If you've heard any of his speeches, you'd know he doesn't care about acceptance. He has said time and time again that he doesn't define his success as how many people use GNU software. Had he defined success as you say, he'd have released everything as BSD or public domain. Really all he wanted was a pool of free software for the good of everyone that couldn't be turned proprietary at the whim of big business.
My boss is from South Korea, and he had an interesting story to tell about a job he worked.
Apparently at this company, whenever a decision was made to fire an employee, they would send someone out to remove your desk from the premises... but only if you weren't there. When you got back, you'd wonder where your desk was and be greeted by someone to help you leave the building. This caught on very quickly with the employees, so if they thought they were getting the axe, they'd simply never leave their desk. They would forgo breaks, get there earliest, and leave the latest.
There was no intent to make it seem like holds were a Republican beast. If/when the Democrats ever regain control of the Senate, they will be sure to use the hold to its full capacity.
I figured at least 1 person would take it that way even though the phrase "majority parties" doesn't make sense (you can't have 2 parties in the majority).
I applaud the efforts of the people working on Gnash and wish them the best in their work to give us an F/OSS flash player, but as of right now it doesn't work all that well (for me at least).
However, one important note is that legislation like the DRM is hardly capitalistic -- if anything, its socialism, enforcing a policy.
Don't make the mistake of calling anything coercive "socialism". DRM and the legal framework that protects it is about ensuring profitability of a narrow interest at the expense of the public will. This is more properly defined as authoritarian and corporatist.
Nowhere did I mention the party name in my post. Diebold is known as a Republican contributor, but I'm sure they'd cross the aisle in order to get a few contracts. Politics aside, it is little short of madness when the leadership of neither major party cares when the voting machines don't work.
Re:Same here, as a Canadian I am mystified...
on
Diebold Flops in Alaska
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In America we usually vote for many offices at the same time; we also have more people. Of course, all that means is that we need more people to count the votes. I think it shouldn't be too hard to find a representative for each candidate for office as well as a few citizens to oversee the process.
As far as people really not caring, I think that has to do with something completely different. The problem here is the rampant partisan gerrymandering which all but guarantees a victory for most incumbent politicians. I don't believe Canada has much of a problem with it since, if I understand correctly, a non-partisan body draws the ridings. Gerrymandering, I think, behind verified voting is most dangerous to the democratic process. With a clever gerrymander, your party can theoretically win 75% of the seats with 25% of the votes.
Interesting factoid: Uncle Ted is now the longest serving senator, making him president pro tempore. In other words, he is only two heartbeats away from being our president (of tubes)!
Actually, he's the longest serving senator in the majority party. Robert Byrd is the longest serving senator. Sen. Byrd will become president pro tempore (assuming he is re-elected this fall) if the Democrats ever control the Senate.
Furthermore, for Ted Stevens to become president, Bush, Cheney, and Denny Hastert would all have to die or otherwise be unable to assume the presidency. Come to think of it, he is only two heartbeats away as Cheney doesn't really have a heart, but a sort of robotic device that keeps his oil^H^H^H blood flowing.
The voting machine prints out paper ballot with marks made next to the candidate of choice for each office. This can be easily verified by the voter that the print out matches their vote made on the machine. That paper is the record of the vote, not some jumble of electricity or magnetized plate inside the machine. The machine can also be responsible for input validation (no more overvotes!).
Preliminary totals (the mess of electricty) along with exit polls can give semi-accurate results a few hours after polls close. Tomorrow starts the physical counting by hand of every last paper ballot in the ballot boxes. Representatives from each candidate in the election should oversee the counting, as well as any interested citizen that wishes to watch. This will be slow, tedious, and incredibly accurate.
My boss and I worked on getting it set up for the upcoming school year. We were on phone with tech support about every 30 minutes because we didn't know about mundane minutae for turning on option X or why module Y wouldn't work. The manual is written in clear English, but it doesn't really say how to do much.
If only it was free software, we could fix it, but it isn't, so it will continue to have bugs such as the UTC bug, and the "i don't feel like saving what you type if you tab to a field, rather than use the mouse" bug.
Come on! You knew what I meant. You own the copy. And if you purchased a valid copy, you have the right via fair use, to make private archival copies of any of your bought works.
IANAL (but cpt kangarooski is), but it would seem to me that once you purchase a work it is yours. You have made backups for just the reason that happened... the originals were lost.
If you're talking about the RIAA busting down your door and asking you to prove that you have a legally purchased copy of any of those CD-Rs with "their IP" on them, then I think you can be safe knowing they have to prove that it is more likely than not that those are the result of infringement.
I wouldn't go that far. I think the liberal wing will be in the bag on this one, so that gives 4 right there. And based on Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, I think Scalia will go along with them. He noted that congress hadn't suspended habeas corpus, so Bush had to try terrorism suspects under normal criminal law or release them. Then again, he never was much of a advocate of privacy as a right. Then again, the 4th amendment is very plain, and Scalia isn't about to disregard it. If Scalia goes, Kennedy will as well.
I'd have to say 6-3, with Alito, Roberts, and Thomas ruling that Der Fuhrer has unlimited powers in times of war by virtue of the unitary executive theory.
1) Shorten the length of time to 5 years. 2) Eliminate "business method" patents. 3) Eliminate software patents. 4) Require a working prototype of any patented invention. 5) Hire experts in the field as patent examiners. PHBs shouldn't be issuing patents.
I was pointing out our friend must have not been around for long to realize that the (vast?) majority of slashdotters are anti-patent. He/she is certainly entitled to his/her opinion, but I think the debate on the issue here has pretty much settled that patents are not win-win. I don't think that anyone here can say that they honestly believe the current patent system encourages the progress of science and useful arts as it was intended to.
Eventually the patent should expire and at that point the market would open up and prices would drop significantly.
Yes, after that technology is long obsolete. LZW compression is no longer patented. It isn't widely used anymore outside GIFs, TIFFs, and PDFs because its obsolete. There are better ways of compressing data (see DEFLATE and Burrows-Wheeler algorithms).
What is so bad about patent law? It's a win-win for all.
Your UID is very high, so I'll excuse that remark.
New innovations are protected ecnourageing more innovation and it gives the consumers an appetite for when the patent expires and the market really opens up.
That is how it works in theory. In practice:
1) The patentee gets a patent on something he didn't actually invent, but was first to file. 2) Patents are granted on mundane, obvious inventions. (Queue the "obvious invention on a computer/Internet" patents) These are granted because patent examiners don't have much technical expertise in the field and have limited time to check for prior art. 3) If you do actually invent something non-obvious, and the big guys infringe on your patent, you'll bankrupt yourself via legal fees trying to get them to pay.
Should we get rid of patent law because it creates a monoploy for a period of time?
Slashdot Mirror
If you've heard any of his speeches, you'd know he doesn't care about acceptance. He has said time and time again that he doesn't define his success as how many people use GNU software. Had he defined success as you say, he'd have released everything as BSD or public domain. Really all he wanted was a pool of free software for the good of everyone that couldn't be turned proprietary at the whim of big business.
My boss is from South Korea, and he had an interesting story to tell about a job he worked.
... but only if you weren't there. When you got back, you'd wonder where your desk was and be greeted by someone to help you leave the building. This caught on very quickly with the employees, so if they thought they were getting the axe, they'd simply never leave their desk. They would forgo breaks, get there earliest, and leave the latest.
Apparently at this company, whenever a decision was made to fire an employee, they would send someone out to remove your desk from the premises
There was no intent to make it seem like holds were a Republican beast. If/when the Democrats ever regain control of the Senate, they will be sure to use the hold to its full capacity.
I figured at least 1 person would take it that way even though the phrase "majority parties" doesn't make sense (you can't have 2 parties in the majority).
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/hold .htm
Its a quid pro quo type of "good old boy" agreement among those in the majority party.
Well do you blame them? I wouldn't want to get a virus either.
You forgot 7:
7) Alpha softare (very unstable)
I applaud the efforts of the people working on Gnash and wish them the best in their work to give us an F/OSS flash player, but as of right now it doesn't work all that well (for me at least).
Don't make the mistake of calling anything coercive "socialism". DRM and the legal framework that protects it is about ensuring profitability of a narrow interest at the expense of the public will. This is more properly defined as authoritarian and corporatist.
I retract my "TMM is WMF" statement and substitute "eldavojohn".
I have half a notion that TMM and WMF are the same person.
Nowhere did I mention the party name in my post. Diebold is known as a Republican contributor, but I'm sure they'd cross the aisle in order to get a few contracts. Politics aside, it is little short of madness when the leadership of neither major party cares when the voting machines don't work.
In America we usually vote for many offices at the same time; we also have more people. Of course, all that means is that we need more people to count the votes. I think it shouldn't be too hard to find a representative for each candidate for office as well as a few citizens to oversee the process.
As far as people really not caring, I think that has to do with something completely different. The problem here is the rampant partisan gerrymandering which all but guarantees a victory for most incumbent politicians. I don't believe Canada has much of a problem with it since, if I understand correctly, a non-partisan body draws the ridings. Gerrymandering, I think, behind verified voting is most dangerous to the democratic process. With a clever gerrymander, your party can theoretically win 75% of the seats with 25% of the votes.
What's wrong with the old system?
Quite obviously the problem is that there isn't much money in government contracts for punch cards and the like.
Actually, he's the longest serving senator in the majority party. Robert Byrd is the longest serving senator. Sen. Byrd will become president pro tempore (assuming he is re-elected this fall) if the Democrats ever control the Senate.
Furthermore, for Ted Stevens to become president, Bush, Cheney, and Denny Hastert would all have to die or otherwise be unable to assume the presidency. Come to think of it, he is only two heartbeats away as Cheney doesn't really have a heart, but a sort of robotic device that keeps his oil^H^H^H blood flowing.
Ted Stevens is a class 2 Senator and will not be up for re-election until 2008.
He later said: "Of course, they contribute heavily to my party, so its not like we're going to revoke their contract or anything."
Fixed:
The voting machine prints out paper ballot with marks made next to the candidate of choice for each office. This can be easily verified by the voter that the print out matches their vote made on the machine. That paper is the record of the vote, not some jumble of electricity or magnetized plate inside the machine. The machine can also be responsible for input validation (no more overvotes!).
Preliminary totals (the mess of electricty) along with exit polls can give semi-accurate results a few hours after polls close. Tomorrow starts the physical counting by hand of every last paper ballot in the ballot boxes. Representatives from each candidate in the election should oversee the counting, as well as any interested citizen that wishes to watch. This will be slow, tedious, and incredibly accurate.
You do understand that "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God", right? Yahweh is God is Allah. Just a reminder...
Seconded.
My boss and I worked on getting it set up for the upcoming school year. We were on phone with tech support about every 30 minutes because we didn't know about mundane minutae for turning on option X or why module Y wouldn't work. The manual is written in clear English, but it doesn't really say how to do much.
If only it was free software, we could fix it, but it isn't, so it will continue to have bugs such as the UTC bug, and the "i don't feel like saving what you type if you tab to a field, rather than use the mouse" bug.
Come on! You knew what I meant. You own the copy. And if you purchased a valid copy, you have the right via fair use, to make private archival copies of any of your bought works.
IANAL (but cpt kangarooski is), but it would seem to me that once you purchase a work it is yours. You have made backups for just the reason that happened ... the originals were lost.
If you're talking about the RIAA busting down your door and asking you to prove that you have a legally purchased copy of any of those CD-Rs with "their IP" on them, then I think you can be safe knowing they have to prove that it is more likely than not that those are the result of infringement.
I wouldn't go that far. I think the liberal wing will be in the bag on this one, so that gives 4 right there. And based on Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, I think Scalia will go along with them. He noted that congress hadn't suspended habeas corpus, so Bush had to try terrorism suspects under normal criminal law or release them. Then again, he never was much of a advocate of privacy as a right. Then again, the 4th amendment is very plain, and Scalia isn't about to disregard it. If Scalia goes, Kennedy will as well.
I'd have to say 6-3, with Alito, Roberts, and Thomas ruling that Der Fuhrer has unlimited powers in times of war by virtue of the unitary executive theory.
Where is CmdrTaco (1) when you need him?
I could get behind a reformed patent system:
1) Shorten the length of time to 5 years.
2) Eliminate "business method" patents.
3) Eliminate software patents.
4) Require a working prototype of any patented invention.
5) Hire experts in the field as patent examiners. PHBs shouldn't be issuing patents.
Lower than yours. :-)
I was pointing out our friend must have not been around for long to realize that the (vast?) majority of slashdotters are anti-patent. He/she is certainly entitled to his/her opinion, but I think the debate on the issue here has pretty much settled that patents are not win-win. I don't think that anyone here can say that they honestly believe the current patent system encourages the progress of science and useful arts as it was intended to.
Your UID is very high, so I'll excuse that remark.
That is how it works in theory. In practice:
1) The patentee gets a patent on something he didn't actually invent, but was first to file.
2) Patents are granted on mundane, obvious inventions. (Queue the "obvious invention on a computer/Internet" patents) These are granted because patent examiners don't have much technical expertise in the field and have limited time to check for prior art.
3) If you do actually invent something non-obvious, and the big guys infringe on your patent, you'll bankrupt yourself via legal fees trying to get them to pay.
Dare I say yes?