I though irony was like rain on your wedding day, like a free ride that you've already paid, like the good advice that you just didn't take. Who would've thought...it figures?
Ah finally we've narrowed it down to one and the same paragraph. Where you an I disagree is on whether this is an inviting and open way to present scientific results. I believe it is not, while you think it is.
Judging from the 2/3 email you get, you are probably right and I'm wrong.
Please accept my appologies, I wish you all the best, you're doing a great job. For what it's worth, I hereby grant access to my contributions to this discussion if ever you feel the need to pursuade your sources to make their results more accessible in order to leverage their credibility in the scientific world.
(I was almost tempted to ask for a copy of the 8 pages of patented mathematical proof on marketing vs. user behaviour. Whoa!. But I guess I'd rather remain clueless:-)
It is obvious to me that you have not read the article this discussion forum is about. If you had you would have seen that I clearly indicated that I was not the author of the research paper, but merely a journalist reporting the research.
Now we're getting somewhere;-) Forgive me for finding the word "author" confusing in this context. The story was posted on/. by ScuttleMonkey, the story was submited by a guy named Serge Murray and the linked article mentions a writer called Brandt Dainow. Thats 3 middle men. Then there are the two researchers that broke the news are Magdalena Urbanska and Thomas Urbanski, who could easily qualify as "the author".
As my focus was on the article's contents, I did not notice your username coincides with that of the company mentioned. iMedia didn't ring a bell, and neither did Think Metric or insite. Forgive me.
Now on the subject, please explain again why the article mentions that the paper is available, but not how it can be obtained? On the one hand, you suggest that this is important information the world should know about, or at least, may find interesting. On the other hand, it appears that the paper cannot be obtained easily because you decided to refer to a publisher that sits on its copyright.
To encourage people to spread the news about this revelation in online marketing techniques, you could have: - linked to esomar - linked to arf - published an email/snail mail/phone address That would have enabled me to query, order, purchase, whatever the paper. I'm not saying I would have bothered, but at least it would have been inviting. And since I suspect you *HAVE* read the paper, you already know where to obtain it, so what's the trouble?
As a sincere, open question I'd like to ask you: do you believe Open Source can (or cannot) coexist or even cooperate with DRMed media?
My answer is no. DRMed media require trusted players which require a trusted os which requires trusted hardware. Any change to this chain would render it untrusted. Therefore, the whole open development cycle is fundamentally incompatible with protected hardware.
The only possible coexistence is for firmware to have a mode that allows running untrusted software in a sandbox. Since this is a potential entry into the firmware and since it doesn't enable access to DRMed media, the sandbox will become smaller and smaller or vanish in oblivion.
Summary: market acceptance of DRM will kill FOSS (and ultimately all but multi million corp. software development).
Hmm. OK. I feel sorry for you. I understand that it may not be as easy for you as it is for others to make a stand against those kind of "intelectual property" policies.
Personally, I'm glad that copyrights of my scientific work have either remained with me exclusively or have allowed me to disclose full pdfs. (I'm convinced the old-fashioned scientific publishing business model is dying anyway. Except for brand recognition, what do institutions, conferences, publishers, journals add to the distribution of knowledge? How many scientists make a living from their publications?)
IMHO, you should at least be able to publish an abstract and a list of cited references.
That still doesn't provide much info. Of course it's under copyright, anything written (that isn't infringing itself) is under copyright. That doesn't imply being secretive about it.
I'm tempted to agree with the grand-parent poster. Although it may not be a hoax, it's surely *sad*. This proves that although sources that are untraceble by google may not be a hoax; they sure as hell have little value.
I mean: Come on, "The Author"-guy, isn't openness sort of prerequisite to scientific innovation?
Re:Efficient,reliable,cheap - chose any 2 :-)
on
NASA's Shuttle Plans
·
· Score: 1
Now I am all for private companies spending their money to get into space but NASA spend 10 mil on the X prize and as far as I can see they got nothing out of it.
Wasn't the 10 mil for the Ansari X prize raised by a private entity -- namely, the Ansari family?
I think your argument still stands: If a company *REALLY* lost 5% of its EBITA for each major virus, your would expect that company to use that figure in their bookkeeping. Right?!?
So does anyone have a clue why their's no mention of virus related loss in any financial report?!?
I'm very impressed by Concept Programming & XL. It appears to capture many ideas I have had about benefits and shortcomings of pattern matching, functional programming and object orientation.
Could anyone point me to papers/books or PDF resources about this topic?
Wow. SCO has finally decided to take their arduous taks as role-model evil company seriously. Mr. Balmer, mr. Gates, please look closely because you might learn something. </SARCASM> -- Nothing is illegal if one hundred businessmen decide to do it -- Andrew Young
Today in fact, we had to hack our way into Microsoft's patch and a third party library because M$s latest patch broke our software, and the third party refused to fix a bug in a four year old - and therefore unsupported - version of their software.
If only their newer versions would have been near stable, we would have upgraded years ago. Closed software - sigh.
Defects are easier to find in a concrete product than in a conceptual design. Also, many bugs will be introduced in later stages. Therefore, even a full proof design may evolve into a buggy implementation. So surely: there is a trade-off between looking for "bugs" too early and fixing bugs too late.
Nevertheless a trainer is correct in stressing the golden think-before-you-code rule - especially when instructing unexperienced coders.
-- Every program has two purposes -- one for which it was written and another for which it wasn't.
That is very improbable, since the laser fires at the speed of light while a Humvee is... well... much slower. It's just a simple case of new technology beating old technology....Or are you implying that human error can cause deaths as well?!?
-- (The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in: we're computer professionals, we cause accidents -- Nathaniel Borenstein)
Sigh. IMHO the Eolas vs M$ case proves once and for all that (software) patents -- used with good or bad intentions -- frustrate rather than further innovation.
-- Nothing is illegal if one hundred businessmen decide to do it -- Andrew Young
Slashdot Mirror
WTF?
I though irony was like rain on your wedding day, like a free ride that you've already paid, like the good advice that you just didn't take. Who would've thought...it figures?
I fear the coming of the Great Handkerchief!
Ah finally we've narrowed it down to one and the same paragraph. Where you an I disagree is on whether this is an inviting and open way to present scientific results. I believe it is not, while you think it is.
:-)
Judging from the 2/3 email you get, you are probably right and I'm wrong.
Please accept my appologies, I wish you all the best, you're doing a great job. For what it's worth, I hereby grant access to my contributions to this discussion if ever you feel the need to pursuade your sources to make their results more accessible in order to leverage their credibility in the scientific world.
(I was almost tempted to ask for a copy of the 8 pages of patented mathematical proof on marketing vs. user behaviour. Whoa!. But I guess I'd rather remain clueless
Sorry for being so childish, I'll stop
It is obvious to me that you have not read the article this discussion forum is about. If you had you would have seen that I clearly indicated that I was not the author of the research paper, but merely a journalist reporting the research.
;-) /. by ScuttleMonkey, the story was submited by a guy named Serge Murray and the linked article mentions a writer called Brandt Dainow. Thats 3 middle men. Then there are the two researchers that broke the news are Magdalena Urbanska and Thomas Urbanski, who could easily qualify as "the author".
Now we're getting somewhere
Forgive me for finding the word "author" confusing in this context. The story was posted on
As my focus was on the article's contents, I did not notice your username coincides with that of the company mentioned. iMedia didn't ring a bell, and neither did Think Metric or insite. Forgive me.
Now on the subject, please explain again why the article mentions that the paper is available, but not how it can be obtained? On the one hand, you suggest that this is important information the world should know about, or at least, may find interesting. On the other hand, it appears that the paper cannot be obtained easily because you decided to refer to a publisher that sits on its copyright.
To encourage people to spread the news about this revelation in online marketing techniques, you could have:
- linked to esomar
- linked to arf
- published an email/snail mail/phone address
That would have enabled me to query, order, purchase, whatever the paper. I'm not saying I would have bothered, but at least it would have been inviting. And since I suspect you *HAVE* read the paper, you already know where to obtain it, so what's the trouble?
As a sincere, open question I'd like to ask you: do you believe Open Source can (or cannot) coexist or even cooperate with DRMed media?
My answer is no. DRMed media require trusted players which require a trusted os which requires trusted hardware. Any change to this chain would render it untrusted. Therefore, the whole open development cycle is fundamentally incompatible with protected hardware.
The only possible coexistence is for firmware to have a mode that allows running untrusted software in a sandbox. Since this is a potential entry into the firmware and since it doesn't enable access to DRMed media, the sandbox will become smaller and smaller or vanish in oblivion.
Summary: market acceptance of DRM will kill FOSS (and ultimately all but multi million corp. software development).
Hmm. OK. I feel sorry for you. I understand that it may not be as easy for you as it is for others to make a stand against those kind of "intelectual property" policies.
Personally, I'm glad that copyrights of my scientific work have either remained with me exclusively or have allowed me to disclose full pdfs. (I'm convinced the old-fashioned scientific publishing business model is dying anyway. Except for brand recognition, what do institutions, conferences, publishers, journals add to the distribution of knowledge? How many scientists make a living from their publications?)
IMHO, you should at least be able to publish an abstract and a list of cited references.
That still doesn't provide much info. Of course it's under copyright, anything written (that isn't infringing itself) is under copyright. That doesn't imply being secretive about it.
I'm tempted to agree with the grand-parent poster. Although it may not be a hoax, it's surely *sad*. This proves that although sources that are untraceble by google may not be a hoax; they sure as hell have little value.
I mean: Come on, "The Author"-guy, isn't openness sort of prerequisite to scientific innovation?
Now I am all for private companies spending their money to get into space but NASA spend 10 mil on the X prize and as far as I can see they got nothing out of it.
Wasn't the 10 mil for the Ansari X prize raised by a private entity -- namely, the Ansari family?
I think your argument still stands: If a company *REALLY* lost 5% of its EBITA for each major virus, your would expect that company to use that figure in their bookkeeping. Right?!?
So does anyone have a clue why their's no mention of virus related loss in any financial report?!?
Yeah right. Why would anyone want to buy stuff to cook his own meal, if you can go to McDonald's?
The fun't in creating something, not using it.
--
Finagle's First Law: If an experiment works, something has gone wrong
No problem: Just backup the internet!
Geee. how many times do I have to tell people to just make backups.
--
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death -- G.W. Bush
I'm very impressed by Concept Programming & XL. It appears to capture many ideas I have had about benefits and shortcomings of pattern matching, functional programming and object orientation.
Could anyone point me to papers/books or PDF resources about this topic?
...But if they loose there probably won't be anything left to sue
> But what if there's no take over, and SCO doesn't win the trial?
SCO will sue the shit out of their lawyers!
They'll probably get sued by SCO for loosing their case ;-)
--
If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others -- the Dalai Lama
I guess a tunnel will shield signals to and from a satelite, right?!
--
Paranoia:
Who messed with my anti-paranoia shot?!?
Wow. SCO has finally decided to take their arduous taks as role-model evil company seriously. Mr. Balmer, mr. Gates, please look closely because you might learn something.
</SARCASM>
--
Nothing is illegal if one hundred businessmen decide to do it -- Andrew Young
Ah - but that was with shields down...
--
Finagle's First Law: If an experiment works, something has gone wrong
Europe? mp3s4free.com's in Europe?
Ah well.. Hereby Europe welcomes all yanks to its capital Australia (which also happens to be the largest city of both Sidney and Melbourne.)
--
The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously
Anyone having thoughts on Microsoft being interested in emulation/virtualization of their OS and their current moves toward digital rights management?
Coincidence?
Yet another one of Balmer's tricks to "outsmart" the open source competition?
--
Good marketing beats good engineering!
Today in fact, we had to hack our way into Microsoft's patch and a third party library because M$s latest patch broke our software, and the third party refused to fix a bug in a four year old - and therefore unsupported - version of their software.
If only their newer versions would have been near stable, we would have upgraded years ago. Closed software - sigh.
IMHO the JFDI methodology probably doesn't work very well for large projects (50 people * 2 years).
But then again, what methodology does work for those cases?
--
Real computer scientists don't program in assembler. They don't write in anything less portable than a number two pencil.
Defects are easier to find in a concrete product than in a conceptual design. Also, many bugs will be introduced in later stages. Therefore, even a full proof design may evolve into a buggy implementation. So surely: there is a trade-off between looking for "bugs" too early and fixing bugs too late.
Nevertheless a trainer is correct in stressing the golden think-before-you-code rule - especially when instructing unexperienced coders.
--
Every program has two purposes -- one for which it was written and another for which it wasn't.
That is very improbable, since the laser fires at the speed of light while a Humvee is ... well ... much slower. It's just a simple case of new technology beating old technology. ...Or are you implying that human error can cause deaths as well?!?
--
(The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in: we're computer professionals, we cause accidents -- Nathaniel Borenstein)
Sigh.
IMHO the Eolas vs M$ case proves once and for all that (software) patents -- used with good or bad intentions -- frustrate rather than further innovation.
--
Nothing is illegal if one hundred businessmen decide to do it -- Andrew Young