This is a real problem for real people. Care to explain what is so strange about it?
Although I find it surprising that they would emphasize the self-labeling aspect so much and the problem of others' reactions so little, at least in the quoted excerpt. When you risk violence or verbal abuse because of being "in the wrong bathroom," that's an even bigger problem than having to label yourself "woman" or "man." Better Than Choclate has a scene illustrating that very well. Maybe it's not so much of a problem in a University setting. One would hope...
Come on, there are two reasons to prefer a desktop over a laptop. First, ergonomics: some people just prefer to have a big keyboard and a big monitor and being able to move the two independently of each other. Second, hardware capabilities-- you can fit more into a desktop, and you can upgrade it easily. (Oh, and you don't need to optimize for size or battery lifetime, so things can be cheaper and more powerful.) Neither of these is going to go away. Even if there are some really powerful laptops out there now, there'll be some even more powerful desktops coming up soon.
That said, there's no reason why laptops can't replace desktops for many kinds of people today. I haven't had a desktop in 3 1/2 years -- nothing new there.
I think you're probably not doing ACLU justice here: You don't have to agree with a position for not wanting it to be censored. I'm completely anti-gun, but censoring pro-gun sites strikes me as really wrong. What was that thing about, I'll fight to death for your right to tell these utter lies?
While I agree this is "absolutely appaling," re "Notice that the blacked out text is always negative, where positive text is left in:"
Even complimentary conclusions were deleted, like one that said "attorneys across demographic groups believe that the Department is a good place to work" and another that said "private industry cites DOJ as a trend-setter for diversity." Beyond that, a recommendation that the department should "increase public visibility of diversity issues," was kept out of the public report.
That's exactly the point. While proprietary software may be better that free software in some cases, tying yourself to proprietary software is not wise.
I agree with most you say, but want to point out one thing. Another poster has said that call centers don't buy retail long distance, but even if they did...
I don't know about Bermuda, but cheapest retail long distance from Germany to the US is 2.3 (euro)cents. Ok, let's assume that one has technical problems, so we'll take one of the 2.5 cent ones. For an hour of continuous calling that's 1.5 Euro (or 1.77 USD). I bet that's cheaper than what they pay to their employee (if the call is coming from Germany).
Long distance charges aren't what they used to be. (Fortunately.)
That's exactly right. In particular, just because it's your computer, doesn't mean that you may delete any "secret" files that SunnComm has installed on your computer, because while the computer is your property, their files on your computer are their property, and if you delete them then you are a "hacker."
(It's them calling the in-memory copy(?) of their drivers "files," btw, not me.)
Everybody is quoting the "cover of academia" line, but I think this one's much better::-)
SunnComm is taking a stand here because we believe that those who own property, whether physical or digital, have the ultimate authority over how their property is used. Owning copying technology is not an unconditional 'free pass' to replicate or distribute protected work.
So, just because you own your computer doesn't mean that you may copy your CDs with it, 'cuz the owner of any property-- physical or digital-- should have the ultimate authority over how ther property is used. Ain't that most beautifully self-contradictory?
This is exactly the problem with the directive to begin with. What exactly is the point of "legalizing software patents" if software itself cannot be patented?
Hm, do you realize that the directive is not about legalizing software patents?
It claims to clarify how the law should be interpreted; it is very clear on that it does not make anything legal that wasn't legal before, and nothing illegal that wasn't illegal before. (The EU isn't allowed to do so, in this case, different treaty.) The problem, of course, is that you can "clarify" the law into so many different meanings;-)
E.g., I do hope that Amendment 11 by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (to Article 2(b)) goes through:
The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes.
Source. (Only "technical contributions" are patentable.)
Companies making their corporate standard browser a free browser and getting a tax write-off by supporting the browser will be prevalent, I think.
Not as prevalent as companies simply using Mozilla and paying zero, however.
Well, yeah-- that's Free Software for you. It's always the majority that does not pay for any particular product. As long as there is someone paying, the projects don't go into financial trouble either.
(And enough projects survive without anybody paying, of course.)
'This could be a big money-making operation for someone who wants to develop it,' and 'The patent shows someone who has knowledge of the A.I. field how to make the invention.'
In other news, I have applied for a patent on next-generation processors, game consoles, set-top boxes, and cell phone services. It shows someone who has knowledge of the relevant fields how to make the invention. This could be a big money-maker. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge of these fields myself, so I cannot make the invention myself, but I'll license it to anybody under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
A common fallacy, but both Open Source and Free software *depend* on intellectual property rights.
Without it there would be no reason to agree to the OS or Free license terms (you could just ignore them and do what you like) and therefore no onus to put back into the pool any improvements etc you might make.
If there were no IPR (and thus no copyright), all source code anybody publishes could be used approximately as if it was published under a BSD license today.
It would always be possible to publish only binaries, but it would not be possible to restrict distribution of these licenses. (It would also be allowed to re-engineer the binaries.)
So while we couldn't have the protection that the GPL offers today, we would have BSD-like Free Software (you don't deny that the BSDs are FS/OSS?) plus the right to re-distribute, change or disassemble any binaries anybody might publish.
Moreover, the system is flexible. By adding characters, NACs can also represent a point in, around or above the earth, using the centre of the earth as a reference point. This is handy for pinpointing areas underground for mining companies, or in space for orbiting satellites.
By projecting the area that is one square meter on the surface of the Earth, or what?
I can just imagine. "Excuse me, your company had a package with technical looking stuff delivered to my lawn, what's that about please?" "Give me your universal address? -- Whoops, that was supposed to be delivered to a sattelite that was passing over your home. Mind if we send someone to pick it up this evening?
That's, in case you can comprehend these numbers, 1.67*10^-25. Now, the radius of this bugger will be that times 1.48*10^-27. Yeah. That's FREAKING TINY. 2.47*10^-52 tiny.
Don't scientists use units there, or did you just figure out at 10^-52 it simply doesn't make a big difference whether it was from a meter, kilometer, or millimeter?;-)
- Where do we draw the line between human and (for lack of a better word) robot? Nanotech, implants, and genetic mods are all coming to meet at a common point, and that point is SOON!
And has been for just how many decades?
Ok, so the article you point to is still relatively recent-- 2000. But the prediction is far older than that.
I'd say go for the killing intelligent robots thing:-)
That does not work with screen. screen does not support two terminals with the same display, and it intentionally does not allow you to do that. When two terminals try to show the same screen, you'll get this error message (as an example): [snip]
Try again. Open one xterm, type 'screen', open another xterm, type 'screen -x'.
I've done this-- with emacs and screen. You set up a shared account on a computer and run screen on it; two or more people attach to the same screen (that's 'screen -x' for the second and following people). We had two screens running, one for editing and one for compiling. In addition to that, we've communicated through an IRC window.
It works. One of the surprising results was that you don't actually need to 'pass the keyboard' explicitly: you wait for the other person to stop typing, a bit like you wait for someone to stop talking. If the rare case that you both start to type at the same moment, it still works out usually. The funny part is that you can see each other's typos in real time. It's a bit eery but fun to show around.:-)
We've speculated that using this with VoIP would make it even better, but it worked out pretty well. The shared account was in Finland, by the way; I logged in from Germany and it was still fast enough for interactive typing (ping between 50ms and 100ms).
I daresay it's not the same as face-to-face pair programming, but it's still pretty cool. And the morale is: Don't wait for Hydra! Use Unix tools today!
(We have not yet, I should note, found a way to make this work for collaboration between an emacs and a vi person-- that's a topic for future research...:-) )
[A]ll 295 pages of Yank's new release are of value to me on a daily basis.
Goodness. You must spend a significant amount of your work time every day reading through them, right?
Free Software Proposal
on
BSA IDC FUD
·
· Score: 5, Funny
In the light of these amazing and insightful numbers, I propose that governments all over the world take immediate measures to combat privacy and foster the development and distribution of Free Software. After all, Free Software attacks piracy at its root: Free Software cannot be pirated per definitionem!
These numbers make it clear that countries investing in Free Software will have a clear competitive advantage when it comes to their IT sectors.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a real problem for real people. Care to explain what is so strange about it?
Although I find it surprising that they would emphasize the self-labeling aspect so much and the problem of others' reactions so little, at least in the quoted excerpt. When you risk violence or verbal abuse because of being "in the wrong bathroom," that's an even bigger problem than having to label yourself "woman" or "man." Better Than Choclate has a scene illustrating that very well. Maybe it's not so much of a problem in a University setting. One would hope...
Come on, there are two reasons to prefer a desktop over a laptop. First, ergonomics: some people just prefer to have a big keyboard and a big monitor and being able to move the two independently of each other. Second, hardware capabilities-- you can fit more into a desktop, and you can upgrade it easily. (Oh, and you don't need to optimize for size or battery lifetime, so things can be cheaper and more powerful.) Neither of these is going to go away. Even if there are some really powerful laptops out there now, there'll be some even more powerful desktops coming up soon.
That said, there's no reason why laptops can't replace desktops for many kinds of people today. I haven't had a desktop in 3 1/2 years -- nothing new there.
I think you're probably not doing ACLU justice here: You don't have to agree with a position for not wanting it to be censored. I'm completely anti-gun, but censoring pro-gun sites strikes me as really wrong. What was that thing about, I'll fight to death for your right to tell these utter lies?
While I agree this is "absolutely appaling," re "Notice that the blacked out text is always negative, where positive text is left in:"
(from the article)
That's exactly the point. While proprietary software may be better that free software in some cases, tying yourself to proprietary software is not wise.
I agree with most you say, but want to point out one thing. Another poster has said that call centers don't buy retail long distance, but even if they did...
I don't know about Bermuda, but cheapest retail long distance from Germany to the US is 2.3 (euro)cents. Ok, let's assume that one has technical problems, so we'll take one of the 2.5 cent ones. For an hour of continuous calling that's 1.5 Euro (or 1.77 USD). I bet that's cheaper than what they pay to their employee (if the call is coming from Germany).
Long distance charges aren't what they used to be. (Fortunately.)
That's exactly right. In particular, just because it's your computer, doesn't mean that you may delete any "secret" files that SunnComm has installed on your computer, because while the computer is your property, their files on your computer are their property, and if you delete them then you are a "hacker."
(It's them calling the in-memory copy(?) of their drivers "files," btw, not me.)
Everybody is quoting the "cover of academia" line, but I think this one's much better: :-)
So, just because you own your computer doesn't mean that you may copy your CDs with it, 'cuz the owner of any property-- physical or digital-- should have the ultimate authority over how ther property is used. Ain't that most beautifully self-contradictory?
Is that part of the ongoing process of making Linux boot faster? :-)
Hm, do you realize that the directive is not about legalizing software patents?
It claims to clarify how the law should be interpreted; it is very clear on that it does not make anything legal that wasn't legal before, and nothing illegal that wasn't illegal before. (The EU isn't allowed to do so, in this case, different treaty.) The problem, of course, is that you can "clarify" the law into so many different meanings ;-)
E.g., I do hope that Amendment 11 by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (to Article 2(b)) goes through:
Source. (Only "technical contributions" are patentable.)
Like my pizza place. I've discussed it with them time and again, but they won't deliver to my PO box.
Well, yeah-- that's Free Software for you. It's always the majority that does not pay for any particular product. As long as there is someone paying, the projects don't go into financial trouble either.
(And enough projects survive without anybody paying, of course.)
In other news, I have applied for a patent on next-generation processors, game consoles, set-top boxes, and cell phone services. It shows someone who has knowledge of the relevant fields how to make the invention. This could be a big money-maker. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge of these fields myself, so I cannot make the invention myself, but I'll license it to anybody under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
Fortunately, the other 9% were not planning to adopt Linux before SCO's suit. ;-)
If there were no IPR (and thus no copyright), all source code anybody publishes could be used approximately as if it was published under a BSD license today.
It would always be possible to publish only binaries, but it would not be possible to restrict distribution of these licenses. (It would also be allowed to re-engineer the binaries.)
So while we couldn't have the protection that the GPL offers today, we would have BSD-like Free Software (you don't deny that the BSDs are FS/OSS?) plus the right to re-distribute, change or disassemble any binaries anybody might publish.
By projecting the area that is one square meter on the surface of the Earth, or what?
I can just imagine. "Excuse me, your company had a package with technical looking stuff delivered to my lawn, what's that about please?" "Give me your universal address? -- Whoops, that was supposed to be delivered to a sattelite that was passing over your home. Mind if we send someone to pick it up this evening?
Hi,
That's, in case you can comprehend these numbers, 1.67*10^-25. Now, the radius of this bugger will be that times 1.48*10^-27. Yeah. That's FREAKING TINY. 2.47*10^-52 tiny.
Don't scientists use units there, or did you just figure out at 10^-52 it simply doesn't make a big difference whether it was from a meter, kilometer, or millimeter? ;-)
Did I... get that right? They found 90% of the Universe in a Yorkshire mine of all places?
Damn... oughta've RTFA...
And has been for just how many decades?
Ok, so the article you point to is still relatively recent-- 2000. But the prediction is far older than that.
I'd say go for the killing intelligent robots thing :-)
1. Buy former Steam Heat Authority
2. Create a state-of-the-art fiber optic network using the steam pipes
3. ???
4. Profit!
At least the article doesn't really say more than that.
Try again. Open one xterm, type 'screen', open another xterm, type 'screen -x'.
Well, guess you're a troll anyway... sigh.
It works. One of the surprising results was that you don't actually need to 'pass the keyboard' explicitly: you wait for the other person to stop typing, a bit like you wait for someone to stop talking. If the rare case that you both start to type at the same moment, it still works out usually. The funny part is that you can see each other's typos in real time. It's a bit eery but fun to show around. :-)
We've speculated that using this with VoIP would make it even better, but it worked out pretty well. The shared account was in Finland, by the way; I logged in from Germany and it was still fast enough for interactive typing (ping between 50ms and 100ms).
I daresay it's not the same as face-to-face pair programming, but it's still pretty cool. And the morale is: Don't wait for Hydra! Use Unix tools today!
(We have not yet, I should note, found a way to make this work for collaboration between an emacs and a vi person-- that's a topic for future research... :-) )
Goodness. You must spend a significant amount of your work time every day reading through them, right?
These numbers make it clear that countries investing in Free Software will have a clear competitive advantage when it comes to their IT sectors.
Bad IT field programmers! You think the term 'engineer' to be synonymous with the term 'engineer!' It may be homonymous, but synonymous it is not!
(Um, eh?)