased out later, meant that it was now practical to sync your whole library - to a device you could jog with.
Obviously after iPod became a market leader, it's not enough for the same companies that tarnished their image in recent past to come up with a device that has roughly the same features as the iPod for a similar price. Offer one click hardware-accelerated DVD transfer or saving individual songs as MP3s based on info received from over-the-air FM stations and we are off to something. Of course, this product will have to be made in a free country.
With cookies/referrer, it's possible to generate an ad intermission when a link is followed from Google for the first time in an hour or so, but not when it comes from another page on the site. Since it's transient cookies, they will not be usually blocked by the browser and if they are, well someone is going to be watching lots of ads. Couple this with robots.txt and there is no reason a newspaper needs a special deal with Google to do business as they want without losing the benefit of indexing.
Actually, both of those theories are backed by fact, but make unsubstianted claims that life didn't originate or change over time in any other ways. For example, Glofish definitely came to be through creationism. If it ever wanted a religion, it would be able to name both their creator and their purpose in life. And certainly there are many fossil records as well as contemporary experience in husbandry that shows evolution does take place and is the origin of many species. But, there are also inherent properties of hydrocarbons and DNA that limits the number of ways a particular desired trait can be realized. There are probably only so many ways a carbon-based organism can have vision, hearing, muscles, metabolism... This boils down to laws of physics in our Universe, but who is to say if the universe is intelligent and can be considered a kind of God, or what does this god want? Individual humans are intelligent and have certain moral objectives. It appears that millions of humans together have collective intelligence and morals that are sometimes more and sometimes less than that of an individual. It certainly seems unscientific to exclude the possibility that the universe at large has intelligence, moral objectives and a hand in making human species who we are.
I do think it's extremely unlikely that intelligent universe/god(s) would care about our sex lives or support war in Iraq. If anything, it behooves on us to fight increase in entropy whenever we can.
Sure, even science fiction authors provided inspiration for scientists and engineers, as well as students considering to join these fields. But - I don't want this work to be considered science until it's underlying assumptions are more solid. At least I would expect a disclaimer like "If we plug in these numbers in our equations, we get some 0s, infinities and other wild results. These equations are derived from observations from a single vantage point and could be wrong at extreme conditions contemplated and inaccurate at any parts of universe besides our corner of the solar system. But here is how the world would look if our theories were perfect"
Science/philosophy went through stages of flat Earth, Earth at the center of the universe, everything made up of four elements... Granted, we progressed a bit in what we can measure and observe these days, but current structure and workings of the whole universe now, much less a trillion years later is not one of those things. We are most probably spinning fairy tales on what happens inside black holes, on other planets, in the center of our own planet or even with temperature changes on the surface. It might be amusing to plug big numbers into equations and end up with a wild picture of the world, but it's just an exercise in math and science fiction. Why don't we focus on getting more facts first? Better exploration of nearby planets and deep layers of the earth should be within our reach now.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with "truly free software" is that companies/people are free to make it non-free.
They are also free to make it more free. If I write BSD-licensed code, people are free to use it in GPL applications, Artistic licensed applications, Creative commons-licensed applications... If I release a device driver under GPL, it can not be ported to FreeBSD or Darwin.
What are VCR manufacturers doing to achieve lack of lawsuits for providing exactly the same features without DRM?
It's one thing for companies actually selling movie downloads to use DRM since otherwise they wouldn't get any content to sell from the movie producers. But TIVO is not getting anything from the media companies. They are including DRM so that their box might get bundled by a cable provider rather than actually chosen by users on it's merit. They should have started a rebel business and sell boxes that record component HD signal from a cable box and switch channels using an IR transmitter. As it is, nobody will mourn their passing.
What does "same code" have to do with SAME FILES? There are plenty of opportunities for developers to edit different parts of the same file without stepping on each other's toes. On the other hand, someone changing a header file to remove a function can wreck major havoc on people who just wrote the code that relies on it.
Surely we all agree that, if semantically-aware source control tools are developed, it's a good idea to give developers exclusive locks on, say, basic blocks that they are actually modifying or function prototypes for functions they are calling in those blocks.
And what if it is wrong and malicious... an ex posts a bunch of photos (maybe photoshopped) or, my name is fairly rare and if you do a search for my name most of the results are for a writer of erotic literature.
Well, that's one case where any legislation would make modern Internet impossible. Google can not reliably distinguish an erotic novel from a sexy functional spec covering homosexual adapters to bridge male and female RS232 connectors. ISPs can not and should not screen every blog posting and afterwards it's too late to remove offending photos. We COULD go after commercial abuse, such as companies using unverified Google search results for hiring decisions. For the rest, people will just have to learn to be both skeptical about Internet - most of us already are with all the 409 scams - and accepting that all of us have sex, smoke pot and make dumb comments when drunk.
We have a plenty of current privacy concerns to worry about - unwanted indexing of old postings, surveillance cameras, abuse of SSNs and credit card purchase histories. Let facial recognition software become useful before we legislate it, otherwise the law will likely be both incomplete and overreaching due to lack of experience. Certainly, there should be no restrictions on people indexing their private photo libraries without asking for anyone's permission.
There were only 10 people tested.
Besides, one understood music and one didn't.
Except that the video of a baseball game isn't your property. You didn't pay anything to MLB for the right to see that video, unless you've partaken in one of those special package deals where you're specifically buying access to out-of-market games.
So which laws am I breaking? I didn't sign any contracts with MLB. They have provided me with a copy of the video voluntarily. I am not giving away copies of the video to other people. Sure wouldn't be copyright law at least.
MLB is using copyright laws to enforce their marketing agreements.
Well then, I am going to use sodomy laws to complain about Microsoft's deceptive marketing practices in regards to security. In both cases, it sounds good, but it's worthless legally. Copyright laws prevent me from making additional copies of the content and distributing them to others. My own copy is only subject to property laws - as MY property that is illegal for MLB or anyone else to muck with.
No, it would be like comparing a Saturn V launcher used in Apollo missions to a Space Shuttle. Bloat, frequent crashes and high cost in exchange for no new functionality, and often times loss of functionality, are apparent.
Yeah, and box cutters are also not allowed in planes - these days. In the meantime, anyone can drill some screws into rails and cause a toxic or even radioactive spill in an urban area. There are just so many attack vectors, even on today's planes, that you can not achieve good security just by closing ones that were already used. Having armed pilots behind closed doors and passengers who know they'll all die anyway if they don't fight terrorists would be probably enough to prevent a copycat of 9/11. But the real solution is halting mass recruitment of terrorists, cutting off their financial backing and make sure that people who advocate violence or have cult mentality to blindly follow whatever the church leaders say do not enter or stay in US.
But, in the meantime, the business is oil which we can't do without and the conflict is because Israel is a little democratic island in a sea of theocracy.
I didn't know Palestinians democratically chose to stay in concentration camps. Doesn't democracy normally extend to everyone living on a given peace of land, not just persons of a single nationality/religion?
Now you're raving. Surely, Pat Robertson would object to not being able to travel abroad.
Well, there wouldn't be any problem with him leaving...
Yeah. It does however think that you throw your removable devices into trash can after you are done using them on your Mac.
Pilots would be blackmailed into opening cockpit doors at the threat of killing everyone in the cabin. Terrorists would learn lock picking. WTC would be brought down by a big truck with explosives instead of planes. Al-Quida would carry out a chemical or biological attack. Let's face it, targets are endless and internal security is only a small part of preventing terrorism. Withdrawing from Israeli-Palestinian conflict on one hand and refusing to do any business with Islamic countries on the other would deprive terrorists of both recruits and resources and have a much bigger effect on new attacks. We can also distinguish religious freedom from calls for violence against everyone and deport or deny visas to extremists of every faith - muslim, christian, scientology, falun gong...
The definition of an open standard is that a) Vendor A can create a product that works with another product from vendor B, without getting any special approval or secret information from B or anyone else and b) Vendor A's product will work with other/future products from vendor B or any other vendor that advertise compatibility with the same standard. Just being easier to learn by virtue of being similar to another system doesn't qualify as being standards-complaint if developers are locked out by secret keys.I can see how PS3 can claim an open standard for USB storage devices, but there is no openness whatsoever when it comes to accelerated 3D graphics or HD video output.
You buy music for your personal use, which includes fair use such as sharing it with your spouse or playing AAC files under Linux or on non-Apple devices. If your music gets stolen, wouldn't you want Apple to notify you and help you close that security breach as well a punish the thief?
With the founder leaving for Microsoft, would it? Too bad, there is a need for ability to configure a modern Linux system from scratch, with any number of options (X11? no X11? and so on). If nothing else, this helps makers of distributions for specialized devices.
One thing for sure - now, as then, the society/governments do not seem to be interested in vaccination and space travel. A shame really, given that AIDS vaccine or a manned trip to Mars are within reach of our current technology, especially we accept a slight risk to a few informed volunteers inherent in such endeavors.
HDMI connector (not just some proprietary one)
You can not write an OpenGL program for PS3 without Sony's approval. You can not design an HDMI device for PS3 that does anything but direct display of received video. You can not install drivers for your USB devices or store content on attached SATA hard drives without Sony's approval. I am not sure how does this relate to open standards except using some of the same buzzwords as open products.
Just remember how clunky the devices were before iPod and how inconvenient online music sales were before iTMS. USB 1.0 use alone meant a PC hung for 10 minutes after you located mp3 files to transfer manually on your hard drive. The use of Firewire, although phased out later, meant that it was now practical to sync your whole library - to a device you could jog with.
Obviously after iPod became a market leader, it's not enough for the same companies that tarnished their image in recent past to come up with a device that has roughly the same features as the iPod for a similar price. Offer one click hardware-accelerated DVD transfer or saving individual songs as MP3s based on info received from over-the-air FM stations and we are off to something. Of course, this product will have to be made in a free country.
With cookies/referrer, it's possible to generate an ad intermission when a link is followed from Google for the first time in an hour or so, but not when it comes from another page on the site. Since it's transient cookies, they will not be usually blocked by the browser and if they are, well someone is going to be watching lots of ads. Couple this with robots.txt and there is no reason a newspaper needs a special deal with Google to do business as they want without losing the benefit of indexing.
Actually, both of those theories are backed by fact, but make unsubstianted claims that life didn't originate or change over time in any other ways. For example, Glofish definitely came to be through creationism. If it ever wanted a religion, it would be able to name both their creator and their purpose in life. And certainly there are many fossil records as well as contemporary experience in husbandry that shows evolution does take place and is the origin of many species. But, there are also inherent properties of hydrocarbons and DNA that limits the number of ways a particular desired trait can be realized. There are probably only so many ways a carbon-based organism can have vision, hearing, muscles, metabolism... This boils down to laws of physics in our Universe, but who is to say if the universe is intelligent and can be considered a kind of God, or what does this god want? Individual humans are intelligent and have certain moral objectives. It appears that millions of humans together have collective intelligence and morals that are sometimes more and sometimes less than that of an individual. It certainly seems unscientific to exclude the possibility that the universe at large has intelligence, moral objectives and a hand in making human species who we are.
I do think it's extremely unlikely that intelligent universe/god(s) would care about our sex lives or support war in Iraq. If anything, it behooves on us to fight increase in entropy whenever we can.
Should I obstain after drinking a pop then??
Sure, even science fiction authors provided inspiration for scientists and engineers, as well as students considering to join these fields. But - I don't want this work to be considered science until it's underlying assumptions are more solid. At least I would expect a disclaimer like "If we plug in these numbers in our equations, we get some 0s, infinities and other wild results. These equations are derived from observations from a single vantage point and could be wrong at extreme conditions contemplated and inaccurate at any parts of universe besides our corner of the solar system. But here is how the world would look if our theories were perfect"
Science/philosophy went through stages of flat Earth, Earth at the center of the universe, everything made up of four elements... Granted, we progressed a bit in what we can measure and observe these days, but current structure and workings of the whole universe now, much less a trillion years later is not one of those things. We are most probably spinning fairy tales on what happens inside black holes, on other planets, in the center of our own planet or even with temperature changes on the surface. It might be amusing to plug big numbers into equations and end up with a wild picture of the world, but it's just an exercise in math and science fiction. Why don't we focus on getting more facts first? Better exploration of nearby planets and deep layers of the earth should be within our reach now.