"One of the reasons we've chosen to go with the Eclipse platform, rather than any of the other open source types," she said, "is that [Eclipse] actually has a model where vendors can sell value-added products into it, but still provide the service components."
Isn't this as much about the license of Eclipse (which is generally similar to the Apache license) than it is about the platform? The subtext I read was this:
"One of the reasons we've chosen to go with the Eclipse platform... is that [Eclipse] will let us sell value-added products based on it for profit while taking advantage of all the OSS work that has gone into it."
As much as it is a Good Thing that big companies like IBM and others are making forays into the OSS world, it's hard for me to swallow the way they cover up their greed with a nice shiny license that lets them use it however they want. Sure, there are other OSS products that are under very similar licenses, and it's all up to the owner on how they want to license it, but in many ways it kills the spirit of OSS that I enjoy to begin with.
On the other hand, it's one hell of a way to start a community - "here, we don't care how you use this code (package it, sell it, etc. as you please), but this part of it we'll make open to everybody." Write a solid base, and let companies have at it.
The last time I checked, the FAA didn't really have any responsibilities related to space travel (outside of regulating commercial space travel, which up 'till now is pretty non-existant). They gave over their space "division" as it were to NASA in 1958. What's their interest in doing a study like this?
This is definitely not true. IBM is one of Microsoft's biggest customers. The majority of IBM employees still use Windows, and all of their application servers/etc. are tested on a retarded amount of Windows versions. That, and the fact that IBM still has shares of Lenovo and their PC business for the next few years during the transition -- on top of the fact that during that time all the PC's Lenovo makes will still be IBM branded. IBM definitely has a vested interest in what Microsoft does with Windows.
And IBM's "limited capacity" is bigger than you think -- they're also making all the chips for the Xbox 360 (triple-cored PPC's, quite awesome actually). Contracts like the ones IBM has with Sony and Microsoft allow them to keep making the mainframes that sell for 250,000 a pop.
This type of "replication" is what Von Neumann envisioned with his kinetic automata. They essentially sit in a sea of their own parts and use them to reproduce themselves. It started the field of cellular automata that is used today in biology and elsewhere. It may not seem like much, but it's a promising first step.
I take it you haven't read any of the "Why War" correspondence between Einstein and Freud (can be found here), though most of what is there is part of Freud's letters. "Not that much" is really lowballing it.
Super. Another way to prevent me from getting (at least, in my opinion) less biased news from outside the US. I try to read/watch/listen to the BBC as much as I can here in the States, given that the US media doesn't so much cover the rest of the world. I would have looked forward to being able to sift through the archives to see what I've been missing.
"Give authority to the people who have earned it; they're the ones who will know the right thing to do with it."
[sarcasm]Because we all know that those in authority have always earned it and are always best informed.[/sarcasm] I agree that for the most part the experts in the field will be the most well informed. What you do is have them write that "honest, unbiased reports of the pros and cons of nanotechnology" and then give that to John Q. Public to let him discuss the issue. You can't (well... shouldn't, I guess) get around asking John (at least in this country), since his tax dollars pay the bills of the senators/etc. that represent him.
Besides, just because you are the technical authority on the matter doesn't then automatically make you the moral authority on the matter.
This seems backwards. Kazaa can search for "kazaa" on Google and find "non-kazaa" material, so they tell Google to take it down? Since when is the search engine responsible for the content they generate by just following links on the web (forgive me if I'm unfamiliar with how Google crawls the web)?
Why not send notices to the websites directly? Oh, wait, that would mean that they would have to spend the time and find the people who are actually "breaking" the copyrights and prosecute them directly. That's too much work.
It's the same thing that the RIAA is doing -- going after the end-user in court because it's easier that way. I wonder what happened to the racketeering charges that were brought up.
Email and IM aren't encrypted or private in any sense of the word. Try tracing the hops it takes for your email to get to the mail server you're sending it to. For that matter, AOL can log all your conversations if they wanted to. I'm not so sure this would be any different than what can already be done.
Why does it automatically become evil when a company wants to defend a product/scheme/etc. that they have spent time, money, and man hours developing?
Apple isn't breaking down doors, calling the FBI, pillaging homes. They're sending legal notices asking politely for people to take down content. That's how the system works.
Unfair at times it may be, it doesn't mean that the entire system is corrupted and we should brand Apple with a scarlet letter. If you don't like the way things work, then send letters to your Congressman/woman about our copyright law. Send email to Senators about the DMCA. Get involved, and things will change.
I have one of the original 5 gig iPods that I use on a daily basis. I may be one of the "converted" or "brainwashed" or whatever you'd like to say, but I don't see what's so wrong with the minmal DRM that Apple chose to use.
If I want, I can burn my songs to a CD. And play them in my car. Or in my house. Or at work. Or in a portable CD player.
If I want, I can put these songs on my iPod and listen to them wherever I go.
If I want, I can listen to these songs on my computer using iTunes.
I've yet to find a gross infraction upon my rights to do with the music as I wish.
Trivial for legitimate companies. Alot of these websites/companies/individuals don't charge for their software -- of what benefit is it to them to label their software if users install the software at their own risk?
How do they plan on labeling software solely distributed over the internet? I'd venture to say that 90% of the spyware that's out there comes through download-only software (DivX, peer to peer software, etc...).
Regardless of whether or not the 4th Amendment includes anonymity and privacy directly, the Supreme Court in many instances (Griswold v. Connecticut being the first) upheld a right to privacy that Justice Douglas (in his opinion in the above case) describes this way:
"In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion"
Anonymity and privacy, generally, fall into the same bucket.
I'm the head of the Patchdot project here @ Clarkson University... I just wanted to give you guys an update on how things are running and ask for a few favors of the/. community.
Yes, we did borrow the name a bit.:) It's just a tribute to the site we visit daily. And it rhymes, and what-have-you too. There's some kind of phonical connection there.
As far as the page goes -- it's VERY un-polished. Someone posted earlier about the "everything is a link" bug, which we're working on fixing. There will be/are plenty of those at this point -- we just got a beta (more like alpha) of the site up last week. It's been a project we've been working on for awhile, but we haven't had much in the way of results until recently.
The one thing I'd really appreciate from you guys is some feedback. We're trying to give this project back to the kernel community, so anything that you see on the page that isn't there that you want, let us know. If you see anything there that you hate, let us know. It's all about you guys, so please please please please please check it out and let us know what you would like to see.
Now that we're public (we weren't really expecting a/. post till we announced our existence), tomorrow will be a big coding day.:)
Slashdot Mirror
"One of the reasons we've chosen to go with the Eclipse platform, rather than any of the other open source types," she said, "is that [Eclipse] actually has a model where vendors can sell value-added products into it, but still provide the service components."
Isn't this as much about the license of Eclipse (which is generally similar to the Apache license) than it is about the platform? The subtext I read was this:
"One of the reasons we've chosen to go with the Eclipse platform ... is that [Eclipse] will let us sell value-added products based on it for profit while taking advantage of all the OSS work that has gone into it."
As much as it is a Good Thing that big companies like IBM and others are making forays into the OSS world, it's hard for me to swallow the way they cover up their greed with a nice shiny license that lets them use it however they want. Sure, there are other OSS products that are under very similar licenses, and it's all up to the owner on how they want to license it, but in many ways it kills the spirit of OSS that I enjoy to begin with.
On the other hand, it's one hell of a way to start a community - "here, we don't care how you use this code (package it, sell it, etc. as you please), but this part of it we'll make open to everybody." Write a solid base, and let companies have at it.
The last time I checked, the FAA didn't really have any responsibilities related to space travel (outside of regulating commercial space travel, which up 'till now is pretty non-existant). They gave over their space "division" as it were to NASA in 1958. What's their interest in doing a study like this?
This is definitely not true. IBM is one of Microsoft's biggest customers. The majority of IBM employees still use Windows, and all of their application servers/etc. are tested on a retarded amount of Windows versions. That, and the fact that IBM still has shares of Lenovo and their PC business for the next few years during the transition -- on top of the fact that during that time all the PC's Lenovo makes will still be IBM branded. IBM definitely has a vested interest in what Microsoft does with Windows.
And IBM's "limited capacity" is bigger than you think -- they're also making all the chips for the Xbox 360 (triple-cored PPC's, quite awesome actually). Contracts like the ones IBM has with Sony and Microsoft allow them to keep making the mainframes that sell for 250,000 a pop.
This type of "replication" is what Von Neumann envisioned with his kinetic automata. They essentially sit in a sea of their own parts and use them to reproduce themselves. It started the field of cellular automata that is used today in biology and elsewhere. It may not seem like much, but it's a promising first step.
I take it you haven't read any of the "Why War" correspondence between Einstein and Freud (can be found here), though most of what is there is part of Freud's letters. "Not that much" is really lowballing it.
Super. Another way to prevent me from getting (at least, in my opinion) less biased news from outside the US. I try to read/watch/listen to the BBC as much as I can here in the States, given that the US media doesn't so much cover the rest of the world. I would have looked forward to being able to sift through the archives to see what I've been missing.
"Give authority to the people who have earned it; they're the ones who will know the right thing to do with it."
[sarcasm]Because we all know that those in authority have always earned it and are always best informed.[/sarcasm] I agree that for the most part the experts in the field will be the most well informed. What you do is have them write that "honest, unbiased reports of the pros and cons of nanotechnology" and then give that to John Q. Public to let him discuss the issue. You can't (well... shouldn't, I guess) get around asking John (at least in this country), since his tax dollars pay the bills of the senators/etc. that represent him.
Besides, just because you are the technical authority on the matter doesn't then automatically make you the moral authority on the matter.
For those of you not keeping track of the mailing list, I present you with the following:
http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/xorg/2004-Septemb er/003013.html
For the lazy of you, I paraphrase: someone made an announcement without authorization from the x.org release team.
This seems backwards. Kazaa can search for "kazaa" on Google and find "non-kazaa" material, so they tell Google to take it down? Since when is the search engine responsible for the content they generate by just following links on the web (forgive me if I'm unfamiliar with how Google crawls the web)?
Why not send notices to the websites directly? Oh, wait, that would mean that they would have to spend the time and find the people who are actually "breaking" the copyrights and prosecute them directly. That's too much work.
It's the same thing that the RIAA is doing -- going after the end-user in court because it's easier that way. I wonder what happened to the racketeering charges that were brought up.
John Woo and Metroid sounds promising, but God help us if somebody tries to make a movie about Nibbles. Or does Tremors already count?
Email and IM aren't encrypted or private in any sense of the word. Try tracing the hops it takes for your email to get to the mail server you're sending it to. For that matter, AOL can log all your conversations if they wanted to. I'm not so sure this would be any different than what can already be done.
Just watch out though, if your cells catch you recording their music for free you might have to answer to the RIAA!
Why does it automatically become evil when a company wants to defend a product/scheme/etc. that they have spent time, money, and man hours developing?
Apple isn't breaking down doors, calling the FBI, pillaging homes. They're sending legal notices asking politely for people to take down content. That's how the system works.
Unfair at times it may be, it doesn't mean that the entire system is corrupted and we should brand Apple with a scarlet letter. If you don't like the way things work, then send letters to your Congressman/woman about our copyright law. Send email to Senators about the DMCA. Get involved, and things will change.
I have one of the original 5 gig iPods that I use on a daily basis. I may be one of the "converted" or "brainwashed" or whatever you'd like to say, but I don't see what's so wrong with the minmal DRM that Apple chose to use.
If I want, I can burn my songs to a CD. And play them in my car. Or in my house. Or at work. Or in a portable CD player.
If I want, I can put these songs on my iPod and listen to them wherever I go.
If I want, I can listen to these songs on my computer using iTunes.
I've yet to find a gross infraction upon my rights to do with the music as I wish.
I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but is it ok to challenge patents just because they become standards?
Courtesy of UrbanDictionary.com:
anorak
1. Cagoul; or a hooded zip-up jacket.
2. Trainspotters.
3. IT people in general, computer geeks.
Beware of couples wearing matching anoraks.
Often spotted at LAN parties.
I'm still trying to figure out whether or not being compared to a warm, puffy coat is a good thing.
The overall benefit is obvious, but the government doesn't have the resources to police that.
Trivial for legitimate companies. Alot of these websites/companies/individuals don't charge for their software -- of what benefit is it to them to label their software if users install the software at their own risk?
How do they plan on labeling software solely distributed over the internet? I'd venture to say that 90% of the spyware that's out there comes through download-only software (DivX, peer to peer software, etc...).
Regardless of whether or not the 4th Amendment includes anonymity and privacy directly, the Supreme Court in many instances (Griswold v. Connecticut being the first) upheld a right to privacy that Justice Douglas (in his opinion in the above case) describes this way:
"In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion"
Anonymity and privacy, generally, fall into the same bucket.
I'm the head of the Patchdot project here @ Clarkson University... I just wanted to give you guys an update on how things are running and ask for a few favors of the /. community.
:) It's just a tribute to the site we visit daily. And it rhymes, and what-have-you too. There's some kind of phonical connection there.
/. post till we announced our existence), tomorrow will be a big coding day. :)
Yes, we did borrow the name a bit.
As far as the page goes -- it's VERY un-polished. Someone posted earlier about the "everything is a link" bug, which we're working on fixing. There will be/are plenty of those at this point -- we just got a beta (more like alpha) of the site up last week. It's been a project we've been working on for awhile, but we haven't had much in the way of results until recently.
The one thing I'd really appreciate from you guys is some feedback. We're trying to give this project back to the kernel community, so anything that you see on the page that isn't there that you want, let us know. If you see anything there that you hate, let us know. It's all about you guys, so please please please please please check it out and let us know what you would like to see.
Now that we're public (we weren't really expecting a