How when
GPL is "violated" that the "GPL code" is copied, there will be two copies of the code! The first code creator can still use the code all they want!
Explain that "violating the GPL" is Very Bad.
You can see how this is Very Bad, can't you?
Your inbred human tuition should make you recoil in revulsion from even thinking about giving away anything with a (c).
It is so Evil that I'm sure most of the world's major religions have strict prohibitions against it.
So remember, kids, if you pirate^H^H^H^H^H^H copyright infringe on RIAA music then violating the GPL is A-okay too!
The CAS used on the TI-89, TI-92, etc., is Derive.
Interesting, I didn't know that. I always wondered why TI bought out those guys.
Still, I believe that the HP 200LX+Derive combo is superior to the 68k based TIs because of greater RAM and a better display, not to mention the integrated PIM software (which was very good for its time) and DOS compatibility of the 200LX.
It's a pity Derive never came out for Palm or WinCE.
The closest thing to what what he's looking for is the DOS version of Derive running on the Hewlett-Packard HP200LX, a 80186 (not a typo) based DOS handheld. (A bit of searching should turn up a demo.)
Derive for DOS is old and the interface is a bit clunky (compared to Maple or Mathematica), but it beat the tar out of a HP48. Heck, on a 200LX, it's probably still the best and most usable symbolic math package in something approaching the size of a scientific calculator. (Though that may be changing with the availablity of source code for systems like Axiom and Maxmima.)
I think it's time to set a few examples and sue a few of these companies for the $150K per infringement statutory damage that goes along with wilful copyright violation for commercial gain.
They might have problems reading licenses, but I'm sure that will get the message across
The message being "Don't ever have anything to do with GPL code"?
(Geez, guys, everybody knows we don't get to start turning the thumbscrews until after the GPL model dominates the software industry.:) )
One of the things from the poster that mystifies me is the lack of mention of testing. How does each new build of the kernel get validated for release? What types and levels of testing are done (e.g. integration, HW compatibility, etc.)? Can anyone explain?
Have you ever used anything other than an x86 machine?
Sun machines have had powerful firmware since before the development of the Sparc architecture, which include net boot (requiring the TCP/IP stack you mention), hardware diagnostics, a handy little assembler/debugger, etc. without much in the way of bugs or security problems that I recall.
Exactly! It it no more inconceivable that that some modified or evolved form of human being be strong enough to carry a tourist down the Grand Canyon than some sufficiently complex mechanical or electronic process exhibit intelligence.
Sorry, "soul" was probably the wrong word. How about creative thinking, or non-linear thinking. To use a stupid coined term.. thinking outside the box.
The computer can think logically through all the possible answers, but maybe the real answer is something you have to see between the lines.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; the brain is a computer of sorts, is it not? Reduce a person and a computer to subatomic particles, and you'll find they're made of exactly the same electrons, protons, neutrons, and the odd photon or two. If one of these two arrangements of particles can exhibit intelligent thought, why isn't it conceptually possible that the other too?
but because the difference in price between an 8-bit and a 32-bit chip these days is negligible
Lets say there are 250 million pocket calculators (or CD players or microwaves or whatever) out there in the world. Every penny shaved off the cost of the processor and support electronics would save the manufacturer 2.5 million dollars. Do you call that negligible?
8-bit microcontrollers may go away but it won't be in the lifetime of anyone here.
Uh, Thinking Machines' Connection Machine CM-1 and CM-2 were composed of up to 65536 *1-bit* processors which could be grouped together in various ways for processing. Even then, grouping 32 of these bit slices would have been in no way competitive with an equivalent 32-bit microprocessor
(Some advice: If you're going to be snide, make sure you know what you're talking about first.)
The question in my mind is: Kasparov won the last two games. Had there been more than four games in the series, would X3D Fritz have won any games other than the initial two or has Kasparov figured out a strategy to beat Fritz?
Do you really believe we'll still be using 64-bit cpus in 2038? We already have 256-bit gpus, and we've had 64-bit game consoles for a while.
Uh, GPUs are 256 bits in the same way that 8 C64's glued together are 64-bits, which is to say, not in the slightest. It's just marketing BS.
Because he actually knows what he's talking about. Here's a hint: the market for 8-bit processors is absolutely enormous even today. There's even a small but significant market for 4-bit processors. Do a little research.
(I can't believe the parent post is modded +3, Interesting.)
First of all, I never said Intangibles Can't Have Value. If you'd read some of the replies I made to my origonal post, I qualified that I do, in fact, purchase some things I could obtain illegaly online (videogames being the biggest) because I know I would buy them if I couldn't get them online, so I do buy them.
Okay.
But your hypothetical barber is a bad example. He outputted energy. He put forth specific effort with an understanding I would repay him. By not paying, there was no exchange.
The problem with your analogy is it's contradictory. Your subject, "Intangible can have value," implies that your post will be about intagibles. But going to the barber has a tangible effect: I've lost hair. Or, at the very least, it's been styled in a new and exciting way.
Likewise with your hotel example. You're saying something that is VERY tangible is intangible. By staying there I'm using services (electricity, water) and forcing the staff to put forth effort to undo what I did to the room. Even if I was a perfect guest and cleaned up after myself, the staff still has to change sheets and towels and clean up the room. Unless I stood in the middle of the room, with the lights off, on a giant tarp, I'd be forcing the hotel to spend money to clean up after me. Not intangible at all.
That's merely nit-picking. Let's alter the analogy: let's assume that you pay the barber/hotel the exact cost of the material and effort so that they lose not a penny from you having interacted from them. Would you expect to win your case in front of a judge and jury?
But when a creator makes something (be it music, movies, videogames, porn, whatver) there is no obligation for me to purchase their work. They've created with the _HOPE_ they will get what they view to be a fair financial value for their art. I'm not going to purchase any Britany Spears music. Ever. Period. I could download 10,000 copies of "Oops, I'm a Stupid Whore Propped Up By My Large Breasts and The Record Industry Again" (or whatever her latest hit is called) and she would not have lost a single penny.
Yeah, I download and store songs from artists that I absolutely loathe all the time. In fact that's what 99% P2Pers are doing! Pull the other one; it's got bells on it.
That's the trouble a lot of people are having with the new and scary possibilities of Peer-to-Peer software, and technology in general. There are NO really good analogies. Not one. The closest would be photocopying. In the past, I could photocopy a book with minimal effort. And, if I wasn't going to buy the book then, sure, my origonal argument applies: the publishers haven't lost a sale. But (as much as publishing companies feared photocopiers would put them out of business) P2P filesharing will not kill creativity or music or movies. It will, hopefully, force the economy of such entertainment to change. This will not benifit the monoplostic cartels currently in power, but will hopefully benifit the consumer.
The principle is the same, if a creator of some goods/information gives their goods/information to you, that's fine, but you may not take it without their permission. This a fair principle whether the creator is starving or a filthy rich cartel.
And the last time I checked, no business has a "right" to exist. ...snip...
There's a Heinlein quote that, I appologize, I can't find at the moment. Undoubtedly someone with more skill than I can google for it, but I was unsuccessful. The basic gist is this: No individual or business has the right to expect the government to stop time for their personal gain.
And I agree 100% that no given business has a right to exist and unprofitable business should not be subsidised. However, business must retain the right to set the price for which they will provide their goods and services. And make no mistake, listening to a song is a rendered service that cost the artists and studio money to provide and for which
The trap here is that they are calculating this as if they actually lost something tangible, like a car.
Do you pay your barber after getting a haircut even though you didn't get anything tangible from him?
While the PR flacks for commercial software companies are likely overstating the loss by using retail pricing, getting the benefit (however dubious) of using their software does in some way screw over the developer.
The old "I'm not depriving anyone of anything." canard is easily demolished.
1. Go for a haircut at a barbershop when no one else is around.
2. Don't pay.
3. See how far you get in front of a judge and jury when if you say "I didn't deprive him of anything. There wasn't anyone else around that would have paid anyway."
Repeat above exercise with a hotel with lots of vacancies.
1. At the risk of redundancy, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
I'm so tired of hearing this. Technically it's true, but is there anyone here that can envision saying this in front of a judge and 12 jurors and not actually *losing* credibility? You'll[1] still know that it's illegal (note I didn't say immoral), they'll still know it's illegal, and they might even throw the book at you a bit harder for attempting to obfuscate the issue.
[1] "you" in the generic sense, not specifically referring to the parent poster.
Oh brother, not the old "drug companies are evil because they make lots of money off of human misery" routine again. Who's going to bother gathering the millions for pharmaceutical development without the promise of potential billions? (Even the wonderful altruism that makes up the open source movement has reasons behind it, even if it's making the author feel good about helping others.) Mandating that drug companies not be able to make those billions is just improving the present by cannibalizing the future.
Insightful, my ass. Suppose that the indigent Vietnamese decide that they can't afford to give away the competitive advanage produced by their changes to GPL code and decide not to honor the GPL? "Demonstrates how serious we should take the 'GPL", doesn't it?"
Agreed. Of the fountain pens still currently manufactured and priced in the range for practical use the Namiki/Pilot Vanishing Point is the one I like the best.
I'm surprised and a little disappointed that Battlezone didn't make the list (though it is mentioned in the reader's picks). For those who haven't played it, it's a hybrid of RTS and FPS with a simple and intuitive interface. Vehichles are piloted using FPS type controls and you can issue FPS type commands to AI piloted vehicles, but you also can command support units to build factories and defense structures. Visualize playing Command and Conquer but issuing your commands among your troops through a hail of enemy fire, or playing Unreal Tournament, except you can build structures to heal you, add more members to your team, and defensive structures like turrets.
I believe it will one day be thought of as the precursor what future FPS's will be like (AI team-mates that you can issue complex commands to, placeable terrain features (e.g. turrets, mines), multiple pilotable vehichles whose weapons could be customized, etc.). Truly underrated, truly an excellent game.
(There was a sequel, Battlezone 2, that mostly kept the same mechanics yet somehow managed not to be particularly fun.)
No developer should ever be required to compensate for any persons disability. The developers responsibility is to deliver valid HTML to the user.
This view is, pardon the pun, rather shortsighted. When you're 70 or 80 and your sight starts giving out, do you plan on giving up using the web? Didn't think so.
As more and more web-saavy people enter old age, any business with a web page that isn't accessible is going to receive a rude awakening.
Slashdot Mirror
So remember, kids, if you pirate^H^H^H^H^H^H copyright infringe on RIAA music then violating the GPL is A-okay too!
The CAS used on the TI-89, TI-92, etc., is Derive.
Interesting, I didn't know that. I always wondered why TI bought out those guys.
Still, I believe that the HP 200LX+Derive combo is superior to the 68k based TIs because of greater RAM and a better display, not to mention the integrated PIM software (which was very good for its time) and DOS compatibility of the 200LX.
It's a pity Derive never came out for Palm or WinCE.
The closest thing to what what he's looking for is the DOS version of Derive running on the Hewlett-Packard HP200LX, a 80186 (not a typo) based DOS handheld. (A bit of searching should turn up a demo.)
Derive for DOS is old and the interface is a bit clunky (compared to Maple or Mathematica), but it beat the tar out of a HP48. Heck, on a 200LX, it's probably still the best and most usable symbolic math package in something approaching the size of a scientific calculator. (Though that may be changing with the availablity of source code for systems like Axiom and Maxmima.)
I think it's time to set a few examples and sue a few of these companies for the $150K per infringement statutory damage that goes along with wilful copyright violation for commercial gain.
:) )
They might have problems reading licenses, but I'm sure that will get the message across
The message being "Don't ever have anything to do with GPL code"?
(Geez, guys, everybody knows we don't get to start turning the thumbscrews until after the GPL model dominates the software industry.
One of the things from the poster that mystifies me is the lack of mention of testing. How does each new build of the kernel get validated for release? What types and levels of testing are done (e.g. integration, HW compatibility, etc.)? Can anyone explain?
Have you ever used anything other than an x86 machine?
Sun machines have had powerful firmware since before the development of the Sparc architecture, which include net boot (requiring the TCP/IP stack you mention), hardware diagnostics, a handy little assembler/debugger, etc. without much in the way of bugs or security problems that I recall.
In this context, trust is a one-way street...
We have to trust them, they don't trust us.
Having read the "Apple's iTunes DRM Cracked?" article, I'd have to say "we" haven't done anything to deserve that trust.
Exactly! It it no more inconceivable that that some modified or evolved form of human being be strong enough to carry a tourist down the Grand Canyon than some sufficiently complex mechanical or electronic process exhibit intelligence.
(Probably not the response you were expecting.)
Sorry, "soul" was probably the wrong word. How about creative thinking, or non-linear thinking. To use a stupid coined term.. thinking outside the box.
The computer can think logically through all the possible answers, but maybe the real answer is something you have to see between the lines.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; the brain is a computer of sorts, is it not? Reduce a person and a computer to subatomic particles, and you'll find they're made of exactly the same electrons, protons, neutrons, and the odd photon or two. If one of these two arrangements of particles can exhibit intelligent thought, why isn't it conceptually possible that the other too?
but because the difference in price between an 8-bit and a 32-bit chip these days is negligible
Lets say there are 250 million pocket calculators (or CD players or microwaves or whatever) out there in the world. Every penny shaved off the cost of the processor and support electronics would save the manufacturer 2.5 million dollars. Do you call that negligible?
8-bit microcontrollers may go away but it won't be in the lifetime of anyone here.
Uh, Thinking Machines' Connection Machine CM-1 and CM-2 were composed of up to 65536 *1-bit* processors which could be grouped together in various ways for processing. Even then, grouping 32 of these bit slices would have been in no way competitive with an equivalent 32-bit microprocessor
(Some advice: If you're going to be snide, make sure you know what you're talking about first.)
The question in my mind is: Kasparov won the last two games. Had there been more than four games in the series, would X3D Fritz have won any games other than the initial two or has Kasparov figured out a strategy to beat Fritz?
Do you really believe we'll still be using 64-bit cpus in 2038? We already have 256-bit gpus, and we've had 64-bit game consoles for a while. Uh, GPUs are 256 bits in the same way that 8 C64's glued together are 64-bits, which is to say, not in the slightest. It's just marketing BS.
How can you say that with a strait(sic) face?
Because he actually knows what he's talking about. Here's a hint: the market for 8-bit processors is absolutely enormous even today. There's even a small but significant market for 4-bit processors. Do a little research.
(I can't believe the parent post is modded +3, Interesting.)
Are you kidding? As I recall from past /. articles, Sun started forking over cash to SCO even before MS did.
Okay.
But your hypothetical barber is a bad example. He outputted energy. He put forth specific effort with an understanding I would repay him. By not paying, there was no exchange.
The problem with your analogy is it's contradictory. Your subject, "Intangible can have value," implies that your post will be about intagibles. But going to the barber has a tangible effect: I've lost hair. Or, at the very least, it's been styled in a new and exciting way.
Likewise with your hotel example. You're saying something that is VERY tangible is intangible. By staying there I'm using services (electricity, water) and forcing the staff to put forth effort to undo what I did to the room. Even if I was a perfect guest and cleaned up after myself, the staff still has to change sheets and towels and clean up the room. Unless I stood in the middle of the room, with the lights off, on a giant tarp, I'd be forcing the hotel to spend money to clean up after me. Not intangible at all.
That's merely nit-picking. Let's alter the analogy: let's assume that you pay the barber/hotel the exact cost of the material and effort so that they lose not a penny from you having interacted from them. Would you expect to win your case in front of a judge and jury?
But when a creator makes something (be it music, movies, videogames, porn, whatver) there is no obligation for me to purchase their work. They've created with the _HOPE_ they will get what they view to be a fair financial value for their art. I'm not going to purchase any Britany Spears music. Ever. Period. I could download 10,000 copies of "Oops, I'm a Stupid Whore Propped Up By My Large Breasts and The Record Industry Again" (or whatever her latest hit is called) and she would not have lost a single penny.
Yeah, I download and store songs from artists that I absolutely loathe all the time. In fact that's what 99% P2Pers are doing! Pull the other one; it's got bells on it.
That's the trouble a lot of people are having with the new and scary possibilities of Peer-to-Peer software, and technology in general. There are NO really good analogies. Not one. The closest would be photocopying. In the past, I could photocopy a book with minimal effort. And, if I wasn't going to buy the book then, sure, my origonal argument applies: the publishers haven't lost a sale. But (as much as publishing companies feared photocopiers would put them out of business) P2P filesharing will not kill creativity or music or movies. It will, hopefully, force the economy of such entertainment to change. This will not benifit the monoplostic cartels currently in power, but will hopefully benifit the consumer.
The principle is the same, if a creator of some goods/information gives their goods/information to you, that's fine, but you may not take it without their permission. This a fair principle whether the creator is starving or a filthy rich cartel.
And the last time I checked, no business has a "right" to exist.
...snip...
There's a Heinlein quote that, I appologize, I can't find at the moment. Undoubtedly someone with more skill than I can google for it, but I was unsuccessful. The basic gist is this: No individual or business has the right to expect the government to stop time for their personal gain.
And I agree 100% that no given business has a right to exist and unprofitable business should not be subsidised. However, business must retain the right to set the price for which they will provide their goods and services. And make no mistake, listening to a song is a rendered service that cost the artists and studio money to provide and for which
Do you pay your barber after getting a haircut even though you didn't get anything tangible from him?
While the PR flacks for commercial software companies are likely overstating the loss by using retail pricing, getting the benefit (however dubious) of using their software does in some way screw over the developer.
1. Go for a haircut at a barbershop when no one else is around.
2. Don't pay.
3. See how far you get in front of a judge and jury when if you say "I didn't deprive him of anything. There wasn't anyone else around that would have paid anyway."
Repeat above exercise with a hotel with lots of vacancies.
I'm so tired of hearing this. Technically it's true, but is there anyone here that can envision saying this in front of a judge and 12 jurors and not actually *losing* credibility? You'll[1] still know that it's illegal (note I didn't say immoral), they'll still know it's illegal, and they might even throw the book at you a bit harder for attempting to obfuscate the issue.
[1] "you" in the generic sense, not specifically referring to the parent poster.
Oh brother, not the old "drug companies are evil because they make lots of money off of human misery" routine again. Who's going to bother gathering the millions for pharmaceutical development without the promise of potential billions? (Even the wonderful altruism that makes up the open source movement has reasons behind it, even if it's making the author feel good about helping others.) Mandating that drug companies not be able to make those billions is just improving the present by cannibalizing the future.
Not.
You mean "You can't patent sugar that's just fucked up!", right?
Agreed. Of the fountain pens still currently manufactured and priced in the range for practical use the Namiki/Pilot Vanishing Point is the one I like the best.
I believe it will one day be thought of as the precursor what future FPS's will be like (AI team-mates that you can issue complex commands to, placeable terrain features (e.g. turrets, mines), multiple pilotable vehichles whose weapons could be customized, etc.). Truly underrated, truly an excellent game.
(There was a sequel, Battlezone 2, that mostly kept the same mechanics yet somehow managed not to be particularly fun.)
This view is, pardon the pun, rather shortsighted. When you're 70 or 80 and your sight starts giving out, do you plan on giving up using the web? Didn't think so.
As more and more web-saavy people enter old age, any business with a web page that isn't accessible is going to receive a rude awakening.