While coffee may be served hot, most outlets choose not to serve it at lava temperatures. And then of course, others, like McD, calculate exactly how much they can profit from deliberately maiming their customers for life, then go merrily ahead and do it.
The way I understand class action lawsuits (which, admittedly, I don't really), chances are they won't be worrying about the signing up details until after they've won.
I'd suggest a web ad campaign though, to make people aware of their eligibility. When your target demographic is "anyone who watches ads on the Internet", your preferred channel for spreading the message isn't very difficult to work out:-)
I can see it now: "You may already have won $50"... or "Send your name and address to the name on the top of the enclosed list and pass this message on to 10 people you know, unaltered"...
I seem to vaguely recall once seeing an ad like that and thinking "say what? (pause) Oh, it's an ad. In Norway this would be illegal".
I'm a bit unclear about the "residing in the United States" bit though. If I go and convince the US ambassador to Norway that I can camp out on his embassy grounds for a couple of days (long enough to register with the class action winners), would that suffice you think?
What an honest company would do if they found their code in some GPL software is send an email informing the project leader.
Actually, what an honest company would do is anything within their power (and the legal system) that will maximize their owners' profits. This is what companies are there for.
Assuming for a moment that SCO's claims are legit, then going the route of highest profitability is their duty to their owners. Squeezing out competitors is a nice side benefit - this is also one of the purposes of companies.
Whatever the stock holders could get through an expensive lawsuit, they can just as easily do simply by voting that it be done. They own the frigging company, so what they say goes.
It's not as if I had much say in the matter. I didn't vote for the current resident. I didn't join the Republican party. I didn't sell materiel to the government.
On the other hand, you didn't rise in rebellion either:-)
How the hell this could get past 32 patent offices without getting the great big "Get Fucked" stamp on it is beyond me.
We don't know how many they've tried and failed in though, do we? In some countries (*cough* US *cough*), it doesn't take much more than a correctly filled out application to get a patent. It's not whether you can get the patent that matters but whether you can successfully defend it in court.
(With some luck, the US patent office is serious when it says it will change its evil ways)
Re:Just wait for the game with this feature...
on
Mutating Animations
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that you'd end up with bots that exploit loopholes in the rules and generally behave like the most annoying human players out there. Simply because it's effecient to do so and genetic programming doesn't have ethics:-)
I remember seeing a report about a program that was developed using genetic programming and, while it gave good results, was very sensitive to temperature. If the temp in the computer room wasn't within a relatively narrow tolerance limit (much much narrower than what the hardware spec was), then the program would malfunction. One theory as to why this was the case was that the program had learned to exploit a race condition that would yield a correct result when the semi conductors had _just_ the right temperature. In a normal program, you'd design the software such that the race condition never occurred and so wouldn't be vulnerable to such nonsense. It's a long time ago though so I don't have any references:-/
It's the sort of thing you might expect from a genetically developed program though. Which makes me worry a bit about my own brain...
Sure, it's a refinement, but it's essentially random and pretty inefficient.
Depends what you mean by "random" and "inefficient".
It is not random as in "complete luck of the draw" in that you have imposed rules on the system that move it in the correct direction.
It is ineffecient only in that it can take millions of iterations to get a decent result, but CPU cycles are cheap so who really cares about that?
But certainly, there exist problems for which genetic programming isn't the correct solution.
Re:Just wait for the game with this feature...
on
Mutating Animations
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What they are presumably doing is give the AI objectives and then add a large number of algorithms it can choose from in order to overcome obstacles.
Objective: escort Gordon to helipad Obstacle: Gordon isn't moving Algorithm: Hang around, look for bad guys Obstacle: Gordon moved out of sight Algorithm: Follow cheapest path to Gordon's location Obstacle: Enemies ahead firing at Gordon Algorithm: Cover him. Kill bad guys. Obstacle: There is no path to Gordon Algorithm: Find closed portals that would lead to him, open them in turn until a path is available... etc...
The real difficulty here is determining which obstacle detections and algorithms to add and how to link them together (and then implementing them all). The more complex your environment, the more detections you must have and the more different types of obstacles, the more algorithms.
If they get it right... it'll be time to get an upgraded system I suppose...
Neither PepsiCo nor Coca Cola have the bulk of their customers in the market that Microsoft was penalised for illegally abusing their monopoly in. Linux and BSD do.
I had been led to believe that Apple (which largely holds the school software market in California) had managed to get rid of the "unclaimed cash goes to increase MS market share" clause?
nor do I remember anyone making me buy the products
When you're a monopolist (and by you I mean they), the rules change. The justice system isn't fair to you anymore. The going refrain changes from "innocent until proven guilty" to "it's better to screw one company than risk letting them screw the entire marketplace". And it's most likely a correct approach.
I really wouldn't consider an all-to-all-shortest-path implementation or a B-tree implementation to be art. It's engineering. If you want to claim art for any particular piece of software, I think you need to prove it for each individual case.
If all software is art, then so are all the huge, bland concrete buildings built by the Soviets. Not to mention the carefully constructed earthquake-prone buildings you'll find caressing the landscape (and eventually hugging the ground) in Turkey.
So, what he is saying is that if someone (anyone) started a highly publicized attempt at making an OSS BK client, then BK would be forced to start changing their protocols every now and then.
Can someone explain how this would NOT turn into a compatibility nightmare for BK for a relatively small effort for that someone (anyone)?
So then you get someone who has never used and never will use BitKeeper make your open source version. It will be somewhat more expensive than if they had the thing on which to experiment, but they should get there eventually.
Or you find a jurisdiction with plenty of case law establishing the right to reverse engineer and see to it that a group based there do the open source project.
Extortion is committed when a person forces another person to do something against his will (usually give up money) by threat of death or bodily injury
Even when it would otherwise be legal and normal to cause bodily injury? Is it extortion for one amateur boxer to tell his opponent, before the match, that If you give me $1000, I'll pull my punches (what he's really saying being "pay me or I'll hurt you as per the rules of the sport") - ignoring for the sake of the discussion any laws against match fixing?
If US extortion law is anything like we have in Norway, then it is only extortion (and therefore illegal) if you are threatening to do something you're not otherwise entitled to do. If you are threatening to do something you're entitled to doing anyway, then it's either a threat or part of negotiations, depending, but not illegal.
So, If you don't pay your rent, I'll kick you out is a threat. If you don't give me your candy I will take my toys and go home as well. But If you don't give me $1mill by the weekend I'll kidnap your daughter is clearly extortion because you're not normally allowed to kidnap people's daughters. I'm not entirely sure about If you don't give me $1mill by the weekend I'll marry your daughter though;-)
If SCO turns out to have any kind of legitimate claim to parts of Linux, then it might be a legal threat rather than an extortion attempt.
At least in Norway, and according to my justice-for-dummies-ish books.
Slashdot Mirror
While coffee may be served hot, most outlets choose not to serve it at lava temperatures. And then of course, others, like McD, calculate exactly how much they can profit from deliberately maiming their customers for life, then go merrily ahead and do it.
The way I understand class action lawsuits (which, admittedly, I don't really), chances are they won't be worrying about the signing up details until after they've won.
:-)
... or "Send your name and address to the name on the top of the enclosed list and pass this message on to 10 people you know, unaltered" ...
I'd suggest a web ad campaign though, to make people aware of their eligibility. When your target demographic is "anyone who watches ads on the Internet", your preferred channel for spreading the message isn't very difficult to work out
I can see it now: "You may already have won $50"
I seem to vaguely recall once seeing an ad like that and thinking "say what? (pause) Oh, it's an ad. In Norway this would be illegal".
I'm a bit unclear about the "residing in the United States" bit though. If I go and convince the US ambassador to Norway that I can camp out on his embassy grounds for a couple of days (long enough to register with the class action winners), would that suffice you think?
all advertising is fraudulent
:-)
And all sweeping, all-encompassing statements are wrong
What an honest company would do if they found their code in some GPL software is send an email informing the project leader.
Actually, what an honest company would do is anything within their power (and the legal system) that will maximize their owners' profits. This is what companies are there for.
Assuming for a moment that SCO's claims are legit, then going the route of highest profitability is their duty to their owners. Squeezing out competitors is a nice side benefit - this is also one of the purposes of companies.
Whatever the stock holders could get through an expensive lawsuit, they can just as easily do simply by voting that it be done. They own the frigging company, so what they say goes.
Companies do incredibly stupid things sometimes.
:-)
Companies don't actually do anything. Their employees do and employees are only human. This will tend to explain a lot
It's not as if I had much say in the matter. I didn't vote for the current resident. I didn't join the Republican party. I didn't sell materiel to the government.
:-)
On the other hand, you didn't rise in rebellion either
Especially when Hitler is on record as saying he would never declare war on anyone because only cissies do that (or words to that effect).
How the hell this could get past 32 patent offices without getting the great big "Get Fucked" stamp on it is beyond me.
We don't know how many they've tried and failed in though, do we? In some countries (*cough* US *cough*), it doesn't take much more than a correctly filled out application to get a patent. It's not whether you can get the patent that matters but whether you can successfully defend it in court.
(With some luck, the US patent office is serious when it says it will change its evil ways)
The problem is that you'd end up with bots that exploit loopholes in the rules and generally behave like the most annoying human players out there. Simply because it's effecient to do so and genetic programming doesn't have ethics :-)
:-/
...
I remember seeing a report about a program that was developed using genetic programming and, while it gave good results, was very sensitive to temperature. If the temp in the computer room wasn't within a relatively narrow tolerance limit (much much narrower than what the hardware spec was), then the program would malfunction. One theory as to why this was the case was that the program had learned to exploit a race condition that would yield a correct result when the semi conductors had _just_ the right temperature. In a normal program, you'd design the software such that the race condition never occurred and so wouldn't be vulnerable to such nonsense. It's a long time ago though so I don't have any references
It's the sort of thing you might expect from a genetically developed program though. Which makes me worry a bit about my own brain
Sure, it's a refinement, but it's essentially random and pretty inefficient.
Depends what you mean by "random" and "inefficient".
It is not random as in "complete luck of the draw" in that you have imposed rules on the system that move it in the correct direction.
It is ineffecient only in that it can take millions of iterations to get a decent result, but CPU cycles are cheap so who really cares about that?
But certainly, there exist problems for which genetic programming isn't the correct solution.
What they are presumably doing is give the AI objectives and then add a large number of algorithms it can choose from in order to overcome obstacles.
... etc ...
... it'll be time to get an upgraded system I suppose ...
Objective: escort Gordon to helipad
Obstacle: Gordon isn't moving
Algorithm: Hang around, look for bad guys
Obstacle: Gordon moved out of sight
Algorithm: Follow cheapest path to Gordon's location
Obstacle: Enemies ahead firing at Gordon
Algorithm: Cover him. Kill bad guys.
Obstacle: There is no path to Gordon
Algorithm: Find closed portals that would lead to him, open them in turn until a path is available
The real difficulty here is determining which obstacle detections and algorithms to add and how to link them together (and then implementing them all). The more complex your environment, the more detections you must have and the more different types of obstacles, the more algorithms.
If they get it right
Neither PepsiCo nor Coca Cola have the bulk of their customers in the market that Microsoft was penalised for illegally abusing their monopoly in. Linux and BSD do.
I had been led to believe that Apple (which largely holds the school software market in California) had managed to get rid of the "unclaimed cash goes to increase MS market share" clause?
nor do I remember anyone making me buy the products
When you're a monopolist (and by you I mean they), the rules change. The justice system isn't fair to you anymore. The going refrain changes from "innocent until proven guilty" to "it's better to screw one company than risk letting them screw the entire marketplace". And it's most likely a correct approach.
Monopoly is a boon and a curse.
Because it probably took more time discussing the matter in the first case than it would have to just write the damn gateway code :-)
I really wouldn't consider an all-to-all-shortest-path implementation or a B-tree implementation to be art. It's engineering. If you want to claim art for any particular piece of software, I think you need to prove it for each individual case.
If all software is art, then so are all the huge, bland concrete buildings built by the Soviets. Not to mention the carefully constructed earthquake-prone buildings you'll find caressing the landscape (and eventually hugging the ground) in Turkey.
Heh.
:-)
Has there EVER been an original idea from anyone?
So, what he is saying is that if someone (anyone) started a highly publicized attempt at making an OSS BK client, then BK would be forced to start changing their protocols every now and then.
Can someone explain how this would NOT turn into a compatibility nightmare for BK for a relatively small effort for that someone (anyone)?
So then you get someone who has never used and never will use BitKeeper make your open source version. It will be somewhat more expensive than if they had the thing on which to experiment, but they should get there eventually.
Or you find a jurisdiction with plenty of case law establishing the right to reverse engineer and see to it that a group based there do the open source project.
Extortion is committed when a person forces another person to do something against his will (usually give up money) by threat of death or bodily injury
Even when it would otherwise be legal and normal to cause bodily injury? Is it extortion for one amateur boxer to tell his opponent, before the match, that If you give me $1000, I'll pull my punches (what he's really saying being "pay me or I'll hurt you as per the rules of the sport") - ignoring for the sake of the discussion any laws against match fixing?
Or at least, not yet ...
That's retroviral licensing, that is :-)
If US extortion law is anything like we have in Norway, then it is only extortion (and therefore illegal) if you are threatening to do something you're not otherwise entitled to do. If you are threatening to do something you're entitled to doing anyway, then it's either a threat or part of negotiations, depending, but not illegal.
So, If you don't pay your rent, I'll kick you out is a threat. If you don't give me your candy I will take my toys and go home as well. But If you don't give me $1mill by the weekend I'll kidnap your daughter is clearly extortion because you're not normally allowed to kidnap people's daughters. I'm not entirely sure about If you don't give me $1mill by the weekend I'll marry your daughter though ;-)
If SCO turns out to have any kind of legitimate claim to parts of Linux, then it might be a legal threat rather than an extortion attempt.
At least in Norway, and according to my justice-for-dummies-ish books.