It took me two minutes just to find where Linux actually started on that chart, and I'm still not sure 5 minutes later what all the rest is supposed to say.
...if you can't lock code under copyright anymore. It will have served its purpose.
Actually, it won't. There is nothing to stop companies from keeping their code under lock and key with or without copyright. And without copyright, there is more reason for them to do so: if they didn't anyone could come along and reuse the code, with no credit or consideration to the orginal author.
The purpose of the GPL is to keep code in the public eye. For that it needs copyright.
Yes, OSX still has TextEdit, though it has been expanded. Native format is now rtf, and there are rumors that the next revision of the OS will have it able to read and write.doc files...
Personally, I'll stick with BBEdit. (It is the only program I have set to start up with login.) If I want to use the GUI, it's got a good one. If I don't, well then I can use keyboard commands all I like. I find myself using it for everything; over TextEdit, OpenOffice, AppleWorks, or the rest.
Also, he is assuming that the corrupt officials care if they are caught.
In the US at the moment, it is still a scandal, but becoming less of one. Buying your way free of justice is possible, in most cases. When 'scandal' becomes norm, and buying free of justice is accepted routine, then it does not matter if corrupt official is publicly known. They'll just be corrupt in public.
Wow, that's an old stock photo. Apple hasn't shipped those monitors in years (mid 90's, I think). Shesh, I had one on a IIGS, and I've seen them on a IIc...
I'm sure it scales down, but at the moment the cost/durability is prohibitive.
A billboard provides an idea first market for this tech: It needs to change on a semi-regular basis (but not quickly), allows high initial cost (as long as the long-term cost is within limits), and is moderately protected from harm (at least, compared to a book). This lets them get the tech out and in the market.
Durability will rise and price will go down. For now, this is a good market to fund development from.
Here's an answer for you: because they are having enough trouble imagining the now. We work, day to day, to just keep up with the pace of change; we don't have time or energy to spare to try to push that change beyond the immediate necessity. It is not that the sense has disappeared, so much as it is already in use.
For a good exploration of this idea, I would suggest the book 'Future Shock'. A very good read.
What? He did exactly what the patent claimed, with a stock version of Notes using the features the way they were advertised. He didn't do any programming here, unless you call writing HTML (or its equivalent in Notes) programming. If you do, then the patent has *never* been implemented without the user doing programming.
He did the equivalent of writing a web page that required a plug in and showing that it worked. You would have to do the same with IE to prove it infringed the patent.
I was really hoping this suit would make for a better IE.
How? The suit said that a browser that allowed you to open a page that needed a helper program to render/show content was not possible without licensing the patent. That means any plugins would be not allowed. Ok, that stops a couple of security holes, at least somewhat, but it means Java, Flash, QuickTime, etc. are no longer available.
MS could do two things once they accept the patent as valid: they could strip out all possibility of plugins for IE, or they could license the patent. As a quick guess, I'd say the latter would be easier. (And would put projects such as Mozilla is a bind, since they are not likely to be able to raise the money to pay for a license.)
(Quick conspirisary theory: If you assume MS could have come up with prior art, they might 'agree' to loose, if it meant they would have 'minor' license fees but there would be no other licenses, thereby driving out all their competition. Slightly over-paranoid, but it is MS...)
I have one, and am fairly happy with it. (I switched from a the old style Turbo Mouse.) A few notes: the ball is smaller, and the sensor is located in a different place. This gives it quite a different 'feel', especially the first few days. Not worse, just different. Also, the 'Scroll Ring' (or whatever they call it) is great! The absolute best way to scroll I've ever found.
Also, it is not completely immune to dirt. After all, it does still have to move a reflective surface over a sensor. But it is much better than a mechanical Turbo Mouse on that score.
Hey, those are the bounces I like (not enough that I actually want to get them, but better then the rest). If they send the entire message back to you then you can at least tell the person who is infected. (Instead of most of the messages where you don't have any clue, since the bouncing machine stripped out all the useful data.)
Oh, and since I got 10-50 times more bounce messages then the virus itself I am in full agreement with what I haven't read of the article. These bounce messages are a bigger problem at this point than the virus itself.
Not responding works face-to-face, but not in the media. (Face-to-face it is obvious you have chosen not to respond, media-war you are just ignored.)
Frankly, this is a war about mindshare. In the absence of other voices the first speaker gets the mindshare. That means you need to be heard. A good, calm, thoughtful voice is all the louder for whispering.
If the points sound familiar, it is because they are. SCO has put together a case that is best fought with the lack of facts: Everyone who fights them has to ask for the facts because that is the only way to fight them. Linus make that point without sounding like an idiot (or calling the other side an idiot), which puts him well above most of the slashbots.
Read his letter, I think you will find it lives up to your ideas of him. (It is very good. No posturing, no complaining, just a nice, sweet, 'show us the code, or please stop bugging daddy.')
I'm not from the US so I don't have a real understanding of your constitutional laws. The idea of spam being 'speech' sounds strange, does this mean that you have a consitutional right to 'say' anything you want in unsolicited e-mail?
You have the right to say it. However, you have to use your own resources (or resources given to your use legally) to say it. You don't have the right to force anyone to listen to you.
Putting up an ad, or a website, is fine. Saying anything you want in a solicited email is fine. In an unsolicited email, it shouldn't be. Most of the argument on the issue is on how to define 'unsolicited'. (I know, duh, but there is a lot of money involved, which always clouds the issue.)
Since I'm most likely to be the only person to see your post, I thought I'd drop in with a few bits of advice to help fix your karma. (I'm going to turn my karma off as well.)
First off, calm down. You sound ready to try to take on everyone you meet in any argument all the time. Most people don't want to be argued with, they want to think they arguing with you.
Second, don't shout so much. There are other ways of conveying emphasis, even if you don't know HTML. Use the all caps sparingly.
Third, complete one idea before starting another. Sentences need both a start and an end, in almost all cases. Make each one convey one idea, and complete it. Try to keep them short enough that most people remember the beginning when they reach the end. Do the same with paragraphs.
These will help you get your idea across so that reader will be able to understand it easily. Reading a/. page bombards the reader with dozens of ideas, the ones that stand out are both easy to grasp and original. You are having major problems with the first of those conditions, which means that even when you have a good idea it will be overlooked. Work on clarity, don't make the reader work to understand you.
First off, I love Baen Books. I check their site regularly to see what they have coming up.
However, I have to argue with you about them publishing good sci-fi, unless by that you mean fantasy/science fantasy/science fiction. They publish the occasional science fiction book, and while they are all enjoyable reads, most are nothing really excellent. I wouldn't put any of their current catalog in the same class as Asimov and Clark. (Though they are also acquiring the rights for and re-releasing older works.) The largest class of their catalog is science fantasy, usually in the space opera style. Very readable, but not really thought provoking. Mostly it is just a way to get a bigger explosion when something goes 'boom'.
Actually, if I remember what was happening correctly, they didn't even offer them to Apple. Apple bought 1.25Ghz chips and overclocked them for the 1.42Ghz machines, since Motorola couldn't get the speed up to what Apple needed.
Slashdot Mirror
It took me two minutes just to find where Linux actually started on that chart, and I'm still not sure 5 minutes later what all the rest is supposed to say.
Which I suspect is the point.
Actually, it won't. There is nothing to stop companies from keeping their code under lock and key with or without copyright. And without copyright, there is more reason for them to do so: if they didn't anyone could come along and reuse the code, with no credit or consideration to the orginal author.
The purpose of the GPL is to keep code in the public eye. For that it needs copyright.
Yes, OSX still has TextEdit, though it has been expanded. Native format is now rtf, and there are rumors that the next revision of the OS will have it able to read and write .doc files...
Personally, I'll stick with BBEdit. (It is the only program I have set to start up with login.) If I want to use the GUI, it's got a good one. If I don't, well then I can use keyboard commands all I like. I find myself using it for everything; over TextEdit, OpenOffice, AppleWorks, or the rest.
Guess not, though it seems to degrade well.
Let's see if Slashcode supports Unicode: "Caesium".
Also, he is assuming that the corrupt officials care if they are caught.
In the US at the moment, it is still a scandal, but becoming less of one. Buying your way free of justice is possible, in most cases. When 'scandal' becomes norm, and buying free of justice is accepted routine, then it does not matter if corrupt official is publicly known. They'll just be corrupt in public.
This could be a good thing. We don't seem to be doing so well with most of those... (Well, except for the Post Office. The US does that well.)
512GB was the RAM.
Wow, that's an old stock photo. Apple hasn't shipped those monitors in years (mid 90's, I think). Shesh, I had one on a IIGS, and I've seen them on a IIc...
No problem. You'll soon have negative money.
I'm sure it scales down, but at the moment the cost/durability is prohibitive.
A billboard provides an idea first market for this tech: It needs to change on a semi-regular basis (but not quickly), allows high initial cost (as long as the long-term cost is within limits), and is moderately protected from harm (at least, compared to a book). This lets them get the tech out and in the market.
Durability will rise and price will go down. For now, this is a good market to fund development from.
They even have numbers to show it.
(Taken out of the frameset at Prime Palaver #6. (Not a direct link.))
Here's an answer for you: because they are having enough trouble imagining the now. We work, day to day, to just keep up with the pace of change; we don't have time or energy to spare to try to push that change beyond the immediate necessity. It is not that the sense has disappeared, so much as it is already in use.
For a good exploration of this idea, I would suggest the book 'Future Shock'. A very good read.
Sorry, didn't read that article.
Of course, there is the third choice: just buy Eolas. I'm fairly sure MS has the cash, if it wants it.
What? He did exactly what the patent claimed, with a stock version of Notes using the features the way they were advertised. He didn't do any programming here, unless you call writing HTML (or its equivalent in Notes) programming. If you do, then the patent has *never* been implemented without the user doing programming.
He did the equivalent of writing a web page that required a plug in and showing that it worked. You would have to do the same with IE to prove it infringed the patent.
How? The suit said that a browser that allowed you to open a page that needed a helper program to render/show content was not possible without licensing the patent. That means any plugins would be not allowed. Ok, that stops a couple of security holes, at least somewhat, but it means Java, Flash, QuickTime, etc. are no longer available.
MS could do two things once they accept the patent as valid: they could strip out all possibility of plugins for IE, or they could license the patent. As a quick guess, I'd say the latter would be easier. (And would put projects such as Mozilla is a bind, since they are not likely to be able to raise the money to pay for a license.)
(Quick conspirisary theory: If you assume MS could have come up with prior art, they might 'agree' to loose, if it meant they would have 'minor' license fees but there would be no other licenses, thereby driving out all their competition. Slightly over-paranoid, but it is MS...)
I have one, and am fairly happy with it. (I switched from a the old style Turbo Mouse.) A few notes: the ball is smaller, and the sensor is located in a different place. This gives it quite a different 'feel', especially the first few days. Not worse, just different. Also, the 'Scroll Ring' (or whatever they call it) is great! The absolute best way to scroll I've ever found.
Also, it is not completely immune to dirt. After all, it does still have to move a reflective surface over a sensor. But it is much better than a mechanical Turbo Mouse on that score.
Hey, those are the bounces I like (not enough that I actually want to get them, but better then the rest). If they send the entire message back to you then you can at least tell the person who is infected. (Instead of most of the messages where you don't have any clue, since the bouncing machine stripped out all the useful data.)
Oh, and since I got 10-50 times more bounce messages then the virus itself I am in full agreement with what I haven't read of the article. These bounce messages are a bigger problem at this point than the virus itself.
Not responding works face-to-face, but not in the media. (Face-to-face it is obvious you have chosen not to respond, media-war you are just ignored.)
Frankly, this is a war about mindshare. In the absence of other voices the first speaker gets the mindshare. That means you need to be heard. A good, calm, thoughtful voice is all the louder for whispering.
If the points sound familiar, it is because they are. SCO has put together a case that is best fought with the lack of facts: Everyone who fights them has to ask for the facts because that is the only way to fight them. Linus make that point without sounding like an idiot (or calling the other side an idiot), which puts him well above most of the slashbots.
Read his letter, I think you will find it lives up to your ideas of him. (It is very good. No posturing, no complaining, just a nice, sweet, 'show us the code, or please stop bugging daddy.')
Well, I for one do. Of course, I don't buy them from Barnes and Noble. In fact, until this article, I was not aware they sold ebooks.
I mostly buy ebooks from Fictionwise, though I do have accounts elsewhere.
You have the right to say it. However, you have to use your own resources (or resources given to your use legally) to say it. You don't have the right to force anyone to listen to you.
Putting up an ad, or a website, is fine. Saying anything you want in a solicited email is fine. In an unsolicited email, it shouldn't be. Most of the argument on the issue is on how to define 'unsolicited'. (I know, duh, but there is a lot of money involved, which always clouds the issue.)
Since I'm most likely to be the only person to see your post, I thought I'd drop in with a few bits of advice to help fix your karma. (I'm going to turn my karma off as well.)
First off, calm down. You sound ready to try to take on everyone you meet in any argument all the time. Most people don't want to be argued with, they want to think they arguing with you.
Second, don't shout so much. There are other ways of conveying emphasis, even if you don't know HTML. Use the all caps sparingly.
Third, complete one idea before starting another. Sentences need both a start and an end, in almost all cases. Make each one convey one idea, and complete it. Try to keep them short enough that most people remember the beginning when they reach the end. Do the same with paragraphs.
These will help you get your idea across so that reader will be able to understand it easily. Reading a /. page bombards the reader with dozens of ideas, the ones that stand out are both easy to grasp and original. You are having major problems with the first of those conditions, which means that even when you have a good idea it will be overlooked. Work on clarity, don't make the reader work to understand you.
First off, I love Baen Books. I check their site regularly to see what they have coming up.
However, I have to argue with you about them publishing good sci-fi, unless by that you mean fantasy/science fantasy/science fiction. They publish the occasional science fiction book, and while they are all enjoyable reads, most are nothing really excellent. I wouldn't put any of their current catalog in the same class as Asimov and Clark. (Though they are also acquiring the rights for and re-releasing older works.) The largest class of their catalog is science fantasy, usually in the space opera style. Very readable, but not really thought provoking. Mostly it is just a way to get a bigger explosion when something goes 'boom'.
Actually, if I remember what was happening correctly, they didn't even offer them to Apple. Apple bought 1.25Ghz chips and overclocked them for the 1.42Ghz machines, since Motorola couldn't get the speed up to what Apple needed.