it is very honourful to be remembered for damaging acts to a bunch of the worst criminals, i.e. the media industry who behave like nazis: to protect their illegal interests they bribe politics and are prepared to corrupt democracy and civil rights.
really, i can't think of a better way to be remembered as such a statement. to fight the concept of intellectual property, the most despicable "invention" of mankind.
I shall also make my 10000+ collection of music etc. as widely available as possible, just to sabotage the criminal media industry.
In many countries downloading is still legal, and apart from that is very difficult to track. The risk is taken by those that publish "illegal" files, so it would be excellent if people who have nothing to loose would do so massively, until the media industry nazis are bankrupt.
Indeed, this fight is not won before the whole and aberrant concept of "intellectual property" is history. Only when any person propagating this concept is recognized for what they really are, namely enemies of civilization and humanity, and those are put in jail instead of the ones fighting this evil, I shall have peace.
I don't usually answer AC & trolls, but in this case I have to put something straight.
Jordan Hubbard resigned mainly (AFAIK) because he was offered a job at Apple, which incorporated FreeBSD in OSX, making the # of UNIX installations in general and *BSD installations in particular a multiple of before in a flash.
At the moment, including OSX, FreeBSD is by far the most widespread Unix variant.
Re:Openvms is downloadable too. Most reliable OS.
on
Solaris 10 Released
·
· Score: 1
But *VMS gives me nightmares and bad memories of VMS system programming. I still get sick when I remember it.
I think the CSS versus XSL discussion is almost a bit like TeX versus LaTeX: TeX is a full programming language, giving you 100% flexibility to do the most crazy things. However, it is so complex that almost noone can use it directly. LaTeX provides the default settings and macros that 99% of users can live with, and saves them all complexity and details.
The difference between TeX/LaTeX and CSS/XML is, however, that while using LaTeX you may occasionally descend to the TeX level if you need to do some obscure thing not possible in LaTeX. With CSS there is no such fallback possiblity. If it isn't in CSS "level" X, you'll have to wait for the next version:).
that an XML parser is the only parser left? and that only XML can be structured?
what nonsense. the if statement is just as structured as the XML 'version', and parsers do exist and have existed for 40 years for representations other than XML you know. and still can be written very easily using one of the many 'compiler compilers' such as antlr, yacc and the like.
most IDE's, obviously have a very efficient parsers built in that enable them to reformat the code, interpret inline documentation (such as javadoc) etc. XML would not offer any new possibilities, it would not make it easier or faster.
to make inaccurate interpretations of the data and not using proper and accurate specifications.
Many people claim that XML is so great because you can "just read and understand it" without having to use cumbersome and hard to understand specifications. This exactly is what makes XML, indeed, nice for typesetting purposes like HTML, maybe as an alternative for simple configuration files etc, but indeed NOT for RPC and databases as you write. I couldn't agree more.
I have seen so much time and money lost due to intuitive but false interpretations of XML schema's. People think that because its human readable with "meaningful" tagnames that they don't need a proper spec no more. Well I guess it fits in nicely with todays "cut and paste" programmers who don't really know what they're doing:(.
and dream on, fool yourself that no global warming is happening because of false predictions made in the past. we have been hearing this story for 20-30 years now as a kind of excuse that nothing is happening because they had it wrong once, and thus we can continue our thoughtless and egoistic lifestyle without having to worry.
No, you are trivializing the evils that are being perpertrated by enemies of mankind: those that push the concept of IP destroy the most essential element of mankind: culture which is sharing and passing on of knowledge.
Even worse, for personal benefit the corps and their owners are even prepared not only to destroy culture and civilization, but also to corrupt democracy by bribing and threatening politicians.
Those that cooperate in this evil work of ever increasing IP concepts and laws are worse than Stalin IMHO, and yes I do know that he is responsible for millions of deaths.
One thing is sure: sooner or later the world will either end in one big "1984" nightmare, or there shall be a revolution, and those that are perpetrating the current developments shall be punished and be sentenced severely.
Agent ransack isn't bad though; it doesn't index your files like those desktop search tools, but it does replace windows search adding regexps and speed.
What is really sad is that patent lobbyists use times like these to push through their ways quietly, while public attention is looking elsewhere. It is very naive to not give a crap about it, even now.
My bank (in switzerland) uses a smart card with a kind of calculator (challenge - response) for 5 years. Another large bank here uses securID (I work at the other one, it uses secureID cards also for internal authentication for at least 5 years).
The polish minister is a (well informed) mathematician and has been a software developer and manager. By the way, Spain also has voted against in the past.
The directive, in theory, makes sure that no pure software patents would be allowed, however it is phrased so vaguely that many have feared that it would still open the door for software patents, even though the defendands claim that this would not be the case.
Poland has "only" said that it wants to make sure that the text is rephrased such that no unclarity remains, and that the text reflects the claimed intention to prevent pure software and (business) method patents. It is only intended to patent devices (physical) and the software these may contain in the context of this device.
I would assume that there is complete equality here: US patents do not apply in Europe.
Both EU and US companies may file for patent in the US, applicable to the US market. They cannot in the EU, and the US patents are not applicable in the EU market.
Thus, any company, whether US or EU, may develop software that violates a US patent, but may not sell it in the US, but in the rest of the world.
Where is the competetive difference between US and EU companies? Do I misunderstand patent rules?
There are several DVD players with network (fixed or wireless) and with (optional) harddrive that can do this, plus also play Divx and Xvid, for example some of these. The later generations support more and more options, e.g. GMC and qpel.
I couldn't agree more, wish I had mod points this time. I've been trying to convince people for years of this. I think MSFT marketed the thread model as one of the big benefits in WinNT, in a complete reversal of the last 20 years of software architecture progress:(.
Hmm, locking that many away would be a great way to create an instant revolution, destroying all greedy and corrupt multinationals and lobby groups (who are corrupting democracy by buing laws and politicians).
Let them try it, it will return at them like a boomerang.
it is happening before our eyes, for those who want to see and not stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality.
we can not yet be certain of the cause, nor how it will continue. however it is quite well proven that human activities at least contribute to the currently observed warming. one must be cautious to blame 100% on human activity, it only undermines the credibility of science. however to completely ignore just because it is unagreeable to have to change our way of life is just irresponsible and immoral.
please keep a good balance, and rather be too cautious than too little cautious. fact is we do have only one planet to waste!
Neither do I. I feel only guilte when I buy a CD or DVD and thus support these criminals. They promote the perverse idea of intellectual property to serve their own pockets. This idea is, as others have pointed out, not necessary for the creation of art, as our civilization has developed without it.
What is more important: this idea is anti human; it tries to restrict the exchange of information, thoughts and human creations, which IMHO is a crime against humanity. In order to restrict humanity, they even pervert democracy buy bribing and pressuring elected politicians to "order" their laws against public opinion and democratic principles.
That is not true. Any civilization, the egyptians, the greek, the romans, the old chinese, the indians, the muslim golden age, the renaissance: all had the concept of ownership. As long as the rule of law was in effect (i.e. especially without corruption) the civilizations thrived. However, none of those knew the concept of intellectual property.
Therefore, once more, I say that ownership should simply only apply to physical objects, not to ideas. Even if it may seem injust and economically damaging that someone may copy some nifty invention that I worked on for years, so be it.
Yes, it will destroy some of todays business models, but others shall replace it. I do not believe that human innovation would come to a halt, even though I cannot yet predict what exactly would come in its place. I can only say: it worked for millenia up to about 1900. Everyone could have copied beethoven or rembrand, and indeed some did and much of art was developed exactly by such copying and refinement. Indeed many artists used to be poor (but so were most other people at those times); however they created art not for the money but because of an inner drive and inspiration (which is the only valid reason IMHO).
This problem (non physical "property") is not new. It is as old as when people began to think, develop mathematics etc. As soon as you start to acknowledge the existence and possibility of intellectual property, the very difficult question arises of where to draw the line: should any (casual) idea be ownable, should only more complex ideas?
Should mathematics, or in general ideas that have not been "invented" but rather have been "discovered". One might argue for example that some innovative business method has been invented, whereas mathematics is a universal trueth which has merely been discovered, and therefore cannot be owned.
There is only one clear and unmistakable line to draw: the line between the physical and non-physical. Any tiny step further, even for cases that at first sight seem worthe of ownership and protection, and you're on a shifting plane with no border until you arrive at absurd situations (as is starting to be the case today). The fundamental difference is that physical objects cannot be reproduced freely, therefore their ownership needs to be protected (i.e. theft is illegal). Ideas however can be reproduced at no cost.
For many millenia human civilisation has developed well with laws regarding (physical) theft, but without the concept of intellectual property. Why would that have stopped functioning since 1900?
What started as a concept to promote innovation has clearly run away, and I am convinced that the net effect for society has long become negative. Many fear what will happen if all intellectual property is abolished (no more incentive for R&D etc). However I believe that humanity shall find other ways and settings, as it has done for millennia) to keep developing itself. What we should do now is stop extending the realm of IP, and than slowly start to remove it;not all on one day, the economic effects might be too disruptive. Just as a healthy economy existed before IP was gradually introduced, a reformed economy will ariese when it is gradually removed, and new organisational forms shall develop to replace todays structures that depend on IP.
Slashdot Mirror
it is very honourful to be remembered for damaging acts to a bunch of the worst criminals, i.e. the media industry who behave like nazis: to protect their illegal interests they bribe politics and are prepared to corrupt democracy and civil rights.
really, i can't think of a better way to be remembered as such a statement. to fight the concept of intellectual property, the most despicable "invention" of mankind.
I shall also make my 10000+ collection of music etc. as widely available as possible, just to sabotage the criminal media industry.
In many countries downloading is still legal, and apart from that is very difficult to track. The risk is taken by those that publish "illegal" files, so it would be excellent if people who have nothing to loose would do so massively, until the media industry nazis are bankrupt.
those who have themselves bribed in such ways retire to a not so comfy spot inside prison.
just as for high treason, we need the most severe threat of punishment for those that use their power to corrupt democracy.
Indeed, this fight is not won before the whole and aberrant concept of "intellectual property" is history. Only when any person propagating this concept is recognized for what they really are, namely enemies of civilization and humanity, and those are put in jail instead of the ones fighting this evil, I shall have peace.
I don't usually answer AC & trolls, but in this case I have to put something straight.
Jordan Hubbard resigned mainly (AFAIK) because he was offered a job at Apple, which incorporated FreeBSD in OSX, making the # of UNIX installations in general and *BSD installations in particular a multiple of before in a flash.
At the moment, including OSX, FreeBSD is by far the most widespread Unix variant.
But *VMS gives me nightmares and bad memories of VMS system programming. I still get sick when I remember it.
Do you really use raw TeX or LaTeX?
:).
I've never really used much TeX, mostly LaTeX.
I think the CSS versus XSL discussion is almost a bit like TeX versus LaTeX: TeX is a full programming language, giving you 100% flexibility to do the most crazy things. However, it is so complex that almost noone can use it directly. LaTeX provides the default settings and macros that 99% of users can live with, and saves them all complexity and details.
The difference between TeX/LaTeX and CSS/XML is, however, that while using LaTeX you may occasionally descend to the TeX level if you need to do some obscure thing not possible in LaTeX. With CSS there is no such fallback possiblity. If it isn't in CSS "level" X, you'll have to wait for the next version
that an XML parser is the only parser left? and that only XML can be structured?
what nonsense. the if statement is just as structured as the XML 'version', and parsers do exist and have existed for 40 years for representations other than XML you know. and still can be written very easily using one of the many 'compiler compilers' such as antlr, yacc and the like.
most IDE's, obviously have a very efficient parsers built in that enable them to reformat the code, interpret inline documentation (such as javadoc) etc. XML would not offer any new possibilities, it would not make it easier or faster.
to make inaccurate interpretations of the data and not using proper and accurate specifications.
:(.
Many people claim that XML is so great because you can "just read and understand it" without having to use cumbersome and hard to understand specifications. This exactly is what makes XML, indeed, nice for typesetting purposes like HTML, maybe as an alternative for simple configuration files etc, but indeed NOT for RPC and databases as you write. I couldn't agree more.
I have seen so much time and money lost due to intuitive but false interpretations of XML schema's. People think that because its human readable with "meaningful" tagnames that they don't need a proper spec no more. Well I guess it fits in nicely with todays "cut and paste" programmers who don't really know what they're doing
and dream on, fool yourself that no global warming is happening because of false predictions made in the past. we have been hearing this story for 20-30 years now as a kind of excuse that nothing is happening because they had it wrong once, and thus we can continue our thoughtless and egoistic lifestyle without having to worry.
No, you are trivializing the evils that are being perpertrated by enemies of mankind: those that push the concept of IP destroy the most essential element of mankind: culture which is sharing and passing on of knowledge.
Even worse, for personal benefit the corps and their owners are even prepared not only to destroy culture and civilization, but also to corrupt democracy by bribing and threatening politicians.
Those that cooperate in this evil work of ever increasing IP concepts and laws are worse than Stalin IMHO, and yes I do know that he is responsible for millions of deaths.
One thing is sure: sooner or later the world will either end in one big "1984" nightmare, or there shall be a revolution, and those that are perpetrating the current developments shall be punished and be sentenced severely.
Agent ransack isn't bad though; it doesn't index your files like those desktop search tools, but it does replace windows search adding regexps and speed.
What is really sad is that patent lobbyists use times like these to push through their ways quietly, while public attention is looking elsewhere. It is very naive to not give a crap about it, even now.
My bank (in switzerland) uses a smart card with a kind of calculator (challenge - response) for 5 years. Another large bank here uses securID (I work at the other one, it uses secureID cards also for internal authentication for at least 5 years).
I don't think there is much news in this story.
The polish minister is a (well informed) mathematician and has been a software developer and manager. By the way, Spain also has voted against in the past.
The directive, in theory, makes sure that no pure software patents would be allowed, however it is phrased so vaguely that many have feared that it would still open the door for software patents, even though the defendands claim that this would not be the case.
Poland has "only" said that it wants to make sure that the text is rephrased such that no unclarity remains, and that the text reflects the claimed intention to prevent pure software and (business) method patents. It is only intended to patent devices (physical) and the software these may contain in the context of this device.
I would assume that there is complete equality here: US patents do not apply in Europe.
Both EU and US companies may file for patent in the US, applicable to the US market. They cannot in the EU, and the US patents are not applicable in the EU market.
Thus, any company, whether US or EU, may develop software that violates a US patent, but may not sell it in the US, but in the rest of the world.
Where is the competetive difference between US and EU companies? Do I misunderstand patent rules?
There are several DVD players with network (fixed or wireless) and with (optional) harddrive that can do this, plus also play Divx and Xvid, for example some of these. The later generations support more and more options, e.g. GMC and qpel.
Swisscom started offering television over ADSL in response to the cable-internet company Cablecom starting VOIP.
Both want consumers to be able to quit their competitors "line" to the home.
I couldn't agree more, wish I had mod points this time. I've been trying to convince people for years of this. I think MSFT marketed the thread model as one of the big benefits in WinNT, in a complete reversal of the last 20 years of software architecture progress :(.
Hmm, locking that many away would be a great way to create an instant revolution, destroying all greedy and corrupt multinationals and lobby groups (who are corrupting democracy by buing laws and politicians).
Let them try it, it will return at them like a boomerang.
it is happening before our eyes, for those who want to see and not stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality.
we can not yet be certain of the cause, nor how it will continue. however it is quite well proven that human activities at least contribute to the currently observed warming. one must be cautious to blame 100% on human activity, it only undermines the credibility of science. however to completely ignore just because it is unagreeable to have to change our way of life is just irresponsible and immoral.
please keep a good balance, and rather be too cautious than too little cautious. fact is we do have only one planet to waste!
Neither do I. I feel only guilte when I buy a CD or DVD and thus support these criminals. They promote the perverse idea of intellectual property to serve their own pockets. This idea is, as others have pointed out, not necessary for the creation of art, as our civilization has developed without it.
What is more important: this idea is anti human; it tries to restrict the exchange of information, thoughts and human creations, which IMHO is a crime against humanity. In order to restrict humanity, they even pervert democracy buy bribing and pressuring elected politicians to "order" their laws against public opinion and democratic principles.
That is not true. Any civilization, the egyptians, the greek, the romans, the old chinese, the indians, the muslim golden age, the renaissance: all had the concept of ownership. As long as the rule of law was in effect (i.e. especially without corruption) the civilizations thrived. However, none of those knew the concept of intellectual property.
Therefore, once more, I say that ownership should simply only apply to physical objects, not to ideas. Even if it may seem injust and economically damaging that someone may copy some nifty invention that I worked on for years, so be it.
Yes, it will destroy some of todays business models, but others shall replace it. I do not believe that human innovation would come to a halt, even though I cannot yet predict what exactly would come in its place. I can only say: it worked for millenia up to about 1900. Everyone could have copied beethoven or rembrand, and indeed some did and much of art was developed exactly by such copying and refinement. Indeed many artists used to be poor (but so were most other people at those times); however they created art not for the money but because of an inner drive and inspiration (which is the only valid reason IMHO).
This problem (non physical "property") is not new. It is as old as when people began to think, develop mathematics etc. As soon as you start to acknowledge the existence and possibility of intellectual property, the very difficult question arises of where to draw the line: should any (casual) idea be ownable, should only more complex ideas?
Should mathematics, or in general ideas that have not been "invented" but rather have been "discovered". One might argue for example that some innovative business method has been invented, whereas mathematics is a universal trueth which has merely been discovered, and therefore cannot be owned.
There is only one clear and unmistakable line to draw: the line between the physical and non-physical. Any tiny step further, even for cases that at first sight seem worthe of ownership and protection, and you're on a shifting plane with no border until you arrive at absurd situations (as is starting to be the case today). The fundamental difference is that physical objects cannot be reproduced freely, therefore their ownership needs to be protected (i.e. theft is illegal). Ideas however can be reproduced at no cost.
For many millenia human civilisation has developed well with laws regarding (physical) theft, but without the concept of intellectual property. Why would that have stopped functioning since 1900?
What started as a concept to promote innovation has clearly run away, and I am convinced that the net effect for society has long become negative. Many fear what will happen if all intellectual property is abolished (no more incentive for R&D etc). However I believe that humanity shall find other ways and settings, as it has done for millennia) to keep developing itself. What we should do now is stop extending the realm of IP, and than slowly start to remove it;not all on one day, the economic effects might be too disruptive. Just as a healthy economy existed before IP was gradually introduced, a reformed economy will ariese when it is gradually removed, and new organisational forms shall develop to replace todays structures that depend on IP.