That is mind-nimbingly specious reasoning.
Not only do SCO show their truer colors, but they seem to have truly taken leave of reality. Sign me up to support Linus' legal defense fund.
Regardless of the ultimate disposition of SCOs claims, is anyone looking into who may have already profited from the runup in SCO's stock? Sure, it lost 2 points after Novell's letter was publicized. But programmed trades can be set up well in advance to buy and sell. One could even create a pattern of trades which would make it look like dumb luck. I'm not alleging anything. I'm just wondering who is looking after these things.
No way, man. Let those fuel cells run on vodka . But keep yer mits off my Jolt! I do not want to have to choose between feeding my laptop and feeding my aqueous caffeinated sucrouse habit. It won't be pretty! So just back away from the Jolt, ok?
Honestly, we all owe MS a huge debt. What would we have to bitch about if computers didn't crash. Worse, the computer dweebs might grow up, get lives and gasp find girlfriends, thereby exerting demand pressure on a commodity more already valuable than DRAM. So I say, bring on the bugs!!
WordStar Rocks! Yes, that's right. Present tense. There's even emulation inside MS Word. Now, if someone would get around to creating a WordStar mode for Emacs I could finally stop dual booting!
It's been a long time since I installed sendmail or inn or bind from sources. At some point I stopped checking MD5 signatures, and now I trust the major distros to do that for me. I sure hope they're more vigilant than me. And I used to be so paranoid... This is a nasty wake-up call.
The RIAA are very shrewd. By cutting a deal to "give a break" to small-time wecasters at the expense -- or even the appearance of expense -- of artists, the RIAA may effectively staunch the nacent outpouring of artists' support for the consumer on related issues of fair use. Very crafty, those lawyer types.
I'm pretty sure I accepted a click-through license which requires me to prop my eyes open with toothpicks so that I won't blink and miss one of their ads. It sure is considerate of them to make sure I don't miss any Valuable Offers! don't you think?
This suggests a related thread, not so far off topic as it may seem.
The service search engines provide to all of us, in the face of what can only be charitably called a glut of data (some of it actually useful to some of us) is remarkable. (And let's be clear: We're talking about Google, possibly the only thing keeping the net from collapsing under it's own weight in ether.)
It's great that Google is effectively "free" to us, but should that be so? I'm personally willing to pay a nominal charge -- perhaps in the form of a subscription -- for access to the most effective search algorithms. It has that much value to me. If someone wants to create a free system -- as Google has done -- that's great. But as the web gets bigger and hairer, we might need to think about ways to support (read, fund) continued development of effective search/navigation tools.
There's some serious linear algebra in publicly disclosed portions of the PageRank(TM) algorithm, and the really good stuff is probably even funkier. This sort of thing isn't going to be hacked together on the weekend by your average penguinista. Could the brains behind Google go diving for herring in richer seas? I suspect so.
I don't even want to think about what a disgruntled programmer could do to my car. And just wait until all our cars are "wired" for 'net. Hacking really could become a matetr of life and death.
See for example the work at Bell Labs reporting in 1998 which was also reported in the journal Nature (subscription required) as early as 1997. The mechanism by which this broad negative-TCE occurs is nonetheless spectacular -- the zirconia atoms basically get pulled in and fold over against each other as the oxygen atoms vibrate more intensely with heating. This recent announcement (and several more in the last few years) are Soundbite Science.
First off, a ridiculously large (is it?) number might stimulate people to think about "what's in a name" anyway. And if that doesn't work, perhaps ambiguation of collating rules will. And if that still doesn't work, maybe the cute little XL+ postfix will. Carmakers and soapmakers do it all the time to great effect.
Software version numbers are ostensibly nothing but bookkeeping. Any departure from a simple incremental scheme belies a shift from bookkeeping to marketing. And one of the rules of marketing is "Think big and think loud." So marvel at how shiny it is!
* * * Linux i300 XL+ * * *
Once we have thoroughly obfuscated the marketplace, we can all get back to focusing on features. To wit, the name game is Linus' perogative. But why not leave that fluff to the people (Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE) who are actually getting rewarded for marketing? Bottom line: kernel development is about capability. Naming is about marketing. Whichever path you choose, do the best you can.
I have read it. What I was trying -- unsucessfully -- to get at is an apparent contradiction. Sure, anyone can modify the GPL'ed Bluecurve(TM) and redistribute it under the terms of the GPL. But can they do so without referring to it as Bluecurve(TM)? Similarly, I can hack a Linux(TM) kernel and redistribute it under the GPL. But can I do so without calling it Linux(TM)? I note that all of the Linux-derived distros I know all include "Linux" somewhere in the name of the offering/product.
So really, how meaningful is trademark protection of the sort Mr. Troan seemed to intend? Granted, I can't go off and come up with a totally unrelated desktop and call it "Bluecurve." That would infringe on Redhat's "Bluecurve" trademark. But I can modify it (even beyond all recognition) and still offer it as a derived work called "QuantumWeasel Bluecurve," a la "Redhat Linux," Mandrake GNU/Linux," Turbo Linux," et cetera.
So my heretofore implied points is explicitly this: Who are Redhat to think they can protect the look/feel of Bluecurve without also respecting the KDE and Gnome looks/feels on the same footing? KDE(TM) and Gnome(TM) are claimed as trademarks by their respective foundations.
If I've missed something, I'd appreciate someone pointing it out.
Bluecurve (the trademarked term is left over from an earlier Red Hat acquisition) will help Red Hat keep control over the effort to unify the two interfaces, Troan said. Although Bluecurve is open-source software, letting programmers change it if they wish, people won't be able to call modified projects Bluecurve because of the trademark, he said.
Certainly, distros have a right and an obligation to protect their trademarks, e.g.Redhat, Mandrake, etc. But is there a precedent for protecting a "look-and-feel" trademark in the Open Source(TM) community? Is this an essential part of joining the mainstream? And how do people feel about it? To wit, if I modify Bluecurve(TM) (which I understand to be GPL'ed), can I distribute my changes without infringing on the Bluecurve(TM) trademark? For instance, could Redhat(TM) release a Linux(TM) distribution without calling it Linux?????
I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA are watching this closely and will be coming for us in the USA next. It's bad enough that a license can preemptively enjoin you from free speech, but I'm waiting for them to (1) outlaw thinking critical thoughts; and then (2) arguing that they don't have to prove that you had a critical thought before ordering a labotomy. I'm being a little facetious -- I hope -- but where will this dangerous nonsense end?
The enemy is not Big Media. The "enemy" is a Consuming Public willing to exchange basic freedoms for perceived features. To paraphrase Ben Franklin: They deserve neither.
The Big Media's greatest strength is also their Achilles Heel: profit motive. If people really don't like something, and won't pay for it, it will go away. Witness DIVx.
Ed Abbey had a solution for all this years ago: Shoot your TV. Repeat as necessary.
In fairness, I disclose that I have not read the Nature paper. Have any of our resident holographers taken a stab at this? I couldn't find my copy of Goodman's book or notes from Leith and Upatnieks to save my life. But there is a whole sub-field of holography dedicated to speckle patterns. And it "magically" does all the hard work of inversion within a sufficient sub-space of the one-way hash-function implemented by the token. Seems to me that if you had access to the resultant speckle pattern(s) (one for each angle and wavelength of illumination used for authentication) and a photopolymerizable material moldable into the geometry of the "token," then you could synthetically create a functionally equivalent volume hologram. (In fact, more than one, as holography experts will explain in detail the requirements for uniqueness.) You don't even need access to the token you wish to forge! All you need is the set of all readout patterns actually on file. Forgery definitely requires more sophistication than magstripes. But it is doable in the lab. Hey, I'm only an optical physicist. (Really.) But what do I know?
Slashdot Mirror
That is mind-nimbingly specious reasoning. Not only do SCO show their truer colors, but they seem to have truly taken leave of reality. Sign me up to support Linus' legal defense fund.
Regardless of the ultimate disposition of SCOs claims, is anyone looking into who may have already profited from the runup in SCO's stock? Sure, it lost 2 points after Novell's letter was publicized. But programmed trades can be set up well in advance to buy and sell. One could even create a pattern of trades which would make it look like dumb luck. I'm not alleging anything. I'm just wondering who is looking after these things.
No way, man. Let those fuel cells run on vodka . But keep yer mits off my Jolt! I do not want to have to choose between feeding my laptop and feeding my aqueous caffeinated sucrouse habit. It won't be pretty! So just back away from the Jolt, ok?
Honestly, we all owe MS a huge debt. What would we have to bitch about if computers didn't crash. Worse, the computer dweebs might grow up, get lives and gasp find girlfriends, thereby exerting demand pressure on a commodity more already valuable than DRAM. So I say, bring on the bugs!!
WordStar Rocks! Yes, that's right. Present tense. There's even emulation inside MS Word. Now, if someone would get around to creating a WordStar mode for Emacs I could finally stop dual booting!
\begin{vorlon_mode} ...there is a hole in your galaxy...
\end{vorlon_mode}
It's been a long time since I installed sendmail or inn or bind from sources. At some point I stopped checking MD5 signatures, and now I trust the major distros to do that for me. I sure hope they're more vigilant than me. And I used to be so paranoid... This is a nasty wake-up call.
The RIAA are very shrewd. By cutting a deal to "give a break" to small-time wecasters at the expense -- or even the appearance of expense -- of artists, the RIAA may effectively staunch the nacent outpouring of artists' support for the consumer on related issues of fair use. Very crafty, those lawyer types.
I'm pretty sure I accepted a click-through license which requires me to prop my eyes open with toothpicks so that I won't blink and miss one of their ads. It sure is considerate of them to make sure I don't miss any Valuable Offers! don't you think?
The service search engines provide to all of us, in the face of what can only be charitably called a glut of data (some of it actually useful to some of us) is remarkable. (And let's be clear: We're talking about Google, possibly the only thing keeping the net from collapsing under it's own weight in ether.)
It's great that Google is effectively "free" to us, but should that be so? I'm personally willing to pay a nominal charge -- perhaps in the form of a subscription -- for access to the most effective search algorithms. It has that much value to me. If someone wants to create a free system -- as Google has done -- that's great. But as the web gets bigger and hairer, we might need to think about ways to support (read, fund) continued development of effective search/navigation tools.
There's some serious linear algebra in publicly disclosed portions of the PageRank(TM) algorithm, and the really good stuff is probably even funkier. This sort of thing isn't going to be hacked together on the weekend by your average penguinista. Could the brains behind Google go diving for herring in richer seas? I suspect so.
I don't even want to think about what a disgruntled programmer could do to my car. And just wait until all our cars are "wired" for 'net. Hacking really could become a matetr of life and death.
Brought to you by the Council for Better Living Through Dead Languages!
See for example the work at Bell Labs reporting in 1998 which was also reported in the journal Nature (subscription required) as early as 1997. The mechanism by which this broad negative-TCE occurs is nonetheless spectacular -- the zirconia atoms basically get pulled in and fold over against each other as the oxygen atoms vibrate more intensely with heating. This recent announcement (and several more in the last few years) are Soundbite Science.
Software version numbers are ostensibly nothing but bookkeeping. Any departure from a simple incremental scheme belies a shift from bookkeeping to marketing. And one of the rules of marketing is "Think big and think loud." So marvel at how shiny it is!
* * * Linux i300 XL+ * * *
Once we have thoroughly obfuscated the marketplace, we can all get back to focusing on features. To wit, the name game is Linus' perogative. But why not leave that fluff to the people (Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE) who are actually getting rewarded for marketing? Bottom line: kernel development is about capability. Naming is about marketing. Whichever path you choose, do the best you can.
So really, how meaningful is trademark protection of the sort Mr. Troan seemed to intend? Granted, I can't go off and come up with a totally unrelated desktop and call it "Bluecurve." That would infringe on Redhat's "Bluecurve" trademark. But I can modify it (even beyond all recognition) and still offer it as a derived work called "QuantumWeasel Bluecurve," a la "Redhat Linux," Mandrake GNU/Linux," Turbo Linux," et cetera.
So my heretofore implied points is explicitly this: Who are Redhat to think they can protect the look/feel of Bluecurve without also respecting the KDE and Gnome looks/feels on the same footing? KDE(TM) and Gnome(TM) are claimed as trademarks by their respective foundations.
If I've missed something, I'd appreciate someone pointing it out.
I submit that Microsoftening is a better term, or is at least easier to pronounce with suitable derision.
I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA are watching this closely and will be coming for us in the USA next. It's bad enough that a license can preemptively enjoin you from free speech, but I'm waiting for them to (1) outlaw thinking critical thoughts; and then (2) arguing that they don't have to prove that you had a critical thought before ordering a labotomy. I'm being a little facetious -- I hope -- but where will this dangerous nonsense end?
Well, sure. The Atlantans needed that clock to coordinate their rendezvous with the Mothership.
The Big Media's greatest strength is also their Achilles Heel: profit motive. If people really don't like something, and won't pay for it, it will go away. Witness DIVx.
Ed Abbey had a solution for all this years ago: Shoot your TV. Repeat as necessary.
I think they're available on tape? :-)
This is pretty standard fare. Not fair, maybe.
In fairness, I disclose that I have not read the Nature paper. Have any of our resident holographers taken a stab at this? I couldn't find my copy of Goodman's book or notes from Leith and Upatnieks to save my life. But there is a whole sub-field of holography dedicated to speckle patterns. And it "magically" does all the hard work of inversion within a sufficient sub-space of the one-way hash-function implemented by the token. Seems to me that if you had access to the resultant speckle pattern(s) (one for each angle and wavelength of illumination used for authentication) and a photopolymerizable material moldable into the geometry of the "token," then you could synthetically create a functionally equivalent volume hologram. (In fact, more than one, as holography experts will explain in detail the requirements for uniqueness.) You don't even need access to the token you wish to forge! All you need is the set of all readout patterns actually on file. Forgery definitely requires more sophistication than magstripes. But it is doable in the lab. Hey, I'm only an optical physicist. (Really.) But what do I know?
Has any of you guys ever kissed a girl?
Do you ever plan to kiss a girl?
Forget the lights!
More shame on /. for uncritical repetition.