...the "recording industry" is pretty sure it doesn't sell. Therefore it will never get air time on Clearchannel, MTV, VH1, etc so chances are you won't hear about it. Unless you are active in your local music scene you'll never see the innovative music today.
One of the interesting things pointed out by Frontline in the program was that the last major evolution in music was Rap/Hip Hop. How did this happen? It was because many realitively small (and poor) music companies where producing by many small time (and poor) artists. DJ Soandso went to the basement studio of some guy and cut a tape to be played on the street corner. The guy who produced it loved the music or he wouldn't give you studio time.
The important point is that the music was made because they loved the music. For years the "record industry" shunned this type of music because they didn't think it was marketable. A correlary is that competition was a good thing. Although they weren't getting paid bazillions of dollars artists were getting a big cut than what they get signing on a label. And if they weren't happy with the deal at one small studio they would go to another.
But all good things must end: It started to get mucked up by going mainstream. When the industry sensed a market they bought up the small companies and hired on the small time producers. Now you have the same rap music over and over featuring more or less the same music with the same scantly dressed girls all over the video. Instead of finishing an album when you are finished, you have to cut an entire album by Date A so that the marketing and videos can be shot and played in the right markets for maximum effect. As said in the program: its all about how the music looks not about how it sounds.
All hope is not lost. The industry will die because its fighting the consumer. The more energy they spend on not selling things to potential customers the farther they will sink.
So where is the innovative music at the moment? It seems like its coming from the clubs and raves. You have many small DJs all over making their own music to suite their needs. Just don't tell the "record industry" some of this stuff is good or they'll ruin that too.
I think the major problem with P1 and P2 is that they are mearly action stories set in a Star Wars setting. Just like any game, just tossing well known characters into well known settings and expect something cool to come out is a recipe for disaster.
As I mention in my poll post, Yoda is less interesting in P1 & 2. Yoda is an action figure here. In P5, he did not once pick up a lightsaber or show Luke anything about fighting. Instead he guided him as best he could with ideas of what Jedi are based on: The force is everwhere, the force is your ally, the dark side is terrible but not stronger.
P3 needs some TLC in the themes and ideology department. It is amusing but the most "humanizing" moments of P5 were between Luke and Yoda. In P1 and P2 you get a vague indication that bad people are doing bad things. Why are the things they are doing all that bad? Because the Republic says so? Why are the Sith guys so bad? Because they look mean and chop people in half and do cool choke moves?
With P1-3 it looks like they are looking for a story to put SFX up on the screen. In P4-6, the SFX grew out of the story. If the movie is all but done in post production there is little that can be done now except ride the lava wave.
I always liken Gartner and their ilk as being Oracles sitting a top of some mist shrouded mountain espousing their much vaunted opinion on any topic you ask.
The problem is none of us live on the mountain with the oracle.
Gartner doesn't see a conflict with saying both Linux and Windows and whatever suck. It frankly isn't their problem. Someone asks the question(ie. commisions a report) and you get the answer. Oracles and Gartner don't really care if the answer doesn't make sense.
Open up the yellow page phone book you have next to your phone. Look up any topic like "lawyers" and you'll find not one lawyer but a whole gaggle. Now AXA would have you believe this is wrong. When you open up the phone book looking around for something and you stumble across AXA it should be the only available financial institution? Is this what AXA really believes?
Why are companies afraid of competition? Because it makes them work a little bit harder? Shesh. Instead of suing Google who about count this as a blessing (aka free advertising) and get your marketing people to figure out away to capture the attention of people who when given a choice would want to choose AXA?
Sure it would be great to get many applications developed on.Net to run directly on Linux and BSD but I find the contrary to be true. Getting Linux apps to run on.Net means they will have a shot at running on Windows.
Its theoretically a two way street. Evolution on Windows? Pan on Windows? Sure leveraging all of those Windows applications on a platform of your choice is an interesting thing but everyone seems to neglect leveraging Linux and BSD applications onto Windows!
This will be interesting. I'm not going to be against Miguel or Mono but I'm not going to be against Cringley either. Cringley's point is that you can't lead if you are always following. Miguel's point is that its stupid to ignore such a good piece of technology. Why do people assume one is wrong?
What you desribe isn't "security through obscurity" complaint many close vendors try to get away with. After all most username/password creditial security schemes depend on this: you keep your password a secret (and if you can your username too!).
However in actual code and software systems, security through obscurity is weak and fallacious. Just because the general user base doesn't know a system is exploitable means the system is still secured. The exploit there whether or not the users realize it. Operating under a blanket of secrecy for algorithms and code is dangerous and bad practice.
Bugtraq is a good thing because ignoring bugs in code is akin to sticking your head in the sand. A vendor being very open with bugs in their software is a very good thing.
Keeping security network topology and interconnects a secret is a good thing. Keeping passwords a secret is a good thing.
So please never confuse these two. No one on Bugtraq is going to be interested about my passwords or how my networks are laid out. I can keep that a secret. However if I release software that deals with security that effects many users then Bugtraq has every initiative expose problems.
As for this specific problem, I'm glad people where open about this. Now that people know that long term connections are vulnerable they can take action to either start working on fixes or work arounds. Hiding the problem wouldn't have helped one bit.
You don't have to take my word for it. There are plenty of posts already that claim there is compatibility between distributed RPMs and the vanillia kernel found straight from places like kernel.org.
So where is the lock in? You can choose to abandon the prepackaged (and tested) build and build your own version of the 2.4 on your RHE system. You just have to patch it by hand when you come across a piece of software that needs a kernel feature. If this isn't what FOSS is supposed to give customers I don't know what FOSS is supposed to be doing for buisnesses!
It would be one thing if Red Hat was just dumping kernels out there but this is far from the truth. They back port and support it. This is entirely misleading: it isn't forking but kernel customizing.
Although it might be harder to produce, I'm getting a feeling that Fox shouldn't even bother because they'll just end up abusing whatever timeslot they put the (new) Futurama on by pre-empting football or nascar or some Fox News thingy. They need programming that they deem "throw away" to fill in the gaps and its not going to be The Simpsons or some reality TV show.
I suspect the reasons why these are being disucssed at all are actually two fold. One is clearly the popularity in [adult swim]'s block on Cartoon Network. The other is selling through well on the DVD market.
Fox execs will see CN and the DVD producers (as well as a good penny for Groening and MacFarlane) making a load of cash on both shows and will probably make the same mistake *again*. I don't mind though. In the end that just means more epsiodes for CN and more DVDs.
I'm always bummed when people poo-poo C/C++ because they fail to see the real problem. It is true that C/C++ is probably too "low level" to do effective and safe application writing but that isn't the problem since one can clearly write bulletproof apps in C/C++.
The problem is that, like most bugs, the complexity of the language makes it hard to predict problems. Even in memory managed systems like Java and C# you can have crippling errors. You don't "fix" the problem by moving to these types of memory managed systems. You just contain and shift the problem from one place to another. A sloppy C# app will cause all sorts of havoc when an exploit is found in the way it performs.
The fix isn't avoiding C/C++. The real is rigorous code reviews to keep implementations clean and orderly so problems can be predicted. FOSS helps here but like any other venture it requires diligence to make it work effectively. No runtime environment is bulletproof and therefore will never be a substitute for plain old fashion inspecting of the code.
The marketing groups at the movie studios found out something a long time ago: most people want to know what happens. So they cram as much of the story and important points into 30 seconds as they can. This is a much better move than to just put "Spider-man 2: Summer 2005" on a blank black screen.
As much as you hate the fact they showed Peter wanting to throw away the costume, many more people want to know Peter is having this turmoil. So marketing sticks it in. As much as you don't want to know why Doc Oc wants to go on a rampage many more want to see exactly how Doc Oc throws stuff around mad as hell.
Its the nature of the buisness. Although there are people who hate the idea of a story being spoiled, so many more out there really want it.
And we all would have benifited from this if they simply shared in the first place instead of spending 20-30 years "rediscovering" it.
One programmer likened the 70-80s as The Dark Ages. There were cabals and secret voodoo that people sat on and didn't share and you ended up with an ignorant masses that only thought "this is as good as it gets". Hopefully this renaissance sticks because it doesn't matter how good or cool your technology is if you bury it for 20 years without another person knowing.
What is the difference between these two? It is like the difference between an archetect and a carpenter. It is the difference between know how and planning. Both skills are useful. You need some of both to be successful or at least a team that has access to both.
Programming is just knowing how to contruct a syntax for looping over an enumeration. This is definately different across different languages. Design is knowning where the right places to use it. Recognizing which paterns give the best results on when to itterate and when its a waste of time.
Programmers often don't know the most efficient thing to do. Just like Designers don't know the tools available to debug. One of the misunderstood aspects of today's industry is that "bosses" fail to realize that many of their employees have to wear two hats to get their job done. They fail to recognize when somone is a poor designer creating heaps of unmaintanable code. This is nearly as costly as someone who just designs all day and writes very little code.
I've always considered the Science part of Computer Science misleading. It is just like Economics: there are parts that are very rigorous but so much of it is left to the human whim and hence more a form of art. People who write code are as much artist as they are mathmeticians and engineers. Denying this aspect leads to some of the worst code (ie. ugly and unaestic) that a human can create.
I am inclined to not think so. According to ratings if people bought their channels "channel by channel" then many minor but interesting channels would die out. What would be left are the MTVs, ESPN, and Comedy Channels. Sure these channels are entertaining but they aren't everything.
I have come to accept that especially in the area of pop culture the majority may rule but it is rarely right and often make poor choices. Where will PBS go? How many will really get BBC America? Are you really going to pay for the Weather Channel?
Anyone accepting stolen material are out of luck. It is a felony to do it with knowledge that they are handling stolen property.
IANAL, but the property belongs to the person. It is EB's responsibility for suing the theif for a fruadulent transaction. In essence this guy not only stole from the owner but duped EB. I don't see how EB has a leg to stand upon on this.
Is that both Fellowship and The Two Towers where nominated and won in the same categories. So its the same thing...winning again? So beyond the 11 yesterday, Fellowship won 4 The Two Towers won 2 all of which were won *again*. All three films are fine but it kind of feels "doubling up".
As a side note: Man I felt bad for Bill Murray. His role in Lost in Translation was his best he ever gave.
As mentioned in numberous other places, the reason why an "contributor/advertisement clause" is incompatible with the GPL because it sets a restriction on the software. No matter how innocent or benign one thinks it is putting restrictions like this on software blows. It isn't practical or very ethtical. It isn't good to be free except in the case where you forgot to have our names plaster in the right spots.
I am all for giving credit where credit is due. However that place and time is not at the license level.
...and they want to bring it back in? I play some of these games and not once in my mind has the gender of my teammate or opponents has ever entered my mind. In fact it would be a distraction. Thinking that someone has an advantage in a game because they are male or female is like trying to figure out if someone has an advantage if they are right or left handed. If someone wins or loses they do so because they are an accomplished or failed player. Gender has very little to do with it.
The one place where competition can be leveled down to fundemental non-physical attributes, a place where women can actually compete on equal footing as guys, they want to bring back gender divisions? I just don't get it.
I'm Still Doubtful About Life On Mars
on
Brine on Mars?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why am I doubtful that life is there now? Because life is agressively pervasive. Once a life form can eek out a foothold in an environment it will exploit it to the maximum effect. The only example we have so far is our planet but the effect of life on Earth profound and blantanly obvious! There is hardly a spot any place where some life form of one type or another has exploited the environment around it and thrived leaving evidence something was once living there. Life doesn't hide. It spread like wildfire.
So if life on Mars exists now it should be easy to find. So if there is brine type life on Mars it should be easy to find because natural selection would kick in leaving the heartiest lifeforms left to spread as far and as wide as possible. You should be able to find large clusters of the stuff all over. So why haven't we yet? Maybe we aren't looking in the right spots. Maybe we don't have the right scientific tools out there yet. The point is that if life has a foothold anywhere on Mars is should be obvious when we stumble across it.
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Maintaining a list of contributors at the license level is a violation of Clause 4. You can not impose extra restrictions on GPL software and still be compliant under the GPL no matter how benign you think it is. If you think a list of contributors is harmless, I suppose I could make software but make a license such that only people named "Bob" can validly modify and still call it GPL.
I'm not sure what is the grounds for invalidity under BSD code but I suspect its the same problem. Imposing a restriction on software flies in the face of FOSS.
The problem with "the contributor clause" applied at the license level is that it is very pervasive. After all, why use a license that isn't pervasive?
So XFree has to list contributors. Anyone who writes an extention to XFree now has to list these contributors plus any contributors to make there extention work. Depending on how another developer uses that extention, they might have to carry all of those contributor forward as well. But a month has gone by since the original extention was released and more contributions have been made. To keep up to date not only do you have to sync source but sync contributors.
As for the GPL, the reason for incompatibility is that to use the GPL you must not put any more restrictions on the code no matter how innocent or benign you think they are. Sacrificing the freedom of the code just to make sure someone's name is plastered in the right spots is selfish. There are proper places to site contributsion. Just not at the license level.
This is the reason why it was a good thing that BSD abandoned this thing. I'm all for giving credit where credit is due but not at the license level. It gets to be a meta-maintaince nightmare to adhere to the license.
Opening Java and letting the implementation and maintance be handled by the community would still do a world of good. Sun can still spec out what Java core libs does. Just let the community which seems to be just as fast and capable as anyone at Sun.
If the entire thing is opened, as others mention there can be full integration of the Gnome Desktop. This is good for the very same reason Ximian wants to work on Mono. It isn't so much about bringing Windows apps to Linux but bringing Linux Apps to Windows. Imagine only a minor port to make Gimp work on Windows as well as Linux? That would be well worth the investment on Sun's part.
Any buisness guru will tell you "where there is a market you have a shot at making money!" If they see that 400k people signed up for World of Warcraft then someone who is savy is going to think "ah ha! this is a market!"
Just because some of the competition is stiff doesn't mean its not marketable. After all, why should Blizzard bother making World of Warcraft if hundreads of thousands are playing EQ?
One of the things that continually stumps me is why can't source trees (from CVS, tar.gz, where ever) compile out and create an installable package? Making a distributable package has always been a secondary step instead of an integral part of the installation build.
What I want to see more of is "tree building". Once again from some distribution system (CVS, tar.gz, etc.) the code can sit. When a release is pushed out you do an update/merge and rebuild. This ties into the previous paragraph where you can just recompile the packages and upgrade them for tight management.
Package management works now if you don't want to deal with source code. The moment you start trying to build your own source for system tools things start to blurr. This is how Linux systems now accumulate cruft which neither the package system or compiling can handle. If both were some how brought closer together there might be hope to keeping it sane for a bit longer.
Why is it just the individual user's responsibility for firewalling their system? Shouldn't ISP help a little by steping up and blocking some of the effect ports during these times of crisis? Why weren't more ISPs just outright refusing to send or accept traffice on port 53 during Blaster? Is it because *gasp* they and telecos get paid on bandwidth usage?!
Yes it is the individual user's repsonsiblity to keep their computer neat and tidy like one keeps their home and property tidy to prevent fires. However if a home does catch on fire you bet the city is going to step in if not to protect you but to protect other's property. Why are ISPs letting so many "fires" run rampant?
Slashdot Mirror
...the "recording industry" is pretty sure it doesn't sell. Therefore it will never get air time on Clearchannel, MTV, VH1, etc so chances are you won't hear about it. Unless you are active in your local music scene you'll never see the innovative music today.
One of the interesting things pointed out by Frontline in the program was that the last major evolution in music was Rap/Hip Hop. How did this happen? It was because many realitively small (and poor) music companies where producing by many small time (and poor) artists. DJ Soandso went to the basement studio of some guy and cut a tape to be played on the street corner. The guy who produced it loved the music or he wouldn't give you studio time.
The important point is that the music was made because they loved the music. For years the "record industry" shunned this type of music because they didn't think it was marketable. A correlary is that competition was a good thing. Although they weren't getting paid bazillions of dollars artists were getting a big cut than what they get signing on a label. And if they weren't happy with the deal at one small studio they would go to another.
But all good things must end: It started to get mucked up by going mainstream. When the industry sensed a market they bought up the small companies and hired on the small time producers. Now you have the same rap music over and over featuring more or less the same music with the same scantly dressed girls all over the video. Instead of finishing an album when you are finished, you have to cut an entire album by Date A so that the marketing and videos can be shot and played in the right markets for maximum effect. As said in the program: its all about how the music looks not about how it sounds.
All hope is not lost. The industry will die because its fighting the consumer. The more energy they spend on not selling things to potential customers the farther they will sink.
So where is the innovative music at the moment? It seems like its coming from the clubs and raves. You have many small DJs all over making their own music to suite their needs. Just don't tell the "record industry" some of this stuff is good or they'll ruin that too.
...is north of the bridge.
I said this during the poll so its slightly appropriate.
I think the major problem with P1 and P2 is that they are mearly action stories set in a Star Wars setting. Just like any game, just tossing well known characters into well known settings and expect something cool to come out is a recipe for disaster.
As I mention in my poll post, Yoda is less interesting in P1 & 2. Yoda is an action figure here. In P5, he did not once pick up a lightsaber or show Luke anything about fighting. Instead he guided him as best he could with ideas of what Jedi are based on: The force is everwhere, the force is your ally, the dark side is terrible but not stronger.
P3 needs some TLC in the themes and ideology department. It is amusing but the most "humanizing" moments of P5 were between Luke and Yoda. In P1 and P2 you get a vague indication that bad people are doing bad things. Why are the things they are doing all that bad? Because the Republic says so? Why are the Sith guys so bad? Because they look mean and chop people in half and do cool choke moves?
With P1-3 it looks like they are looking for a story to put SFX up on the screen. In P4-6, the SFX grew out of the story. If the movie is all but done in post production there is little that can be done now except ride the lava wave.
I always liken Gartner and their ilk as being Oracles sitting a top of some mist shrouded mountain espousing their much vaunted opinion on any topic you ask.
The problem is none of us live on the mountain with the oracle.
Gartner doesn't see a conflict with saying both Linux and Windows and whatever suck. It frankly isn't their problem. Someone asks the question(ie. commisions a report) and you get the answer. Oracles and Gartner don't really care if the answer doesn't make sense.
Open up the yellow page phone book you have next to your phone. Look up any topic like "lawyers" and you'll find not one lawyer but a whole gaggle. Now AXA would have you believe this is wrong. When you open up the phone book looking around for something and you stumble across AXA it should be the only available financial institution? Is this what AXA really believes?
Why are companies afraid of competition? Because it makes them work a little bit harder? Shesh. Instead of suing Google who about count this as a blessing (aka free advertising) and get your marketing people to figure out away to capture the attention of people who when given a choice would want to choose AXA?
Sure it would be great to get many applications developed on .Net to run directly on Linux and BSD but I find the contrary to be true. Getting Linux apps to run on .Net means they will have a shot at running on Windows.
Its theoretically a two way street. Evolution on Windows? Pan on Windows? Sure leveraging all of those Windows applications on a platform of your choice is an interesting thing but everyone seems to neglect leveraging Linux and BSD applications onto Windows!
This will be interesting. I'm not going to be against Miguel or Mono but I'm not going to be against Cringley either. Cringley's point is that you can't lead if you are always following. Miguel's point is that its stupid to ignore such a good piece of technology. Why do people assume one is wrong?
What you desribe isn't "security through obscurity" complaint many close vendors try to get away with. After all most username/password creditial security schemes depend on this: you keep your password a secret (and if you can your username too!).
However in actual code and software systems, security through obscurity is weak and fallacious. Just because the general user base doesn't know a system is exploitable means the system is still secured. The exploit there whether or not the users realize it. Operating under a blanket of secrecy for algorithms and code is dangerous and bad practice.
Bugtraq is a good thing because ignoring bugs in code is akin to sticking your head in the sand. A vendor being very open with bugs in their software is a very good thing.
Keeping security network topology and interconnects a secret is a good thing. Keeping passwords a secret is a good thing.
So please never confuse these two. No one on Bugtraq is going to be interested about my passwords or how my networks are laid out. I can keep that a secret. However if I release software that deals with security that effects many users then Bugtraq has every initiative expose problems.
As for this specific problem, I'm glad people where open about this. Now that people know that long term connections are vulnerable they can take action to either start working on fixes or work arounds. Hiding the problem wouldn't have helped one bit.
You don't have to take my word for it. There are plenty of posts already that claim there is compatibility between distributed RPMs and the vanillia kernel found straight from places like kernel.org.
So where is the lock in? You can choose to abandon the prepackaged (and tested) build and build your own version of the 2.4 on your RHE system. You just have to patch it by hand when you come across a piece of software that needs a kernel feature. If this isn't what FOSS is supposed to give customers I don't know what FOSS is supposed to be doing for buisnesses!
It would be one thing if Red Hat was just dumping kernels out there but this is far from the truth. They back port and support it. This is entirely misleading: it isn't forking but kernel customizing.
Although it might be harder to produce, I'm getting a feeling that Fox shouldn't even bother because they'll just end up abusing whatever timeslot they put the (new) Futurama on by pre-empting football or nascar or some Fox News thingy. They need programming that they deem "throw away" to fill in the gaps and its not going to be The Simpsons or some reality TV show.
I suspect the reasons why these are being disucssed at all are actually two fold. One is clearly the popularity in [adult swim]'s block on Cartoon Network. The other is selling through well on the DVD market.
Fox execs will see CN and the DVD producers (as well as a good penny for Groening and MacFarlane) making a load of cash on both shows and will probably make the same mistake *again*. I don't mind though. In the end that just means more epsiodes for CN and more DVDs.
I'm always bummed when people poo-poo C/C++ because they fail to see the real problem. It is true that C/C++ is probably too "low level" to do effective and safe application writing but that isn't the problem since one can clearly write bulletproof apps in C/C++.
The problem is that, like most bugs, the complexity of the language makes it hard to predict problems. Even in memory managed systems like Java and C# you can have crippling errors. You don't "fix" the problem by moving to these types of memory managed systems. You just contain and shift the problem from one place to another. A sloppy C# app will cause all sorts of havoc when an exploit is found in the way it performs.
The fix isn't avoiding C/C++. The real is rigorous code reviews to keep implementations clean and orderly so problems can be predicted. FOSS helps here but like any other venture it requires diligence to make it work effectively. No runtime environment is bulletproof and therefore will never be a substitute for plain old fashion inspecting of the code.
The marketing groups at the movie studios found out something a long time ago: most people want to know what happens. So they cram as much of the story and important points into 30 seconds as they can. This is a much better move than to just put "Spider-man 2: Summer 2005" on a blank black screen.
As much as you hate the fact they showed Peter wanting to throw away the costume, many more people want to know Peter is having this turmoil. So marketing sticks it in. As much as you don't want to know why Doc Oc wants to go on a rampage many more want to see exactly how Doc Oc throws stuff around mad as hell.
Its the nature of the buisness. Although there are people who hate the idea of a story being spoiled, so many more out there really want it.
And we all would have benifited from this if they simply shared in the first place instead of spending 20-30 years "rediscovering" it.
One programmer likened the 70-80s as The Dark Ages. There were cabals and secret voodoo that people sat on and didn't share and you ended up with an ignorant masses that only thought "this is as good as it gets". Hopefully this renaissance sticks because it doesn't matter how good or cool your technology is if you bury it for 20 years without another person knowing.
What is the difference between these two? It is like the difference between an archetect and a carpenter. It is the difference between know how and planning. Both skills are useful. You need some of both to be successful or at least a team that has access to both.
Programming is just knowing how to contruct a syntax for looping over an enumeration. This is definately different across different languages. Design is knowning where the right places to use it. Recognizing which paterns give the best results on when to itterate and when its a waste of time.
Programmers often don't know the most efficient thing to do. Just like Designers don't know the tools available to debug. One of the misunderstood aspects of today's industry is that "bosses" fail to realize that many of their employees have to wear two hats to get their job done. They fail to recognize when somone is a poor designer creating heaps of unmaintanable code. This is nearly as costly as someone who just designs all day and writes very little code.
I've always considered the Science part of Computer Science misleading. It is just like Economics: there are parts that are very rigorous but so much of it is left to the human whim and hence more a form of art. People who write code are as much artist as they are mathmeticians and engineers. Denying this aspect leads to some of the worst code (ie. ugly and unaestic) that a human can create.
I am inclined to not think so. According to ratings if people bought their channels "channel by channel" then many minor but interesting channels would die out. What would be left are the MTVs, ESPN, and Comedy Channels. Sure these channels are entertaining but they aren't everything.
I have come to accept that especially in the area of pop culture the majority may rule but it is rarely right and often make poor choices. Where will PBS go? How many will really get BBC America? Are you really going to pay for the Weather Channel?
Anyone accepting stolen material are out of luck. It is a felony to do it with knowledge that they are handling stolen property.
IANAL, but the property belongs to the person. It is EB's responsibility for suing the theif for a fruadulent transaction. In essence this guy not only stole from the owner but duped EB. I don't see how EB has a leg to stand upon on this.
Is that both Fellowship and The Two Towers where nominated and won in the same categories. So its the same thing...winning again? So beyond the 11 yesterday, Fellowship won 4 The Two Towers won 2 all of which were won *again*. All three films are fine but it kind of feels "doubling up".
As a side note: Man I felt bad for Bill Murray. His role in Lost in Translation was his best he ever gave.
As mentioned in numberous other places, the reason why an "contributor/advertisement clause" is incompatible with the GPL because it sets a restriction on the software. No matter how innocent or benign one thinks it is putting restrictions like this on software blows. It isn't practical or very ethtical. It isn't good to be free except in the case where you forgot to have our names plaster in the right spots.
I am all for giving credit where credit is due. However that place and time is not at the license level.
...and they want to bring it back in? I play some of these games and not once in my mind has the gender of my teammate or opponents has ever entered my mind. In fact it would be a distraction. Thinking that someone has an advantage in a game because they are male or female is like trying to figure out if someone has an advantage if they are right or left handed. If someone wins or loses they do so because they are an accomplished or failed player. Gender has very little to do with it.
The one place where competition can be leveled down to fundemental non-physical attributes, a place where women can actually compete on equal footing as guys, they want to bring back gender divisions? I just don't get it.
Why am I doubtful that life is there now? Because life is agressively pervasive. Once a life form can eek out a foothold in an environment it will exploit it to the maximum effect. The only example we have so far is our planet but the effect of life on Earth profound and blantanly obvious! There is hardly a spot any place where some life form of one type or another has exploited the environment around it and thrived leaving evidence something was once living there. Life doesn't hide. It spread like wildfire.
So if life on Mars exists now it should be easy to find. So if there is brine type life on Mars it should be easy to find because natural selection would kick in leaving the heartiest lifeforms left to spread as far and as wide as possible. You should be able to find large clusters of the stuff all over. So why haven't we yet? Maybe we aren't looking in the right spots. Maybe we don't have the right scientific tools out there yet. The point is that if life has a foothold anywhere on Mars is should be obvious when we stumble across it.
I believe Clause 4 of the GPL is the crux:
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Maintaining a list of contributors at the license level is a violation of Clause 4. You can not impose extra restrictions on GPL software and still be compliant under the GPL no matter how benign you think it is. If you think a list of contributors is harmless, I suppose I could make software but make a license such that only people named "Bob" can validly modify and still call it GPL.
I'm not sure what is the grounds for invalidity under BSD code but I suspect its the same problem. Imposing a restriction on software flies in the face of FOSS.
The problem with "the contributor clause" applied at the license level is that it is very pervasive. After all, why use a license that isn't pervasive?
So XFree has to list contributors. Anyone who writes an extention to XFree now has to list these contributors plus any contributors to make there extention work. Depending on how another developer uses that extention, they might have to carry all of those contributor forward as well. But a month has gone by since the original extention was released and more contributions have been made. To keep up to date not only do you have to sync source but sync contributors.
As for the GPL, the reason for incompatibility is that to use the GPL you must not put any more restrictions on the code no matter how innocent or benign you think they are. Sacrificing the freedom of the code just to make sure someone's name is plastered in the right spots is selfish. There are proper places to site contributsion. Just not at the license level.
This is the reason why it was a good thing that BSD abandoned this thing. I'm all for giving credit where credit is due but not at the license level. It gets to be a meta-maintaince nightmare to adhere to the license.
Opening Java and letting the implementation and maintance be handled by the community would still do a world of good. Sun can still spec out what Java core libs does. Just let the community which seems to be just as fast and capable as anyone at Sun.
If the entire thing is opened, as others mention there can be full integration of the Gnome Desktop. This is good for the very same reason Ximian wants to work on Mono. It isn't so much about bringing Windows apps to Linux but bringing Linux Apps to Windows. Imagine only a minor port to make Gimp work on Windows as well as Linux? That would be well worth the investment on Sun's part.
Any buisness guru will tell you "where there is a market you have a shot at making money!" If they see that 400k people signed up for World of Warcraft then someone who is savy is going to think "ah ha! this is a market!"
Just because some of the competition is stiff doesn't mean its not marketable. After all, why should Blizzard bother making World of Warcraft if hundreads of thousands are playing EQ?
One of the things that continually stumps me is why can't source trees (from CVS, tar.gz, where ever) compile out and create an installable package? Making a distributable package has always been a secondary step instead of an integral part of the installation build.
What I want to see more of is "tree building". Once again from some distribution system (CVS, tar.gz, etc.) the code can sit. When a release is pushed out you do an update/merge and rebuild. This ties into the previous paragraph where you can just recompile the packages and upgrade them for tight management.
Package management works now if you don't want to deal with source code. The moment you start trying to build your own source for system tools things start to blurr. This is how Linux systems now accumulate cruft which neither the package system or compiling can handle. If both were some how brought closer together there might be hope to keeping it sane for a bit longer.
Why is it just the individual user's responsibility for firewalling their system? Shouldn't ISP help a little by steping up and blocking some of the effect ports during these times of crisis? Why weren't more ISPs just outright refusing to send or accept traffice on port 53 during Blaster? Is it because *gasp* they and telecos get paid on bandwidth usage?!
Yes it is the individual user's repsonsiblity to keep their computer neat and tidy like one keeps their home and property tidy to prevent fires. However if a home does catch on fire you bet the city is going to step in if not to protect you but to protect other's property. Why are ISPs letting so many "fires" run rampant?