I don't think that opening up is always a good idea. The top programmers get diverted from writing good code into marshalling a bunch of monkeys. Then when you trash somebody's crappy contribution you start a flame war and that sucks up even more time and top programmers' efforts. Not only does code quality go down, but quality of the mail lists etc goes down too.
A small amount of good code is worth a lot more than volumes of crap.
Anybody involved in sales is going to push the product that makes him the most commission/profit/whatever.
Linux is free. No profit/comission/whatever. It is even harder to push an official distro like RedHat/whatever because the customer feels cheated because they're paying for something that is supposed to be free, even though it is cheaper than Winxxx.
Analogy: Customer walks into a shop and says he wants a $10 bottle of solvent to clean something. Now tap water is just as good. Is the salesman going to (a) sell him the bottle of solvent at $10 or (b) say "tap water is just as good, here is a bottle of tap water for $5" or (c) say "tap water is just as good, use the stuff from the tap at home". If he does (a) he makes some money. If he does (c) he makes no money, but the customer says "hey thanx". If he does (b) he'll get the customer's abuse for trying to sell him a bottle of tap water for $5.
This has been an ongoing thing in Japan. It drives the Japanese imported car idustry in places like New Zealand. Forcing local consumption also helps Japan develop new products in its quest to export. For an interesting read http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/Japan/J apanYes. I don't endorse or condemn what's written here, not that my endorsement or condemnation are worth jack.
We spend a lot of time telling kids to get a good education, yet the richest man in the world is a college drop-out. We use bombs and soldiers to spread "peace"......
If you want fairness and good values for your kids then don't abdicate the responsibility to schools, games or others.
... from a few years back that drove into a river? He was wtching the nav display and did not notice that the bridge was up.
Technology & safety devices don't really make cars safer. People drive to a certain level of risk. If you surround them with airbags they feel more safe and drive more sloppily.
Making cars more dangerous would make things safer, IMHO. Mount a 12 inch spike on the steeringwheel. That should focus the driver's attention!
Technology encompasses everything we do to modify our environment/experience. This includes the clothes they're wearing, the house they live in and everything else. If you want to get kids to start thinking then introduce them to technology that they can readily understand,see working and experiment with. Computers hide too much of their inner workings and are pretty hopeless for teaching anything useful to young kids. Being able to boot a game and click a mouse is hardly tech-savviness.
Cooking is a good introduction to experimentation and elementary chemistry etc. Lego for spatial & basic construction skills. Get a steam engine or a Stirling engine, some magnets,... Fix a bike, brew some ginger beer... Fly a kite, knit some socks... Just whatever you do, do something **real**, not virtual computer simulation crap.
You don't have to provide a working prototype. However there are many reasons an examiner can reject an idea. One of these is lack of novelty (you get a rejection citing a reference and you can resubmit showing how your invention is different and unique). Another is have to provide a demonstration of sorts to show that it would work. For example, warp drives and perpetal motion mechanisms are likely to be rejected as impossible. If you can provide a demonstration that overcomes the examiners objection then you're back in the game. Start Trek reruns will probably not be sufficient.
What crap he shouts. Humans have been consuming oil for about a century and the production has always had ups and downs. How can he look at a point 2 months ago and say that that's the peak? There are some largish fields still just being opened up, which makes it more likely that oil will peak at March 17, 2006, 14:03 GMT, or maybe a bit later.
It is not so much the communications as providing online services. You can con someone with snailmail just as easily as conning them with email. The difference is that it is easy to understand the postal paradigm. If you got a letter saying "Please sign all the checks in your checkbook and post them to Ima Crim at POBox xxxx" very few would do that.
However very few people understand security or the distinction beween their computer and what's on the internet. To many it is just "the computer" and part of "the computer" does not work when it isn't dialled up. Many can't understand the distinction and will dial up anyway, even to play Solitair, "just to be sure". With broadband the distinction is even more blurred.
Whitelisting is not going to be effective because it disrupts the normal flow of email and is too complicated for most people to do effectively, so most people will just disable it. They'll end up with a false sense of security.
Just like them PC case modders who think they're untra-cool, ultra-technical and call themselves hackers.
I think though that hacking physical objects is a valid concept. To my mind, hacking does not need to be software, but it should at least mean extension beyond the trivial. Adding adapter rings and modifying the optics etc sounds like hacking to me, epoxying on a nut as a tripod mount isn't.
" NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work"."
This is additional stuff in the Linux Licence which distinguishes it from GPL2. Under a regular GPL2 licence (without this clarification) there is room to haggle as to whether an application is soft-linking to the kernel and thus applications running on the kernel could be argued to be derived work.
With this extra clause, the distinction is made clear.
Thousands of people who have contributed to Linux have done so on the basis that it is released under the Linux licence (which btw is not GPL2, but a derrivative of GPL2). To **legally** change the licence you've have to track down all those contributors and get their permission. Same deal with selling the source or any other act of ownership of the source.
Slashdot Mirror
unless you call it a bacterium, then it goes on a killing rampage!
Industrial soy oil is way cheaper. If soy oil works, so could a lot of other oils that are currently used for all sorts of purposes.
You heard it last on /.
In winter people with blocked noses always phone in to work and say they're in bed with Flo.
A small amount of good code is worth a lot more than volumes of crap.
Linux is free. No profit/comission/whatever. It is even harder to push an official distro like RedHat/whatever because the customer feels cheated because they're paying for something that is supposed to be free, even though it is cheaper than Winxxx.
Analogy: Customer walks into a shop and says he wants a $10 bottle of solvent to clean something. Now tap water is just as good. Is the salesman going to (a) sell him the bottle of solvent at $10 or (b) say "tap water is just as good, here is a bottle of tap water for $5" or (c) say "tap water is just as good, use the stuff from the tap at home". If he does (a) he makes some money. If he does (c) he makes no money, but the customer says "hey thanx". If he does (b) he'll get the customer's abuse for trying to sell him a bottle of tap water for $5.
... and you'd have seen this about a month ago.
This has been an ongoing thing in Japan. It drives the Japanese imported car idustry in places like New Zealand. Forcing local consumption also helps Japan develop new products in its quest to export. For an interesting read http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/Japan/J apanYes. I don't endorse or condemn what's written here, not that my endorsement or condemnation are worth jack.
If you want fairness and good values for your kids then don't abdicate the responsibility to schools, games or others.
Technology & safety devices don't really make cars safer. People drive to a certain level of risk. If you surround them with airbags they feel more safe and drive more sloppily.
Making cars more dangerous would make things safer, IMHO. Mount a 12 inch spike on the steeringwheel. That should focus the driver's attention!
Cooking is a good introduction to experimentation and elementary chemistry etc. Lego for spatial & basic construction skills. Get a steam engine or a Stirling engine, some magnets,... Fix a bike, brew some ginger beer... Fly a kite, knit some socks... Just whatever you do, do something **real**, not virtual computer simulation crap.
C'mon folk, this is /., gotta keep the crusade going!
it isn't pay to play, it's pay to download. Nothing to do with playing.
You don't have to provide a working prototype. However there are many reasons an examiner can reject an idea. One of these is lack of novelty (you get a rejection citing a reference and you can resubmit showing how your invention is different and unique). Another is have to provide a demonstration of sorts to show that it would work. For example, warp drives and perpetal motion mechanisms are likely to be rejected as impossible. If you can provide a demonstration that overcomes the examiners objection then you're back in the game. Start Trek reruns will probably not be sufficient.
What crap he shouts. Humans have been consuming oil for about a century and the production has always had ups and downs. How can he look at a point 2 months ago and say that that's the peak? There are some largish fields still just being opened up, which makes it more likely that oil will peak at March 17, 2006, 14:03 GMT, or maybe a bit later.
IIRC,range is approx 60 miles on hydrogen. What next? Rubber band engines?
However very few people understand security or the distinction beween their computer and what's on the internet. To many it is just "the computer" and part of "the computer" does not work when it isn't dialled up. Many can't understand the distinction and will dial up anyway, even to play Solitair, "just to be sure". With broadband the distinction is even more blurred.
Whitelisting is not going to be effective because it disrupts the normal flow of email and is too complicated for most people to do effectively, so most people will just disable it. They'll end up with a false sense of security.
People dumb enough to get phished probably think that whitelisting is something to do with the KluKluxKlan.
I think though that hacking physical objects is a valid concept. To my mind, hacking does not need to be software, but it should at least mean extension beyond the trivial. Adding adapter rings and modifying the optics etc sounds like hacking to me, epoxying on a nut as a tripod mount isn't.
Meetings etc never seem to run to schedule so what's the point of going through all the pain of trying to link your phone's ringer to your calendar?
Then you hear "MPAA r00lZ... MPAA roolZ....."
Obviously don't want geeks. No self respecting geek would have biceps!
" NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work"."
This is additional stuff in the Linux Licence which distinguishes it from GPL2. Under a regular GPL2 licence (without this clarification) there is room to haggle as to whether an application is soft-linking to the kernel and thus applications running on the kernel could be argued to be derived work.
With this extra clause, the distinction is made clear.
This sounds flippant but it isn't. To rephrase what you said. When people would rather march around than sit on the couch you'll have a revolution.
Thousands of people who have contributed to Linux have done so on the basis that it is released under the Linux licence (which btw is not GPL2, but a derrivative of GPL2). To **legally** change the licence you've have to track down all those contributors and get their permission. Same deal with selling the source or any other act of ownership of the source.