One of the interesting possibilities for cameras with that much resolution is that photography can become a question of choosing a view of a larger recorded image rather than simply recording that cropped view.
This way you can crop your photos OUTWARDS and not just INWARDS after the fact.
This of course has all kinds of privacy implications too (why shouldn't the photograph be an all round view that includes the photographer?)
Aside from having a terrible name (maybe GNU needs to popularize the lowercase g as in gIMP the way Apple popularized the letter "i" -- then gIMP would be known as "gee-IMP" or "GNU IMP").
More importantly, GIMP could also use a visit from the usability fairy. My bet is that the winning entry was actually done in Photoshop:p
I think I already dealt with your arguments that: "Apple Records has a valid claim to that name in connection with the music business and that Apple Computer's infringement on it is intentional and unethical"
Apple started out as a computer company. It has entered the music business. No-one confuses Apple Computer with Apple Records, even though the former is now selling music.
Imagine this:
Someone starts a company called Bob's (Plumbing), and later someone starts a company called Bob's (Retail) in another country, which becomes a multibillion dollar enterprise. Every time Bob's Retail sells something that could be construed as infringing on plumbing, Bob's Retail gets sued and pays "damages". First it's plungers, then toilets, then Bob's opens Home Depot style superstores and wants to install stuff for customers and gets sued again. At each stage, Bob's Retail tries to make the whole thing go away forever and fails. In the mean time, Bob's Plumbing has stopped actually doing any plumbing. It hasn't done plumbing for years.
Now I see it, Bob's Retail has acted intentionally and unethically.
"I'd think Apple would want to stay far far away from Trademark and name disputes wrt the music biz - doesn't Apple Records still have lawsuits going because Apple Computers violated their agreement to stay out of the music biz with that name?"
Apple Records doesn't sell musical instruments, non-linear editors, or MIDI devices. When Apple (Computer) first got into a dispute with Apple (Music) the line in the sand was "music" as though anything remotely musical was part of Apple (Music)'s business. Only when Apple became, in effect, a music publisher, did it infringe Apple (Music)'s domain in any real sense. Before this happened Apple was sued multiple times for things as insane as having musical system beeps. In general, it seems to me that Apple has acted in good faith -- it did not set out to infringe on Apple (Music) from the start, things just evolved this way.
If I start a company today and give it a reasonable, original name, and 25 years later it's huge and infringes on some basically dysfunctional company which tries to sue me over it, this is hardly an indictment of my ethics.
On the other hand, someone who tries to guess what a valuable domain name is going to be (having heard that Apple is likely to enter the music business) for no other reason than to act as a parasite (either by getting "clicks" from people guessing URLs or by selling the domain name at an inflated price) cannot be construed as having acted in good faith.
I think this is a brilliant suggestion, with some further refinements:
1) If you mark email as being SPAM (a step beyond JUNK) then your machine (only) can start requesting data from the source. This should be manual (but see 3. below since folks are bound to attempt to spoof it).
2) If you mark email as being SPAM, then this information is centrally stored and provided to other email clients (to help them identify SPAM).
3) Some kind of karma system can be used to evaluate whether a given source is good at identifying SPAM.
A modest proposal: it should be just as illegal to make blatantly false false claims about a product in its NAME as anywhere else.
E.g. if you name your program "Easy CD Creator" and it isn't easy and doesn't create CDs, you can be prosecuted. If you call your TV station "Fox News" and then broadcast Republican party propaganda, you can be prosecuted.
As pointed out by another, if you kept reading you'd see that he makes your point and in fact uses it as part of his argument:
A page showing ten fields from twenty objects would make two hundred RMI calls before it was completed. This overhead was removed with the EJB 2.0 standard, which introduced local interfaces. This topology is shown below:
(diagram omitted)
This is logical three-tier architecture. The web server box has been removed because more recent web servers are not separated from the servlet code (e.g. Tomcat, Apache 2.0, etc.). As you will see when we compare this model to the PHP model, EJB 2.0 moved Java web application server development closer to the successful, and scalable, PHP model.
Isn't this a case of desperately wanting to be pedantic, checking your facts, discovering you're wrong, and trying to make your point ANYWAY?
What you've demonstrated is that the writer has correctly made the fine distinction between SIMPLE ("being composed of one part" -- perhaps an overly neat definition, but let's allow it) and EASY.
SCO either has much better or much worse text comparison algorithms than SGI. Sun searched through their 1,000,000 lines of code and found a few lines of potentially infringing code, SCO found 1,000,000 lines...
...and given NAFTA, wouldn't that make any copying you did in Canada legal -- e.g. if you copied a file from one computer in Canada to another, then bringing a file legally acquired in Canada back to the US should surely be legal.
"Obviously, Microsoft is not operating on market discipline or they couldn't raise their prices with declining unit volumes in the face of post-bubble"
He's saying that Microsoft isn't evil because they write crappy software; they're evil because they aren't being punished by the market for it.
No. He's saying Microsoft is clearly a monopoly and that this proves it. He'd just said this:
"Market discipline is very aggressive, very strong and very precise in who it clobbers -- those who don't perform. There's only one blemish in capitalism and that is when market discipline is lost to a monopolist.
"As a libertarian who has studied economics and has written an honors thesis at Harvard on antitrust, I believe there's only one major blemish besides lawlessness. It is when somebody is not operating on market discipline."
(Sadly, he's apparently unaware of "the tragedy of the commons" -- another huge market failure that has nothing to do with lawlessness or monopoly power.)
"The most egregious" problem is that they're selling prerecorded music now -- in direct competition, one might argue, with the Beatles' record label (assuming that label still sells records).
It's certainly true that Hollywood is capable of making a dreadful film from a good book (or a good script), and it's also capable of making a good film from a bad script ("The Matrix", for example -- cough, OK mod me to troll).
The point I originally addressed was that excluding two films with great stories because they're based on books is nuts. You may not like the film adaptations of Heinlein (I happen to like "Starship Troopers" -- but I don't confuse it with the book) but consider just how many terrible SF movies there are, and how many of them are NOT based on decent books.
Imagine if George Lucas licensed Jack Vance's "Planet of Adventure" a.k.a. "Tschai" instead of making the "Star Wars" prequels. Oh, I forgot, he doesn't make films, he makes merchandising franchises...
The Godfather and the LOTR series are excluded because they are originally written works
It seems to me that's WHY THEY HAVE GOOD STORIES. Most good movies are adaptations of novels (e.g. "The English Patient"), or of several books on the same subject (e.g. "Lawrence of Arabia"). Instead of either (a) writing half-assed scripts or (b) taking a Philip K. Dick short story and converting it into a vehicle for the future governer of California why don't we go to the motherlode of great SF and Fantasy novels that have never been turned into film:
1) "Forever War", by Joe Haldeman, has been optioned pretty much continuously since it was published, but never gotten a green light.
2) Where's "Neuromancer" -- the book from which everything in the Matrix (including its name) that didn't come from Kung Fu movies was stolen? Again it's been optioned continuously but never green-lighted.
There's a boatload of great novels (and comics -- how about making "Watchmen" instead of "LXO" or "The Dark Knight Returns" instead of "Batman") waiting to be made into films. Why are we making $100,000,000 films of atrocious scripts?
Unless someone gives you PERMISSION to break into something of theirs, IT'S ILLEGAL TO DO SO.
What if a Fireman breaks into your house to rescue your cat?
What if a neighbor breaks in to turn off the water that's overflowing?
What's reasonable and legal in a given situation is determined, in our legal system, by what a "reasonable man" might be expected to do in a given situation. I don't think Mr. Lamo can claim to have acted as a "reasonable man" would act -- but that's the acid test. Ideas that laws are absolute end of story blah blah blah are just windbagging.
Thank you for proving my point! Read your own posting:
Defendant's argument hinges on his assertion that for the property to be "stolen," it must have been taken by larceny and, thus, taken with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. Defendant is correct that a larceny requires that the property must be taken with such an intent.
What the court has done is said that he's guilty of possession of stolen goods not of a larceny (and that they can do this because their statute for possession of stolen goods doesn't require the goods to have been stolen by an act of larceny as per the legal definition of the word but stolen goods as per the meaning of "stolen" as per the dictionary). (If you read the definition of "steal" in Webster's you'll see they're skating on thin ice here, too!)
My guess -- the defendant is obviously guilty, but making an appeal by splitting hairs and the judges are splitting hairs in response. If the appeal had been against a charge of larceny they would probably have split different hairs.
If, on the other hand, a reasonable man who had taken a car with the clear intent of returning it were making the same argument, it probably wouldn't need to go to a court of appeals.
If you take someone's car and then return it, it's still theft. You denied the owner his right to use his car while you had it.
If I park someone in I deny them the right to use their car, but I haven't stolen it. I'm talking about the legal definition of theft not your intuitive definition of it. Intent is key, if I intended to return it I did not steal it.
If people do not believe that I intended to return it then I might be convicted of theft, which is clearly a risk in taking someone's car, regardless of one's intent. But again, I would not be guilty of theft, merely falsely convicted of it.
Not only that, he can blame you for EVERYTHING that is wrong with the car.
He can blame me for everything wrong with the car no matter who I am or what I've done. Whether he can prove it in court is another matter.
Who's going to believe you?
Clearly, this may be a problem. Let's take my original example -- trying to get a pregnant woman to hospital. Let's assume I have good character, left a note, my wife was indeed pregant, I did take her to hospital, and did in fact return the car. I think a lot of people would be inclined to believe me (indeed, most car owners would probably believe me). If in court he tried to claim I had destroyed upholstery, etc. etc. these allegations would be worth about as much as any other random allegations.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the interesting possibilities for cameras with that much resolution is that photography can become a question of choosing a view of a larger recorded image rather than simply recording that cropped view.
This way you can crop your photos OUTWARDS and not just INWARDS after the fact.
This of course has all kinds of privacy implications too (why shouldn't the photograph be an all round view that includes the photographer?)
Aside from having a terrible name (maybe GNU needs to popularize the lowercase g as in gIMP the way Apple popularized the letter "i" -- then gIMP would be known as "gee-IMP" or "GNU IMP").
:p
More importantly, GIMP could also use a visit from the usability fairy. My bet is that the winning entry was actually done in Photoshop
I think I already dealt with your arguments that: "Apple Records has a valid claim to that name in connection with the music business and that Apple Computer's infringement on it is intentional and unethical"
Apple started out as a computer company. It has entered the music business. No-one confuses Apple Computer with Apple Records, even though the former is now selling music.
Imagine this:
Someone starts a company called Bob's (Plumbing), and later someone starts a company called Bob's (Retail) in another country, which becomes a multibillion dollar enterprise. Every time Bob's Retail sells something that could be construed as infringing on plumbing, Bob's Retail gets sued and pays "damages". First it's plungers, then toilets, then Bob's opens Home Depot style superstores and wants to install stuff for customers and gets sued again. At each stage, Bob's Retail tries to make the whole thing go away forever and fails. In the mean time, Bob's Plumbing has stopped actually doing any plumbing. It hasn't done plumbing for years.
Now I see it, Bob's Retail has acted intentionally and unethically.
"A properly configured current KDE installation is just as easy to use as Windows."
Explain to me how I get After Effects, Photoshop, Flash, and Powerpoint running under KDE.
"I'd think Apple would want to stay far far away from Trademark and name disputes wrt the music biz - doesn't Apple Records still have lawsuits going because Apple Computers violated their agreement to stay out of the music biz with that name?"
Apple Records doesn't sell musical instruments, non-linear editors, or MIDI devices. When Apple (Computer) first got into a dispute with Apple (Music) the line in the sand was "music" as though anything remotely musical was part of Apple (Music)'s business. Only when Apple became, in effect, a music publisher, did it infringe Apple (Music)'s domain in any real sense. Before this happened Apple was sued multiple times for things as insane as having musical system beeps. In general, it seems to me that Apple has acted in good faith -- it did not set out to infringe on Apple (Music) from the start, things just evolved this way.
If I start a company today and give it a reasonable, original name, and 25 years later it's huge and infringes on some basically dysfunctional company which tries to sue me over it, this is hardly an indictment of my ethics.
On the other hand, someone who tries to guess what a valuable domain name is going to be (having heard that Apple is likely to enter the music business) for no other reason than to act as a parasite (either by getting "clicks" from people guessing URLs or by selling the domain name at an inflated price) cannot be construed as having acted in good faith.
I think this is a brilliant suggestion, with some further refinements:
1) If you mark email as being SPAM (a step beyond JUNK) then your machine (only) can start requesting data from the source. This should be manual (but see 3. below since folks are bound to attempt to spoof it).
2) If you mark email as being SPAM, then this information is centrally stored and provided to other email clients (to help them identify SPAM).
3) Some kind of karma system can be used to evaluate whether a given source is good at identifying SPAM.
Clearly item (3) is the ??? step before profit!
Just to clarify the preceding correction:
Rendezvous and Zeroconf are the same thing, the latter being the Open Source release of the Rendezvous technology.
The ZeroConf page is maintained by Stuart Cheshire, who is the engineer at Apple responsible for Rendezvous.
The operating system is ROM. The data soups are implemented in software.
...install Newton OS on an iPaq?
The iPaq's with ARM chips are basically a Newton with a color screen and more memory. Then we really wouldn't need a GBA.
A modest proposal: it should be just as illegal to make blatantly false false claims about a product in its NAME as anywhere else.
E.g. if you name your program "Easy CD Creator" and it isn't easy and doesn't create CDs, you can be prosecuted. If you call your TV station "Fox News" and then broadcast Republican party propaganda, you can be prosecuted.
Just a thought.
It seems like any discussion of the pitfalls of the GPL are beyond the pale on Slashdot.
As pointed out by another, if you kept reading you'd see that he makes your point and in fact uses it as part of his argument:
A page showing ten fields from twenty objects would make two hundred RMI calls before it was completed. This overhead was removed with the EJB 2.0 standard, which introduced local interfaces. This topology is shown below:
(diagram omitted)
This is logical three-tier architecture. The web server box has been removed because more recent web servers are not separated from the servlet code (e.g. Tomcat, Apache 2.0, etc.). As you will see when we compare this model to the PHP model, EJB 2.0 moved Java web application server development closer to the successful, and scalable, PHP model.
Isn't this a case of desperately wanting to be pedantic, checking your facts, discovering you're wrong, and trying to make your point ANYWAY?
What you've demonstrated is that the writer has correctly made the fine distinction between SIMPLE ("being composed of one part" -- perhaps an overly neat definition, but let's allow it) and EASY.
SCO either has much better or much worse text comparison algorithms than SGI. Sun searched through their 1,000,000 lines of code and found a few lines of potentially infringing code, SCO found 1,000,000 lines...
...and given NAFTA, wouldn't that make any copying you did in Canada legal -- e.g. if you copied a file from one computer in Canada to another, then bringing a file legally acquired in Canada back to the US should surely be legal.
"Obviously, Microsoft is not operating on market discipline or they couldn't raise their prices with declining unit volumes in the face of post-bubble"
He's saying that Microsoft isn't evil because they write crappy software; they're evil because they aren't being punished by the market for it.
No. He's saying Microsoft is clearly a monopoly and that this proves it. He'd just said this:
"Market discipline is very aggressive, very strong and very precise in who it clobbers -- those who don't perform. There's only one blemish in capitalism and that is when market discipline is lost to a monopolist.
"As a libertarian who has studied economics and has written an honors thesis at Harvard on antitrust, I believe there's only one major blemish besides lawlessness. It is when somebody is not operating on market discipline."
(Sadly, he's apparently unaware of "the tragedy of the commons" -- another huge market failure that has nothing to do with lawlessness or monopoly power.)
...in the case of hardware.
"The most egregious" problem is that they're selling prerecorded music now -- in direct competition, one might argue, with the Beatles' record label (assuming that label still sells records).
A couple of remarks:
It's certainly true that Hollywood is capable of making a dreadful film from a good book (or a good script), and it's also capable of making a good film from a bad script ("The Matrix", for example -- cough, OK mod me to troll).
The point I originally addressed was that excluding two films with great stories because they're based on books is nuts. You may not like the film adaptations of Heinlein (I happen to like "Starship Troopers" -- but I don't confuse it with the book) but consider just how many terrible SF movies there are, and how many of them are NOT based on decent books.
Imagine if George Lucas licensed Jack Vance's "Planet of Adventure" a.k.a. "Tschai" instead of making the "Star Wars" prequels. Oh, I forgot, he doesn't make films, he makes merchandising franchises...
The Godfather and the LOTR series are excluded because they are originally written works
It seems to me that's WHY THEY HAVE GOOD STORIES. Most good movies are adaptations of novels (e.g. "The English Patient"), or of several books on the same subject (e.g. "Lawrence of Arabia"). Instead of either (a) writing half-assed scripts or (b) taking a Philip K. Dick short story and converting it into a vehicle for the future governer of California why don't we go to the motherlode of great SF and Fantasy novels that have never been turned into film:
1) "Forever War", by Joe Haldeman, has been optioned pretty much continuously since it was published, but never gotten a green light.
2) Where's "Neuromancer" -- the book from which everything in the Matrix (including its name) that didn't come from Kung Fu movies was stolen? Again it's been optioned continuously but never green-lighted.
There's a boatload of great novels (and comics -- how about making "Watchmen" instead of "LXO" or "The Dark Knight Returns" instead of "Batman") waiting to be made into films. Why are we making $100,000,000 films of atrocious scripts?
Unless someone gives you PERMISSION to break into something of theirs, IT'S ILLEGAL TO DO SO.
What if a Fireman breaks into your house to rescue your cat?
What if a neighbor breaks in to turn off the water that's overflowing?
What's reasonable and legal in a given situation is determined, in our legal system, by what a "reasonable man" might be expected to do in a given situation. I don't think Mr. Lamo can claim to have acted as a "reasonable man" would act -- but that's the acid test. Ideas that laws are absolute end of story blah blah blah are just windbagging.
Is suing people a sustainable business model? Or maybe annoying people?
Quoting people out of context is more of a hobby...
Thank you for proving my point! Read your own posting:
Defendant's argument hinges on his assertion that for the property to be "stolen," it must have been taken by larceny and, thus, taken with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. Defendant is correct that a larceny requires that the property must be taken with such an intent.
What the court has done is said that he's guilty of possession of stolen goods not of a larceny (and that they can do this because their statute for possession of stolen goods doesn't require the goods to have been stolen by an act of larceny as per the legal definition of the word but stolen goods as per the meaning of "stolen" as per the dictionary). (If you read the definition of "steal" in Webster's you'll see they're skating on thin ice here, too!)
My guess -- the defendant is obviously guilty, but making an appeal by splitting hairs and the judges are splitting hairs in response. If the appeal had been against a charge of larceny they would probably have split different hairs.
If, on the other hand, a reasonable man who had taken a car with the clear intent of returning it were making the same argument, it probably wouldn't need to go to a court of appeals.
...with my new essay-writing software. It's been tested against 450 automatic essay marking programs written by "experts" as well.
If you take someone's car and then return it, it's still theft. You denied the owner his right to use his car while you had it.
If I park someone in I deny them the right to use their car, but I haven't stolen it. I'm talking about the legal definition of theft not your intuitive definition of it. Intent is key, if I intended to return it I did not steal it.
If people do not believe that I intended to return it then I might be convicted of theft, which is clearly a risk in taking someone's car, regardless of one's intent. But again, I would not be guilty of theft, merely falsely convicted of it.
Not only that, he can blame you for EVERYTHING that is wrong with the car.
He can blame me for everything wrong with the car no matter who I am or what I've done. Whether he can prove it in court is another matter.
Who's going to believe you?
Clearly, this may be a problem. Let's take my original example -- trying to get a pregnant woman to hospital. Let's assume I have good character, left a note, my wife was indeed pregant, I did take her to hospital, and did in fact return the car. I think a lot of people would be inclined to believe me (indeed, most car owners would probably believe me). If in court he tried to claim I had destroyed upholstery, etc. etc. these allegations would be worth about as much as any other random allegations.
Not that I remember every decision Google ever made, but what's "rather odd" about deciding hate is worse than pornography?