I think this may be like playing a sport to learn physics or writing a computer game to learn a programming language. It's a fun way to figure out some practical concepts that may eventually be applied to something else. Sure, we aren't going to see Honda produce dancing cars or conversational power generators, but building a robot like this introduces lots of design challanges that can be used for other things, plus it may get the engineers thinking more creatively than they usually do. Sorry, I can't think of any examples--perhaps since I haven't been building robots.
that would apply to computer-related (or any binary logic) top ten lists, but a math top ten list should be more like this:
Greatest 10 (=ln e^10) reasons why e is better than pi: Let r be the number of elements in the ordered sequence of reasons why e is better than pi. Let f(N) be the Nth reason why e is better than pi.
f(r-9)={pi~= 3.141592653589793 while e~=2.718281828459045.} f(r-8)={e is easier to spell than pi.} f(r-7)={The character for e can be found on a keyboard, but pi sure can't.} f(r-6)={Everybody fights for their piece of the pi.} f(r-5)={ln(pi) is a really nasty number, but ln(e) = 1.} f(r-4)={e is used in calculus while pi is used in baby geometry.} f(r-3)={'e' is the most commonly used letter in the English alphabet.} f(r-2)={e stands for Euler's Number, pi doesn't stand for squat.} f(r-1)={You don't need to know Greek to be able to use e.} f(r)={You can't confuse e with a food product.}
MIDI recievers CAN be built to do anything with the on/off controls. There are even pitch bend and modulation controls that can be used to control an analogue action (though it's 128-step granular, a few controls can be hacked together to get a multiple of 128 steps). One could build an airplane flown by midi, a scripting language that uses midi signals as commands or input/output, a whole lot of stuff that there's absolutely no reason to want to do with midi. Does CBR use MIDI to control the robots? I don't know if there's anything CBR does that couldn't be controlled by MIDI, but I don't see why there would be. Sometimes it's just easier to not use MIDI, though.
If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
It seems to me that if installing RedHat on multiple systems (making a "good faith" effort to not include proprietary software) is copyright infringement, that's RedHat's fault, and they should be legally responsible if anyone tries to collect.
The ruling was that Microsoft had to create a mechanism to allow redestributers of Windows (Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc.) to set a different web browser as the default and (poorly) hide internet explorer from users of such systems. So IE is still there after the anti-trust.
"Any improvements must necessarily benefit everybody. period." I don't think so. The GPL does not require redistribution of source code, it requires that redistrobution of source code be allowed by anyone who has the software. Although this Linksys case seems to be a violation of the GPL (not allowing those who have the software, in firmware, to redistribute or even have the full code), here are two examples of modifying GPL'd code that do not benefit everybody, but do not violate the GPL: An individual modifies GPL'd code solely for personal benefit, and does not give away the binary or source code. If the binary is not distributed, the source does not need to be distributed. A company modifies GPL'd software and uses it internally, but does not officially sell or distribute this software. Without contractual obligation to keep the code secret, no employees who have recieved the software distribute it. The software has been distributed [within the company] by the terms of the GPL, but nobody is "taking advantage" of this and giving the software to others.
Simply put: no. Less[er[ly]] simply put: I often find myself thinking to create a fork of the english language (and suing anyone who doesn't license it? (just trying to keep mildly on-topic here)). English syntax, for example, is often very ambiguous and troublesome to parse. Not that this post, however, uses either standard english or my supposed fork.
I'd expect things on soviet mars to be a little different than in soviet russia. Someone else had an interesting idea but it turned out to be completely non-opposite ("nuclear plants power you"). Perhaps on soviet mars:
This is different because there are other distros that are compatible with Red Hat (ie Linux) binaries and compatible with Mozilla and mplayer files. Not only are there distros that bundle other web browsers and media players, anyone can build their own system, and Red Hat also bundles other browsers and media players. Linux users and even Red Hat users have a choice to have any browser and media player be the first and only installed. Microsoft also happens to be the company that developed WMP and IE. Do they bundle software that they don't own? Red Hat did not develop Mozilla, mplayer, or most of the other software that comes with their system.
Though this was labeled as troll, and I can see why, I can also see the point in it. Some may not, so I will clarify. Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser is horrid about complying to W3C standards, and even creates its own "standards" that some people are more likely to comply to. Maybe this wouldn't be labeled troll if the statement was more like, "This is a great development for the W3C, but seems that, unfortunately, it's not going to do much good. Microsoft has been making web standards useless ever since they 'took control' of the 'browser market,' and they don't seem to care about accessable web pages (WCAG 1.0, US section 508). I did check the document source for an accessable alternative version as the W3C standards would accept instead of the main version being accessable, but they have no alternative versions, even for mobile devices or anything."
Removal of pop-ups is a recommendation of the current w3c accessability standards. Switching window focus without letting the user know that it is going to happen can confuse accessibility programs and users. I believe pop-unders are just a hack that switches focus back, so they are also not recommended.
Very few web sites that I've seen care about accessibility standards. Very few web devs, it seems, even care about W3C standards, because they develop for browsers (i.e. IE) rather than for the web (i.e. W3C standards). Check a number of pages with Watchfire Bobby and you'll see. Even slashdot has quite a few "violations" of the WCAG 1.0 standard.
And how do you expect windows users to download a browser...if they don't have a browser?
I don't like MS, windows, or IE, but a browser sort of has to be in the OS to begin with. Since it's an MS OS, why not an MS browser? I don't think removing IE from windows is necissarily a good thing. I think MS should make the browser-system interface or API publicly available so that users and OEM resellers can set other browsers to completely replace explorer as the default or only internet and file browser. The legally required defaults and access scheme is imho not enough, but removing IE may be too much.
It's unfortunate that the article doesn't go into the reason for Estonia declaring internet access a human right. I however, see a possible reasons they might do such a thing.
Free speech:
Free speech and exchange of ideas are theoretically (scientific definition) important to societal, technological, and other human advancement. If you can say whatever you want but can't say it to anyone, then you don't have free speech. Free speech must be available to the public or it is without value. The internet is generally accepted as the newest and most advanced method of enacting free speech. Though it may be a bit drastic to say that internet itself is a human right, it is a very good way of allowing free speech.
This would assume that Estonians have the right to free speech, which I expect but am not certain of.
But windowing systems are far more similar to each other than any of them are to a command-line interface.
Surprizingly not always. But as you say, it is a good idea to start a new user with something similar to what they are used to. Usually this would be KDE, Gnome, IceWM, etc. When I first used Linux, I was repulsed by WMs like blackbox. I wanted something "easy," so I used KDE. But I later used blackbox and really enjoyed it. I tried a lot of others, and now I used ratpoison, which is based on the command line interface GNU screen. Even if KDE and Gnome aren't in a missionary's opinion the best WMs, I believe they should be recommended to new users because they will be familiar and allow the newbie to focus on using the programs.
Old free software will lapse, but new versions of the software will be copyrighted. The changes to the software make it a derivative work and depending on the license, elligible for a new copyright. It may not be on the entire piece of software, but the changes accumulated in fifty years are so signifigant that such old software, free or not, will be obsolete. The changes over the past fifty years (likely much less) are what would be useful in the public domain, for the most part.
I'm not sure of copyleft materials besides software. I can see how such a concept would work, but I don't know of any copylefted art or non-software content. I don't know how free art is licensed and used, so I don't know the implications of this bill and copyright law on said art. Please tell me more about this or give an example. If free art is freely distributed but not modifiable, I think that it is a good thing if it lapses into public domain after "only" fifty years (if not sooner). If free art is under something like GPL, then the new artworks will retain this license and the old works will lapse into completely unrestricted use (after fifty years since the original work). Is this good for free art? I don't know.
The public domain is "good" not only because it allows previously commercial works to be used freely, but it also allows new commercial works that would not be possible under copyright or copyleft. These works will eventually lapse into public domain as well, and the cycle of improvement (with monetary incentive) is supposed to perpetuate itself. I think copyright should be dropped as soon as the copyright holder loses interest (if this is possible to accurately define for legal purposes).
I wasn't able to get through the l3g4l sp33k, so I didn't get if this bill (or existing copyright law) requires things to be made available for distrobution under public domain, but I think it should, since copy prevention systems (DRM and such) could create "mechanically" inifinite-length copyrights if not governed. Anyone know?
I agree that this is not going to make it anywhere, but I believe that if some person or company is still making money on a copyright after fifty years, they should be keeping track of it. If someone has lost track of a copyright, it's no longer worth their time, and should be given to the public. I've been hoping for something like this (to pass, too).
Slashdot Mirror
I think this may be like playing a sport to learn physics or writing a computer game to learn a programming language. It's a fun way to figure out some practical concepts that may eventually be applied to something else. Sure, we aren't going to see Honda produce dancing cars or conversational power generators, but building a robot like this introduces lots of design challanges that can be used for other things, plus it may get the engineers thinking more creatively than they usually do. Sorry, I can't think of any examples--perhaps since I haven't been building robots.
I managed to get this picture. I wasn't able to hear them in action, though.
that would apply to computer-related (or any binary logic) top ten lists, but a math top ten list should be more like this:
Greatest 10 (=ln e^10) reasons why e is better than pi:
Let r be the number of elements in the ordered sequence of reasons why e is better than pi.
Let f(N) be the Nth reason why e is better than pi.
f(r-9)={pi~= 3.141592653589793 while e~=2.718281828459045.}
f(r-8)={e is easier to spell than pi.}
f(r-7)={The character for e can be found on a keyboard, but pi sure can't.}
f(r-6)={Everybody fights for their piece of the pi.}
f(r-5)={ln(pi) is a really nasty number, but ln(e) = 1.}
f(r-4)={e is used in calculus while pi is used in baby geometry.}
f(r-3)={'e' is the most commonly used letter in the English alphabet.}
f(r-2)={e stands for Euler's Number, pi doesn't stand for squat.}
f(r-1)={You don't need to know Greek to be able to use e.}
f(r)={You can't confuse e with a food product.}
MIDI recievers CAN be built to do anything with the on/off controls. There are even pitch bend and modulation controls that can be used to control an analogue action (though it's 128-step granular, a few controls can be hacked together to get a multiple of 128 steps).
One could build an airplane flown by midi, a scripting language that uses midi signals as commands or input/output, a whole lot of stuff that there's absolutely no reason to want to do with midi. Does CBR use MIDI to control the robots? I don't know if there's anything CBR does that couldn't be controlled by MIDI, but I don't see why there would be. Sometimes it's just easier to not use MIDI, though.
The ruling was that Microsoft had to create a mechanism to allow redestributers of Windows (Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc.) to set a different web browser as the default and (poorly) hide internet explorer from users of such systems. So IE is still there after the anti-trust.
"Any improvements must necessarily benefit everybody. period."
I don't think so. The GPL does not require redistribution of source code, it requires that redistrobution of source code be allowed by anyone who has the software. Although this Linksys case seems to be a violation of the GPL (not allowing those who have the software, in firmware, to redistribute or even have the full code), here are two examples of modifying GPL'd code that do not benefit everybody, but do not violate the GPL:
An individual modifies GPL'd code solely for personal benefit, and does not give away the binary or source code. If the binary is not distributed, the source does not need to be distributed.
A company modifies GPL'd software and uses it internally, but does not officially sell or distribute this software. Without contractual obligation to keep the code secret, no employees who have recieved the software distribute it. The software has been distributed [within the company] by the terms of the GPL, but nobody is "taking advantage" of this and giving the software to others.
Simply put: no. Less[er[ly]] simply put: I often find myself thinking to create a fork of the english language (and suing anyone who doesn't license it? (just trying to keep mildly on-topic here)). English syntax, for example, is often very ambiguous and troublesome to parse. Not that this post, however, uses either standard english or my supposed fork.
power buildings plant nuclear humans!
um...right. Just my $0.01(e) russumartian
woops, posted wrong *BSD, but openBSD uses openBSD or netBSD, according to netcraft
not according to netcraft
WMP a WMD? a few mixes: Weapon of Mass Player Windows [of] Mass Destruction Weapon of Media Destruction Windows Mass Player
This is different because there are other distros that are compatible with Red Hat (ie Linux) binaries and compatible with Mozilla and mplayer files. Not only are there distros that bundle other web browsers and media players, anyone can build their own system, and Red Hat also bundles other browsers and media players. Linux users and even Red Hat users have a choice to have any browser and media player be the first and only installed.
Microsoft also happens to be the company that developed WMP and IE. Do they bundle software that they don't own? Red Hat did not develop Mozilla, mplayer, or most of the other software that comes with their system.
...or who it considers a user?
Though this was labeled as troll, and I can see why, I can also see the point in it. Some may not, so I will clarify. Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser is horrid about complying to W3C standards, and even creates its own "standards" that some people are more likely to comply to. Maybe this wouldn't be labeled troll if the statement was more like, "This is a great development for the W3C, but seems that, unfortunately, it's not going to do much good. Microsoft has been making web standards useless ever since they 'took control' of the 'browser market,' and they don't seem to care about accessable web pages (WCAG 1.0, US section 508). I did check the document source for an accessable alternative version as the W3C standards would accept instead of the main version being accessable, but they have no alternative versions, even for mobile devices or anything."
Removal of pop-ups is a recommendation of the current w3c accessability standards. Switching window focus without letting the user know that it is going to happen can confuse accessibility programs and users. I believe pop-unders are just a hack that switches focus back, so they are also not recommended.
Very few web sites that I've seen care about accessibility standards. Very few web devs, it seems, even care about W3C standards, because they develop for browsers (i.e. IE) rather than for the web (i.e. W3C standards). Check a number of pages with Watchfire Bobby and you'll see. Even slashdot has quite a few "violations" of the WCAG 1.0 standard.
Would a beowulf cluster of atomic supermen do well enough?
And how do you expect windows users to download a browser...if they don't have a browser?
I don't like MS, windows, or IE, but a browser sort of has to be in the OS to begin with. Since it's an MS OS, why not an MS browser? I don't think removing IE from windows is necissarily a good thing. I think MS should make the browser-system interface or API publicly available so that users and OEM resellers can set other browsers to completely replace explorer as the default or only internet and file browser. The legally required defaults and access scheme is imho not enough, but removing IE may be too much.
AtheOS!...?
The adware could simply purge the hosts file reasonably often, even block competitors' websites with it. No need for a replacement DNS client.
Free speech:
Free speech and exchange of ideas are theoretically (scientific definition) important to societal, technological, and other human advancement. If you can say whatever you want but can't say it to anyone, then you don't have free speech. Free speech must be available to the public or it is without value. The internet is generally accepted as the newest and most advanced method of enacting free speech. Though it may be a bit drastic to say that internet itself is a human right, it is a very good way of allowing free speech.
This would assume that Estonians have the right to free speech, which I expect but am not certain of.
Surprizingly not always. But as you say, it is a good idea to start a new user with something similar to what they are used to. Usually this would be KDE, Gnome, IceWM, etc. When I first used Linux, I was repulsed by WMs like blackbox. I wanted something "easy," so I used KDE. But I later used blackbox and really enjoyed it. I tried a lot of others, and now I used ratpoison, which is based on the command line interface GNU screen. Even if KDE and Gnome aren't in a missionary's opinion the best WMs, I believe they should be recommended to new users because they will be familiar and allow the newbie to focus on using the programs.
Old free software will lapse, but new versions of the software will be copyrighted. The changes to the software make it a derivative work and depending on the license, elligible for a new copyright. It may not be on the entire piece of software, but the changes accumulated in fifty years are so signifigant that such old software, free or not, will be obsolete. The changes over the past fifty years (likely much less) are what would be useful in the public domain, for the most part.
I'm not sure of copyleft materials besides software. I can see how such a concept would work, but I don't know of any copylefted art or non-software content. I don't know how free art is licensed and used, so I don't know the implications of this bill and copyright law on said art. Please tell me more about this or give an example. If free art is freely distributed but not modifiable, I think that it is a good thing if it lapses into public domain after "only" fifty years (if not sooner). If free art is under something like GPL, then the new artworks will retain this license and the old works will lapse into completely unrestricted use (after fifty years since the original work). Is this good for free art? I don't know.
The public domain is "good" not only because it allows previously commercial works to be used freely, but it also allows new commercial works that would not be possible under copyright or copyleft. These works will eventually lapse into public domain as well, and the cycle of improvement (with monetary incentive) is supposed to perpetuate itself. I think copyright should be dropped as soon as the copyright holder loses interest (if this is possible to accurately define for legal purposes).
I wasn't able to get through the l3g4l sp33k, so I didn't get if this bill (or existing copyright law) requires things to be made available for distrobution under public domain, but I think it should, since copy prevention systems (DRM and such) could create "mechanically" inifinite-length copyrights if not governed. Anyone know?
I agree that this is not going to make it anywhere, but I believe that if some person or company is still making money on a copyright after fifty years, they should be keeping track of it. If someone has lost track of a copyright, it's no longer worth their time, and should be given to the public. I've been hoping for something like this (to pass, too).