While, as a researcher myself, I can understand some of the statements these free-every-result advocates make, even though some of them seem very extreme even to me, I don't think this issue is that easy as they might suggest. A lot of research gets some sort of federal funding, and while I'd agree that published papers during these research works should be made freely available, I wouldn't agree with making all research results freely accessible. A lot of spinoff companies would die, a lot of companies started based on university research would die, and a lot of opportunities could be lost. Of course, third parties might have their christmases extended when they could get every research result for free. I mean come on, most if not all of defence research is at least partially federally funded. Large parts of medical and bio-chemical research has federal funding. It's not that easy. That's why I generally say, that while I'd agree that published results (i.e. appeared in scientific journals and at conferences) of federally funded research should be made freely available, I would never say that all research results should be made freely accessible. Extremism never works out OK, not here, not ever.
Well, I only handle 2 servers at work, both behind a router that only opens necessary ports. Also, using denyhosts to ban any IP for 2 months that tries getting in more than 5 times. Port 22 tries result in dozens of new daily bans, the other on a high port makes 1-2 monthly. Also, from time to time, I browse the logs manually as well. No - known - breakins in the last 3 years.
"Maybe I'm getting old, but I like that my appliances aren't particularly interested in me."
Well, I'm not old, but I still don't like such trends. I could settle with something like optional voice-based identification (i.e. on demand, when you explicitely say you want to be identified), but other than that, thanks but no thanks. And, maybe I'm weird that way, but I don't like to have a device in my home that has a hd camera, is enabled to automatically identify me, and be internet-connected. Such a device can be hacked, used for other purposes (e.g. is anyone home?), and is basically untrustable. And if I can't trust it, there's no way I'm buying it.
"academic institution claiming an ownership interest in employees' copyrights"
Copyright? No. Ownership? Yes, in many cases, including mine. What you publish, (c) stays with you or with the publisher in case of (c) transfer forms, but owenrship of the IP you produce falls to the institute. I don't think that's something out of the ordinary.
Regarding the original post's remarks about picking licenses regarding publications and results, I'm not surprised that no changes in the text or results or no commercial use clauses are picked, since let's be honest, it's one thing to openly publish your results, but it's a completely different one to allow anyone to commercially exploit your results that you've been working your a** off to produce. Give credit where it's due, and don't think of researchers as a source to freely exploit, that's just not fair. Some institutions and researchers can afford to patent great solutions and results before publications, so they can protect them, others can't but still, their results - while openly published - belong to them.
"Very few people enter into reasoned debate and bother to understand issues before voting on them."
My experience - which is failry limited, mind you, and also anecdotal, since of course I can't prove it, so take it as it is, an opinion - is that older generation [i.e. they and some or many of their ancestry is born american] americans seem to be more accepting than debate-oriented, vs. younger- or first-gen. americans, especially who are from mid-western european countries. The latter seem more willing to debate on general-overall political and social issues in a broader context, also seem more willing to voice their opinion in online outlets. And I think of this as something positive, hoping they'll retain their critical nature and agility as they become older:)
These kinds of patents always make me wonder... if back in the days this kind of patent practice would've been the norm, imagine how after the first discovery and implementation of a for/while loop concept every company would've run to the USPTO and patent something they "invented" based on the loop. Yes, it's a bit extreme, but sometimes you have to be so, to make a point. So, let's say you have a computing device (I couldn't care less if it's mobile or not, all computing devices _should_ be treated the same way, because they are, and no, size doesn't matter) that has location identification capabilities, and instead of letting anyone implement their ideas based on using such location information, people line up and patent everything they can come up with. We know location, let's patent silencing your device, let's patent actually telling you where you are, let's patent changing backgrounds and sounds based on your location, let's patent changing the time based on your location, let's patent switching your navigation map based on your location, let's patent texting your wife that you're close to home,............. we just arrive to a point where you can't really do anything anymore. Some people call those sci-fi movies unreal which show societies where companies control everything. Do you think we didn't arrive there yet in this and similar fields? Think again: we're awfully close.
"I thought maybe that was at the end of a conversation...nope, the guy asks a simple question , one that would have taken Torvalds all of 30 seconds to explain like a rational human being, and instead he goes instantly to 11 on the douchebag scale."
You;re forgetting somethin. This is not about some random project which some random guy contributes to. It's about submitting patches to the kernel. It requires you to be good, to be up to date with the kernel, with its contents, with its purpose, with how to commit patches, etc., and yes, with the expectations of the maintainers, including Linus. All of us having read about how Linus... reacts in certain situations, it's no wonder what happened here. Also, when the man says "WE DO NOT BREAK USERSPACE!" then it's simple: don't do it. Otherwise be a man and accept what's coming. And don't cmpare it to Ballmer taking a dev out on stage to slap him publically, because there's a very big difference, as Linux development is open and public.
Anyway, knowing more languages won't make you less in any way, they'll only improve you. Also, keeps your capability to learn and adapt at a high level. And it also doesn't hurt if you know some languages people speak outside the US. I know some languages, and independently of how they relate to my developer work and skills, they'd never hindered me, only aided me in a lot of situations. Think of language learning as a training excercise, or as a long term investment, either way, it'll improve you.
Since their terms&conditions can change any day to any direction, what they say it's their intention, doesn't really matter. If the legalspeak text they put up there can beinterpreted in a way that would mean they can sell the photos, then any lawyer will defend this "right" of theirs if they'd ever sell those photos and you'd go after them for doing so.
As always, this is another example of how US companies sometimes fail to see that there are countries on this planet where data and privacy protection regulations do exist, and not just left to the companies to go by their own terms&conditions changing by the weather.
Facebook can fight this all they want, it still won't make them any more likeable to a lot of us.
Well, that's exactly the most important point in question. I mean, now, a US company, like Facebook for example, can say one day in their terms of service, that they keep all collected data private and never give it to anyone. Then, a week later, they can change the terms of service, and give it to everyone. Plus, you can't ever ask them to delete your account and associated collected data. If proper regulation would be in place so that they should comply with your deletion request or be fined, then they would - hopefully - comply. IMHO it's simple: there should be proper regulations empowering everyone to have control about how data collected about them can be handled, propagated, sold, exploited, etc.
"have asked Google to take down legitimate pages related to their own films, including sites legally hosting, promoting, or discussing them"
Over the years there have been similar wishes over and over again, which would make Google basically a police mandate over content hosted by 3rd parties, making them un-findable in searches. Which, in my view is crazy a** stupid. If they have problems with content out there, they should kick those in their behinds who actually host the content they want to "protect", and not try to get a search engine block access. The very purpose of a search engine is to answer your queries, independent of those queries' perceived legality (and searching for the title of a movie is most certainly not illegal). If someone puts up illegal content for others to see, that person/entity should be policed over, and leave the freaking search engines alone. I don't want to get to a point where a search engine can't be trusted to actually search for what you seek because some companies force it to censor results.
- U.S. Patent 0,685,954 - Method of Utilizing Effects Transmitted through Natural Media - 1899 August 1
- U.S. Patent 0,685,953 - Apparatus for Utilizing Effects Transmitted from a Distance to a Receiving Device through Natural Media - 1899 June 24
and so on and so forth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikola_Tesla_patents)
So, basically you tell the compiler what's immutable, readonly, isolated, etc. so it can parallelize the code easier. It seems clever, however, I don't see people good in tbb and/or openmp et al. rushing to drop and move over. But others might like it. Also, someone who's familiar with Intel Cilk Plus or Berkeley UPC could say a few words about this.
"You think "enthusiast" refers to Linux users? How cute"
Exactly what I was thinking. News about non-socket CPUs, and they start to talk about Linux. I didn't - and don't - even understand.
Regarding "enthusiasts" - it's a stupid word, crazy even. It's about everyone who build their machines themselves. As I do at home, as we do at work, and not just gaming rigs, we have pretty high power machines in our server room that we assembled from selected parts, including the motherboards and the CPUs. Why? Because OEM machines not always fit our needs, and if they do sometimes, then they are crazy expensive and we have to spend our funds cleverly. And no, Intel motherboards don't always fit the bill. Sometimes they do, and then it's quite OK, but not always. And if we'll only have the choice to buy motherboard-CPU combos from Intel, with their usual reduced and limited customizability, then I'm not sure what we'll do, since I also hear the latest rumours about AMD being in trouble.
I guess we just need to get accustomed to always being fscked. As always, when your options are limited - how many x86-compatible high power CPU manufacturers are out there? right... - you don't have any choice. So we'll buy what they spit out anyways, and Intel will say: see, we told you it's no problem that we glued our CPUs to our mobos, people are still buying them. Good job fellas.
" file-sharing acts as a mechanism to spread information about a good from consumers with zero or low willingness to pay to users with high willingness to pay."
"OK fine. Start paying for every f'ing internet site you visit without advertisements, because they all cost money to operate. Or stop using the internet. Your choice."
Well, if I'm not visiting your site - ads or no ads - you won't get any revenue. Zero. Go figure. If I decide your site can show me ads, that means your site has reached a level of quality of content and interest from my part that I decide I let your ads show (I still won't ever click on them, but still). Speaking for myself, I allow ads on a number of sites, but there are not many (could be a few dozen or so).
But - and keep that in mind - I won't ever allow ads to show just because a content provider demands that I view them. You have to make yourself worth the hassle, big time.
Just try closing down your site and asking money for viewing - i.e. replace you ad showing revenue with access revenue - and see how long your site can survive. There' so much junk idiotic low-quality superfluous repetitive replicated unworthy content out there, that they might just do us all a big favor by driving themselves out of business.
"potentially billions of dollars of online ad revenue"
Well, they might just wake up, drink some coffee, become sober, and realise that loosing some revenue might be preferable over loosing the users. Also, they just might become even smarter, think it through, and realise that those people who are blocking the ads are users who wouldn't click on their ads anyway. You know, there's a reason they're blocking those ads: they don't want to see them, let alone click on them.
"I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?
No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance."
Slashdot Mirror
While, as a researcher myself, I can understand some of the statements these free-every-result advocates make, even though some of them seem very extreme even to me, I don't think this issue is that easy as they might suggest. A lot of research gets some sort of federal funding, and while I'd agree that published papers during these research works should be made freely available, I wouldn't agree with making all research results freely accessible. A lot of spinoff companies would die, a lot of companies started based on university research would die, and a lot of opportunities could be lost. Of course, third parties might have their christmases extended when they could get every research result for free. I mean come on, most if not all of defence research is at least partially federally funded. Large parts of medical and bio-chemical research has federal funding. It's not that easy. That's why I generally say, that while I'd agree that published results (i.e. appeared in scientific journals and at conferences) of federally funded research should be made freely available, I would never say that all research results should be made freely accessible. Extremism never works out OK, not here, not ever.
"for the typical gamer"
"targeting towards HPC (high performance computing) and the GPGPU markets"
Nuff said.
Well, I only handle 2 servers at work, both behind a router that only opens necessary ports. Also, using denyhosts to ban any IP for 2 months that tries getting in more than 5 times. Port 22 tries result in dozens of new daily bans, the other on a high port makes 1-2 monthly. Also, from time to time, I browse the logs manually as well. No - known - breakins in the last 3 years.
"Maybe I'm getting old, but I like that my appliances aren't particularly interested in me."
Well, I'm not old, but I still don't like such trends. I could settle with something like optional voice-based identification (i.e. on demand, when you explicitely say you want to be identified), but other than that, thanks but no thanks. And, maybe I'm weird that way, but I don't like to have a device in my home that has a hd camera, is enabled to automatically identify me, and be internet-connected. Such a device can be hacked, used for other purposes (e.g. is anyone home?), and is basically untrustable. And if I can't trust it, there's no way I'm buying it.
Well, with continued and recent attention to NASA and JPL, don't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_von_K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n. But such a list could be potentially endless...
"academic institution claiming an ownership interest in employees' copyrights"
Copyright? No. Ownership? Yes, in many cases, including mine. What you publish, (c) stays with you or with the publisher in case of (c) transfer forms, but owenrship of the IP you produce falls to the institute. I don't think that's something out of the ordinary.
Regarding the original post's remarks about picking licenses regarding publications and results, I'm not surprised that no changes in the text or results or no commercial use clauses are picked, since let's be honest, it's one thing to openly publish your results, but it's a completely different one to allow anyone to commercially exploit your results that you've been working your a** off to produce. Give credit where it's due, and don't think of researchers as a source to freely exploit, that's just not fair. Some institutions and researchers can afford to patent great solutions and results before publications, so they can protect them, others can't but still, their results - while openly published - belong to them.
"Very few people enter into reasoned debate and bother to understand issues before voting on them."
:)
My experience - which is failry limited, mind you, and also anecdotal, since of course I can't prove it, so take it as it is, an opinion - is that older generation [i.e. they and some or many of their ancestry is born american] americans seem to be more accepting than debate-oriented, vs. younger- or first-gen. americans, especially who are from mid-western european countries. The latter seem more willing to debate on general-overall political and social issues in a broader context, also seem more willing to voice their opinion in online outlets. And I think of this as something positive, hoping they'll retain their critical nature and agility as they become older
These kinds of patents always make me wonder... if back in the days this kind of patent practice would've been the norm, imagine how after the first discovery and implementation of a for/while loop concept every company would've run to the USPTO and patent something they "invented" based on the loop. Yes, it's a bit extreme, but sometimes you have to be so, to make a point. So, let's say you have a computing device (I couldn't care less if it's mobile or not, all computing devices _should_ be treated the same way, because they are, and no, size doesn't matter) that has location identification capabilities, and instead of letting anyone implement their ideas based on using such location information, people line up and patent everything they can come up with. We know location, let's patent silencing your device, let's patent actually telling you where you are, let's patent changing backgrounds and sounds based on your location, let's patent changing the time based on your location, let's patent switching your navigation map based on your location, let's patent texting your wife that you're close to home, ............. we just arrive to a point where you can't really do anything anymore. Some people call those sci-fi movies unreal which show societies where companies control everything. Do you think we didn't arrive there yet in this and similar fields? Think again: we're awfully close.
"I thought maybe that was at the end of a conversation...nope, the guy asks a simple question , one that would have taken Torvalds all of 30 seconds to explain like a rational human being, and instead he goes instantly to 11 on the douchebag scale."
... reacts in certain situations, it's no wonder what happened here. Also, when the man says "WE DO NOT BREAK USERSPACE!" then it's simple: don't do it. Otherwise be a man and accept what's coming. And don't cmpare it to Ballmer taking a dev out on stage to slap him publically, because there's a very big difference, as Linux development is open and public.
You;re forgetting somethin. This is not about some random project which some random guy contributes to. It's about submitting patches to the kernel. It requires you to be good, to be up to date with the kernel, with its contents, with its purpose, with how to commit patches, etc., and yes, with the expectations of the maintainers, including Linus. All of us having read about how Linus
It helps you as a person. And not only in the US.
Anyway, knowing more languages won't make you less in any way, they'll only improve you. Also, keeps your capability to learn and adapt at a high level. And it also doesn't hurt if you know some languages people speak outside the US. I know some languages, and independently of how they relate to my developer work and skills, they'd never hindered me, only aided me in a lot of situations. Think of language learning as a training excercise, or as a long term investment, either way, it'll improve you.
"it is not our intention to sell your photos"
Since their terms&conditions can change any day to any direction, what they say it's their intention, doesn't really matter. If the legalspeak text they put up there can beinterpreted in a way that would mean they can sell the photos, then any lawyer will defend this "right" of theirs if they'd ever sell those photos and you'd go after them for doing so.
As always, this is another example of how US companies sometimes fail to see that there are countries on this planet where data and privacy protection regulations do exist, and not just left to the companies to go by their own terms&conditions changing by the weather.
Facebook can fight this all they want, it still won't make them any more likeable to a lot of us.
"as required by Facebook, at least 30 percent of the users should have voted against them in order to keep the previous versions of the policies"
Well, they did. The rest are dogs, cats, frogs, imaginary animals, and the neighbor's boots.
I've been reading /. for some years now.
/.?
When I read this post, first I thought it was some kind of joke.
Then I started to feel the urge to hit someone, really hard.
Seriously people, how the heck does a beginner's beginner's noob's writing like this land on
Teenage Linux beginner bloggers do better than this.
You people need to reset your quality checking methods, and fast.
"If it's not obvious, don't sign up."
Well, that's exactly the most important point in question. I mean, now, a US company, like Facebook for example, can say one day in their terms of service, that they keep all collected data private and never give it to anyone. Then, a week later, they can change the terms of service, and give it to everyone. Plus, you can't ever ask them to delete your account and associated collected data. If proper regulation would be in place so that they should comply with your deletion request or be fined, then they would - hopefully - comply. IMHO it's simple: there should be proper regulations empowering everyone to have control about how data collected about them can be handled, propagated, sold, exploited, etc.
"have asked Google to take down legitimate pages related to their own films, including sites legally hosting, promoting, or discussing them"
Over the years there have been similar wishes over and over again, which would make Google basically a police mandate over content hosted by 3rd parties, making them un-findable in searches. Which, in my view is crazy a** stupid. If they have problems with content out there, they should kick those in their behinds who actually host the content they want to "protect", and not try to get a search engine block access. The very purpose of a search engine is to answer your queries, independent of those queries' perceived legality (and searching for the title of a movie is most certainly not illegal). If someone puts up illegal content for others to see, that person/entity should be policed over, and leave the freaking search engines alone. I don't want to get to a point where a search engine can't be trusted to actually search for what you seek because some companies force it to censor results.
- U.S. Patent 0,685,954 - Method of Utilizing Effects Transmitted through Natural Media - 1899 August 1
- U.S. Patent 0,685,953 - Apparatus for Utilizing Effects Transmitted from a Distance to a Receiving Device through Natural Media - 1899 June 24
and so on and so forth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikola_Tesla_patents)
So, basically you tell the compiler what's immutable, readonly, isolated, etc. so it can parallelize the code easier. It seems clever, however, I don't see people good in tbb and/or openmp et al. rushing to drop and move over. But others might like it. Also, someone who's familiar with Intel Cilk Plus or Berkeley UPC could say a few words about this.
"You think "enthusiast" refers to Linux users? How cute"
Exactly what I was thinking. News about non-socket CPUs, and they start to talk about Linux. I didn't - and don't - even understand.
Regarding "enthusiasts" - it's a stupid word, crazy even. It's about everyone who build their machines themselves. As I do at home, as we do at work, and not just gaming rigs, we have pretty high power machines in our server room that we assembled from selected parts, including the motherboards and the CPUs. Why? Because OEM machines not always fit our needs, and if they do sometimes, then they are crazy expensive and we have to spend our funds cleverly. And no, Intel motherboards don't always fit the bill. Sometimes they do, and then it's quite OK, but not always. And if we'll only have the choice to buy motherboard-CPU combos from Intel, with their usual reduced and limited customizability, then I'm not sure what we'll do, since I also hear the latest rumours about AMD being in trouble.
I guess we just need to get accustomed to always being fscked. As always, when your options are limited - how many x86-compatible high power CPU manufacturers are out there? right... - you don't have any choice. So we'll buy what they spit out anyways, and Intel will say: see, we told you it's no problem that we glued our CPUs to our mobos, people are still buying them. Good job fellas.
" file-sharing acts as a mechanism to spread information about a good from consumers with zero or low willingness to pay to users with high willingness to pay."
This!
+1
"OK fine. Start paying for every f'ing internet site you visit without advertisements, because they all cost money to operate. Or stop using the internet. Your choice."
Well, if I'm not visiting your site - ads or no ads - you won't get any revenue. Zero. Go figure. If I decide your site can show me ads, that means your site has reached a level of quality of content and interest from my part that I decide I let your ads show (I still won't ever click on them, but still). Speaking for myself, I allow ads on a number of sites, but there are not many (could be a few dozen or so).
But - and keep that in mind - I won't ever allow ads to show just because a content provider demands that I view them. You have to make yourself worth the hassle, big time.
Just try closing down your site and asking money for viewing - i.e. replace you ad showing revenue with access revenue - and see how long your site can survive. There' so much junk idiotic low-quality superfluous repetitive replicated unworthy content out there, that they might just do us all a big favor by driving themselves out of business.
"potentially billions of dollars of online ad revenue"
Well, they might just wake up, drink some coffee, become sober, and realise that loosing some revenue might be preferable over loosing the users. Also, they just might become even smarter, think it through, and realise that those people who are blocking the ads are users who wouldn't click on their ads anyway. You know, there's a reason they're blocking those ads: they don't want to see them, let alone click on them.
Nevermind, I looked around myself: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GiveUpKeys
It says:
"I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?
No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance."
What? GPLv3 doesn't allow a binary of the software to be signed with a key? Do you have a citation for that? Cause it sounds... interesting.
"Something about contributing to stupidity instead of malice."
Well, there's a part of an edifying story going something like: - How old are you, my prince? - 25 (*) - And you still believe in fairytales?
(*) Number doesn't really matter, but reflects age greater than childhood.