Now dramatic changes in evolution are easier in organism with few cells or even single cells, these organisms do tend to "pirate" genes or features from their prey, that how eukaryotic life captured mitochondria for instance, unless there's a reason preventing bacteriophages from absorbing chloroplasts or the like, I would have assumed such thing has already happened.
So I'm nowhere saying that evolution has to bend to my will, I'm asking, why didn't it happen? My guess is that photosynthesis might produce toxic by products that selected it off in early animal evolution, but given we eat plants whole, I can't imagine what it could be.
I think the issue raised not long ago is that the facebook like button is a web bug itself, kida like those transparent 1px GIFs, but less invisible and even less useful.
To tell you the truth I wonder why doesn't every non-nocturnal anymal do this, it's sounds like something very obvious prone to evolve early in multicelular animals.
Personally I'd suggest using this period of constant innovation to do something bold like embedding a sandboxed VM of java, or python, or lisp, or anything with strong types and good exception management.
I understand if browsers have to support javascript until the end of times, but there shouldn't be anything stopping all the browser makers from embedding a BSD'd, shared implementation of a scripting engine. Of course it going to be hard to implement but it's still several orders of magnitude easier than, say the change from analog to digital tv.
I understand that javascript is not as bad as they make it to be but it's far from the optimal solution.
And stop being pussies about hurting users. As a web developer there was a point when I said, to a client company, "such and such features aren't supported in IE6" and suddenly IT lifted the restriction to IE6,
Instead I'm stuck with just like what? 13 thousand packages in the repository plus self published software... and they are not even actual apps, just full blown applications... I'm off to buy an iPad!
The media, quite simply was bought long ago. People were so scared that government would absorb business than they didn't realize it when business absorbed government. This is a corporatocrazy now, the government and big media are one and the same, with all the bad implications that entails.
Excuse me, parent is looking for alternatives, not excuses. PayPal may just be complying with the CIA, that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be dropped.
I understand his stance on not giving anything to the studios for nothing but this part:
"I get so angry about all this because you're undercut by all the amateurs - the amateurs [are ]who make it though for the professional because when you act professional- these people are so used to getting it for nothing... and for mooching... and for being able to pass off his bullshit"
This is just... I can't find the expression, but he is simply angry that he has got competency, the amateurs aren't doing any favor to him undercutting him but he isn't doing any favor to the amateurs overshadowing them with his long reputation. The amateurs are just adjusting their prices to reflect that there are people there well entrenched in the industry who undercuts *them*.
Complaining about the free creations of others is just egoist....butthurt, is that the expression? English is not my native language.
Probably because Mark is just like him, he is a millionaire after all, went to space, a charitable man doesn't buy space trip, It's pretty clear that Mark wants to Embrace+Extend+Ensomething linux and maybe the whole of open source.
He's not a fool, he saw a chance flying under MS radar. MS ans Apple are too determined to beat Free, why wouldn't they? Free has little over a 1% penetration on the desktop, for all that matters the battle has already been won. But Mark saw potential and decided to used his money to win that market. And winning he has, since Ubuntu has been #1 for several years.
Now, I'm not saying he is a baby eating monster, nor a blood sucking parasite. He has done an invaluable service to the entire FOSS community and he surely considers himself a very nice man, charitable even. But he is clearly a man of compromises.
First we had the CEO saying "Ubuntu is not a democracy" and now the COO saying "the web should be less open", it's not a stretch to guess that next year we'll hear "the desktop should be less open".
That's why I switched off Ubuntu a while ago, I don't know exactly what is Mark going to do to monetize Ubuntu. For certain it won't be a show stopper, he knows very well the FOSS community is rebellious and open to challenges, he won't knock himself down from the #1 place he's got right now by doing something drastic and stupid, but expect Ubuntu to start grow more annoying features in the next 2 years.
How do backports help shrink wrap vendors on a rolling release? No no no, rolling releases are more of a FOSS thing, meaning FOSS software always runs better than prepackaged ones because they are also constantly updated.
I have to admit however that this is an issue of virtually all linux distros.
They confuse system software with user software
Ideally the system software should be fixed for a period to serve as a platform for developers, while user software would be constantly upgraded.
But alas, until this confusion is cleared you have to choose between having a stable platform or updated user software.
Rolling releases make horrible targets for 3rd party developers, specially shrink wrap software vendors.
On the other hand it is not true as you say that you don't know what release you are running or that you can't stay on that release.
When you are on a rolling distro you are effectively staying on a fixed and well know platform known as the current release. That's all you have to know when you ask for help in forums so it's not like you are lost in a limbo.
What's this I don't think you are reading it right. Wikipedia has done nothing, this is a unilateral action from Amazon, an action that will fail because it depends on people visiting Amazon to read Wikipedia, I guess they are hoping business partners will link to their version of Wikipedia rather than the free one but I doubt it will have any traction.
Wikipedia might not be perfect but if you read those articles full of mistakes with that awesome reading skills of yours, I think Wikipedia is doing just fine without your help.
No, I don't think so. Maybe nitpicking here and IANAL, but here's a quote from the OP:
A couple of decades from publication to public domain is plenty. If you don't want your thoughts and ideas to enter the public domain then keep them to yourself.
Are you able to guarantee IP lawyer would NOT be able to spin this on the line of:
-Well, the kernel was first published in 1991. 2011 makes a couple of decades from publication, formally I can take the kernel and the bug fixes... you know, there are some bug fixes in 20 years... and use it as I please.
I said this in the other thread but I wasn't explicit. Here, you are implicating that a closed source company is going to take the current version of Linux and resell it as it's own because the original Linux was published in 1991 and "copyrights only last a few decades". This is very disingenuous, there are more differences between the first and last versions of Linux than most song covers and they are still considered new works. And don't pretend this isn't what you meant because that's what you implicated when you said "and the bug fixes... you know, there are some bug fixes in 20 years... "
-If you think I included more than the bug fixes, it is *your* burden to demonstrate.
- No, without a court ruling I'm not going start a discovery process, apologies but we are running a business here, go away kid don't waste our time...
- So, no, once again and for the final time... you cannot see the code from which we compiled our closed source version"?
And how is this different from the current [Life+70] regimen we are under currently? Changing the duration of copyrights to a couple decades wouldn't introduce this problem because RIGHT NOW there are companies selling GPL'd code as their own and hiding behind their compilers.
I was wrong judging you, you *are* a liar, and a a troll.
wouldn't it be fair to ask them before being pretty sure they wouldn't mind?
Why for? Is not like they can change anything. We're powerless so we're just exchanging pointless opinions.
Anyway, the whole point with prefixing my opinion with "I'm not a contributor" is so you don't come up with incredibly unoriginal replies such as "but you aren't a contributor" it's like me complaining that your "IANAL" rant wasn't written by a lawyer.
I'm like |this| to scratch you of as a troll but this statement looks sincere:
is one thing to say Let's find something else[...]
Anytime they want really, who here cares about the 1991 release of Linux? Most Linux users here are running the latests stable kernels, very few people may be running something older than a few years old kernel in some Gods forgotten backend server, if any.
I'd say that the version of Linux from 1991 would should have become Public Domain by 1996 but let's be generous and say 2001. I'm not a linux contributor myself (unless you count bug reports) but I'm pretty sure linux contributors wouldn't mind shortening their copyright terms if to 5 years of all those annoying software patents cartels had their terms reduced as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the long rant? I already know that.
Now dramatic changes in evolution are easier in organism with few cells or even single cells, these organisms do tend to "pirate" genes or features from their prey, that how eukaryotic life captured mitochondria for instance, unless there's a reason preventing bacteriophages from absorbing chloroplasts or the like, I would have assumed such thing has already happened.
So I'm nowhere saying that evolution has to bend to my will, I'm asking, why didn't it happen? My guess is that photosynthesis might produce toxic by products that selected it off in early animal evolution, but given we eat plants whole, I can't imagine what it could be.
I think the issue raised not long ago is that the facebook like button is a web bug itself, kida like those transparent 1px GIFs, but less invisible and even less useful.
To tell you the truth I wonder why doesn't every non-nocturnal anymal do this, it's sounds like something very obvious prone to evolve early in multicelular animals.
Congratulations, I'm not sure anymore if you're just a humorless clod or a subtle troll.
Python supports parenthesis with custom delimiters provided you keep your code indented:
class Dog: #{
def bark(self):#{
print "bow-wow!";
#}
#}
Of course you can stop intenting using this
from __future__ import braces
But C++ sounds great! Yay buffer overruns!
Personally I'd suggest using this period of constant innovation to do something bold like embedding a sandboxed VM of java, or python, or lisp, or anything with strong types and good exception management.
I understand if browsers have to support javascript until the end of times, but there shouldn't be anything stopping all the browser makers from embedding a BSD'd, shared implementation of a scripting engine. Of course it going to be hard to implement but it's still several orders of magnitude easier than, say the change from analog to digital tv.
I understand that javascript is not as bad as they make it to be but it's far from the optimal solution.
And stop being pussies about hurting users. As a web developer there was a point when I said, to a client company, "such and such features aren't supported in IE6" and suddenly IT lifted the restriction to IE6,
Users are more flexible than you think.
I wish my pc was app-enabled!
Instead I'm stuck with just like what? 13 thousand packages in the repository plus self published software... and they are not even actual apps, just full blown applications... I'm off to buy an iPad!
Then let me introduce you to Touhou Project http://youtu.be/mpuo2rWVskw
I dare you.
The media, quite simply was bought long ago. People were so scared that government would absorb business than they didn't realize it when business absorbed government. This is a corporatocrazy now, the government and big media are one and the same, with all the bad implications that entails.
Excuse me, parent is looking for alternatives, not excuses. PayPal may just be complying with the CIA, that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be dropped.
Indeed, watch this rant
http://youtu.be/mj5IV23g-fE
I understand his stance on not giving anything to the studios for nothing but this part:
"I get so angry about all this because you're undercut by all the amateurs - the amateurs [are ]who make it though for the professional because when you act professional- these people are so used to getting it for nothing... and for mooching... and for being able to pass off his bullshit"
This is just... I can't find the expression, but he is simply angry that he has got competency, the amateurs aren't doing any favor to him undercutting him but he isn't doing any favor to the amateurs overshadowing them with his long reputation. The amateurs are just adjusting their prices to reflect that there are people there well entrenched in the industry who undercuts *them*.
Complaining about the free creations of others is just egoist. ...butthurt, is that the expression? English is not my native language.
Probably because Mark is just like him, he is a millionaire after all, went to space, a charitable man doesn't buy space trip, It's pretty clear that Mark wants to Embrace+Extend+Ensomething linux and maybe the whole of open source.
He's not a fool, he saw a chance flying under MS radar. MS ans Apple are too determined to beat Free, why wouldn't they? Free has little over a 1% penetration on the desktop, for all that matters the battle has already been won. But Mark saw potential and decided to used his money to win that market. And winning he has, since Ubuntu has been #1 for several years.
Now, I'm not saying he is a baby eating monster, nor a blood sucking parasite. He has done an invaluable service to the entire FOSS community and he surely considers himself a very nice man, charitable even. But he is clearly a man of compromises.
First we had the CEO saying "Ubuntu is not a democracy" and now the COO saying "the web should be less open", it's not a stretch to guess that next year we'll hear "the desktop should be less open".
That's why I switched off Ubuntu a while ago, I don't know exactly what is Mark going to do to monetize Ubuntu. For certain it won't be a show stopper, he knows very well the FOSS community is rebellious and open to challenges, he won't knock himself down from the #1 place he's got right now by doing something drastic and stupid, but expect Ubuntu to start grow more annoying features in the next 2 years.
How do backports help shrink wrap vendors on a rolling release? No no no, rolling releases are more of a FOSS thing, meaning FOSS software always runs better than prepackaged ones because they are also constantly updated.
I have to admit however that this is an issue of virtually all linux distros.
They confuse system software with user software
Ideally the system software should be fixed for a period to serve as a platform for developers, while user software would be constantly upgraded.
But alas, until this confusion is cleared you have to choose between having a stable platform or updated user software.
Rolling releases make horrible targets for 3rd party developers, specially shrink wrap software vendors.
On the other hand it is not true as you say that you don't know what release you are running or that you can't stay on that release.
When you are on a rolling distro you are effectively staying on a fixed and well know platform known as the current release . That's all you have to know when you ask for help in forums so it's not like you are lost in a limbo.
What's this I don't think you are reading it right. Wikipedia has done nothing, this is a unilateral action from Amazon, an action that will fail because it depends on people visiting Amazon to read Wikipedia, I guess they are hoping business partners will link to their version of Wikipedia rather than the free one but I doubt it will have any traction.
Wikipedia might not be perfect but if you read those articles full of mistakes with that awesome reading skills of yours, I think Wikipedia is doing just fine without your help.
made of arsenic.
Plausible deniability.
Why? it's not like the police will jail you because of what a mobile phone anonymous last user did.
Unless you are intending to put the phone in your mouth and suck hard trying to extract any residual crack or whatever you're expecting to find there.
Coming from the other thread to answer this:
No, I don't think so. Maybe nitpicking here and IANAL, but here's a quote from the OP:
A couple of decades from publication to public domain is plenty. If you don't want your thoughts and ideas to enter the public domain then keep them to yourself.
Are you able to guarantee IP lawyer would NOT be able to spin this on the line of:
-Well, the kernel was first published in 1991. 2011 makes a couple of decades from publication, formally I can take the kernel and the bug fixes... you know, there are some bug fixes in 20 years... and use it as I please.
I said this in the other thread but I wasn't explicit. Here, you are implicating that a closed source company is going to take the current version of Linux and resell it as it's own because the original Linux was published in 1991 and "copyrights only last a few decades". This is very disingenuous, there are more differences between the first and last versions of Linux than most song covers and they are still considered new works. And don't pretend this isn't what you meant because that's what you implicated when you said "and the bug fixes... you know, there are some bug fixes in 20 years... "
-If you think I included more than the bug fixes, it is *your* burden to demonstrate.
- No, without a court ruling I'm not going start a discovery process, apologies but we are running a business here, go away kid don't waste our time...
- So, no, once again and for the final time... you cannot see the code from which we compiled our closed source version"?
And how is this different from the current [Life+70] regimen we are under currently? Changing the duration of copyrights to a couple decades wouldn't introduce this problem because RIGHT NOW there are companies selling GPL'd code as their own and hiding behind their compilers.
I was wrong judging you, you *are* a liar, and a a troll.
wouldn't it be fair to ask them before being pretty sure they wouldn't mind?
Why for? Is not like they can change anything. We're powerless so we're just exchanging pointless opinions.
Anyway, the whole point with prefixing my opinion with "I'm not a contributor" is so you don't come up with incredibly unoriginal replies such as "but you aren't a contributor" it's like me complaining that your "IANAL" rant wasn't written by a lawyer.
I'm like |this| to scratch you of as a troll but this statement looks sincere:
is one thing to say Let's find something else[...]
So you want a nuanced answer? Deep analysis? Numbers? Here:
Researcher: Optimal copyright term is 14 years
I picked that from Slashdot, 3 years ago. Has this changed anything? No, because research doesn't write policies, money writes policies.
Anytime they want really, who here cares about the 1991 release of Linux? Most Linux users here are running the latests stable kernels, very few people may be running something older than a few years old kernel in some Gods forgotten backend server, if any.
I'd say that the version of Linux from 1991 would should have become Public Domain by 1996 but let's be generous and say 2001. I'm not a linux contributor myself (unless you count bug reports) but I'm pretty sure linux contributors wouldn't mind shortening their copyright terms if to 5 years of all those annoying software patents cartels had their terms reduced as well.
Unfortunately the defacto rule is that US Copyrights apply all over the Internet regardless of where you are.
Or we could just send the Kool-Aid man, that crazy smile freaks me out...
This makes The Habitable Zone into The Really Very Habitable More Like Life Sprouting Zone.
Want to carry lots of heavy rounds and have high mobility in an urban setting? It's almost 2011, where is my fucking POWERED ARMOR!?
Ok maybe they aren't as practical in the so called "real world" but the terrorists will be so shit scarred they'll give up immediately!