Yes, but if the issue is that actions need to be taken before the information can hope to arrive, then quantum entanglement could be the answer.
Step 1: have a playbook of courses of action (the classical information channel -- the information has already been sent, we just don't know which bit is wanted) Step 2: set up a quantum 8-ball that tells which bit of information to select Steps 3 and 5: take action based on the 8-ball Step 4: send the result of step 3 to the person performing step 5.
This should work, shouldn't it?
It wouldn't work for simultaneous transmission of unknown information, but it would work for taking simultaneous action based on information already shared. If the issue is synchronicity, problem solved. If the issue is to minimize the time between receipt of information and time of action based on that information globally, without releasing the information earlier to one point than another, well, problem still a problem. You could even use quantum encryption on the sent data and have the action be the decryption of said data, so everyone essentially receives the "information" at the same time, even though the receipt of the underlying data will be staggered.
Good luck getting this to work for a regular business software development team though....
How does that handle this part of the case though? Samsung is arguing that Apple has no claim against them because Apple did not invent anything novel, and in fact they have a witness who discussed his similar design with Apple designers so long ago as to be out of patent by now if one had been applied for. This means that Apple can either claim that his information is too old, therefore invalidating their own patent, or that his design is different from the iPad, but the Samsung design isn't -- at which point they then get back to the real topic of this part of the case, that of arguing how the Samsung tablet is similar to Apple's in a way that is covered by patent and unique from all other tablets in the field. Questions about suing, other tablet designs, pursuing claims and compensation have little to do with the actual issues here (although I'm sure they'll be raised anyway, by whichever side thinks they have something to gain by doing so).
It's my opinion, and not legal advice. If it WAS legal advice, it wouldn't be legal legal advice. I am seriously suggesting that the FSF posted a suggestion and recommendation that still remains correct -- they have not further analysed all the ramifications and there has been no legal precedent, so the best recommendation they can make is the one they've already made (which is still accurate, as it's a recommendation). While it's possible Eben and the FSF have revisited their original study of the interaction of MS-PL and GPL, I have seen no evidence of this, as the text has not changed nor been updated, even to clarify that the MS-PL is not compatible with BOTH GPLv2 and GPLv3 (which I would expect, if they had revisited this).
I won't email Eben about this, because I'm not about to use either license in any code -- at such time as I do, I'll consult both the FSF and my own lawyer (which should be the standard response -- unless you're doing not-for-profit work, in which case it may be simpler just to pick the license you want, and go with it, assuming you've read all the licenses you're working with and are confident in your own mind that they're compatible. If they turn out not to be, that's an issue for lawyers and courts).
Did you mean to respond to the GP? I was responding to the GP's argument about distribution -- and saying that they just can't use any modifications made to distributed GPL'd code in their proprietarily distributed version, but otherwise can do whatever they want. Which appears to be exactly what you responded with, but with more CAPS and fewer examples.
Yes... and that description hasn't changed since MS-PL first made headlines on Slashdot... which was before GPLv3 first made headliens on Slashdot. My guess is that nobody at FSF has bothered to update the MS-PL description since GPLv3 was created.
Our intent is to encourage high performance accurate subdiv drawing by giving away the "good stuff".
I want to be wrong about this. I really do. But I read this as "our intent is to establish a tie to our proprietary products Renderman and Maya via a license carefully designed by Microsoft to be incompatible with GPL, and thus Blender."
You'll be happy to know then that you're likely at least partially wrong. First: http://www.blender.org/BL/ -- from this, you may conclude that their intent is to force Blender to activate the Blender License. Second: Blender is licensed under "GNU General Public License v2 or later" -- and that "or later" bit is key here, as the MS-PL is compatible with GPLv3, just not with GPLv2. The end result of this is that the code is compatible with any GPLv3 code *and* any GPLv2 code with the "or later" clause that is used with Blender libraries and derivatives. It should also be compatible with the LGPL.
The rights holder can release this under the GPL; they just can't use any modifications made to the GPL'd version. Just because they release some code under a license doesn't mean that they, the authors, can't ALSO release it under a more restrictive license for personal use. The GPL gives the author COMPLETE freedom, including the freedom to license their code under other licenses that conflict with it.
Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, B) GPL theor own in-house software that links to it, or C) keep using it just like they do and not use any changes to the GPL'd version unless the submitter also agreed to contribute the changes to the proprietary version.
Of course, C is often such a headache to manage in reality that most people just use an alternate license that's either GPLv2 or GPLv3 (like this one) compatible.
There's more to it than just the supernodes; Skype hides its traffic from many packet inspectors well enough to still work even when VoIP-style traffic is blocked.
Ah; but MS has another monopoly to leverage: Skype is the one video/audio/text conferencing platform that can punch through any firewall and runs on virtually every device with a microphone, speaker and a cpu. They want to be able to offer this as a service. Likely, whatever Skype does to punch through firewalls didn't make it into the Google spec, and MS isn't about to reveal their special sauce.
Indeed... when I do a shoot, I generally fill 32-64GB during the shoot. The next part of my workflow involves high-speed discarding of shots that aren't worth keeping. This is usually around 80-90% of the images (although I did have one amazing day where 80% were proper exposure, framing, lighting and the subject was properly positioned).
Now once you've done this step, you're down to 3.2-6.4 GB of data, usually less. Then comes the lightroom/touchup workflow, which should be lossless (first part gets done on the raw images, then save out as TIFF for the final version that involves lossy transforms). End result? Storage needs double -- so now you need around 6.4GB of storage instead of 128GB of data.
As you improve this workflow, you'll find that the number of images you keep stays the same, but the quality of the images improves -- you get a much more critical eye while composing the shot, and get much faster at both shooting and at culling after the fact.
If you're truly keeping every shot you ever expose, you might as well be using film; most images should never even make it off the camera.
Have two sets of backups, one at your place, and one at work, friend's or family member's place. Update and exchange as often as you figure is necessary; the more often, the better.
Encrypt it, too (TrueCrypt makes this very easy), you don't want your data in the wrong hands if stolen or lost.
This has always been my solution. I keep the passphrase for the encrypted volume in a manilla envelope with my will in a safe deposit box.
The big threat with specialized workers moving to a competitor isn't really in re-creating a system created at the prior place of employment... hopefully they're on the ball enough that some other coder has already improved upon the original design by the time the developer gets up to speed at the new location.
The big threat is that the developer also knows the previous employer's weaknesses, and can exploit those when starting from scratch on a new system. This means that if they happen to know a specific transaction takes place at a specific time of day that is significantly more expensive than usual, causing milliseconds of delay, the competitor's system can be designed to be able to stuff an unusually large number of transactions into that window, thus effectively transferring millions in assets from the old company to the new one.
You just posted on Slashdot. Your IP is logged on a US server. I sure hope for your sake that the next hop on your encrypted proxy tunnel ride goes through somewhere like North Korea....
I have no facebook account. I make up for it with a LinkedIn account that doesn't say anything not already available via Google.
The alternative, of course, is to maintain a few vanity Facebook accounts with your name, but stuffed with all sorts of information that is provably not about you. You can then under oath claim that all of these accounts belong to you, and none of it will ever hold up as evidence in court.
And how does it make anyone's job any faster or better to have a tile instead of a start menu?
Ask Apple... At Ease came out in 1991 IIRC. They rolled it right into the OS in OS 9, and it's still there as a "limited account" interface in OS X. Plus, there's the new Launcher.
Virtually nobody uses these features on a Mac even though they've been there for 21 years. Why does Microsoft think that forcing this interface on their entire upgrade userbase is going to fly?
Have you EVER seen a desktop (digital or analog) where it only takes one click to get there? Desktops are notoriously covered up with all sorts of junk and almost impossible to manage. Windows-M will get you there, but I haven't seen my desktop on Windows XP for months....
Depends on what you mean by overworked... the code monkeys end up being kept really busy doing brain numbing activities that could be done just as well by a competent secretary. Their brains, on the other hand, will be underworked, as they won't be doing anything really new or novel.
By underworked, I was referring to having to spend all day doing mindless junk when you've got the education to see how the whole workflow could be optimized to make the entire unit more productive... but you'd have to actually DO that on your own time, as there's not enough time to do extra work like this with the drudge-level coding expected of you during a regular workday.
I've never had security at Vancouver take longer than 15 minutes; by comparison, Chicago takes me about 35 minutes, Heathrow takes 45 minutes, Denver takes 20 minutes, and Toronto takes 40 minutes. Cancun takes me around 10.
Seems to me the amount of time has more to do with the number of people being processed than with the country, with the exception of Mexico, where they appear to have saner screening than the US, UK and Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it too late for me to object to .COM?
Are you against commies?
Real answer? I'm lazy. Thanks for taking the extra step :)
Yes, but if the issue is that actions need to be taken before the information can hope to arrive, then quantum entanglement could be the answer.
Step 1: have a playbook of courses of action (the classical information channel -- the information has already been sent, we just don't know which bit is wanted)
Step 2: set up a quantum 8-ball that tells which bit of information to select
Steps 3 and 5: take action based on the 8-ball
Step 4: send the result of step 3 to the person performing step 5.
This should work, shouldn't it?
It wouldn't work for simultaneous transmission of unknown information, but it would work for taking simultaneous action based on information already shared. If the issue is synchronicity, problem solved. If the issue is to minimize the time between receipt of information and time of action based on that information globally, without releasing the information earlier to one point than another, well, problem still a problem. You could even use quantum encryption on the sent data and have the action be the decryption of said data, so everyone essentially receives the "information" at the same time, even though the receipt of the underlying data will be staggered.
Good luck getting this to work for a regular business software development team though....
How does that handle this part of the case though? Samsung is arguing that Apple has no claim against them because Apple did not invent anything novel, and in fact they have a witness who discussed his similar design with Apple designers so long ago as to be out of patent by now if one had been applied for. This means that Apple can either claim that his information is too old, therefore invalidating their own patent, or that his design is different from the iPad, but the Samsung design isn't -- at which point they then get back to the real topic of this part of the case, that of arguing how the Samsung tablet is similar to Apple's in a way that is covered by patent and unique from all other tablets in the field. Questions about suing, other tablet designs, pursuing claims and compensation have little to do with the actual issues here (although I'm sure they'll be raised anyway, by whichever side thinks they have something to gain by doing so).
They are if the original design was done in MacPaint....
It's my opinion, and not legal advice. If it WAS legal advice, it wouldn't be legal legal advice. I am seriously suggesting that the FSF posted a suggestion and recommendation that still remains correct -- they have not further analysed all the ramifications and there has been no legal precedent, so the best recommendation they can make is the one they've already made (which is still accurate, as it's a recommendation). While it's possible Eben and the FSF have revisited their original study of the interaction of MS-PL and GPL, I have seen no evidence of this, as the text has not changed nor been updated, even to clarify that the MS-PL is not compatible with BOTH GPLv2 and GPLv3 (which I would expect, if they had revisited this).
I won't email Eben about this, because I'm not about to use either license in any code -- at such time as I do, I'll consult both the FSF and my own lawyer (which should be the standard response -- unless you're doing not-for-profit work, in which case it may be simpler just to pick the license you want, and go with it, assuming you've read all the licenses you're working with and are confident in your own mind that they're compatible. If they turn out not to be, that's an issue for lawyers and courts).
Did you mean to respond to the GP?
I was responding to the GP's argument about distribution -- and saying that they just can't use any modifications made to distributed GPL'd code in their proprietarily distributed version, but otherwise can do whatever they want. Which appears to be exactly what you responded with, but with more CAPS and fewer examples.
the MS-PL is compatible with GPLv3, just not with GPLv2
It depends who you ask. The FSF states clearly that Ms-PL is incompatible with GPL, period, no version specified.
MS-PL.. a free software license; it has a copyleft that is not strong, but incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the Ms-PL for this reason.
Yes... and that description hasn't changed since MS-PL first made headlines on Slashdot... which was before GPLv3 first made headliens on Slashdot. My guess is that nobody at FSF has bothered to update the MS-PL description since GPLv3 was created.
Our intent is to encourage high performance accurate subdiv drawing by giving away the "good stuff".
I want to be wrong about this. I really do. But I read this as "our intent is to establish a tie to our proprietary products Renderman and Maya via a license carefully designed by Microsoft to be incompatible with GPL, and thus Blender."
You'll be happy to know then that you're likely at least partially wrong.
First: http://www.blender.org/BL/ -- from this, you may conclude that their intent is to force Blender to activate the Blender License.
Second: Blender is licensed under "GNU General Public License v2 or later" -- and that "or later" bit is key here, as the MS-PL is compatible with GPLv3, just not with GPLv2. The end result of this is that the code is compatible with any GPLv3 code *and* any GPLv2 code with the "or later" clause that is used with Blender libraries and derivatives. It should also be compatible with the LGPL.
Actually, he's at least partly correct.
The rights holder can release this under the GPL; they just can't use any modifications made to the GPL'd version. Just because they release some code under a license doesn't mean that they, the authors, can't ALSO release it under a more restrictive license for personal use. The GPL gives the author COMPLETE freedom, including the freedom to license their code under other licenses that conflict with it.
Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, B) GPL theor own in-house software that links to it, or C) keep using it just like they do and not use any changes to the GPL'd version unless the submitter also agreed to contribute the changes to the proprietary version.
Of course, C is often such a headache to manage in reality that most people just use an alternate license that's either GPLv2 or GPLv3 (like this one) compatible.
There's more to it than just the supernodes; Skype hides its traffic from many packet inspectors well enough to still work even when VoIP-style traffic is blocked.
Nah; we'll be reverting to something reminiscent of Norton Commander.... :D
Either that, or the Kinect 2 is really designed to replace keyboard and mouse, and suddenly the shift in UI will make sens.
Jim.
Jihad Intercept Module
Ah; but MS has another monopoly to leverage: Skype is the one video/audio/text conferencing platform that can punch through any firewall and runs on virtually every device with a microphone, speaker and a cpu. They want to be able to offer this as a service. Likely, whatever Skype does to punch through firewalls didn't make it into the Google spec, and MS isn't about to reveal their special sauce.
You store your government clearance in the cloud????
I hope it's at least all stored on a truecrypt volume and not just sitting there on the internet for anyone to look at.
Indeed... when I do a shoot, I generally fill 32-64GB during the shoot.
The next part of my workflow involves high-speed discarding of shots that aren't worth keeping. This is usually around 80-90% of the images (although I did have one amazing day where 80% were proper exposure, framing, lighting and the subject was properly positioned).
Now once you've done this step, you're down to 3.2-6.4 GB of data, usually less. Then comes the lightroom/touchup workflow, which should be lossless (first part gets done on the raw images, then save out as TIFF for the final version that involves lossy transforms). End result? Storage needs double -- so now you need around 6.4GB of storage instead of 128GB of data.
As you improve this workflow, you'll find that the number of images you keep stays the same, but the quality of the images improves -- you get a much more critical eye while composing the shot, and get much faster at both shooting and at culling after the fact.
If you're truly keeping every shot you ever expose, you might as well be using film; most images should never even make it off the camera.
My thoughts exactly.
Have two sets of backups, one at your place, and one at work, friend's or family member's place. Update and exchange as often as you figure is necessary; the more often, the better.
Encrypt it, too (TrueCrypt makes this very easy), you don't want your data in the wrong hands if stolen or lost.
This has always been my solution. I keep the passphrase for the encrypted volume in a manilla envelope with my will in a safe deposit box.
The big threat with specialized workers moving to a competitor isn't really in re-creating a system created at the prior place of employment... hopefully they're on the ball enough that some other coder has already improved upon the original design by the time the developer gets up to speed at the new location.
The big threat is that the developer also knows the previous employer's weaknesses, and can exploit those when starting from scratch on a new system. This means that if they happen to know a specific transaction takes place at a specific time of day that is significantly more expensive than usual, causing milliseconds of delay, the competitor's system can be designed to be able to stuff an unusually large number of transactions into that window, thus effectively transferring millions in assets from the old company to the new one.
You just posted on Slashdot. Your IP is logged on a US server. I sure hope for your sake that the next hop on your encrypted proxy tunnel ride goes through somewhere like North Korea....
I have no facebook account. I make up for it with a LinkedIn account that doesn't say anything not already available via Google.
The alternative, of course, is to maintain a few vanity Facebook accounts with your name, but stuffed with all sorts of information that is provably not about you. You can then under oath claim that all of these accounts belong to you, and none of it will ever hold up as evidence in court.
Does the local donut shop have wifi?
And how does it make anyone's job any faster or better to have a tile instead of a start menu?
Ask Apple... At Ease came out in 1991 IIRC. They rolled it right into the OS in OS 9, and it's still there as a "limited account" interface in OS X. Plus, there's the new Launcher.
Virtually nobody uses these features on a Mac even though they've been there for 21 years. Why does Microsoft think that forcing this interface on their entire upgrade userbase is going to fly?
Have you EVER seen a desktop (digital or analog) where it only takes one click to get there? Desktops are notoriously covered up with all sorts of junk and almost impossible to manage. Windows-M will get you there, but I haven't seen my desktop on Windows XP for months....
Depends on what you mean by overworked... the code monkeys end up being kept really busy doing brain numbing activities that could be done just as well by a competent secretary. Their brains, on the other hand, will be underworked, as they won't be doing anything really new or novel.
By underworked, I was referring to having to spend all day doing mindless junk when you've got the education to see how the whole workflow could be optimized to make the entire unit more productive... but you'd have to actually DO that on your own time, as there's not enough time to do extra work like this with the drudge-level coding expected of you during a regular workday.
I've never had security at Vancouver take longer than 15 minutes; by comparison, Chicago takes me about 35 minutes, Heathrow takes 45 minutes, Denver takes 20 minutes, and Toronto takes 40 minutes. Cancun takes me around 10.
Seems to me the amount of time has more to do with the number of people being processed than with the country, with the exception of Mexico, where they appear to have saner screening than the US, UK and Canada.