Until RMS can propose an alternative to BitKeeper, he's just pissing in the wind.
It is possible to carry on Linux development without bitkeeper; it's been done for years. There's no question that bitkeeper has technical advantages, but RMS is arguing that where practical the licensing issues should trump the technical issues.
The greatest feature of Linux, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that its users are empowered by its license instead of being shackled by a proprietary EULA. Why is it too much to ask that Linux developers take into account licensing issues?
Lots of people have put very hard work into free revision-control systems, and hopefully people will be able to do much more, at which point we'll be able to have the best of both worlds. But for now we have a decision: put up with an ugly proprietary license, or make do with something technically inferior.
To characterize RMS as "just pissing in the wind" is grossly unfair. He's written unbelievable amounts of code during his career, exactly so that people would have free alternatives to proprietary tools. He's worked on funding development by others. He's worked on persuading people to produce and use free software. I think he probably has more personal experience than anyone with the sort of tradeoff the Linux developers are making in this case.
I think the argument that only technical issues should be taken into account to the exclusion of any ethical or legal issues, is completely opposed to the spirit of free software development.
A listserv for kernel development is not the correct space to bring political speach into.
The linux kernel mailing list is non-stop politics! What you're objecting to, more precisely, is not "politics"--you're objecting to the idea that the decisions which are thrashed out every day on the mailing list should sometimes take into consideration legal and ethical issues, and not just technical issues.
I fail to understand this objection. Don't you think that one of the biggest "features" of the linux kernel is the fact that its users aren't shackled by proprietary EULA's? Shouldn't licensing issues be a consideration in Linux development?
If free software really is better then why do people like RMS need to come out ranting about giving into the evils of proprietary software.
RMS has made his position extremely clear on every possible occasion: his dedication to "free software" has nothing to do with the ESR's dubious theory that open source development is a magical technique capabable of the effortless production of vast quantites of excellent code. RMS cares about the freedom itself. Freedom that we take for granted in the physical world but that is completely gone in the world of proprietary software:
The freedom to use tools that you own for any purpose that you see fit, not for only those purposes that the hardware store has specifically authorized its use for.
The freedom to modify tools that you
own.
Linus, unlike RMS, has never, to my knowledge, been much of a politician.
On the contrary, Linus is very much a politician. The word "politician" is not synonymous with "person who is willing to argue that some decisions should be made on ethical, and not merely technical, matters."
However, there is code I write for my employer, just like photographs I take on commission for someone else. For this "work for hire" it is up to the person paying to decide what the copyright on the work is. (I might try to convince them to go the free route, but ultimately it is their choice.
Who told you this? I believe you're incorrect. See the copyright law (I'm assuming you're in the US.):
A "work made for hire" is-
(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire....
Note that to fall under case (2) there would have to be an explicit written agreement, and note that as a wedding photographer you are probably not an "employee", hence don't fall under case (1). See, e.g., this summary from the copyright office, for a brief discussion of the relevant definition of an employee.
"the car industry... is not an a charity project; it's there to produce cars that people can buy"
You're not familiar with the UK car industry, I take it?
Replace "is not" by "should not be" in the above, apologies....
On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product. On a bigger scale, it would be like the US paying a lump sum for a technology that creates free cars for everyone--sure, this would be pretty cool, until the big 3 go out of business and the economy crashes down behind it.
Oh, give me a break. Have you completely forgotten what the car industry is for? It's not an a charity project; it's there to produce cars that people can buy. If the modern automobile is rendered obsolete tommorow, then we all get to stop throwing our money into that particular pit, we're free to invest in other technology, and the economy benefits. If it takes some government investment to get to that point, as long as the government's expenditure is less than what we would have spent on cars otherwise, then what's the problem?
I start reading stuff like this and I start wondering if its not too late to go analog.
It's too late. Have you noticed that you can't buy a new VCR without Macrovision? (People seem to have overlooked this requirement, but it was passed at the same time as the rest of the DMCA.) Haven't you heard the talk about do-not-record bits on tv broadcasts, and watermarks, and about "plugging the analog hole"?
The new restrictions on digital media were sold with the argument that digital media is special because of the possibility of perfect copies out to the nth generation. But really the people pushing this stuff are just as unhappy about VCR's and cassette tapes. The technical obstacles to DRM in the analog world may be higher, but that won't stop them from trying.
I mean if you do not plan to run Palladium, where's the problem? This would not stop you from doing anything you do now.
Currently, you can play DVD's on linux with a minimum of hassle, and you can do perfectly normal and legitimate things with them like make backups, copy and manipulate screen shots, etc. After the adoption of Palladium, DVD's (or their successors) could be designed to play only on trusted players that don't allow you to do these things, and circumventing these restrictions will require hardware modifications.
The only answer we seem to get is: "because it's for wussies!"
Do you have any evidence for this statement? All these discussions (including the discussion over whether or not to include Raymond's configuration system in the kernel) have taken place on public, searchable forums, so if your claim is true then you should be able to produce tons of evidence. (Here's a start.)
My memory of the discussion on lkml was that people had a lot of different problems with CML2, which might or might not have been showstoppers. But I don't remember anyone saying "no, this would make kernel configuration too easy for novices, and we don't want that."
If you accept the premise that "Open Source" development is a magic process for the effortless production of arbitrary amounts of excellent code, or if you assume that it is obvious how to create good user interfaces, then I suppose the only reasonable explanation for a lack of user-friendliness is a conspiracy on the part of developers. Absent those premises, you're free to adopt a more reasonable explanation: writing easy-to-use software is much, much harder than it appears, developers have limited resources, and we just haven't gotten a lot of things right yet.
As for the input being from voluntary users; you think they should have rounded up a few thousand people off the street, at gun point, and asked their opinioin? You're not making sense.
No, they should have picked a few people at random and offered significant incentives to get a good response rate (an entry into a raffle plus an explanation of why their contribution would be helpful might be sufficient).
It is an excellent report, regardless of your stand on open source. It would have been better if they could have had a larger sampling but, this is not always possible due to time or budgetary constraints.
No, increasing the size of the sample wouldn't have helped; if you work out the statistics, I suspect you'd find that the size of their sample was already much higher than necessary. It's the quality of the sample that counts. Subtle biases in the choice of people that responded (in this case, they were much more likely to get people that visited certain websites) cause inaccuracies that no increase in sample size would help.
Consider two surveys of preferences on presidential candidates; survey A was based on interviewing 200 people chosen uniformly at random from the set of registered voters; survey B was based on interviewing 2000 attendees of a Democratic convention; which result will be more accurate? The biases created by the self-selecting sample in this case may be more subtle than that, but I can think of some (I'm sure you can too), and I suspect a survey based on a more carefully chosen sample would give very different results.
I also think that algebra is pushed on students before they are cognitively ready. The average middle school student should go as far as evaluating expressions, variable substitutions, (MAYBE) 1 step equations and (MOST importantly) reading an expression (ie. 3x + 4 means three times x plus 4). The rest of their time should be spent brushing up and applying their ARITHMETIC skills, such as working with/reducing fractions. Give me a class of students who know how to substitute and know their arithmetic, and I'll give you a class of all stars.
No way. This is how we end up with a typical math sequence that goes:
6th grade: we're finishing up arithmetic now, and then we're going to get you ready for algebra with little fill-in-the-blank arithmetic problems and stuff. Next year you'll do real algebra! Won't it be fun.
7th grade: fooled ya! No algebra yet, no, we're doing pre-algebra! Next year you'll do real algebra! Won't it be fun!
8th grade: OK! This year we're going to give you a little algebra. But not too much! You'll learn to solve 2 equations in 2 unknowns, but we don't trust you to actually *understand* something so mind-bending, so we'll just give you a bunch of really mechanical drills on this.
9th grade: wait! We're not sure you got that! Let's go over that algebra stuff again, and maybe do a tiny bit more.
10th grade: you guessed it: more algebra! This time maybe you even get a little trig or very basic analytic geometry or something.
11th grade: pre-calculus, which is, you guess it, more algebra....
12th grade: calculus, whoop-de-do.
And this is for the super-bright kids. Come on! Even the "slowest" kids want to see something new every now and then!
I know how frustrating it is trying to teach people something when they don't really have the prerequisites down cold yet, but that's life; they'll pick that stuff up when they have to, and you can't let it keep you from throwing the new stuff at them too....
So the OSS community, instead of preaching to the converted, has to show users the benefits they will see. I challenge anyone to do it right here, right now, and provide the OSS community with some talking points and boilerplate text.
Consider two cars: Car A is made entirely of proprietary components; you will be completely dependant on the original manufacturer for *any* maintenance. If they go out of business, or decide to gouge you on parts, you lose. Car B is made entirely of standard components that anyone can fix; you can take it to whichever local shop you prefer for maintenance, and third parties can upgrade it or make accessories. Other things being equal, which car would you choose?
Virtually no-one reads every EULA they supposedly agree to. But still I think almost everyone has at least peeked at one and recognizes that in general they are *very* anti-consumer. If car makers required every buyer to sign an agreement that prohibited them from testing the car and publishing the results, there would be an uproar, and Consumer's Union would fight the maker in court. EULA's that prohibit benchmarking are just as bad, and anyone can understand why: it's not because we personally expect to make our own benchmarks, but because we recognize that we won't be able to make good purchasing decisions if independent testing is prohibited. Other common EULA terms have similar obvious problems, and a license that gives rights to consumers instead of taking them away shouldn't be so hard to sell.
Though no-one cares about this issue as much as the geeks, I think there's still a wide recognition that Microsoft has more power than it should. By choosing to use free software, instead of just another proprietary product from yet another wanna-be monopolist, you open up a world where *anyone* can compete.
An ordinary user is quite capable of understanding the dangers of being locked-in: anyone who has been using computers for more than a few years has had the experience of being forced to upgrade when they didn't want to, or of having to give up their favorite word processor for a competitor because of compatibility problems, or of having lost data because it was stored in a now-obsolete proprietary format, or of having their favorite software orphaned by a failed company.
Such blatant consumer-abuse as spyware and obnoxious pop-up ads make clear the difference between software that is controlled only by a single company, and software that can be understood and modified by people with a broader range of interests.
We need to do a better job of explaining these issues when we talk about things like the choice of browsers. The media sees a chance to make articles about Mozilla exciting by reviving the "browser wars" and making it all into a battle between two behemoths (Microsoft and AOL). But the licensing and standards issues go deeper than that, and it's to everybody's advantage if the wider public could be made to see this.
To paraphrase Richard Stallman: Why can't we talk about freedom? Why don't any of these reviews make any effort to explain mozilla's licensing and why users should care about it? (Mozilla has a license that allows multiple companies to make competing implementations, and that gives users rights instead of making draconian restrictions. This is an important different that ordinary users can appreciate.)
I can understand why reviewers would feel they should mainly focus on features and the user interface. But to overlook these huge licensing issues completely, to not factor them into the final rating at all, is to ignore a huge glaring difference between mozilla and the competition.
Why do companies have to keep coming up with their own incompatible licenses? Seems to me that, say, the BSD license, the GPL, and the LGPL cover most of the reasonable things you'd want to do with your (free) code, they're relatively well-understood by the community, and they all play nicely together.
Why should we have to waste time trying to evaluate new licenses, when we could just deal with licenses that we already know?
Being a cycler, I must say that SUV's pose much more of a threat to cyclers than cyclers do to pedestrians. Within the space of a couple of days I was almost hit twice, both times by SUV's. I've never even come close to hitting a pedestrian hard enough to hurt them. Living at a small residential college, with a lot of bikes and a lot of pedestrians, I think bikes are reasonably safe on sidewalks.
I dunno, maybe so, but I wouldn't consider two close calls withing a couple days terribly safe; maybe you need to think about how you're riding? If you're crossing crosswalks and driveways at bike speed, then you're going to get in trouble. Think about what 99.9 percent of drivers do when they make a left turn into their driveway (people from the UK and elsewhere, please switch my lefts and rights):
Step 1: Wait for a gap in oncoming traffic.
Step 2: Make a quick check of your driveway to make sure it's clear.
Step 3: Start the turn, while keeping eyes focused on oncoming traffic.
Step 4: Complete the turn, moving your focus to the driveway ahead of you.
Note that this works fine for pedestrians, because a pedestrian on a collision course with you is probably already in your driveway, or very close to it, at step 2, so you'll see them in time. A bike, however, could still be 20 feet away. You're not going to see them till step 4, at which point you *may* just have time to make an emergency stop, or you may not.
This is a classic type of bicycle accident--most bike accidents, in fact, involve bikes riding on the sidewalk or riding against traffic. If you really feel you have to ride on the sidewalk, then please at least get in the habit of stopping before you cross driveways or crosswalks.
I've seen so many bike riders in their little spandex suits zipping along the country roads around my house ignoring every stop sign so they don't ruin their workout. They're in their own little world (or 'zone', probably), and consider themselves above the law and not a 'narrow car'.
Yeah, it's a pain for other bikes too--just the other day I had a close call with some bike at a 4-way stop; I stopped and waited my turn, and then as I was crossing he came blasting through in the other direction, out from behind a line of cars that he'd passed on the right. Ugh. Some bike riders are their own worst enemies....
Alright, so I'm probably just responding to a troll, but some of these are common questions:
But there's a problem that applies to the motorcycle, the bicycle, and the Segway. It's called the environment. Rain, snow, smoggy streets, slush, puddles, et cetera.
These are standard (solved) problem--you need fenders, the right clothing, etc. Do a google search on bike commuting, or check your local library.
And the bicycle has its own special problem: it is powered by me. And no matter how slowly I pedal, a half-hour of cycling will cause me to perspire.
Again, annoying, but lots of people have figured out how to deal with it--find a place you can shower at work, and/or take a change of clothese, and/or shower right before you leave.
By the way, there's one final problem with cycling on the streets: drivers hate you.
I ride to and from work every single day, and do all my shopping and other errands by bike. If all of the many drivers I interact with on a daily basis hate me, they're hiding it well. There's the occasional idiot ("get on the sidewalk", honk honk), but they're the exception. Mostly people are polite, and no-one has ever physically threatened me or forced me off the road.
I know, I know, it's unfair -- we have just as much a right to be there as they do, supposedly. But we're slow.
Sometimes, sometimes not--in urban areas where stoplights and such are the major factor in trip time, you may actually find you're going about the same speed as traffic most of the time.
We cause traffic jams because people have to pass us.
My bike's pretty narrow and doesn't obstruct the view or the lane as much as the average car. Even when I have to take the lane (because the lane's too narrow to share, or I'm preparing to make a left turn, or whatever), people usually find a way to pass me in a matter of seconds. If I ever found myself "caus[ing] a traffic jam", sure, I'd pull over and let people by, but that has *never* happened.
We're more difficult to see.
Then you're in trouble---being visible is really important: wear bright colors, use good lights at night, ride near traffic, not way over in the gutter where people won't be looking, etc. With those kinds of precautions there's no reason you should be more difficult to see. Just because you're not car-shaped doesn't mean you have to be invisible.
the cyclist has very little chance of surviving a serious accident.
Do you have evidence for this statement? Or is it just circular reasoning? (serious accident == accident you have little chance of surviving). People do survive pretty awful-sounding accidents on bikes. I've not seen evidence that supports the popular view of cyclists as such fragile creatures that every little car's fender-bender would be a fatal accident to a cyclist.
Be careful out there, but don't listen to the fearmongers. It's not *that* dangerous.
I really hate trying to drive with people on Bikes riding. Here's my issue. I'm in the rightmost CAR lane, and I want to make a right turn. There is a bike lane to my right with a guy that wants to go straight.
The correct thing to do in this situation is to first merge right (giving cyclists already there the right of way, just as if you're doing a regular lane merge), and then take the right turn. But then some cyclists who think bike lanes are *never* to be used by cars get mad at you. The whole situation is a confusing to everyone, which is why I prefer to just bike on the road and ride like a regular vehicle--then we all understand the rules.
Separate thoroughfares for bikes would be more sensible than lanes.
But those separate thoroughfares are still going to have to intersect the regular road system at regular intervals, and getting those intersections right is really important--intersections are where most accidents happen. Try to work out how to have two entirely separate road systems superimposed on each other with safe intersections that don't cause everyone concerned unnecessary delays, and you'll quickly realize it's not worth the trouble.
Just think of bikes as skinny little cars, and everything will make more sense.
I rode through the Michigan winter this year. It was a pretty mild winter, and they're pretty fast to clear the roads around here. But it is possible to ride under those kinds of conditions--go very slow, and be very sure you know how much turning/braking you can get away with before you skid!
Oh, and get some really, really good protection for your extremities--the rest of your body will stay warm from the exercise, but those fingers can get cold fast....
Any special reason why you're convinced that lots of Segway riders will be suicidal enough to do 14 MPH on a crowded sidewalk?
Yes; go to any university town and watch the students on bicycles. They're doing those kinds of speeds and faster, on crowded sidewalks. This is the reason that some cities ban cycling on the sidewalks downtown. I agree, you'd think the cyclists would be smarter than that, but a bicycle is seductive--it's *hard* to slow down to wobble along at a walking pace when you know you could be gliding along at 15+ mph.
I think they must be convinced somehow that nothing too bad can happen to them, no matter how they ride, as long as they stay on the sidewalk--until the day when they find themselves flying across the hood of a car driven by someone who (not suprisingly) didn't see them while making a left turn across a crosswalk, at which point their life flashes before their eyes, and they ditch cycling, go buy an SUV, and live the rest of their life encased in a big steel security blanket.
Somehow I think we've all accepted this idea that "sidewalk == safe" and "road == dangerous" and in doing so we've lost our ability to reason sensibly about traffic safety.
In states that haven't explicitly allowed these bugges on the sidewalks, can you use them in bikelanes? What conditions does your vehicle need to meet to be a bike? How about a moped or something of that nature- open, wheeled, anything else?
Bike lanes (as opposed to bike/multi-use paths, which are separated from the road) are a part of the road, and the rules that apply are the same as the rules of the road. Bikes can ride on them essentially because they have the already have the right to use roads. For example, Michigan law says: "Every person riding a bicycle or moped upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature do not have applications."
Here's what I believe to be the definition of a bike in Michigan law: ""Bicycle" means a device propelled by human power upon which a person may ride, having either 2 or 3 wheels in a tandem or tricycle arrangement, all of which are over 14 inches in diameter." I believe other state law is similar. Doesn't sound like a Segway.
And a moped: ""Moped" means a 2- or 3-wheeled vehicle which is equipped with a motor that does not exceed 50 cubic centimeters piston displacement, produces 2.0 brake horsepower or less, and cannot propel the vehicle at a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on a level surface. The power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears." Don't ask me.
The sensible thing to do would be to put Segways on the road--vehicles with significant stopping distances need to ride traffic rules to operate safely--but I guess the Segway people know that too many Americans have been brainwashed into believing that you can't be safe on a road without being surrounded by some kind of tank. So they have to sell the Segway as a toy for the sidewalk. Sad.
The truly sad thing, of course, is that we already have the perfect personal vehicle---bicycle technology is cheaper, more mature, and more efficient than this stupid Segway. But no-one sees this because they're convinced that bicycles are just toys to be ridden for fun on weekends, and because they're convinced (contrary to any evidence I've seen, and to my own experience) that it's dreadfully dangerous to actually use a bicycle on a road as real transportation.
First, if you're riding a segway at it's top speed of about 14 MPH, you can stop in about 15 feet
On a street, where you have rules about right-of-way, and where you can count on people to *look* before they enter traffic, that sort of stopping distance is fine. On a sidewalk, where anyone in front of you can change direction on a dime, where people can appear from corners or doorway with no warning, it's a disaster.
a runner going that fast takes about 20 feet to stop.
14 mph is about a 4-minute mile, right? Isn't that pretty close to a flat-out sprint for the mortals among us? Would you really feel safe sprinting on a city sidewalk on a regular basis?
Getting hit by one of those things is no worse then getting hit by someone who weighs 75 pounds more then you.
Actually, getting hit by a runner 75 pounds heavier than me who sounds extremely unpleasant. Not something I would want to be happening on a regular basis on the sidewalks in my town; would you?
Collisions with motor vehicles are also going to be a problem: note that you do *not* escape conflicts with cars by riding on the sidewalk. Instead, every driveway and intersection represents a potential conflict with a motorist, and motorists are *not* going to be looking out for people moving at high speeds on the sidewalk. (Think about where you look when you pull into or out of your driveway--would you see someone approaching from the wrong direction on the sidewalk in time to avoid a collision?) This is the reason that, by some estimates, sidewalk cyclists have double the accident rates of road cyclists. The same principles apply to segway users.
Sounds like the Segway people have a pretty good line; perhaps I shouldn't be so amazed that they're getting away with buying this kind of legislation. But they really need some opposition. Here's one summary of the issue from the point of view of pedestrian advocates.
The web plugin allows... interactive navigation for the website.... They even have an example of how to use the plugin to create interactive banner ads.
The horror! The horror!
On this subject, another great example of a fine piece of technology completely misapplied: the page http://www.co.washtenaw.mi.us/DEPTS/ROAD/RDCindex. htm
contains a single java applet, whose *only* purpose is to allow you to click on it so you can
proceed to the "real" homepage that you came to find. Thus this applet (and, in fact, the whole page) serves no useful purpose other than to keep non-java users out of the website. Why? Why?....
Slashdot Mirror
It is possible to carry on Linux development without bitkeeper; it's been done for years. There's no question that bitkeeper has technical advantages, but RMS is arguing that where practical the licensing issues should trump the technical issues.
The greatest feature of Linux, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that its users are empowered by its license instead of being shackled by a proprietary EULA. Why is it too much to ask that Linux developers take into account licensing issues?
Lots of people have put very hard work into free revision-control systems, and hopefully people will be able to do much more, at which point we'll be able to have the best of both worlds. But for now we have a decision: put up with an ugly proprietary license, or make do with something technically inferior.
To characterize RMS as "just pissing in the wind" is grossly unfair. He's written unbelievable amounts of code during his career, exactly so that people would have free alternatives to proprietary tools. He's worked on funding development by others. He's worked on persuading people to produce and use free software. I think he probably has more personal experience than anyone with the sort of tradeoff the Linux developers are making in this case.
I think the argument that only technical issues should be taken into account to the exclusion of any ethical or legal issues, is completely opposed to the spirit of free software development.
--Bruce F.
The linux kernel mailing list is non-stop politics! What you're objecting to, more precisely, is not "politics"--you're objecting to the idea that the decisions which are thrashed out every day on the mailing list should sometimes take into consideration legal and ethical issues, and not just technical issues.
I fail to understand this objection. Don't you think that one of the biggest "features" of the linux kernel is the fact that its users aren't shackled by proprietary EULA's? Shouldn't licensing issues be a consideration in Linux development?
--Bruce F.
RMS has made his position extremely clear on every possible occasion: his dedication to "free software" has nothing to do with the ESR's dubious theory that open source development is a magical technique capabable of the effortless production of vast quantites of excellent code. RMS cares about the freedom itself. Freedom that we take for granted in the physical world but that is completely gone in the world of proprietary software:
On the contrary, Linus is very much a politician. The word "politician" is not synonymous with "person who is willing to argue that some decisions should be made on ethical, and not merely technical, matters."
--Bruce F.
Who told you this? I believe you're incorrect. See the copyright law (I'm assuming you're in the US.):
Note that to fall under case (2) there would have to be an explicit written agreement, and note that as a wedding photographer you are probably not an "employee", hence don't fall under case (1). See, e.g., this summary from the copyright office, for a brief discussion of the relevant definition of an employee.
--Bruce F.
Replace "is not" by "should not be" in the above, apologies....
Oh, give me a break. Have you completely forgotten what the car industry is for? It's not an a charity project; it's there to produce cars that people can buy. If the modern automobile is rendered obsolete tommorow, then we all get to stop throwing our money into that particular pit, we're free to invest in other technology, and the economy benefits. If it takes some government investment to get to that point, as long as the government's expenditure is less than what we would have spent on cars otherwise, then what's the problem?
---Bruce F.
It's too late. Have you noticed that you can't buy a new VCR without Macrovision? (People seem to have overlooked this requirement, but it was passed at the same time as the rest of the DMCA.) Haven't you heard the talk about do-not-record bits on tv broadcasts, and watermarks, and about "plugging the analog hole"?
The new restrictions on digital media were sold with the argument that digital media is special because of the possibility of perfect copies out to the nth generation. But really the people pushing this stuff are just as unhappy about VCR's and cassette tapes. The technical obstacles to DRM in the analog world may be higher, but that won't stop them from trying.
--Bruce F.
Currently, you can play DVD's on linux with a minimum of hassle, and you can do perfectly normal and legitimate things with them like make backups, copy and manipulate screen shots, etc. After the adoption of Palladium, DVD's (or their successors) could be designed to play only on trusted players that don't allow you to do these things, and circumventing these restrictions will require hardware modifications.
Do you see a problem now?
--Bruce F.
Do you have any evidence for this statement? All these discussions (including the discussion over whether or not to include Raymond's configuration system in the kernel) have taken place on public, searchable forums, so if your claim is true then you should be able to produce tons of evidence. (Here's a start.)
My memory of the discussion on lkml was that people had a lot of different problems with CML2, which might or might not have been showstoppers. But I don't remember anyone saying "no, this would make kernel configuration too easy for novices, and we don't want that."
If you accept the premise that "Open Source" development is a magic process for the effortless production of arbitrary amounts of excellent code, or if you assume that it is obvious how to create good user interfaces, then I suppose the only reasonable explanation for a lack of user-friendliness is a conspiracy on the part of developers. Absent those premises, you're free to adopt a more reasonable explanation: writing easy-to-use software is much, much harder than it appears, developers have limited resources, and we just haven't gotten a lot of things right yet.
--Bruce F.
No, they should have picked a few people at random and offered significant incentives to get a good response rate (an entry into a raffle plus an explanation of why their contribution would be helpful might be sufficient).
No, increasing the size of the sample wouldn't have helped; if you work out the statistics, I suspect you'd find that the size of their sample was already much higher than necessary. It's the quality of the sample that counts. Subtle biases in the choice of people that responded (in this case, they were much more likely to get people that visited certain websites) cause inaccuracies that no increase in sample size would help.
Consider two surveys of preferences on presidential candidates; survey A was based on interviewing 200 people chosen uniformly at random from the set of registered voters; survey B was based on interviewing 2000 attendees of a Democratic convention; which result will be more accurate? The biases created by the self-selecting sample in this case may be more subtle than that, but I can think of some (I'm sure you can too), and I suspect a survey based on a more carefully chosen sample would give very different results.
--Bruce F.
I also think that algebra is pushed on students before they are cognitively ready. The average middle school student should go as far as evaluating expressions, variable substitutions, (MAYBE) 1 step equations and (MOST importantly) reading an expression (ie. 3x + 4 means three times x plus 4). The rest of their time should be spent brushing up and applying their ARITHMETIC skills, such as working with/reducing fractions. Give me a class of students who know how to substitute and know their arithmetic, and I'll give you a class of all stars.
No way. This is how we end up with a typical math sequence that goes:
And this is for the super-bright kids. Come on! Even the "slowest" kids want to see something new every now and then!
I know how frustrating it is trying to teach people something when they don't really have the prerequisites down cold yet, but that's life; they'll pick that stuff up when they have to, and you can't let it keep you from throwing the new stuff at them too....
--Bruce F.
We need to do a better job of explaining these issues when we talk about things like the choice of browsers. The media sees a chance to make articles about Mozilla exciting by reviving the "browser wars" and making it all into a battle between two behemoths (Microsoft and AOL). But the licensing and standards issues go deeper than that, and it's to everybody's advantage if the wider public could be made to see this.
--Bruce Fields
To paraphrase Richard Stallman: Why can't we talk about freedom? Why don't any of these reviews make any effort to explain mozilla's licensing and why users should care about it? (Mozilla has a license that allows multiple companies to make competing implementations, and that gives users rights instead of making draconian restrictions. This is an important different that ordinary users can appreciate.)
I can understand why reviewers would feel they should mainly focus on features and the user interface. But to overlook these huge licensing issues completely, to not factor them into the final rating at all, is to ignore a huge glaring difference between mozilla and the competition.
--Bruce F.
Right. I should have said "BSD without advertising clause".
--Bruce Fields
Why do companies have to keep coming up with their own incompatible licenses? Seems to me that, say, the BSD license, the GPL, and the LGPL cover most of the reasonable things you'd want to do with your (free) code, they're relatively well-understood by the community, and they all play nicely together.
Why should we have to waste time trying to evaluate new licenses, when we could just deal with licenses that we already know?
--J. Bruce Fields
So, tell me where to buy a VCR without Macrovision....
I dunno, maybe so, but I wouldn't consider two close calls withing a couple days terribly safe; maybe you need to think about how you're riding? If you're crossing crosswalks and driveways at bike speed, then you're going to get in trouble. Think about what 99.9 percent of drivers do when they make a left turn into their driveway (people from the UK and elsewhere, please switch my lefts and rights):
Note that this works fine for pedestrians, because a pedestrian on a collision course with you is probably already in your driveway, or very close to it, at step 2, so you'll see them in time. A bike, however, could still be 20 feet away. You're not going to see them till step 4, at which point you *may* just have time to make an emergency stop, or you may not.
This is a classic type of bicycle accident--most bike accidents, in fact, involve bikes riding on the sidewalk or riding against traffic. If you really feel you have to ride on the sidewalk, then please at least get in the habit of stopping before you cross driveways or crosswalks.
--Bruce Fields
Yeah, it's a pain for other bikes too--just the other day I had a close call with some bike at a 4-way stop; I stopped and waited my turn, and then as I was crossing he came blasting through in the other direction, out from behind a line of cars that he'd passed on the right. Ugh. Some bike riders are their own worst enemies....
--Bruce Fields
These are standard (solved) problem--you need fenders, the right clothing, etc. Do a google search on bike commuting, or check your local library.
Again, annoying, but lots of people have figured out how to deal with it--find a place you can shower at work, and/or take a change of clothese, and/or shower right before you leave.
I ride to and from work every single day, and do all my shopping and other errands by bike. If all of the many drivers I interact with on a daily basis hate me, they're hiding it well. There's the occasional idiot ("get on the sidewalk", honk honk), but they're the exception. Mostly people are polite, and no-one has ever physically threatened me or forced me off the road.
Sometimes, sometimes not--in urban areas where stoplights and such are the major factor in trip time, you may actually find you're going about the same speed as traffic most of the time.
My bike's pretty narrow and doesn't obstruct the view or the lane as much as the average car. Even when I have to take the lane (because the lane's too narrow to share, or I'm preparing to make a left turn, or whatever), people usually find a way to pass me in a matter of seconds. If I ever found myself "caus[ing] a traffic jam", sure, I'd pull over and let people by, but that has *never* happened.
Then you're in trouble---being visible is really important: wear bright colors, use good lights at night, ride near traffic, not way over in the gutter where people won't be looking, etc. With those kinds of precautions there's no reason you should be more difficult to see. Just because you're not car-shaped doesn't mean you have to be invisible.
Do you have evidence for this statement? Or is it just circular reasoning? (serious accident == accident you have little chance of surviving). People do survive pretty awful-sounding accidents on bikes. I've not seen evidence that supports the popular view of cyclists as such fragile creatures that every little car's fender-bender would be a fatal accident to a cyclist.
Be careful out there, but don't listen to the fearmongers. It's not *that* dangerous.
--Bruce Fields
The correct thing to do in this situation is to first merge right (giving cyclists already there the right of way, just as if you're doing a regular lane merge), and then take the right turn. But then some cyclists who think bike lanes are *never* to be used by cars get mad at you. The whole situation is a confusing to everyone, which is why I prefer to just bike on the road and ride like a regular vehicle--then we all understand the rules.
But those separate thoroughfares are still going to have to intersect the regular road system at regular intervals, and getting those intersections right is really important--intersections are where most accidents happen. Try to work out how to have two entirely separate road systems superimposed on each other with safe intersections that don't cause everyone concerned unnecessary delays, and you'll quickly realize it's not worth the trouble.
Just think of bikes as skinny little cars, and everything will make more sense.
--Bruce Fields
Anyone try riding a bicycle on ice?
You need to take a trip to the ICEBIKE website....
I rode through the Michigan winter this year. It was a pretty mild winter, and they're pretty fast to clear the roads around here. But it is possible to ride under those kinds of conditions--go very slow, and be very sure you know how much turning/braking you can get away with before you skid!
Oh, and get some really, really good protection for your extremities--the rest of your body will stay warm from the exercise, but those fingers can get cold fast....
--Bruce Fields
Yes; go to any university town and watch the students on bicycles. They're doing those kinds of speeds and faster, on crowded sidewalks. This is the reason that some cities ban cycling on the sidewalks downtown. I agree, you'd think the cyclists would be smarter than that, but a bicycle is seductive--it's *hard* to slow down to wobble along at a walking pace when you know you could be gliding along at 15+ mph.
I think they must be convinced somehow that nothing too bad can happen to them, no matter how they ride, as long as they stay on the sidewalk--until the day when they find themselves flying across the hood of a car driven by someone who (not suprisingly) didn't see them while making a left turn across a crosswalk, at which point their life flashes before their eyes, and they ditch cycling, go buy an SUV, and live the rest of their life encased in a big steel security blanket.
Somehow I think we've all accepted this idea that "sidewalk == safe" and "road == dangerous" and in doing so we've lost our ability to reason sensibly about traffic safety.
--Bruce Fields
Bike lanes (as opposed to bike/multi-use paths, which are separated from the road) are a part of the road, and the rules that apply are the same as the rules of the road. Bikes can ride on them essentially because they have the already have the right to use roads. For example, Michigan law says: "Every person riding a bicycle or moped upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature do not have applications."
Here's what I believe to be the definition of a bike in Michigan law: ""Bicycle" means a device propelled by human power upon which a person may ride, having either 2 or 3 wheels in a tandem or tricycle arrangement, all of which are over 14 inches in diameter." I believe other state law is similar. Doesn't sound like a Segway.
And a moped: ""Moped" means a 2- or 3-wheeled vehicle which is equipped with a motor that does not exceed 50 cubic centimeters piston displacement, produces 2.0 brake horsepower or less, and cannot propel the vehicle at a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on a level surface. The power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears." Don't ask me.
The sensible thing to do would be to put Segways on the road--vehicles with significant stopping distances need to ride traffic rules to operate safely--but I guess the Segway people know that too many Americans have been brainwashed into believing that you can't be safe on a road without being surrounded by some kind of tank. So they have to sell the Segway as a toy for the sidewalk. Sad.
The truly sad thing, of course, is that we already have the perfect personal vehicle---bicycle technology is cheaper, more mature, and more efficient than this stupid Segway. But no-one sees this because they're convinced that bicycles are just toys to be ridden for fun on weekends, and because they're convinced (contrary to any evidence I've seen, and to my own experience) that it's dreadfully dangerous to actually use a bicycle on a road as real transportation.
--Bruce Fields
On a street, where you have rules about right-of-way, and where you can count on people to *look* before they enter traffic, that sort of stopping distance is fine. On a sidewalk, where anyone in front of you can change direction on a dime, where people can appear from corners or doorway with no warning, it's a disaster.
14 mph is about a 4-minute mile, right? Isn't that pretty close to a flat-out sprint for the mortals among us? Would you really feel safe sprinting on a city sidewalk on a regular basis?
Actually, getting hit by a runner 75 pounds heavier than me who sounds extremely unpleasant. Not something I would want to be happening on a regular basis on the sidewalks in my town; would you?
Collisions with motor vehicles are also going to be a problem: note that you do *not* escape conflicts with cars by riding on the sidewalk. Instead, every driveway and intersection represents a potential conflict with a motorist, and motorists are *not* going to be looking out for people moving at high speeds on the sidewalk. (Think about where you look when you pull into or out of your driveway--would you see someone approaching from the wrong direction on the sidewalk in time to avoid a collision?) This is the reason that, by some estimates, sidewalk cyclists have double the accident rates of road cyclists. The same principles apply to segway users.
Sounds like the Segway people have a pretty good line; perhaps I shouldn't be so amazed that they're getting away with buying this kind of legislation. But they really need some opposition. Here's one summary of the issue from the point of view of pedestrian advocates.
--Bruce Fields
The horror! The horror!
On this subject, another great example of a fine piece of technology completely misapplied: the page http://www.co.washtenaw.mi.us/DEPTS/ROAD/RDCindex. htm
contains a single java applet, whose *only* purpose is to allow you to click on it so you can
proceed to the "real" homepage that you came to find. Thus this applet (and, in fact, the whole page) serves no useful purpose other than to keep non-java users out of the website. Why? Why?....
--Bruce Fields