This is already happening and has been for some time. At least in my field (music technology), almost all the papers I have read since beginning my master's were published in conferences, which are pretty much academic get-togethers where professors are responsible for organizing the event and having the proceedings published. Whats more is the conferences tend to move around, so every year a different organizer is responsible for the whole thing, so the work load is completely shared by everyone in the organizing committee. Honestly, there is the odd book or journal article here and there, but by far the largest portion of research papers I have read and cited thus far are conference papers.
When my university organized a conference last year, students were asked to help with printing posters and doing Latex work to publish the proceedings. We didn't get a print copy, those went to the people who paid the registration fee, but all students got the papers on a CD, and they also all immediately went public on the web after each presentation.
So I'd say community-driven publication in the academic world is already here.
Sure, the programmers may have messed up the patch some how, but the IT guys installed it on production without proper testing. During a period of heavy system use. Both are at fault, but moreso the latter.
What I want to know is, how does this affect me if I haven't filed my taxes yet? Should I do it now, or wait a few weeks?
If you want to upgrade to it on release day, I'd recommend using bittorrent to get the ISO (faster this way) and then doing an apt-get dist-upgrade with that CD-ROM as a new apt repository.
Actually I really wish they'd incorporate bittorrent into Apt. That would be pretty cool. (Have it fail to an http server of course if bittorrent doesn't work or is too slow)
I looked this up before and found there is at least one project trying to do it.
I think bittorrent could be improved if it allowed a simple http server to be considered a seed, that way you could just use the bittorrent protocol and it would download from the http server if there were no seeders.
So I watched a few parts of the Oscars last night. I always find it a bit frustrating, because I don't ever find the time to go see many new movies in the theater, so when the Oscars roll around they are always talking about tons of movies I haven't seen yet. On the other hand, it makes me write down a few titles so I can plan on looking them up later.
When I saw this announcement, I went to the site and saw they they had a few movies I wanted to see. Not such a bad selection, and even some free stuff! Hell I'd pay for it if its a reasonable price, I thought.
I clicked on a movie to see how much it would cost to download and watch. $3.99 to "Rent". Oh shit, I thought to myself. Rent. That means, DRM. I looked at the bottom of the page:
Usage Rights You may watch this on one computer. You have 30 days from the transaction to download the file and 24 hours to watch it after you first click play. See full terms of service.
System Requirements It looks like your system doesn't meet the Minimum System Requirements. You can still purchase this title here, but please note that you may only watch it on a Windows XP computer meeting the requirements.
Well. Funny, I don't USE windows. Hm, guess I'm not part of their target demographic. Oh well, I'll just head over to isohunt then, or walk down to the movie store and get something older. I'm a little disappointed, but.. not really surprised.
The thing is, they are just APIs. They both do just about the same thing. Asking which one is better is a pretty pointless question. I have always thought that the WaitFor* functions in Windows are quite nice, but frankly not that much of an advantage. It's quite rare that you actually need to wait for multiple objects of different types at the same time. Combine that with the fact that its semantics are slightly different for different objects (it destroys a thread, but only unlocks a mutex), and your program is that much more difficult to read. Of course, this is just comparing two APIs, a mostly pointless exercise, and says _nothing_ about implementation, which is quite a bit more important in terms of comparison. For example, Linux has completely changed its pthreads implementation since the switch from 2.4 to 2.6 (from LinuxThreads to NPTL), and programmers get the advantages without needing to change anything. In Windows, of course, we have no (or very little) idea of the implementation, except for what we can infer from the API, and performance tests. A third argument in this little debate could be to argue that one should just stay away from threads, period. I haven't successfully done it myself, since I find the threading paradigm useful, but using processes and non-blocking IO properly, one can avoid threads completely. Of course that's a bit easier to do with some of the Posix functions (eg. socketpair). But doing so will probably result in a more robust piece of software, and which scales better to multiple cores/processors. (Because processes do not share memory, so inter-thread cache misses will be minimized.)
That said, I find it quite creepy that this guy wrote these two articles with extremely similar wording for his introductions, making the exact opposite points. It is very strange. I wonder what his motivation was.
This is very similar, but not identical, to the Cedega model, in which you make something very difficult to compile and install, and in addition, when the community produces tools to make it easier for people to accomplish this monolithic task of installing your software, you very strongly _ask_ them to cease and decist, and have, for example, Gentoo remove their nice ebuild for your source.
I have the exact same situation. I wonder how many others.. It drives me crazy. All they have to do is let the source out, no more work on their part, and we'll take care of it. Hell, not even the source, just the damn specs! But no. That's too hard for them.
Not to mention that while it's the devs who understand why all this crap is a Bad Idea, it's unfortunately the managers and marketing who make the decisions. They never seem to understand _how_ to say "fuck off", or even why.
Right on, except that you won't get their awesome multitouch screen, which I'm sure is patented, so you won't be seeing it in any competitors products, meaning the consumer ultimately loses out not being able to get all the features they want in one device. Yay patents!
Oh, I don't suggest that it's impossible to detect that you are running in a virtual machine. But Qemu could easily be modified to be less easy to detect, for example (using your example) by changing the default MAC address. If that were to happen, my question is what are the legal ramifications? Would MS have a case to sue the party responsible for issuing a "Vista-compatible" version of Qemu or Bochs?
One aspect of this topic I haven't yet seen raised on Slashdot is the following: If low-end Vista will refuse to run on virtual machines, how, exactly, will they actually accomplish this??
The whole _point_ of virtual machines is that the hosted operating system can't tell that it's running on a VM -- it runs exactly as it would on real hardware.
Now, perhaps they've struck some sort of ridiculous deal with Parallels and VMWare stopping them from "covering up" the VM's tracks so that it will always be detectable, (though I don't see why they would ever sign such a deal, except out of fear) but I can't see this happening with free software, like Qemu. Rather, I can see some hackers specifically coming out with "vista-ready" versions of Qemu or whatnot.
So, assuming the threat is that MS will sue if a VM was published that can't be detected by Vista, would they even have a case? On what basis would this case be made?
If I understand correctly, the issue is that Novell could now create code that uses untoucheable MS intellectual property, but they would be working on GPL code, meaning they have to distribute it as GPL, which would be in violation of MS intellectual property, which would be in violation of the GPL.
Okay, *if* I got that right, then I think the FSF should wait to do something about it until they have a real, honest-to-goodness GPL violations on their hands. Something they can really sink their teeth into. It seems to me that starting a pre-emptive strike like this may only backfire. But then, I'm not a lawyer.
Anyways, you really have to hand it to MS on this one. They finally found a way to hit free software where it hurts. But I'm sure we can pull through, as always.
You misunderstand the Linux kernel ethos. The idea is to include *everything* "in the kernel", but you only have to compile the parts that you want. That way there is a central place to track all changes and maintain compatibility and consistency between all parts of the kernel, without having to set an internal interfaces in stone. It's not "bloat" if it's only in the source. Simply put, you don't have to include PS3 support in your binary version. In other words, the only way it affects you is a few extra bytes to download when you want to compile it.
Let me just clear the tears out of my eyes.. phew, okay.
Excuse me if I don't worry too much about businesses trying to send "legitimate marketing emails". Think about it... What is their motivation? Email is a good delivery platform because everyone reads their email. However, spammers have ruined email for "legitimate businesses", by making us develop better and better filters to automatically remove spam/marketing from our inboxes. What is the consequence? That email is no longer a viable transport system for marketing. Hear that? Spam proves that email is NOT a good marketing channel. Simple: they will go back to their previous techniques. I don't see how this is a problem. The public has made it clear: Email is not intended for marketing. Use other channels. We have simply drawn a line in the sand, the existence of spam filters is a message to companies out there who want to abuse email: "We don't want it." I don't see how this is a problem. Marketing has plenty of other tricks up their sleeve, they don't need this one.
I hope that they can classify "informational PDF files" as "virtual items" and delist them. Ebay is just plagued with people selling "information" on how to get actual products, hoping someone will basically make a mistake and buy it thinking they are getting the product itself. This has got to stop. It's basically Ebay SPAM.
They're banning you from USING it? Since you need to mirror it, I assume you mean that wikipedia is actually blocked on your school computers? In my opinion, that is quite backwards, stupid, and detrimental to students.
This article is about banning citations of Wikipedia in papers, not banning its use in research. Wikipedia can make a great starting point for research, and is very useful for looking up quick facts which can be independantly verified.
Teachers should be encouraging students to use Wikipedia, but in a critical way. That would be a lesson they can take with them for the rest of their lives. Blocking it accomplishes nothing good at all.
Maybe this software does something "more", but keyboard shortcuts are already built into Windows. I use it to launch Cygwin Rxvt terminal windows all the time. You just put it in your Start Menu and then right-click, Properties, and enter something in "Shortcut key". It works no matter what program I'm using.. I use Ctrl-Shift-F10 to launch Rxvt, and I have yet to see a situation where some program stops shortcut key from working. Similarly I launch Calculator with Ctrl-Shift-F12, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
so it missed him by FIVE MILES? ;-)
(I kid, I kid.. that is a little too close.)
This is already happening and has been for some time. At least in my field (music technology), almost all the papers I have read since beginning my master's were published in conferences, which are pretty much academic get-togethers where professors are responsible for organizing the event and having the proceedings published. Whats more is the conferences tend to move around, so every year a different organizer is responsible for the whole thing, so the work load is completely shared by everyone in the organizing committee. Honestly, there is the odd book or journal article here and there, but by far the largest portion of research papers I have read and cited thus far are conference papers.
When my university organized a conference last year, students were asked to help with printing posters and doing Latex work to publish the proceedings. We didn't get a print copy, those went to the people who paid the registration fee, but all students got the papers on a CD, and they also all immediately went public on the web after each presentation.
So I'd say community-driven publication in the academic world is already here.
Yeah, god, I just can't STAND all this hype.
This is the extent of my geological research abilities:
+ N,+118.916016+W&layer=&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=14&ll=40.987 155,-118.916016&spn=0.027277,0.086517&t=k&iwloc=ad dr
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=40.984045
Am I the only one who thought this article was going to be about some kind of new designer street drug?
Sure, the programmers may have messed up the patch some how, but the IT guys installed it on production without proper testing. During a period of heavy system use. Both are at fault, but moreso the latter.
What I want to know is, how does this affect me if I haven't filed my taxes yet?
Should I do it now, or wait a few weeks?
Actually I really wish they'd incorporate bittorrent into Apt. That would be pretty cool. (Have it fail to an http server of course if bittorrent doesn't work or is too slow)
I looked this up before and found there is at least one project trying to do it.
I think bittorrent could be improved if it allowed a simple http server to be considered a seed, that way you could just use the bittorrent protocol and it would download from the http server if there were no seeders.
When I saw this announcement, I went to the site and saw they they had a few movies I wanted to see. Not such a bad selection, and even some free stuff! Hell I'd pay for it if its a reasonable price, I thought.
I clicked on a movie to see how much it would cost to download and watch. $3.99 to "Rent". Oh shit, I thought to myself. Rent. That means, DRM. I looked at the bottom of the page:
Well. Funny, I don't USE windows. Hm, guess I'm not part of their target demographic. Oh well, I'll just head over to isohunt then, or walk down to the movie store and get something older. I'm a little disappointed, but
The thing is, they are just APIs. They both do just about the same thing. Asking which one is better is a pretty pointless question. I have always thought that the WaitFor* functions in Windows are quite nice, but frankly not that much of an advantage. It's quite rare that you actually need to wait for multiple objects of different types at the same time. Combine that with the fact that its semantics are slightly different for different objects (it destroys a thread, but only unlocks a mutex), and your program is that much more difficult to read. Of course, this is just comparing two APIs, a mostly pointless exercise, and says _nothing_ about implementation, which is quite a bit more important in terms of comparison. For example, Linux has completely changed its pthreads implementation since the switch from 2.4 to 2.6 (from LinuxThreads to NPTL), and programmers get the advantages without needing to change anything. In Windows, of course, we have no (or very little) idea of the implementation, except for what we can infer from the API, and performance tests. A third argument in this little debate could be to argue that one should just stay away from threads, period. I haven't successfully done it myself, since I find the threading paradigm useful, but using processes and non-blocking IO properly, one can avoid threads completely. Of course that's a bit easier to do with some of the Posix functions (eg. socketpair). But doing so will probably result in a more robust piece of software, and which scales better to multiple cores/processors. (Because processes do not share memory, so inter-thread cache misses will be minimized.)
That said, I find it quite creepy that this guy wrote these two articles with extremely similar wording for his introductions, making the exact opposite points. It is very strange. I wonder what his motivation was.
This is very similar, but not identical, to the Cedega model, in which you make something very difficult to compile and install, and in addition, when the community produces tools to make it easier for people to accomplish this monolithic task of installing your software, you very strongly _ask_ them to cease and decist, and have, for example, Gentoo remove their nice ebuild for your source.
laughing my ass off.. ;-)
thanks.
Kerala is a democratic socialist state. This is _not_ the same thing as communism.
It's more like an elected leftist party. There's a big difference!
(It is, however, more left than a social democracy)
But the "democracy" part is what's important.
I have the exact same situation. I wonder how many others..
It drives me crazy. All they have to do is let the source out, no more work on their part, and we'll take care of it. Hell, not even the source, just the damn specs! But no. That's too hard for them.
Not to mention that while it's the devs who understand why all this crap is a Bad Idea, it's unfortunately the managers and marketing who make the decisions. They never seem to understand _how_ to say "fuck off", or even why.
I feel sort of scared and afraid of anyone who writes "LAW" in capitals like that. Is that normal?
Right on, except that you won't get their awesome multitouch screen, which I'm sure is patented, so you won't be seeing it in any competitors products, meaning the consumer ultimately loses out not being able to get all the features they want in one device. Yay patents!
(Yes, I _really_ want that multitouch screen.)
Oh, I don't suggest that it's impossible to detect that you are running in a virtual machine. But Qemu could easily be modified to be less easy to detect, for example (using your example) by changing the default MAC address. If that were to happen, my question is what are the legal ramifications? Would MS have a case to sue the party responsible for issuing a "Vista-compatible" version of Qemu or Bochs?
One aspect of this topic I haven't yet seen raised on Slashdot is the following: If low-end Vista will refuse to run on virtual machines, how, exactly, will they actually accomplish this??
The whole _point_ of virtual machines is that the hosted operating system can't tell that it's running on a VM -- it runs exactly as it would on real hardware.
Now, perhaps they've struck some sort of ridiculous deal with Parallels and VMWare stopping them from "covering up" the VM's tracks so that it will always be detectable, (though I don't see why they would ever sign such a deal, except out of fear) but I can't see this happening with free software, like Qemu. Rather, I can see some hackers specifically coming out with "vista-ready" versions of Qemu or whatnot.
So, assuming the threat is that MS will sue if a VM was published that can't be detected by Vista, would they even have a case? On what basis would this case be made?
If I understand correctly, the issue is that Novell could now create code that uses untoucheable MS intellectual property, but they would be working on GPL code, meaning they have to distribute it as GPL, which would be in violation of MS intellectual property, which would be in violation of the GPL.
Okay, *if* I got that right, then I think the FSF should wait to do something about it until they have a real, honest-to-goodness GPL violations on their hands. Something they can really sink their teeth into. It seems to me that starting a pre-emptive strike like this may only backfire. But then, I'm not a lawyer.
Anyways, you really have to hand it to MS on this one. They finally found a way to hit free software where it hurts. But I'm sure we can pull through, as always.
You misunderstand the Linux kernel ethos. The idea is to include *everything* "in the kernel", but you only have to compile the parts that you want. That way there is a central place to track all changes and maintain compatibility and consistency between all parts of the kernel, without having to set an internal interfaces in stone.
It's not "bloat" if it's only in the source. Simply put, you don't have to include PS3 support in your binary version. In other words, the only way it affects you is a few extra bytes to download when you want to compile it.
Let me just clear the tears out of my eyes.. phew, okay.
Excuse me if I don't worry too much about businesses trying to send "legitimate marketing emails". Think about it...
What is their motivation?
Email is a good delivery platform because everyone reads their email.
However, spammers have ruined email for "legitimate businesses", by making us develop better and better filters to automatically remove spam/marketing from our inboxes.
What is the consequence? That email is no longer a viable transport system for marketing. Hear that? Spam proves that email is NOT a good marketing channel.
Simple: they will go back to their previous techniques.
I don't see how this is a problem. The public has made it clear: Email is not intended for marketing. Use other channels.
We have simply drawn a line in the sand, the existence of spam filters is a message to companies out there who want to abuse email: "We don't want it." I don't see how this is a problem. Marketing has plenty of other tricks up their sleeve, they don't need this one.
Well, all I can tell so far is that Squish seems to work very strangely under Ubuntu/Wine.
I hope that they can classify "informational PDF files" as "virtual items" and delist them. Ebay is just plagued with people selling "information" on how to get actual products, hoping someone will basically make a mistake and buy it thinking they are getting the product itself. This has got to stop. It's basically Ebay SPAM.
They're banning you from USING it? Since you need to mirror it, I assume you mean that wikipedia is actually blocked on your school computers? In my opinion, that is quite backwards, stupid, and detrimental to students.
This article is about banning citations of Wikipedia in papers, not banning its use in research. Wikipedia can make a great starting point for research, and is very useful for looking up quick facts which can be independantly verified.
Teachers should be encouraging students to use Wikipedia, but in a critical way. That would be a lesson they can take with them for the rest of their lives. Blocking it accomplishes nothing good at all.
Maybe this software does something "more", but keyboard shortcuts are already built into Windows. I use it to launch Cygwin Rxvt terminal windows all the time. You just put it in your Start Menu and then right-click, Properties, and enter something in "Shortcut key". It works no matter what program I'm using.. I use Ctrl-Shift-F10 to launch Rxvt, and I have yet to see a situation where some program stops shortcut key from working. Similarly I launch Calculator with Ctrl-Shift-F12, etc.