Ha ha... your spyware collection will simply start up and use up all your app slots. You'll have to kill all the spyware before you can run Word or whatever, and by the time you've killed them all, the first ones you killed will have restarted themselves.
Yeah, sounds like Windows 3.1 with respect to the limited multitasking as well. My Amiga 500, which was hobbled with the (even then) hopelessly outdated 68000 played *way* better than Windows 3.1 much of the time.
Why? Because the Amiga could multitask properly (no waiting for your failed telnet connection to hang up before you can do anything else). Cooperative multitasking, yuk.
3.1 even looked and felt horrible too.
Yeah, you're right, it probably will run faster. But if the ordinary XP distro came with less unnecessary and dangerous crap enabled by default, it too would be faster, and the stuff would be there when you *needed* it. (It's the old WP problem; for any given obscure feature X, 90% of users will say "I don't need X";
but 90% of users will also need one or two *particular* obscure features that fall into the above category. So it's not necessarily a good idea to remove them unless add-on replacements are both cheap and modular).
What happens if you project a red image onto a monochrome green wall?
Simple! The projector sees the green wall and attempts to compensate by increasing the intensity of the red component; eventually (if the green is pure enough), the projector turns up the intensity of the red so far that the wallpaper (which is absorbing the red light) catches fire, and your house burns down!
Therefore, stick to white walls, or magnolia if you like living on the edge.
When the FSF was having one of its funny turns and was proposing changes to the GPL that Linus was unhappy with, he stripped the "or at your option any later version" phrase from the licence
Whoah... I never knew that. I remember noting that clause at one point and thinking it seemed pretty risky. I also remember thinking that, if I'd been working on something I intended GPLing at the time, I'd probably want to omit it (or replace it with "or at *my* option any later version"; but that creates problems with the chain of responsibility, since which version applies to other people's GPLed changes?).
It appears that great minds think alike. Or, more likely, it didn't take a genius to figure out the problem with that clause; essentially "do I trust the FSF that much?".
BTW, you said pretty much what I said; the only way to license the kernel on a non-GPL basis is to get *every* contributor to agree, which won't happen.
The first time I got on a Microsoft Ergonomic keyboard, the bottom row was (is) split in the wrong place for the way I type. I think it was the "B" key on the wrong side. I touch type, but aparently I don't do it in the absolutely correct Microsoft way.:)
Question: Is the '6' in the right place for you? The 'B' is fine for me (use my left hand), but I learned to touch-type with the 6 on my right.
AFAIK, there is more than one way to touch type, unfortunately. I remember making an earlier attempt which (IIRC) had the B on the right hand (like you did).
The main problem I have with keyboards such as the MS Natural, etc, is that the keys themselves don't feel any better than the cheap Mitsumi I normally use (which is pretty nice for a cheap-ass membrane job).
As far a I know, MySQL is also offered with GPL licensing.
It is offered under GPL *and* non-GPL licenses. Which was *exactly* the reason I used it as an example.
(Before I go on, bear in mind that IANAL).
MySQL AB own the copyright to MySQL (AFAIK); thus they can release it under the GPL. All changes made to the GPL-licensed version are thus also GPL, and, unless all the authors of the new code get together with MySQL AB and come to an agreement, the branch of the GPL licensed version is GPL-only.
However, MySQL AB retain the right to the original version they wrote (and all branches that exclusively include their code, I'd guess); thus they can offer it under a non-GPL license.
Now, re: Linux. Let's assume that Linus doesn't own copyright on anything he didn't write. Unless all the authors (i.e. copyright owners) of a particular branch of the kernel agree, that kernel can only be released under the GPL. However, if, someday in the future, Linus received all the copyrights, he would have the copyright for the whole kernel and thus the right to offer Linux under a non-GPL license.
This won't happen, of course- too many people own the copyrights- but if Linus had insisted from the start that he (or someone) was assigned the copyright to all the code in the kernel, then, even if that code had previously been GPLed, that person would have the right to offer a non-GPL version of Linux.
This would not prevent use of the GPL license, but it *would* allow people to obtain Linux without the GPL.
This is all academic, obviously. It won't happen, because too many people own the Linux kernel now to get together and agree to let this happen.
Linux does not require copyright assignment as a condition for code inclusion.
*If* Linus had the copyright assigned to him, and he turned into Evil Linus, he could theoretically release the *whole* Linux kernel under a non-GPL agreement (a la MySQL). Of course, this assumes that the code was GPLed before Linus got it, but that the copyright was transferred to him with no restrictions attached.
Nobody wants your old outdated tech manuals, so you'd be better off pulping them.
Yeah. My (former-) local library had a sale at the end of last year. Most of the stuff was generally quite a few years old. However, a lot of the computer stuff "only" dated back 4 or 5 years.
Now, this wasn't "guide to M$'s latest technology, to be obseleted next week"; it was just general stuff. And it was horribly dated.
Manuals for old versions of "Joe Six-Pack" software that had been superceded, "Guide to the Internet" type-stuff (*lots* of that).
Some books won't date too badly; eg general DB/SQL, a lot of Java stuff (except the 1.0/1.1 stuff which was deprecated later on), theory stuff.
But it's kind of depressing to see how dated some books become as they focus so specifically on particular *versions* of software.
Romance novels with broken spines and sticky pages are similarly unwanted.
Sticky pages? That's not romance, that's hardcore porn.
I am willing to take less risk for a venture if the only reward is money (ie: I can make a wad, but its not fun)
So, if someone offered you a 30% chance of getting $5,000,000 for cleaning school toilets (and 70% chance of getting nothing), you wouldn't take it? Or perhaps *lots* of money overcomes risk *and* boredom?
Yeah, it's a stupid hypothetical question. I'm just nitpicking now, sorry.:-)
Fair point. However, you say that those not willing to take a risk always 'LOSE'.
If you take the position that the guy with the most stuff 'WINS' and everyone else loses, then that is correct. However, almost everyone ultimately loses by that token (unless you are Bill Gates).
Let's consider this more in depth. It would be fair to assume that, in return for the unpredictability of risk, the average return on your risky action (sum of (probability * return) on all win/lose situations) should be slightly higher than the (for the sake of argument) uniform return on the non-risk position (otherwise- on average- why take the risk?). Actually, the flaw in this assumption is that (e.g.) $5000 might not be enough to let you survive, and $9000 would, so better to have 50% chance of winning $9000 or nothing, than $5000, even though the average return is less. But I digress (and waffle...)
Even if the risk-taker's average return is higher, it doesn't take into account the 'exponential' value of money; that is, the $100,000 that takes you from nothing to $100,000 will be worth more than the next $100,000 (taking you to $200,000). After all, if $100,000 was enough to survive, would you risk it on a 51% chance to go to $200,000 (or 49% chance of losing it all, and *everything* you have)? Probably not.
So, if we consider money in terms of its value to a person ('person-value') as opposed to its literal value, we can see that $200k is *not* twice $100k in person-value. Thus, if we average out the 'person-value' in the "non-risk" scenario and the "risk" scenarios, you might find that, although the risk taker, on average gets slightly more money, the average 'person-value' of their return is lower, because the added value of the "winning result money" on top of the average doesn't compensate for the horrible prospect of losing *everything* on the "losing result money".
This is why insurance works. Big insurance company averages out its risk over millions of customers. Single customer might save money on average by not taking out insurance; but the prospect of losing everything outweighs the "win" result of not having an accident (or whatever).
Damn; at least I remembered *one* thing from that AI course.
It all comes down to what you, as a person, consider acceptable risk. This (IIRC) is one of the significant things that defines us as people.
History is full of people who faced more adversity than you or I know, and the ones that gave up, we don't know about as they are forgettable and forgotten. The ones that sucked it up, worked harder, took risks, and succeeded in spite of the odds, should provide enough inspiration for the rest of us.
What about the ones that sucked it up, worked harder, took risks, and unfortunately failed (as that's what happens with risk). They don't make for good copy, so the successes get more attention.
Abe Lincoln is the best example. Go read about all his failures, lost elections, failing law practice, limited [snip... see parent]
Please read this. I generally agree with what is said; namely, that Lincoln's achievements do not need embellishment with "glurge" to stand up.
BTW, I agree with some of what you said, but not the "risk-takers always win!" gloss you put on it. Sometimes you have to go in with your eyes open, accept that you might get squashed, and go ahead and risk it anyway.
Sales Rep: "Hmm, the fact that it's the EXTREME EDITION does nothing for you?"
Problem; anyone who is likely to be swayed by the fact it's called "Extreme" (*) is going to expect it to be spelled "Xtreme". Or "Xxxtreme". Or "Xtreme to the MAXXXXXXXXXXX!".
They could have put a little picture of Tony Hawk on top of the CPU (the fact that the heatsink would cover it up shouldn't matter when you're selling to cretins).
Anyway, it's passe now, Intel have just announced the "P4 Street Edition". It's totally urban, dude!
(*) Technical term: Stupid fscker with too much money.
When will these dickless wonders get the information that their M$ backing is gone, and nobody wants them around anymore.
Here's my not-particularly-educated guess. The amount of money being poured in by MS is practically nothing by their (MS's) standards. I'm sure they could increase it 10 or 100 times and still not be unduly troubled. Whether that would still be worth it is debatable, but my guess is that MS will stop shovelling in money only when it becomes apparent that it will serve no practical purpose, or worse, is counter-productive (i.e. drawing attention to MS's attempt to kill FOSS; not that that in itself will make them stop, only if it causes unfortunate consequences in court).
Frankly, if it costs millions to cause a tiny chip in Linux et al, MS will have no problem in shelling out.
Lighten up. If you read the original, you'd see I wasn't exactly flame-grilling the person; and generally, in the replies I wasn't trying to make myself out to be King Geek either. Yeah, I was wrong, yeah, I forged my geek license, no, I'm not desparate to upgrade Mozilla (though I'll probably give Firefox a go soon).
OTOH, your pick-n'-mix obscenities posted as an AC (why was that, anyway?) don't exactly reflect well on you.
Yeah, I was wrong and I'm a dick. However, you managed to be a dick without even trying; and next time, let's see you leave the 'Post Anonymously' box unchecked, okay?
For all the humor tossed around about geeks, geek does *not* imply talent. Thus, I can be a geek without having any skill.
you are nothing but a stupid wanna-be.
You could be right. I couldn't give a flying fuck about Doom 3; I'm running an almost 2-year old PC with the original Intel-845 integrated graphics. Frankly, I don't think I deserve the tag "geek".
Real seems to have turned a corner here and gone open source.
Translation: Real is being chased down a street by hordes of angry computer users. In an attempt to escape, it 'turns a corner' into an alleyway and spies a box of discarded theater props. Quickly, Real finds a white hat (*) and a Groucho Marx glasses-and-moustache disguise (**) and puts them on.
As the hordes rush past the entrance to the alleyway, one guy stops and points...
"There he is!"
Real replies, "You looking for those evil proprietary spyware guys? They went thattaway! No-one here but us open-source lovers".
Mmm... okay, maybe it wasn't that funny, but it proved a point.
Okay, so it didn't. Sue me.
(*) Lame open-source metaphor
(**) Probably not a metaphor for anything that matters.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you're thinking of 'Waking Life'. Never seen it myself...
Ha ha... your spyware collection will simply start up and use up all your app slots. You'll have to kill all the spyware before you can run Word or whatever, and by the time you've killed them all, the first ones you killed will have restarted themselves.
That's gonna be fun.
Yeah, sounds like Windows 3.1 with respect to the limited multitasking as well. My Amiga 500, which was hobbled with the (even then) hopelessly outdated 68000 played *way* better than Windows 3.1 much of the time.
Why? Because the Amiga could multitask properly (no waiting for your failed telnet connection to hang up before you can do anything else). Cooperative multitasking, yuk.
3.1 even looked and felt horrible too.
Yeah, you're right, it probably will run faster. But if the ordinary XP distro came with less unnecessary and dangerous crap enabled by default, it too would be faster, and the stuff would be there when you *needed* it. (It's the old WP problem; for any given obscure feature X, 90% of users will say "I don't need X"; but 90% of users will also need one or two *particular* obscure features that fall into the above category. So it's not necessarily a good idea to remove them unless add-on replacements are both cheap and modular).
What happens if you project a red image onto a monochrome green wall?
Simple! The projector sees the green wall and attempts to compensate by increasing the intensity of the red component; eventually (if the green is pure enough), the projector turns up the intensity of the red so far that the wallpaper (which is absorbing the red light) catches fire, and your house burns down!
Therefore, stick to white walls, or magnolia if you like living on the edge.
When the FSF was having one of its funny turns and was proposing changes to the GPL that Linus was unhappy with, he stripped the "or at your option any later version" phrase from the licence
Whoah... I never knew that. I remember noting that clause at one point and thinking it seemed pretty risky. I also remember thinking that, if I'd been working on something I intended GPLing at the time, I'd probably want to omit it (or replace it with "or at *my* option any later version"; but that creates problems with the chain of responsibility, since which version applies to other people's GPLed changes?).
It appears that great minds think alike. Or, more likely, it didn't take a genius to figure out the problem with that clause; essentially "do I trust the FSF that much?".
BTW, you said pretty much what I said; the only way to license the kernel on a non-GPL basis is to get *every* contributor to agree, which won't happen.
You will look apparently look like this
Aargh! That photo looks *exactly* like it came out of the "Future Publishing circa early-90s" school of magazine photography.
(British readers who read ST Format, Amiga Format or anything similar will probably get this. 16-year old Yanks won't).
The first time I got on a Microsoft Ergonomic keyboard, the bottom row was (is) split in the wrong place for the way I type. I think it was the "B" key on the wrong side. I touch type, but aparently I don't do it in the absolutely correct Microsoft way. :)
Question: Is the '6' in the right place for you? The 'B' is fine for me (use my left hand), but I learned to touch-type with the 6 on my right.
AFAIK, there is more than one way to touch type, unfortunately. I remember making an earlier attempt which (IIRC) had the B on the right hand (like you did).
The main problem I have with keyboards such as the MS Natural, etc, is that the keys themselves don't feel any better than the cheap Mitsumi I normally use (which is pretty nice for a cheap-ass membrane job).
As far a I know, MySQL is also offered with GPL licensing.
It is offered under GPL *and* non-GPL licenses. Which was *exactly* the reason I used it as an example.
(Before I go on, bear in mind that IANAL). MySQL AB own the copyright to MySQL (AFAIK); thus they can release it under the GPL. All changes made to the GPL-licensed version are thus also GPL, and, unless all the authors of the new code get together with MySQL AB and come to an agreement, the branch of the GPL licensed version is GPL-only.
However, MySQL AB retain the right to the original version they wrote (and all branches that exclusively include their code, I'd guess); thus they can offer it under a non-GPL license.
Now, re: Linux. Let's assume that Linus doesn't own copyright on anything he didn't write. Unless all the authors (i.e. copyright owners) of a particular branch of the kernel agree, that kernel can only be released under the GPL. However, if, someday in the future, Linus received all the copyrights, he would have the copyright for the whole kernel and thus the right to offer Linux under a non-GPL license.
This won't happen, of course- too many people own the copyrights- but if Linus had insisted from the start that he (or someone) was assigned the copyright to all the code in the kernel, then, even if that code had previously been GPLed, that person would have the right to offer a non-GPL version of Linux.
This would not prevent use of the GPL license, but it *would* allow people to obtain Linux without the GPL.
This is all academic, obviously. It won't happen, because too many people own the Linux kernel now to get together and agree to let this happen.
Linux does not require copyright assignment as a condition for code inclusion.
*If* Linus had the copyright assigned to him, and he turned into Evil Linus, he could theoretically release the *whole* Linux kernel under a non-GPL agreement (a la MySQL). Of course, this assumes that the code was GPLed before Linus got it, but that the copyright was transferred to him with no restrictions attached.
Per annum.
and Time Cube theory
Although a psychiatrist might be able to help this guy, what he *really* needs is web-design classes.
Nobody wants your old outdated tech manuals, so you'd be better off pulping them.
Yeah. My (former-) local library had a sale at the end of last year. Most of the stuff was generally quite a few years old. However, a lot of the computer stuff "only" dated back 4 or 5 years.
Now, this wasn't "guide to M$'s latest technology, to be obseleted next week"; it was just general stuff. And it was horribly dated.
Manuals for old versions of "Joe Six-Pack" software that had been superceded, "Guide to the Internet" type-stuff (*lots* of that).
Some books won't date too badly; eg general DB/SQL, a lot of Java stuff (except the 1.0/1.1 stuff which was deprecated later on), theory stuff.
But it's kind of depressing to see how dated some books become as they focus so specifically on particular *versions* of software.
Romance novels with broken spines and sticky pages are similarly unwanted.
Sticky pages? That's not romance, that's hardcore porn.
I am willing to take less risk for a venture if the only reward is money (ie: I can make a wad, but its not fun)
:-)
So, if someone offered you a 30% chance of getting $5,000,000 for cleaning school toilets (and 70% chance of getting nothing), you wouldn't take it? Or perhaps *lots* of money overcomes risk *and* boredom?
Yeah, it's a stupid hypothetical question. I'm just nitpicking now, sorry.
Fair point. However, you say that those not willing to take a risk always 'LOSE'.
If you take the position that the guy with the most stuff 'WINS' and everyone else loses, then that is correct. However, almost everyone ultimately loses by that token (unless you are Bill Gates).
Let's consider this more in depth. It would be fair to assume that, in return for the unpredictability of risk, the average return on your risky action (sum of (probability * return) on all win/lose situations) should be slightly higher than the (for the sake of argument) uniform return on the non-risk position (otherwise- on average- why take the risk?). Actually, the flaw in this assumption is that (e.g.) $5000 might not be enough to let you survive, and $9000 would, so better to have 50% chance of winning $9000 or nothing, than $5000, even though the average return is less. But I digress (and waffle...)
Even if the risk-taker's average return is higher, it doesn't take into account the 'exponential' value of money; that is, the $100,000 that takes you from nothing to $100,000 will be worth more than the next $100,000 (taking you to $200,000). After all, if $100,000 was enough to survive, would you risk it on a 51% chance to go to $200,000 (or 49% chance of losing it all, and *everything* you have)? Probably not.
So, if we consider money in terms of its value to a person ('person-value') as opposed to its literal value, we can see that $200k is *not* twice $100k in person-value. Thus, if we average out the 'person-value' in the "non-risk" scenario and the "risk" scenarios, you might find that, although the risk taker, on average gets slightly more money, the average 'person-value' of their return is lower, because the added value of the "winning result money" on top of the average doesn't compensate for the horrible prospect of losing *everything* on the "losing result money".
This is why insurance works. Big insurance company averages out its risk over millions of customers. Single customer might save money on average by not taking out insurance; but the prospect of losing everything outweighs the "win" result of not having an accident (or whatever).
Damn; at least I remembered *one* thing from that AI course.
It all comes down to what you, as a person, consider acceptable risk. This (IIRC) is one of the significant things that defines us as people.
The US is losing the war on communism
China isn't Communist. It arguably never was, but it certainly isn't now; it's a dictatorship.
Some [ IT people ] went back to being male models and gigillos like they were before
Please note: This does not refer to the typical Slashdot reader. Thank you.
I just get so very tired of people whining about how unfair life is
Two small kids each get an ice cream. One kid starts crying, "It's not fair! Why isn't my ice cream the same size as his?".
His Mum looks at his ice cream and replies, "What do you mean? Your ice cream is *bigger* than his!"
Kid replies, "Well, yeah. That's what I meant when I said it wasn't fair."
History is full of people who faced more adversity than you or I know, and the ones that gave up, we don't know about as they are forgettable and forgotten. The ones that sucked it up, worked harder, took risks, and succeeded in spite of the odds, should provide enough inspiration for the rest of us.
What about the ones that sucked it up, worked harder, took risks, and unfortunately failed (as that's what happens with risk). They don't make for good copy, so the successes get more attention.
Abe Lincoln is the best example. Go read about all his failures, lost elections, failing law practice, limited [snip... see parent]
Please read this. I generally agree with what is said; namely, that Lincoln's achievements do not need embellishment with "glurge" to stand up.
BTW, I agree with some of what you said, but not the "risk-takers always win!" gloss you put on it. Sometimes you have to go in with your eyes open, accept that you might get squashed, and go ahead and risk it anyway.
Sales Rep: "Hmm, the fact that it's the EXTREME EDITION does nothing for you?"
Problem; anyone who is likely to be swayed by the fact it's called "Extreme" (*) is going to expect it to be spelled "Xtreme". Or "Xxxtreme". Or "Xtreme to the MAXXXXXXXXXXX!".
They could have put a little picture of Tony Hawk on top of the CPU (the fact that the heatsink would cover it up shouldn't matter when you're selling to cretins).
Anyway, it's passe now, Intel have just announced the "P4 Street Edition". It's totally urban, dude!
(*) Technical term: Stupid fscker with too much money.
When will these dickless wonders get the information that their M$ backing is gone, and nobody wants them around anymore.
Here's my not-particularly-educated guess. The amount of money being poured in by MS is practically nothing by their (MS's) standards. I'm sure they could increase it 10 or 100 times and still not be unduly troubled. Whether that would still be worth it is debatable, but my guess is that MS will stop shovelling in money only when it becomes apparent that it will serve no practical purpose, or worse, is counter-productive (i.e. drawing attention to MS's attempt to kill FOSS; not that that in itself will make them stop, only if it causes unfortunate consequences in court).
Frankly, if it costs millions to cause a tiny chip in Linux et al, MS will have no problem in shelling out.
Lighten up. If you read the original, you'd see I wasn't exactly flame-grilling the person; and generally, in the replies I wasn't trying to make myself out to be King Geek either. Yeah, I was wrong, yeah, I forged my geek license, no, I'm not desparate to upgrade Mozilla (though I'll probably give Firefox a go soon).
OTOH, your pick-n'-mix obscenities posted as an AC (why was that, anyway?) don't exactly reflect well on you.
Yeah, I was wrong and I'm a dick. However, you managed to be a dick without even trying; and next time, let's see you leave the 'Post Anonymously' box unchecked, okay?
YOU SHOULD TURN IN YOUR GEEK LICENSE!!!
:-P
Actually, I forged my geek license.
Get a recent version of Mozilla or Firefox and stop being an asstard.
Thanks, having to remember to hit C-r instead of F5 was placing a real strain on my mental skills; I'll definitely upgrade now.
BTW, re:asstard; I love those insults from the cut-n'-paste school- kind of lame and creative at the same time.
Please stop imagining you have a geek license,
For all the humor tossed around about geeks, geek does *not* imply talent. Thus, I can be a geek without having any skill.
you are nothing but a stupid wanna-be.
You could be right. I couldn't give a flying fuck about Doom 3; I'm running an almost 2-year old PC with the original Intel-845 integrated graphics. Frankly, I don't think I deserve the tag "geek".
F5 refresh the page just fine in Firefox.
Mmmm... does that count?- Firefox is still in beta, after all.
Did I get away with that one, or does F5 work in all the newer versions of Mozilla? The version I'm running (1.0.1) is pretty old now.
Real seems to have turned a corner here and gone open source.
Translation: Real is being chased down a street by hordes of angry computer users. In an attempt to escape, it 'turns a corner' into an alleyway and spies a box of discarded theater props. Quickly, Real finds a white hat (*) and a Groucho Marx glasses-and-moustache disguise (**) and puts them on.
As the hordes rush past the entrance to the alleyway, one guy stops and points...
"There he is!"
Real replies, "You looking for those evil proprietary spyware guys? They went thattaway! No-one here but us open-source lovers".
Mmm... okay, maybe it wasn't that funny, but it proved a point.
Okay, so it didn't. Sue me.
(*) Lame open-source metaphor
(**) Probably not a metaphor for anything that matters.