I'm replying to your post in particular, but to your sentiment in general...
1. Until you have kids, you're entitled to your opinion, but no one else has to take it seriously.
2. Am I wrong, or is NC not putting the responsibility back in the hands of the parents by letting them decide what is and isn't appropriate for their own kids? I'd think the reason for requiring parents to verify they're parents is to guarantee (well, increase the probability) that a minor's guardians know what's going on, presumably behind their backs. NC isn't saying kids can't be on social networking sites, they're saying a mom or dad *has* to be the one who decides whether his kids are on social networking sites. And then that parent can let the leash out as slowly or as quickly as is appropriate for the child.
To use your driver's license analogy: I had to have my parent's permission to get my license at 16, and then I wasn't allowed to drive anywhere and everywhere I wanted any time day or night with whomever I pleased. First just to work and school alone, and then to extracurriculars after school alone, and then with one passenger in the car, and eventually free reign. Government didn't say I couldn't be behind the wheel, they just said my parents had to say I could be behind the wheel.
Depends on how you use a regexp. If you're defining the characters that are allowed in the user input, that's one thing. If you're defining the characters that aren't allowed in the user input, then you might as well not have wasted your time.
The only way I've personally seen open-source projects funded by traditional non-profit foundations has been when that project is part of a larger academic initiative. I'm working on a project based on open-source archive software; it's being funded I believe by a major non-profit foundation as well as a few corporate foundations and private donors because it's part of a larger civil rights project. I'm aware of another project involving learning modes that had as a major component an open source "virtual tutor" system. It too was funded my some major grants.
My suggestion to you would be to find an academic whose research interests intersect with the functionality of your open source project. Find a way to establish a joint project, and then apply for funding. I would also point out that obtaining funding can be a full-time job itself, don't short-shrift that position.
I agree that there's enough for you to worry about without having to manage the company as the CEO. However, instead of letting your partner be the CEO, I have another suggestion: Hire an experienced manager to be your CEO. You be the CIO, he can be the CFO, and together you can be co-chairs of the board of directors (in which case your newly acquired CEO reports to you).
Running a business successfully takes some knowledge, some experience, and some luck. I think you'd do yourself a favor by bringing in someone who has demonstrated all three. I'd have to think that investors would be pleased to see some experience at the helm.
I agree, all in all the document isn't that bad. The only thing that bugged me was the clause regarding the contracting of third-party developers:
(a) As the standard contractual position, prohibit use of open source software in all development contracts.
It goes on to say if you REALLY REALLY REALLY need the developer to use open source software, I guess that's OK.
I don't understand why you would necessarily have a default position of prohibiting contractors from using open source software. Worse, I think what they mean here is prohibiting the use of open source software as a module in a custom application. I think how others might interpret it is that contractors can't even *use* open source software for their development efforts - like Eclipse, vi, Apache, etc.
I've been working on a digital archives project here at work, and apparently there's an open source archive product called Fedora. One of the interesting features of it is that the archived format of the digital object can be different from the presented format of the digital object. So in the case of movies, you can archive a high-res MPEG4 or whatever format you want, but display it to web-based users as a crappy low-res Flash movie. When user requirements change (e.g., users' bandwidth dramatically increases), then you can change the format in which you deliver the archived objects without having to go through the archival procedure again. I can't imagine that Google isn't doing something similar.
Unless things have changed in the past few years since I played around with Windows GUI programming, Visual Basic is by far the easiest way to get a Windows GUI app off the ground.
I have to ask, what's the purpose of a 1-BILLION page sample? That's the beautiful thing about statistics. If you can say something about the distribution of characteristics within a population, you don't have to survey the entire population to get meaningful results. Are the study authors proposing that no standard distribution can be applied to the entire universe of web pages? If that's the case, then do the statistics they apply to their sample of one billion really say anything predictive about the entire population?
Aside from the cool factor of saying they sampled a billion pages, I don't see what extra benefits are gained from that extra effort.
Actually, it's the other way around. People are selling iPods + music for far below the retail value of the songs loaded in them. If the iPod+music sells for $800 and the device is worth $400, Those 11,800 songs are valued at just over 3 cents a piece. That's a damn sight cheaper than they go for on iTMS.
If someone's making a business out of selling pirated copies of songs at 3 cents a piece, I can see how that would ruffle some RIAA and Apple feathers.
As I said in an earlier post, if someone is selling their only copies of 11,800 legally acquired songs for 3 cents a piece, then that's their business and there's nothing to see here. But that's not the case, is it?
I think there's a critical distinction to make before you can decide if it's legal or not:
Is this someone selling many of these iPods, making many copies of digital songs when they don't have permission to? That would seem pretty clear-cut illegal.
Or
Is this someone selling their iPod and the only copy they have of the songs, which they acquired legally. How can that possible be illegal?
In the case of the article, it's clearly someone running a business with pirated music. But, if I wanted to sell my loaded iPod and don't have copies of the music elsewhere, is there really a law on the books that stops me?
I also think the question at the end of the article is apropos: If you own a DVD, can you legally put the movie on your iPod at all given DMCA restrictions?
This problem has plagued Sharepoint from early on - not filling out the metadata fields makes something like Sharepoint pretty much useless. Not to mention, you don't have to fill out the metadata fields. Sharepoint fills the metadata out for you when you do the indexing.
No. No, it doesn't. Why would it? If they wanted it to rhyme with "five", they should have spelled it "Vive". I can only come to the conclusion that marketing droids have finally fully exhausted the English language...sorry, no more words exist to define your brilliant new concept. But, that's OK, because they're creative. They just start making up new combinations of letters, deciding how they want them pronounced, and voila! a new word.
So you're saying that the inscription I was going to have engraved on the tip of my bullets isn't legally binding? "By placing yourself in the path of this projectile, you agree to hold harmless and waive any claims against the individual alleged to have discharge said projectile."
Why do I think that the kid isn't going to see much of that $117,000? If it's been in court for two years, there are some legal bills mounting somewhere, and I wouldn't think it surprising or even wrong if the ACLU took a big ass cut to pay for the services it rendered.
Anyone know for sure whether the ACLU takes a percentage of judgements or settlements to offset litigation costs when one of its clients wins?
I just recently changed my software to be licensed under specifically version 2 of the GPL because it seems like a poor choice to license your software under a license that you haven't yet seen. Granted, I'd be surprised if GPL 3 had anthing that I radically opposed, but say it does. If you don't specify one or more specific versions of the GPL under which your software is licensed, then you are screwed and it does suck to be you. How easy is it to go back after GPL 3 is distributed and re-license your software under GPL versions 1, 2, and/or 3?
If I was going to let the user choose any future GPL that hasn't been written yet, it's a short step to saying I hereby license the software under any license approved by the OSI at the user's discretion. I mean, if you care so little about the content of the license and you're distributing it open source, why restrict yourself and your users to just the GPL?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm replying to your post in particular, but to your sentiment in general...
1. Until you have kids, you're entitled to your opinion, but no one else has to take it seriously.
2. Am I wrong, or is NC not putting the responsibility back in the hands of the parents by letting them decide what is and isn't appropriate for their own kids? I'd think the reason for requiring parents to verify they're parents is to guarantee (well, increase the probability) that a minor's guardians know what's going on, presumably behind their backs. NC isn't saying kids can't be on social networking sites, they're saying a mom or dad *has* to be the one who decides whether his kids are on social networking sites. And then that parent can let the leash out as slowly or as quickly as is appropriate for the child.
To use your driver's license analogy: I had to have my parent's permission to get my license at 16, and then I wasn't allowed to drive anywhere and everywhere I wanted any time day or night with whomever I pleased. First just to work and school alone, and then to extracurriculars after school alone, and then with one passenger in the car, and eventually free reign. Government didn't say I couldn't be behind the wheel, they just said my parents had to say I could be behind the wheel.
If I'm a licensee of a software package, particularly under the GPL, since when do I pay royalties and not the licensor?
Or, and I know this is a longshot, he has a self-deprecating sense of humor.
Depends on how you use a regexp. If you're defining the characters that are allowed in the user input, that's one thing. If you're defining the characters that aren't allowed in the user input, then you might as well not have wasted your time.
Astronomers can be creative, accountants can't.
Ever hear of Enron?
Man, I need to go back and re-read Snowcrash. Apparently the metaverse is upon us. (I guess that's a blinding flash of the obvious).
Seriously. And in what universe is anyone who can intelligently speak about (much less code around) memory and VM management an "incompetent idiot"?
The only way I've personally seen open-source projects funded by traditional non-profit foundations has been when that project is part of a larger academic initiative. I'm working on a project based on open-source archive software; it's being funded I believe by a major non-profit foundation as well as a few corporate foundations and private donors because it's part of a larger civil rights project. I'm aware of another project involving learning modes that had as a major component an open source "virtual tutor" system. It too was funded my some major grants.
My suggestion to you would be to find an academic whose research interests intersect with the functionality of your open source project. Find a way to establish a joint project, and then apply for funding. I would also point out that obtaining funding can be a full-time job itself, don't short-shrift that position.
I agree that there's enough for you to worry about without having to manage the company as the CEO. However, instead of letting your partner be the CEO, I have another suggestion:
Hire an experienced manager to be your CEO. You be the CIO, he can be the CFO, and together you can be co-chairs of the board of directors (in which case your newly acquired CEO reports to you).
Running a business successfully takes some knowledge, some experience, and some luck. I think you'd do yourself a favor by bringing in someone who has demonstrated all three. I'd have to think that investors would be pleased to see some experience at the helm.
And in what way is this knock-knock key different (in practice) than a prox card?
I agree, all in all the document isn't that bad. The only thing that bugged me was the clause regarding the contracting of third-party developers:
(a) As the standard contractual position, prohibit use of open source software in all development contracts.
It goes on to say if you REALLY REALLY REALLY need the developer to use open source software, I guess that's OK.
I don't understand why you would necessarily have a default position of prohibiting contractors from using open source software. Worse, I think what they mean here is prohibiting the use of open source software as a module in a custom application. I think how others might interpret it is that contractors can't even *use* open source software for their development efforts - like Eclipse, vi, Apache, etc.
I've been working on a digital archives project here at work, and apparently there's an open source archive product called Fedora. One of the interesting features of it is that the archived format of the digital object can be different from the presented format of the digital object. So in the case of movies, you can archive a high-res MPEG4 or whatever format you want, but display it to web-based users as a crappy low-res Flash movie. When user requirements change (e.g., users' bandwidth dramatically increases), then you can change the format in which you deliver the archived objects without having to go through the archival procedure again. I can't imagine that Google isn't doing something similar.
Unless things have changed in the past few years since I played around with Windows GUI programming, Visual Basic is by far the easiest way to get a Windows GUI app off the ground.
I have to ask, what's the purpose of a 1-BILLION page sample? That's the beautiful thing about statistics. If you can say something about the distribution of characteristics within a population, you don't have to survey the entire population to get meaningful results. Are the study authors proposing that no standard distribution can be applied to the entire universe of web pages? If that's the case, then do the statistics they apply to their sample of one billion really say anything predictive about the entire population?
Aside from the cool factor of saying they sampled a billion pages, I don't see what extra benefits are gained from that extra effort.
Actually, it's the other way around. People are selling iPods + music for far below the retail value of the songs loaded in them. If the iPod+music sells for $800 and the device is worth $400, Those 11,800 songs are valued at just over 3 cents a piece. That's a damn sight cheaper than they go for on iTMS.
If someone's making a business out of selling pirated copies of songs at 3 cents a piece, I can see how that would ruffle some RIAA and Apple feathers.
As I said in an earlier post, if someone is selling their only copies of 11,800 legally acquired songs for 3 cents a piece, then that's their business and there's nothing to see here. But that's not the case, is it?
I think there's a critical distinction to make before you can decide if it's legal or not:
Is this someone selling many of these iPods, making many copies of digital songs when they don't have permission to? That would seem pretty clear-cut illegal.
Or
Is this someone selling their iPod and the only copy they have of the songs, which they acquired legally. How can that possible be illegal?
In the case of the article, it's clearly someone running a business with pirated music. But, if I wanted to sell my loaded iPod and don't have copies of the music elsewhere, is there really a law on the books that stops me?
I also think the question at the end of the article is apropos: If you own a DVD, can you legally put the movie on your iPod at all given DMCA restrictions?
Couldn't figure out a way to make it run on $100 bills, huh?
This problem has plagued Sharepoint from early on - not filling out the metadata fields makes something like Sharepoint pretty much useless. Not to mention, you don't have to fill out the metadata fields. Sharepoint fills the metadata out for you when you do the indexing.
Would the scientific community base future research on an entertainment program?
There are more statistics papers than you can shake a stick at inspired by "Let's Make a Deal" and other gameshows.
No. No, it doesn't. Why would it? If they wanted it to rhyme with "five", they should have spelled it "Vive". I can only come to the conclusion that marketing droids have finally fully exhausted the English language...sorry, no more words exist to define your brilliant new concept. But, that's OK, because they're creative. They just start making up new combinations of letters, deciding how they want them pronounced, and voila! a new word.
I'll go back under my rock now...
to quote a fellow slashdotter... Your logic and reason are not welcome here.
So you're saying that the inscription I was going to have engraved on the tip of my bullets isn't legally binding?
"By placing yourself in the path of this projectile, you agree to hold harmless and waive any claims against the individual alleged to have discharge said projectile."
Why do I think that the kid isn't going to see much of that $117,000? If it's been in court for two years, there are some legal bills mounting somewhere, and I wouldn't think it surprising or even wrong if the ACLU took a big ass cut to pay for the services it rendered.
Anyone know for sure whether the ACLU takes a percentage of judgements or settlements to offset litigation costs when one of its clients wins?
I just recently changed my software to be licensed under specifically version 2 of the GPL because it seems like a poor choice to license your software under a license that you haven't yet seen. Granted, I'd be surprised if GPL 3 had anthing that I radically opposed, but say it does. If you don't specify one or more specific versions of the GPL under which your software is licensed, then you are screwed and it does suck to be you. How easy is it to go back after GPL 3 is distributed and re-license your software under GPL versions 1, 2, and/or 3?
If I was going to let the user choose any future GPL that hasn't been written yet, it's a short step to saying I hereby license the software under any license approved by the OSI at the user's discretion. I mean, if you care so little about the content of the license and you're distributing it open source, why restrict yourself and your users to just the GPL?
shameless plug, and probably more simple than you're looking for, but who knows...
CGI Calendar
(hosted at Sourceforge, licensed under GPL)