I can confirm this experimentally. Inspired by this development, I implanted electrodes into a bowl of tomato soup. No amount of deep electrical stimulation could bring the soup into anything we could recognize as consciousness, nor was its ability to communicate improved.
Possibly the failure of the deep electrical stimulation to elicit the desired response has something to do with the vegetative state of the tomatoes that were used to make the soup. With this in mind, I am going to be conducting further experiments using a crab bisque.
Tivo should have respected the spirit of the GPL, and should have given its customers the same freedoms Tivo received. I keep hearing about this nebulous "Spirit of the GPL", which in the Tivo case, seems to be nothing more than the FSF intruding where it has no business. The "intent" of the GPL 2 is explicit in the language of the GPL 2, and in the case of Linux, matches the intent of developers. To make claims that Tivo is somehow evading the intent of the license, unethically and in bad faith, is to show total disrespect for the developers. You're in effect saying that you or the FSF know what's best for the developers, as if they are not adults capable of making decisions for themselves.
The war on Tivo is a made up conflict being used by the FSF to further its agenda to control software. When they control the software thru their licensing (I can't wait to see what's in GPL 4, 5, and 6), they'll control the user. And if they think they know what's best for the developer, you can be damn sure they think they know what's best for the user.
Bottom line is that Tivo did give its users the same rights it received under the GPL 2. It complied completely with the GPL 2. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest.
If we are talking about DRM and Trusted Computing, and we are;) , under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act it is illegal to circumvent access control to copyrighted works, even if there is no infringement of copyright itself.
That means it is illegal to hack Tivo to allow new versions of the software in it... and besides, you'd make a mistake if you made a distinction between hardware and software.
If you're worried about the law, change the law. However, there is an active culture of Tivo hardware hackers that don't seem to let this stop them. And again, there are devices such as the neuros that have no such potential encumbrances.
Here's a prediction... what if in the future all hardware will be tivoized, including PCs ? How are you going to vote with your wallet then. This is a FSF scare tactic that just seems silly when you examine it rationally. Is this really the reason for the anti-DRM provisions? It's laughable.
Some people argue that a copyright license shouldn't dictate how hardware is built. But other people, including myself, argue that the difference between hardware and software is blurry and that nothing should restrict end-users freedoms to modify that GPL software. GPL 3's anti-hardware provision wasn't necessary for this. Tivo always made the source code available, so you could modify it to your heart's content. You just couldn't easily reinstall your modified code onto the device. There was nothing to stop you from hacking the hardware, however. What GPL 3 does do is protect the freedom of users who are too lazy to figure out how to hack their hardware and want the hardware maker to provide them with an easy way, even if doing so would put the hardware maker into a legal or contractual bind that would drive it out of business.
So, the 99% of users that couldn't care less that the hardware was easily hackable have lost a bit of freedom in favor of the 1%'s convenience. The 1%'s freedom wasn't at stake. Merely their convenience.
There is a means of rejecting Tivo hardware under the GPL 2. It's called not buying it, and buying hardware that supports installing user modified software, like the neuros. Or even better, developing software for the neuros, so that it becomes the better choice for the great unwashed masses.
To the extent that it is based on the GPL 2 and is a natural progression of the GPL 2, it's a great license. The GPL is an elegant legal hack that uses the power of copyright to enforce "copyleft". Part of it's moral strength comes from it's quid pro quo nature: Tit for tat, code for code. The GPL 3 is a kludge that goes beyond dictating the terms of software distribution and reaches into how hardware may be designed.
Rockets! What a great hypothetical example to show one of the areas where GPL 3 really bites. Let's say that I build and sell rockets to the serious hobbyist market. These rockets are controlled by free software, but for safety reasons (and possibly liability) I've locked out unsigned software in the firmware. Can't use GPL software for my toy rockets.
This is the sort of unintended consequence we get from the GPL 3 reaching past being a software license, and in effect trying to control hardware. According to the FSF, if I take measures to prevent my users from weaponizing my toys, I'm bad because everyone should have the right to weaponize whatever free software touches.
Rather than repeat the success of the GPL 2, the FSF has made the mistake of trying to go after specific companies they don't like, not giving a damn about unbalancing the fairness of the license, and not caring about who they might hurt if that helps them "get" Tivo or MS. They've moved from principles and are operating on personalities.
The only reporter that I ever heard of "interfering" with a military operation (which you didn't mention before, nice way to begin shifting the argument) was Geraldo Rivera, who revealed troop movements on live TV like a complete idiot. He was quickly told to leave Iraq, iirc. Also, I think it's being quite charitable to call Rivera a reporter.
War reporters are among the bravest people out there (the ones actually reporting on wars, rather than staying in their hotels). That you don't know this tells me that you have led a sheltered life. They risk their lives to bring us vital information. I really don't get where you're coming from, unless you're one of those "blame the Administration's failures in Iraq on the media" types. In that case, I know exactly where you are coming from.
War is changing. This bears repeating again and again, until people (even top brass in the Pentagon) get this through their skulls. I'm just an armchair guy, unlike you, but with a minimum of study I've picked up on what's going down globally. There's a group within the Pentagon that gets it, Petraeus gets it, and I'm hoping that SecDef Gates gets it. I really hope that they've been doing outreach to Congress, otherwise they're going to be getting a reach around from the Bush Administration.
I don't get your point. WTF is the journalist covering war supposed to do (other than seek cover)? He's supposed to pick up a rifle and attack the militants? I don't think so. I'm pretty much convinced that your view of reality is heavily colored by hours and hours of FPS.
Thanks for pointing this out. Now I know which case is being discussed. (I don't watch TV, really.) I completely agree with your take on this particular case. If one wanted to go further and speculate, it's quite possible that some time in the future he might have victimized someone. I don't want to get into a minority report/pre-crime thing, but he was clearly close to crossing the line from chat to meet.
No, they're not going to be patrolling. It was a stupid Wired article with a stupid misleading headline. Something like this will be used to attack or soften up a strong point, to help detect ambushes, perform dangerous reconn, that sort of thing. I would guess that reconn is its primary function, and that the weaponry is to support that.
Furthermore, even if they had 20, 40, 100, or more of these in Iraq, they wouldn't be using them for patrols. Patrols are best done by humans, for a variety of reasons. One important reason in this particular conflict is that you want to troops to interact with the locals in hopefully non-violent ways. Basic Counter Insurgency (COIN) technique. Foot patrols are better than vehicle patrols, if your troops are not being put under too much risk. (Obviously, you don't want to send unprotected troops into Indian Country.)
Anyway, this article and the slashdot summary are what you get when people are writing about topics of which they have very little knowledge or interest. You would think that Wired might hire writers that at least have the basic curiosity to do a little research even if they are not experts on a particular topic. Journalism is truly becoming a lost art.
When I've pulled the trigger on a shiny new Apple, I just assumed that I also triggered the release of the new improved model that will leave whatever I am buying in the dust. This also confirms that I am the center of the universe, which takes some of the sting off.
However, I usually discovered that whatever I had purchased was reasonably serviceable for years(!), so I adopted the strategy of buying six month old Apple refurbs when new products were released (assuming I needed to buy anything). They're still covered fully by Applecare and I expect to be able to run whatever the current OS is for 7 or 8 years, if I keep it that long. Currently I have a last generation 12" G4 PB and a circa 2000 G4 Tower, both running Tiger. G4 Tower has been upgraded, but I stopped putting money into it because I never really use it much anymore.
Forgive me for not being clearer that I do agree with you that Tim Berners Lee did innovate in at least one way that is overwhelmingly important. He executed, he delivered. (What's that famous Steve Jobs' quote? Real artists ship!) Memex was just an idea, and Ted Nelson's Xanadu was, fittingly, mostly an unrealized dream. Berners Lee put together some different ideas and created something that was effective and then widely adopted. He changed the world. Not many people you can say that about at any given generation.
It might be argued that we were moving in this direction anyway, and that it was only a matter of time before someone invented the WWW. But the fact remains that when there is a person in the right place at the right time, they're usually the right person (otherwise we'd never hear of it and it wouldn't make a difference). Berners Lee was that person.
There's already a $20 third party replacement battery on the market if you want to DIY. It comes with a screwdriver, but you supply your own soldering iron.
I don't think they are, because the finger is a terrible writing implement - that would be far more suited to a stylus I think. Nonsense. You just need a fingersharpener.
Sir Tim created the WWW at CERN, but was it a CERN research project? They're a subatomic particle physics outfit. He was a computer contractor. He'd already developed one hypertext system for them during an earlier contract, and when he returned he melded that idea with the internet. Clearly a breakthrough and clearly innovative, but not really what anyone thinks about when speaking of basic research. He had a good idea to build something, got approval to build it,and built it.
Hypertext has a history going back a bit further than Sir Tim or even Apple's Hypercard. Look into the Memex described by Vannevar Bush in 1945. Ted Nelson started Project Xanadu in 1960, although he didn't coin the phrase "hypertext" until 1965.
So, ironically, the main innovation of Sir Tim was to combine hypertext with "on the internet", an innovation often bemoaned by slashdotters when criticizing the validity of a patent.
Anyway, my point is that its a big stretch to say that Tim Berners Lee was doing basic research. He was putting together computer network systems for basic researchers.
It could be that he already bought the hardware and has since decided that he wants to run Linux as his OS exclusively. It could be that he has a laptop, and his HD space and expansion is more limited (and thus he wants to remove the "clutter" of an unused OS, while retaining the ability to run its apps). He could like the aesthetics of the Apple hardware, while not liking the OS X UI. There could be a lot of reasons that don't place him among the freetards.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer car analogies. In the current case, the patient had a dead battery and needed a jump. In the Schiavo case, the engine had seized.
I can confirm this experimentally. Inspired by this development, I implanted electrodes into a bowl of tomato soup. No amount of deep electrical stimulation could bring the soup into anything we could recognize as consciousness, nor was its ability to communicate improved.
Possibly the failure of the deep electrical stimulation to elicit the desired response has something to do with the vegetative state of the tomatoes that were used to make the soup. With this in mind, I am going to be conducting further experiments using a crab bisque.
The war on Tivo is a made up conflict being used by the FSF to further its agenda to control software. When they control the software thru their licensing (I can't wait to see what's in GPL 4, 5, and 6), they'll control the user. And if they think they know what's best for the developer, you can be damn sure they think they know what's best for the user.
Bottom line is that Tivo did give its users the same rights it received under the GPL 2. It complied completely with the GPL 2. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest.
If we are talking about DRM and Trusted Computing, and we are
That means it is illegal to hack Tivo to allow new versions of the software in it
If you're worried about the law, change the law. However, there is an active culture of Tivo hardware hackers that don't seem to let this stop them. And again, there are devices such as the neuros that have no such potential encumbrances. Here's a prediction
How are you going to vote with your wallet then. This is a FSF scare tactic that just seems silly when you examine it rationally. Is this really the reason for the anti-DRM provisions? It's laughable.
But other people, including myself, argue that the difference between hardware and software is blurry and that nothing should restrict end-users freedoms to modify that GPL software. GPL 3's anti-hardware provision wasn't necessary for this. Tivo always made the source code available, so you could modify it to your heart's content. You just couldn't easily reinstall your modified code onto the device. There was nothing to stop you from hacking the hardware, however. What GPL 3 does do is protect the freedom of users who are too lazy to figure out how to hack their hardware and want the hardware maker to provide them with an easy way, even if doing so would put the hardware maker into a legal or contractual bind that would drive it out of business.
So, the 99% of users that couldn't care less that the hardware was easily hackable have lost a bit of freedom in favor of the 1%'s convenience. The 1%'s freedom wasn't at stake. Merely their convenience.
There is a means of rejecting Tivo hardware under the GPL 2. It's called not buying it, and buying hardware that supports installing user modified software, like the neuros. Or even better, developing software for the neuros, so that it becomes the better choice for the great unwashed masses.
To the extent that it is based on the GPL 2 and is a natural progression of the GPL 2, it's a great license. The GPL is an elegant legal hack that uses the power of copyright to enforce "copyleft". Part of it's moral strength comes from it's quid pro quo nature: Tit for tat, code for code. The GPL 3 is a kludge that goes beyond dictating the terms of software distribution and reaches into how hardware may be designed.
Rockets! What a great hypothetical example to show one of the areas where GPL 3 really bites. Let's say that I build and sell rockets to the serious hobbyist market. These rockets are controlled by free software, but for safety reasons (and possibly liability) I've locked out unsigned software in the firmware. Can't use GPL software for my toy rockets.
This is the sort of unintended consequence we get from the GPL 3 reaching past being a software license, and in effect trying to control hardware. According to the FSF, if I take measures to prevent my users from weaponizing my toys, I'm bad because everyone should have the right to weaponize whatever free software touches.
Rather than repeat the success of the GPL 2, the FSF has made the mistake of trying to go after specific companies they don't like, not giving a damn about unbalancing the fairness of the license, and not caring about who they might hurt if that helps them "get" Tivo or MS. They've moved from principles and are operating on personalities.
The only reporter that I ever heard of "interfering" with a military operation (which you didn't mention before, nice way to begin shifting the argument) was Geraldo Rivera, who revealed troop movements on live TV like a complete idiot. He was quickly told to leave Iraq, iirc. Also, I think it's being quite charitable to call Rivera a reporter.
War reporters are among the bravest people out there (the ones actually reporting on wars, rather than staying in their hotels). That you don't know this tells me that you have led a sheltered life. They risk their lives to bring us vital information. I really don't get where you're coming from, unless you're one of those "blame the Administration's failures in Iraq on the media" types. In that case, I know exactly where you are coming from.
BLOODNINJA? This ties in neatly with TFA: "I put on my robe and hacker hat . . . ."
I don't get your point. WTF is the journalist covering war supposed to do (other than seek cover)? He's supposed to pick up a rifle and attack the militants? I don't think so. I'm pretty much convinced that your view of reality is heavily colored by hours and hours of FPS.
If it's for a news story, it's covered under fair use. Or do we only get to make fair use claims when the copyright holder is someone we don't like?
Thanks for pointing this out. Now I know which case is being discussed. (I don't watch TV, really.) I completely agree with your take on this particular case. If one wanted to go further and speculate, it's quite possible that some time in the future he might have victimized someone. I don't want to get into a minority report/pre-crime thing, but he was clearly close to crossing the line from chat to meet.
No, they're not going to be patrolling. It was a stupid Wired article with a stupid misleading headline. Something like this will be used to attack or soften up a strong point, to help detect ambushes, perform dangerous reconn, that sort of thing. I would guess that reconn is its primary function, and that the weaponry is to support that.
Furthermore, even if they had 20, 40, 100, or more of these in Iraq, they wouldn't be using them for patrols. Patrols are best done by humans, for a variety of reasons. One important reason in this particular conflict is that you want to troops to interact with the locals in hopefully non-violent ways. Basic Counter Insurgency (COIN) technique. Foot patrols are better than vehicle patrols, if your troops are not being put under too much risk. (Obviously, you don't want to send unprotected troops into Indian Country.)
Anyway, this article and the slashdot summary are what you get when people are writing about topics of which they have very little knowledge or interest. You would think that Wired might hire writers that at least have the basic curiosity to do a little research even if they are not experts on a particular topic. Journalism is truly becoming a lost art.
OK, that actually makes some sense. I was thinking, "A nerd without Karma is like Taylor Hanson? What?"
When I've pulled the trigger on a shiny new Apple, I just assumed that I also triggered the release of the new improved model that will leave whatever I am buying in the dust. This also confirms that I am the center of the universe, which takes some of the sting off.
However, I usually discovered that whatever I had purchased was reasonably serviceable for years(!), so I adopted the strategy of buying six month old Apple refurbs when new products were released (assuming I needed to buy anything). They're still covered fully by Applecare and I expect to be able to run whatever the current OS is for 7 or 8 years, if I keep it that long. Currently I have a last generation 12" G4 PB and a circa 2000 G4 Tower, both running Tiger. G4 Tower has been upgraded, but I stopped putting money into it because I never really use it much anymore.
Forgive me for not being clearer that I do agree with you that Tim Berners Lee did innovate in at least one way that is overwhelmingly important. He executed, he delivered. (What's that famous Steve Jobs' quote? Real artists ship!) Memex was just an idea, and Ted Nelson's Xanadu was, fittingly, mostly an unrealized dream. Berners Lee put together some different ideas and created something that was effective and then widely adopted. He changed the world. Not many people you can say that about at any given generation.
It might be argued that we were moving in this direction anyway, and that it was only a matter of time before someone invented the WWW. But the fact remains that when there is a person in the right place at the right time, they're usually the right person (otherwise we'd never hear of it and it wouldn't make a difference). Berners Lee was that person.
If you hold emacs up to your ear, you can hear the ocean.
Fun Fact: The plural of Linus is not Linuses. It's Linuxen.
I don't really know which OS will be used to fight WW III, but WW IV will be fought with DOS.
Two years from now, Slashdot will have a story about the Fleshlight firmware update 1.01. Remember that you heard it here first.
There's already a $20 third party replacement battery on the market if you want to DIY. It comes with a screwdriver, but you supply your own soldering iron.
Sir Tim created the WWW at CERN, but was it a CERN research project? They're a subatomic particle physics outfit. He was a computer contractor. He'd already developed one hypertext system for them during an earlier contract, and when he returned he melded that idea with the internet. Clearly a breakthrough and clearly innovative, but not really what anyone thinks about when speaking of basic research. He had a good idea to build something, got approval to build it,and built it.
Hypertext has a history going back a bit further than Sir Tim or even Apple's Hypercard. Look into the Memex described by Vannevar Bush in 1945. Ted Nelson started Project Xanadu in 1960, although he didn't coin the phrase "hypertext" until 1965.
So, ironically, the main innovation of Sir Tim was to combine hypertext with "on the internet", an innovation often bemoaned by slashdotters when criticizing the validity of a patent.
Anyway, my point is that its a big stretch to say that Tim Berners Lee was doing basic research. He was putting together computer network systems for basic researchers.
It could be that he already bought the hardware and has since decided that he wants to run Linux as his OS exclusively. It could be that he has a laptop, and his HD space and expansion is more limited (and thus he wants to remove the "clutter" of an unused OS, while retaining the ability to run its apps). He could like the aesthetics of the Apple hardware, while not liking the OS X UI. There could be a lot of reasons that don't place him among the freetards.
I don't like to brag about my inventions, but I hold a patent for an infinitely tall urinal, for those that do have a problem aiming.