If SCO wins the legal battle, I can see many free software activists saying, "see, I told you so!" If that were to transpire, what, if anything, do you foresee changing in the open source world, and will you lean more toward the free software activists, particularly with regard to keeping sources clean of proprietary code?
1. Most large metropolitan airports are in or near areas where these 'softwalls' would be deployed. Take a look at the restrictions placed on takeoff and landings from Washington International (you basically have to fly down the Patomac River and make a hard left on short final to avoid restricted airspace over the White House and Congress. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want an autopilot to take control of the aircraft on short final if it didn't like my flight path. On takeoff - from the south - you have to similarly make a hard left turn barely wheels-up).
Putting this into effect would leave very little leeway for situations where the aircraft can not meet the minimum flight parameters (climb rate not up to snuff due to engine failure, damage to a control surface that prevents a turn at the proper rate to miss the restricted area, etc...) What was an emergency will become a disaster if control is removed from the pilot.
2. Legally a pilot is responsible for the safety of the flight. Many times the cause of accidents can be traced to pilot error. With this system in place, every accident near a restricted zone would raise questions - to what degree did the pilot and the autopilot contribute to the accident? This would be a legal can of worms (the cost of which would be born by the traveling public).
3. Who would certify that these systems are infallable without pilot control? If a pilot can not 'hack' the system - i.e. turn it off, then it had better be perfectly safe, as per FAA standards for other avionics. Avionics and flight instruments are designed to allow redundancy in the form of multiple backup systems - if one breaks, the pilot is trained to use backup systems to correlate the data lost from the main indicator. Unfortunately, since a pilot is prohibited from interacting with this system - how would we be 100% sure that the system would function under all conditions?
History has shown too many times that misapprehension of a technology's limitations often leads to disaster - the Titanic comes to mind. Until we can certify that a computer can function with uncertain and incomplete information effectively under all conditions (currently humans are the only ones that can do this satisfactorily), then I would not want to stake my life on this technology.
I am both a pilot and a software developer, having the hubris to think I have insight into this problem.
As long as you keep your private key secure, others can download files encrypted by you and be sure the data is authentic.
I haven't played with the public key registries - but it would seem that it should be set up so that when you create an entry in the database, it would only allow someone who can authenticate as you (i.e. you generate a digital signature to login) to change your public key (this would elimenate identity theft).
Fiscal prudence does not abrogate moral responsibility.
It is just as important how you make your money, as making the money. If you get your revenue numbers by lieing, stealing and cheating, then you are no better than a blackmailer, burglar, or con-artist - and these folks usually end up in jail...
The thing that really burns my hide is that these people are held up as heros and icons for our young people to emulate. I can't see how anyone can do that with a straight face (unless, of course, the morality that they espouse during the day - is in fact a lie, and they agree whole heartedly with 'doing anything for a buck').
"Johnny, I want you to grow up to lie, steal, cheat and make millions of dollars as a result - that is my dream for you, my boy!"
Hypocricy breeds contempt...
Re:Denial is the 3rd stage of the psychosis
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 1
I also have issues with someone who says a dos command shell is better than any unix shell (csh, ksh, bash, sh, etc...).
Now OS2 did have ReX - which may be what our friend is talking about - a neat scripting language built into OS2 (one of the reasons I was considering moving to it). However lack of such basic things as history and string replacement in a shell makes it tedious - regardless of how fast you can touch type.
OS2 is what windows should have been...
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
OS2 is what windows should have been. In fact, for a time Microsoft was in partnership with IBM on the project until they decided to go their seperate ways - conspiracy theories aside.
Unfortunately, while OS2 was a more stable system and an all-around better implementation, Microsoft won the war of the desktop through pretty graphics and flashy advertising.
Before Linux came along I was considering Warp on my desktop; now I'm running Slackware and loving it.
The number one thing about Linux, that I think will keep it alive - and on alot more desktops than anyone really perceives is the fact that it can breath life into older machines, unlike Microsoft offerings which invariably use more memory and require more CPU cycles to run effectively.
Case in point: My network:
P120 with 3 hard drives - file server running Redhat. P300 - Wife's desktop - running Slackware P 1.4Ghz - My desktop - running Slackware p500 - Daughter's desktop - running Redhat p250 - Daughter's 2nd desktop - running Windows (until I can get soundcard working on her p500 - then it becomes part of my growing Beowulf cluster...muhahaha!).
I read through all of the articles (there is a box to the right of the article with links to the rest of the topics with which he spoke), and found this gem from his talk about Longhorn (XP successor OS):
"If I said to somebody today how on your PC do you keep track of stocks, movies, music, restaurants, you can do it, but it's pretty painful, pretty manual. The system doesn't have this innate understanding of all the things you deal with in typical life. You go and get directions on the computer, you get this funny Web page, and you probably just print the thing out. The idea of storing that, having it when you're offline -- anyway a lot of these things are still pretty complex. So Longhorn is a change of the user interface to unify a lot of things that have been disparate[my emphasis]. But it's a huge project. It's a very ambitious piece of work." - Bill Gates
Aside from the 'funny web page' comment, which I found mildly humorous, his admission of what the next Windows OS will attempt was enlightening - if not frightening.
I find it particularly interesting that Microsoft is again intertwining new information technologies with the operating system itself. To me, it looks like a replay of the Web Browser fiasco (where Internet Explorer was tied closely to Windows to elbow out the competition).
Do fuel cells produce gases? Even if they don't under normal circumstances, is it possible for a defective one to produce gases?
The reason I ask is - a small leak, and a spark, and you've got more to worry about than spilling the expresso on the keyboard.
Until its proven (and I don't see people combusting at the local Starbucks), I will have a fallback plan:
1. Get one of those heavy duty backup storage batteries used to jumpstart automobiles (these have 'cigarette lighter' style female plugs on them). 2. Get a rectifier to change the 12 Volt DC to 120 Volt AC - they come for automobiles with the cigarette lighter style male plugs. 3. When the laptop starts to die, pull out the backup power source: connect battery to rectifier and plug laptop into rectifier 120 Volt AC outlets - just like being at home, without all the yelling (you could even hide this setup in a backpack - unless, of course, you wanted to use the handy dandy 'jumper cable' attachments for crowd control(tm)).
Lets slip in a caveat, shall we? Microsoft will run right under other systems - until they find out about it, then all bets are off. That is why they changed the file formats - to thwart conversion programs - not because of any ineptitude on the part of Microsoft employees (I guarantee you if Bill said, "make an open source OS that is bug free", it would be done - but that does not make money - and hence is 'bad' in Bill's world view).
That is the key point behind all of this: Microsoft is morally bankrupt. The company will do whatever it can to ensure total domination. Any words to the contrary are just so much balderdash.
If you still aren't convinced, here are some examples that may shed light on this problem:
Sincerity: Programmer extends a recognized standard for the benefit of everyone; his enhancement is completely backwards compatible with the existing standard.
Insincerity: Microsoft extends a recognized standard, saying its for the benefit of everyone. Then they change their applications to not use the standard correctly - or use loopholes in the standard to prevent other applications from running with the new standard on machines running Microsoft software.
Sincerity: Open Source, and GNU allow users to view and modify the source code of all applications.
Insincerity: Microsoft creates hope in the development community by announcing its shared source initiative. Unfortunately, it limits what is shared, what is not, and by whom.
To put it even more simply: "Don't mind that man behind the curtain..." - The Wizard of OZ. His name is probably Bill Gates.
My PHB doesn't have an ivory tower. However, he does have a door, unlike the rest of us prairie dogs in the cube farm...
There is only one thing I would love to enforce: doors for anyone doing anything more brain bending than tieing your shoe.
Of the 9 hours I am at work, aside from the hour for lunch, I probably get 40% of my time stolen by outside interruptions not directly related to my job.
This would boost productivity to amazing levels. Of course, the middle managers wouldn't be able to wander around and check up on everyone, thus losing the justification for their existence.
Whoever got the bright idea that cube farms were more productive than regular offices should be shot.
Human dignity would also be improved, not to mention I wouldn't have to look at some of the more charisma challenged individuals who grace my location.
I was going to make the point about the Berne Convention as well; American copyright law follows that. Aparently there is also a 'Portugal' agreement as well...
The point is, copyright law is uniform now, so the sections I quoted are very probably applicable.
The issue is, ancient folklore is in the public domain, but the Harry Potter and Tolkien series are not in the public domain. Considering the ongoing extensions to copyright laws that have been going on over the past century, and more notably with the 'Sonny Bono' law in recent years, these works may never become public domain anyway.
Copyright is a legal monopoly, plain and simple (as are patents, as well). Copyright law as set down by the U.S. Government states, among other things:
102 states: (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
So, you can't copyright an idea (that is what patents are for) - just a 'work' which may contain many ideas, procedures, processes etc... A foot in the door for the the flying double bass.
103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works, states: (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
This is a slippery one to understand. Basically, I think this means a derivative work can fall under copyright...(maybe a lawyer could comment on this one?)
106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity, states: (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. - Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art -
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right -
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
(Section 113(d) deals with destruction of works of art on buildings - responsibilities for builders, and limitations on what an artist can demand)
So, I would imagine JK Rowling and/or her publisher are going after these derivative works under 106A subsection (A).
In the begining there was anarchy, and it was good - all of the flourishing forms of the arts and sciences grew quickly in rich soil. Then, in the last half of the 20th century there came about agressive patent and copyright laws - extending ownership of ideas indefinitely. In the 21st century large corporations that had grown rich from the unfettered control of the ideas, began a campaign to erradicate those that would build derivative works, and those that would use protected works for 'fair use' purposes. This largely came about because of falling profit margins as a result of the economic downturn known in the history books as the 'dot-com bust'. Every penny needed to be squeezed from existing works to pay corporate dividends promised by the CEOs, in addition to lining the pockets of the CEOs themselves - in the event of layoff or failure of the business of course - heaven forbid [the CEO take responsibility for his/her actions].
In the first quarter of the 21st century innovation died, although the average person did not see it at first, behind the rhetoric of the megacorporations, who claimed that each new product they put out - and, of course, patented and controlled - was innovation itself. People finally came to the conclusion that they were being fed expensive dog food, when what they really wanted was filet mignon. Real competition died.
In the aftermath of the death of small businesses and entrepreneurs, people were stunned. They had no choices left. There was only one computer, running one operating system. One restaurant, with one menu. One store for all your needs. Prices rose. At some point the 'unwashed masses' were not able to afford the basic things the rest of us took for granted (however expensive and shoddily manufactured) - and began to riot.
Martial law was enacted by President Bush during his fourth term in office (term limitations having been removed and the 'President for Life' amendment having passed Congress with a narrow margin) in response to the rioting. The cities burned. Travel restrictions were imposed from outside nations in fear of the anarchy spreading - unfortunately, this did not work and similar riots sprang up all over the world. Fearing that the nuclear option was the only option left, the President was whisked away to his waiting flying command post. The 'cleansing' took place on the 4th day of August 2015. Small neutron bombs were deployed on all major city centers; colateral damage was unavoidable. "You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette", the Vice President said from his underground bunker in Maryland.
'Cleaning Day' (established as a holiday in later years) lead to the destabilization of the Bush presidency, and a military junta, composed of Palestinian War veterans and top generals at the Pentagon was established. Bush lived in exile in Canada to his last days. Unfortunately, the United States of America was never able to recover from the devastation, and became a second rate nation. Brazil and Mexico became the leading nations from the west. Europe also suffered as a result of its close ties to America, and while the destruction was limited, the EU also descended into third world status. Turkey, Spain and Isreal became the defacto leaders in that part of the world. Australia and China became the new super powers - both still controlling nuclear weapons - but there is little conflict between them as they both have similar goals in the Orient. India and Pakistan are 'travel ban' zones as a result of the nuclear exchange between the two powers that layed waste to much of both countries while everyone's back was turned. Estimates are it will be 10,000 years before it is safe to begin decontamination efforts in New Delhi or Karachi.
Sitting at a cafe in Rio, sipping my expresso, surfing 'elslashdot.org' on my wearable, its a wonder we are here at all.
Work Smart...
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
People keep posting about 'working hard', when, in fact, they should be 'working smart'. By that I mean:
1. Work long hours initially to set up automation. 2. Let automation do the work. --- this is the working smart part 3. Browse Slashdot and react when the blinkin' lights go off. 4. Profit.
They pay me the big bucks to set up systems so that one person can do the work of 10. If they want me to 'look busy', I just pop open a perl script and point them to it, and ask, "do you know what that is? Do you know what that does?". That is usually when they leave...
Granted, I do spend periods during the year when I am working my butt off - but, once I get into an operational mode things quiet down.
Re:Management doesn't get overtime anyway...
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
edit my post above to read, "...all geeks and tech heads in my company work in management..."
Didn't mean to imply every geek works in management...
Management doesn't get overtime anyway...
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I work in 'management'. In fact all of the geeks and tech heads work in management. Who do I manage? Myself.
Why is this important? Because I don't get overtime at all, and haven't for the past 10 years. Last week I worked 4 days out of 5 0800 (8am) - 2300 (11pm). Will I get a dime more on my paycheck? No. Do I have the satisfaction of knowing that I helped get a major project up and running? Yep. Will I have a job at the end of the year? Probably.
Who is getting layed off in my company? Not 'management' (at least not the techy ones); we know too much, and are willing to work until our fingers bleed...tough luck if you can't keep up or don't have useful skills.
Just a fact of life. Of course I'm probably going to die before I'm 65 to a massive aneurism...
My corporate laptop is loaded with NT - and my desktop support won't upgrade the service pack - so no USB ports are useable on my machine...
If they would only let me load a real OS, like Slackware, then maybe I could get some real work done, instead of trying to get around the limitations of my box..
Looking at the list of witnesses who were 'for' and 'against' the bill in Texas, it is the cable companies, and the RIAA that are for it, and Telcos (and many other sane people) that are against it.
Both the cable companies and the telcos are ISPs. One of the reasons the cable companies are against it is that thier business model (and as a result their network architecture) is predicated on a per machine fee; NAT gets around this. When too many people get on the local loop (and that loop is quite large) their network sux hind tit.
Telcos, on the other hand, are selling the idea of using NAT on their DSL networks (one package I saw included a Blue-Tooth device to connect multiple machines to the net in the home).
Telcos got it right and engineered for large bandwidth operations - they will soon be offering full duplex DSL (if they don't already) with static IPs.
Cable companies will continue to piss off their customers - unless, of course, they can force everyone else to play by their rules - so everyone can be pissed off at them...
How I agregate my network behind my firewall is my business; if a provider wants to enforce the idea of a completely open (open as in unsecure) network, then I will take my business to a provider who values my desire for security and privacy.
This is a perfect example of the open source/GPL projects at work. Those that are viable survive, those that are not die - or fork a different design path that takes the project in new directions, many times against the wishes of the original designer.
Ideally, we want project transitions to be happy 'passing of the batton' affairs. Unfortunately, sometimes they are not as this story illustrates.
Perhaps the guy can't fly a real airplane; did anyone think of that?
His vision might not be correctable to within 20/20.
He may have a physical impairment that prevents him from flying (maybe a bad ticker).
He may live somewhere that is far away from the nearest airport that offers lessons.
Maybe the airports that do offer lessons don't fly the airplanes (gliders) that he wants to fly.
Maybe he has acrophobia.
Perhaps he doesn't have enough money to get a license - or fly as many hours as he wants even if he does. Aircraft rental is expensive - and I would hazzard a guess that the price has gone up since 911 - as well as the difficulty in getting approved in the first place.
Take two million monkeys and line them up at keyboards...
Eventually one of them will produce the works of Shakespeare.
Of course, the original work is still Shakespeare's regardless.
Now, given that SCO has stated that this is a 'contractual' issue - it is doubtful this will in any way effect the free linux community. Only companies with deep pockets will be worth their time (hence IBM).
Linus and crew will patch the sources (if there is any validity to SCO's claims) and we will move on.
Alot of people who read/. work in IT - and daresay some are managers in IT (such as myself), and as such we will not be taking our business to SCO anytime in the near future...
[ The funny thing is, I have SCO System Administration certificates on my wall from back in the day; we had machines running Unixware 1.1, and that is where it ended. Now we run a heterogenous network composed of Sun, Linux, and HP machines ]
That would be all well and good, if the standards were worth a damn. But they are not.
Most of the 'process' I have seen is stuck in a strict waterfall methodology/lifecycle that does not take into account reality. In reality there are very few jobs that can be completely spec'd out before hand. For those jobs, the pure waterfall lifecycle works well.
On the other hand, how many shops use the spiral model for those jobs that don't have clear specifications up front? Not many. Iterative design is not something I see in my dealings with large shops - and when I talk about it, most developers, team leads and project managers scratch thier heads.
While something may be pretty to look at/well documented, several questions come to mind:
Is it maintainable? (can you easily/flexibly change it as needed over time?)
Is it bug free? (meaning does all the specified functionality work as desired?)
Does it have legs (in other words - will the code stand the test of time, or be rewritten and deprecated in a month)?
The easier it is to maintain, the better quality (bug free), and the longevity of a system really defines its overall value. If I get a well documented POS that was built using the best process standards in the world - its still a POS. Quantity does not equate to quality....thinking of a quote about telling the difference between a silk purse, and a sow's ear...can't recall the words exactly...
I think the real issue is that the internet provides the opportunity for a real barter economy - I share something with you; you recipricate.
The amount of sharing going on on the net does not equal the drop off in record sales. The simple fact of the matter is that what is being produced today is not wanted (dare I say it sucks?), as much as they would like to shove it down our throats. Just because a record is released doesn't mean it should automatically make money (particularly if it sucks).
I urge anyone reading this to boycott the major record labels, and conversely start donating small amounts to independent OPEN SOURCE record labels - LIKE THIS ONE
If you are involved in music just to make money, then you are in it for the wrong reasons. Do us all a favor, and become a used car salesman...
Slashdot Mirror
If SCO wins the legal battle, I can see many free software activists saying, "see, I told you so!" If that were to transpire, what, if anything, do you foresee changing in the open source world, and will you lean more toward the free software activists, particularly with regard to keeping sources clean of proprietary code?
There are several reasons why this is a bad idea:
1. Most large metropolitan airports are in or near areas where these 'softwalls' would be deployed. Take a look at the restrictions placed on takeoff and landings from Washington International (you basically have to fly down the Patomac River and make a hard left on short final to avoid restricted airspace over the White House and Congress. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want an autopilot to take control of the aircraft on short final if it didn't like my flight path. On takeoff - from the south - you have to similarly make a hard left turn barely wheels-up).
Putting this into effect would leave very little leeway for situations where the aircraft can not meet the minimum flight parameters (climb rate not up to snuff due to engine failure, damage to a control surface that prevents a turn at the proper rate to miss the restricted area, etc...) What was an emergency will become a disaster if control is removed from the pilot.
2. Legally a pilot is responsible for the safety of the flight. Many times the cause of accidents can be traced to pilot error. With this system in place, every accident near a restricted zone would raise questions - to what degree did the pilot and the autopilot contribute to the accident? This would be a legal can of worms (the cost of which would be born by the traveling public).
3. Who would certify that these systems are infallable without pilot control? If a pilot can not 'hack' the system - i.e. turn it off, then it had better be perfectly safe, as per FAA standards for other avionics. Avionics and flight instruments are designed to allow redundancy in the form of multiple backup systems - if one breaks, the pilot is trained to use backup systems to correlate the data lost from the main indicator. Unfortunately, since a pilot is prohibited from interacting with this system - how would we be 100% sure that the system would function under all conditions?
History has shown too many times that misapprehension of a technology's limitations often leads to disaster - the Titanic comes to mind. Until we can certify that a computer can function with uncertain and incomplete information effectively under all conditions (currently humans are the only ones that can do this satisfactorily), then I would not want to stake my life on this technology.
I am both a pilot and a software developer, having the hubris to think I have insight into this problem.
Why not just use PGP encryption for this purpose.
Two levels of security:
1. Digital signature.
2. Public Key encryption.
As long as you keep your private key secure, others can download files encrypted by you and be sure the data is authentic.
I haven't played with the public key registries - but it would seem that it should be set up so that when you create an entry in the database, it would only allow someone who can authenticate as you (i.e. you generate a digital signature to login) to change your public key (this would elimenate identity theft).
Why reinvent the flippin' wheel?
Regarding 'Mischief Night' -
:-}>
In America, we call that 'Weekends' and 'Holidays'...
Hmmm - defacers-challenge.com is not in the dns anymore.
Could it be someone pulled the plug on our erstwhile dare-devil? Or, was he just slashdotted off the face of the planet?
Enquiring minds want to know...
Fiscal prudence does not abrogate moral responsibility.
It is just as important how you make your money, as making the money. If you get your revenue numbers by lieing, stealing and cheating, then you are no better than a blackmailer, burglar, or con-artist - and these folks usually end up in jail...
The thing that really burns my hide is that these people are held up as heros and icons for our young people to emulate. I can't see how anyone can do that with a straight face (unless, of course, the morality that they espouse during the day - is in fact a lie, and they agree whole heartedly with 'doing anything for a buck').
"Johnny, I want you to grow up to lie, steal, cheat and make millions of dollars as a result - that is my dream for you, my boy!"
Hypocricy breeds contempt...
I also have issues with someone who says a dos command shell is better than any unix shell (csh, ksh, bash, sh, etc...).
Now OS2 did have ReX - which may be what our friend is talking about - a neat scripting language built into OS2 (one of the reasons I was considering moving to it). However lack of such basic things as history and string replacement in a shell makes it tedious - regardless of how fast you can touch type.
OS2 is what windows should have been. In fact, for a time Microsoft was in partnership with IBM on the project until they decided to go their seperate ways - conspiracy theories aside.
Unfortunately, while OS2 was a more stable system and an all-around better implementation, Microsoft won the war of the desktop through pretty graphics and flashy advertising.
Before Linux came along I was considering Warp on my desktop; now I'm running Slackware and loving it.
The number one thing about Linux, that I think will keep it alive - and on alot more desktops than anyone really perceives is the fact that it can breath life into older machines, unlike Microsoft offerings which invariably use more memory and require more CPU cycles to run effectively.
Case in point: My network:
P120 with 3 hard drives - file server running Redhat.
P300 - Wife's desktop - running Slackware
P 1.4Ghz - My desktop - running Slackware
p500 - Daughter's desktop - running Redhat
p250 - Daughter's 2nd desktop - running Windows (until I can get soundcard working on her p500 - then it becomes part of my growing Beowulf cluster...muhahaha!).
I read through all of the articles (there is a box to the right of the article with links to the rest of the topics with which he spoke), and found this gem from his talk about Longhorn (XP successor OS):
"If I said to somebody today how on your PC do you keep track of stocks, movies, music, restaurants, you can do it, but it's pretty painful, pretty manual. The system doesn't have this innate understanding of all the things you deal with in typical life. You go and get directions on the computer, you get this funny Web page, and you probably just print the thing out. The idea of storing that, having it when you're offline -- anyway a lot of these things are still pretty complex. So Longhorn is a change of the user interface to unify a lot of things that have been disparate[my emphasis]. But it's a huge project. It's a very ambitious piece of work." - Bill Gates
Aside from the 'funny web page' comment, which I found mildly humorous, his admission of what the next Windows OS will attempt was enlightening - if not frightening.
I find it particularly interesting that Microsoft is again intertwining new information technologies with the operating system itself. To me, it looks like a replay of the Web Browser fiasco (where Internet Explorer was tied closely to Windows to elbow out the competition).
Do fuel cells produce gases? Even if they don't under normal circumstances, is it possible for a defective one to produce gases?
The reason I ask is - a small leak, and a spark, and you've got more to worry about than spilling the expresso on the keyboard.
Until its proven (and I don't see people combusting at the local Starbucks), I will have a fallback plan:
1. Get one of those heavy duty backup storage batteries used to jumpstart automobiles (these have 'cigarette lighter' style female plugs on them).
2. Get a rectifier to change the 12 Volt DC to 120 Volt AC - they come for automobiles with the cigarette lighter style male plugs.
3. When the laptop starts to die, pull out the backup power source: connect battery to rectifier and plug laptop into rectifier 120 Volt AC outlets - just like being at home, without all the yelling (you could even hide this setup in a backpack - unless, of course, you wanted to use the handy dandy 'jumper cable' attachments for crowd control(tm)).
Lets slip in a caveat, shall we? Microsoft will run right under other systems - until they find out about it, then all bets are off. That is why they changed the file formats - to thwart conversion programs - not because of any ineptitude on the part of Microsoft employees (I guarantee you if Bill said, "make an open source OS that is bug free", it would be done - but that does not make money - and hence is 'bad' in Bill's world view).
That is the key point behind all of this: Microsoft is morally bankrupt. The company will do whatever it can to ensure total domination. Any words to the contrary are just so much balderdash.
If you still aren't convinced, here are some examples that may shed light on this problem:
Sincerity: Programmer extends a recognized standard for the benefit of everyone; his enhancement is completely backwards compatible with the existing standard.
Insincerity: Microsoft extends a recognized standard, saying its for the benefit of everyone. Then they change their applications to not use the standard correctly - or use loopholes in the standard to prevent other applications from running with the new standard on machines running Microsoft software.
Sincerity: Open Source, and GNU allow users to view and modify the source code of all applications.
Insincerity: Microsoft creates hope in the development community by announcing its shared source initiative. Unfortunately, it limits what is shared, what is not, and by whom.
To put it even more simply: "Don't mind that man behind the curtain..." - The Wizard of OZ. His name is probably Bill Gates.
My PHB doesn't have an ivory tower. However, he does have a door, unlike the rest of us prairie dogs in the cube farm...
There is only one thing I would love to enforce: doors for anyone doing anything more brain bending than tieing your shoe.
Of the 9 hours I am at work, aside from the hour for lunch, I probably get 40% of my time stolen by outside interruptions not directly related to my job.
This would boost productivity to amazing levels. Of course, the middle managers wouldn't be able to wander around and check up on everyone, thus losing the justification for their existence.
Whoever got the bright idea that cube farms were more productive than regular offices should be shot.
Human dignity would also be improved, not to mention I wouldn't have to look at some of the more charisma challenged individuals who grace my location.
I was going to make the point about the Berne Convention as well; American copyright law follows that. Aparently there is also a 'Portugal' agreement as well...
The point is, copyright law is uniform now, so the sections I quoted are very probably applicable.
The issue is, ancient folklore is in the public domain, but the Harry Potter and Tolkien series are not in the public domain. Considering the ongoing extensions to copyright laws that have been going on over the past century, and more notably with the 'Sonny Bono' law in recent years, these works may never become public domain anyway.
Copyright is a legal monopoly, plain and simple (as are patents, as well). Copyright law as set down by the U.S. Government states, among other things:
102 states:
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
So, you can't copyright an idea (that is what patents are for) - just a 'work' which may contain many ideas, procedures, processes etc... A foot in the door for the the flying double bass.
103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works, states:
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
This is a slippery one to understand. Basically, I think this means a derivative work can fall under copyright...(maybe a lawyer could comment on this one?)
106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity, states:
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. - Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art -
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right -
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
(Section 113(d) deals with destruction of works of art on buildings - responsibilities for builders, and limitations on what an artist can demand)
So, I would imagine JK Rowling and/or her publisher are going after these derivative works under 106A subsection (A).
In the begining there was anarchy, and it was good - all of the flourishing forms of the arts and sciences grew quickly in rich soil. Then, in the last half of the 20th century there came about agressive patent and copyright laws - extending ownership of ideas indefinitely. In the 21st century large corporations that had grown rich from the unfettered control of the ideas, began a campaign to erradicate those that would build derivative works, and those that would use protected works for 'fair use' purposes. This largely came about because of falling profit margins as a result of the economic downturn known in the history books as the 'dot-com bust'. Every penny needed to be squeezed from existing works to pay corporate dividends promised by the CEOs, in addition to lining the pockets of the CEOs themselves - in the event of layoff or failure of the business of course - heaven forbid [the CEO take responsibility for his/her actions].
In the first quarter of the 21st century innovation died, although the average person did not see it at first, behind the rhetoric of the megacorporations, who claimed that each new product they put out - and, of course, patented and controlled - was innovation itself. People finally came to the conclusion that they were being fed expensive dog food, when what they really wanted was filet mignon. Real competition died.
In the aftermath of the death of small businesses and entrepreneurs, people were stunned. They had no choices left. There was only one computer, running one operating system. One restaurant, with one menu. One store for all your needs. Prices rose. At some point the 'unwashed masses' were not able to afford the basic things the rest of us took for granted (however expensive and shoddily manufactured) - and began to riot.
Martial law was enacted by President Bush during his fourth term in office (term limitations having been removed and the 'President for Life' amendment having passed Congress with a narrow margin) in response to the rioting. The cities burned. Travel restrictions were imposed from outside nations in fear of the anarchy spreading - unfortunately, this did not work and similar riots sprang up all over the world. Fearing that the nuclear option was the only option left, the President was whisked away to his waiting flying command post. The 'cleansing' took place on the 4th day of August 2015. Small neutron bombs were deployed on all major city centers; colateral damage was unavoidable. "You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette", the Vice President said from his underground bunker in Maryland.
'Cleaning Day' (established as a holiday in later years) lead to the destabilization of the Bush presidency, and a military junta, composed of Palestinian War veterans and top generals at the Pentagon was established. Bush lived in exile in Canada to his last days. Unfortunately, the United States of America was never able to recover from the devastation, and became a second rate nation. Brazil and Mexico became the leading nations from the west. Europe also suffered as a result of its close ties to America, and while the destruction was limited, the EU also descended into third world status. Turkey, Spain and Isreal became the defacto leaders in that part of the world. Australia and China became the new super powers - both still controlling nuclear weapons - but there is little conflict between them as they both have similar goals in the Orient. India and Pakistan are 'travel ban' zones as a result of the nuclear exchange between the two powers that layed waste to much of both countries while everyone's back was turned. Estimates are it will be 10,000 years before it is safe to begin decontamination efforts in New Delhi or Karachi.
Sitting at a cafe in Rio, sipping my expresso, surfing 'elslashdot.org' on my wearable, its a wonder we are here at all.
People keep posting about 'working hard', when, in fact, they should be 'working smart'. By that I mean:
1. Work long hours initially to set up automation.
2. Let automation do the work. --- this is the working smart part
3. Browse Slashdot and react when the blinkin' lights go off.
4. Profit.
They pay me the big bucks to set up systems so that one person can do the work of 10. If they want me to 'look busy', I just pop open a perl script and point them to it, and ask, "do you know what that is? Do you know what that does?". That is usually when they leave...
Granted, I do spend periods during the year when I am working my butt off - but, once I get into an operational mode things quiet down.
edit my post above to read, "...all geeks and tech heads in my company work in management..."
Didn't mean to imply every geek works in management...
I work in 'management'. In fact all of the geeks and tech heads work in management. Who do I manage? Myself.
Why is this important? Because I don't get overtime at all, and haven't for the past 10 years. Last week I worked 4 days out of 5 0800 (8am) - 2300 (11pm). Will I get a dime more on my paycheck? No. Do I have the satisfaction of knowing that I helped get a major project up and running? Yep. Will I have a job at the end of the year? Probably.
Who is getting layed off in my company? Not 'management' (at least not the techy ones); we know too much, and are willing to work until our fingers bleed...tough luck if you can't keep up or don't have useful skills.
Just a fact of life. Of course I'm probably going to die before I'm 65 to a massive aneurism...
My corporate laptop is loaded with NT - and my desktop support won't upgrade the service pack - so no USB ports are useable on my machine...
If they would only let me load a real OS, like Slackware, then maybe I could get some real work done, instead of trying to get around the limitations of my box..
It is not all ISPs that are for this.
Looking at the list of witnesses who were 'for' and 'against' the bill in Texas, it is the cable companies, and the RIAA that are for it, and Telcos (and many other sane people) that are against it.
Both the cable companies and the telcos are ISPs. One of the reasons the cable companies are against it is that thier business model (and as a result their network architecture) is predicated on a per machine fee; NAT gets around this. When too many people get on the local loop (and that loop is quite large) their network sux hind tit.
Telcos, on the other hand, are selling the idea of using NAT on their DSL networks (one package I saw included a Blue-Tooth device to connect multiple machines to the net in the home).
Telcos got it right and engineered for large bandwidth operations - they will soon be offering full duplex DSL (if they don't already) with static IPs.
Cable companies will continue to piss off their customers - unless, of course, they can force everyone else to play by their rules - so everyone can be pissed off at them...
How I agregate my network behind my firewall is my business; if a provider wants to enforce the idea of a completely open (open as in unsecure) network, then I will take my business to a provider who values my desire for security and privacy.
{end frothing at the mouth}
This is a perfect example of the open source/GPL projects at work. Those that are viable survive, those that are not die - or fork a different design path that takes the project in new directions, many times against the wishes of the original designer.
Ideally, we want project transitions to be happy 'passing of the batton' affairs. Unfortunately, sometimes they are not as this story illustrates.
Perhaps the guy can't fly a real airplane; did anyone think of that?
His vision might not be correctable to within 20/20.
He may have a physical impairment that prevents him from flying (maybe a bad ticker).
He may live somewhere that is far away from the nearest airport that offers lessons.
Maybe the airports that do offer lessons don't fly the airplanes (gliders) that he wants to fly.
Maybe he has acrophobia.
Perhaps he doesn't have enough money to get a license - or fly as many hours as he wants even if he does. Aircraft rental is expensive - and I would hazzard a guess that the price has gone up since 911 - as well as the difficulty in getting approved in the first place.
Take two million monkeys and line them up at keyboards...
/. work in IT - and daresay some are managers in IT (such as myself), and as such we will not be taking our business to SCO anytime in the near future...
Eventually one of them will produce the works of Shakespeare.
Of course, the original work is still Shakespeare's regardless.
Now, given that SCO has stated that this is a 'contractual' issue - it is doubtful this will in any way effect the free linux community. Only companies with deep pockets will be worth their time (hence IBM).
Linus and crew will patch the sources (if there is any validity to SCO's claims) and we will move on.
Alot of people who read
[ The funny thing is, I have SCO System Administration certificates on my wall from back in the day; we had machines running Unixware 1.1, and that is where it ended. Now we run a heterogenous network composed of Sun, Linux, and HP machines ]
That would be all well and good, if the standards were worth a damn. But they are not.
...thinking of a quote about telling the difference between a silk purse, and a sow's ear...can't recall the words exactly...
Most of the 'process' I have seen is stuck in a strict waterfall methodology/lifecycle that does not take into account reality. In reality there are very few jobs that can be completely spec'd out before hand. For those jobs, the pure waterfall lifecycle works well.
On the other hand, how many shops use the spiral model for those jobs that don't have clear specifications up front? Not many. Iterative design is not something I see in my dealings with large shops - and when I talk about it, most developers, team leads and project managers scratch thier heads.
While something may be pretty to look at/well documented, several questions come to mind:
Is it maintainable? (can you easily/flexibly change it as needed over time?)
Is it bug free? (meaning does all the specified functionality work as desired?)
Does it have legs (in other words - will the code stand the test of time, or be rewritten and deprecated in a month)?
The easier it is to maintain, the better quality (bug free), and the longevity of a system really defines its overall value. If I get a well documented POS that was built using the best process standards in the world - its still a POS. Quantity does not equate to quality.
I think the real issue is that the internet provides the opportunity for a real barter economy - I share something with you; you recipricate.
The amount of sharing going on on the net does not equal the drop off in record sales. The simple fact of the matter is that what is being produced today is not wanted (dare I say it sucks?), as much as they would like to shove it down our throats. Just because a record is released doesn't mean it should automatically make money (particularly if it sucks).
I urge anyone reading this to boycott the major record labels, and conversely start donating small amounts to independent OPEN SOURCE record labels - LIKE THIS ONE
If you are involved in music just to make money, then you are in it for the wrong reasons. Do us all a favor, and become a used car salesman...