The issue is that Pidgin, like a web browser, is a likely target for attacks. If these new developers can integrate the security patches from the mainline version of Pidgin, then fine. However, if they cannot, and this fork dies on the fine, then users could be left with vulnerable machines.
No. Simply allowing people to propose and vote on legislation won't work because people will then push through all sorts of unfunded mandates. We've seen this in California, where the initiative system was gamed by special interests who pushed through mandates forcing the government to provide all kinds of services. At the same time, though, none of the voters acted to support the tax increases needed to fund the initiatives. The state was then faced with the double bind of being legally required to provide services, but being unable to raise taxes in order to pay for them.
Well, the standard thing to do is to file a will with the state. That way, if you die, you have a formal legal document spelling out your wishes as well as providing information that you wish your family to have. That information can include e-mail and online service passwords, computer passwords, etc.
Personally, I like IDEs if its easy to get them up and running. If I can sit down at the IDE and have it working with my project in 5 minutes or less, then I'll use the IDE. Otherwise, I find that I'm sometimes taking longer to get my workspace set up than I'm spending on the actual task.
The issue with Microsoft's licensing is that, while it might be free now, what is to stop Microsoft from using its market power to change the licensing scheme in the future? At that point, people will be locked in to Microsoft, and there'll be no choice but to accept the new and potentially restrictive licenses.
If you recall, that's exactly what Rockefeller did with Standard Oil; he sold kerosene below cost, and, once all of his competitors were out of business, he raised prices to extract maximum profit. In this case, Microsoft's competitors are other operating systems and document formats. If Microsoft is allowed to gain a monopoly, support for other document formats is eroded, and expertise with other operating systems disappears. Then, when Microsoft announces new, restrictive license schemes, the people have no choice but to accept the lot they're given.
With Linux, on the other hand, every part of the computer's operating system is open to inspection and reproduction. Therefore, no company can forcibly restrict people's access by changing the license scheme in the future, since the system is designed to be freely reproduced and modified.
Unless the license reads, "Free of cost, valid forever," then there's still risk that Microsoft one day might revoke the licenses.
Even then, I highly doubt that Microsoft would also give away free developer tools, or allow modification of the operating system itself. The main argument against Windows, as I've seen it, has been that Windows doesn't allow for modification - the kids don't have access to the source code, and can't experiment with systems programming.
Since when is installing applications as a user normal? In Linux you do sudo apt-get, sudo yum, or sudo emerge, depending on your distro's package scheme.
I do (even though I get them for free through my university) because I believe that information is a chargeable asset and not a commodity. One of things that frustrates me is the fact that people believe that if someone invests the time and energy to create / compile / design / or market, that it should be sold for next to nothing.
Your point would be valid if people actually spent time actually redesigning the books. To illustrate my point, let me point you to Discrete Mathematics and its Applications. Knowing that I'd have to take a discrete mathematics course in the upcoming semester, I went ahead and purchased a used copy of the fifth edition (the latest edition at the time) from a friend who had already taken the course. However, when the new semester rolled around, I found that the professor was using the newly released sixth edition. Not only was my book unusable, but it was unsellable too, since no one else was going to buy the old version.
When I compared the books, though, I found that the text inside was largely identical. Sure, some chapters had been renumbered, but the actual text of the chapters remained unchanged. Even the exercises in the back were largely the same. A few had been added of course, but it seemed that the publisher had simply renumbered most of the existing problems. Of course, the professor assigned the problems my number, so people using old books would be out of luck, since they'd be doing the wrong problems for the homework.
When publishers make inane changes like renumbering chapters and exercise problems to force students to buy new books, can you really blame the students for feeling cheated and doing whatever they can to save on these expensive texts?
No. This means that when the members of the RIAA/MPAA/BSA want to use someone else's work, they only have to show that they "couldn't identify" the copyright holder, and so can use work while paying only a token penalty. Basically, now a small copyright holder has to undertake the same sort of monitoring as a large record studio. Otherwise they risk having their work appropriated by larger corporation.
Whether building a new Buran is possible or not isn't the question. The question is, should we even go for a spacecraft of that design? I'm not intimately familiar with the Buran system, but it seems that the craft was based off (in large part) the US Space Shuttle. As NASA's mishaps with the Shuttle have shown, such a design is hardly ideal.
Well, the community may not be a failure yet, but if Sun continues being recalcitrant in providing dev tools (like a proper code repository) the community may very well decide that OpenSolaris isn't worth the potential benefits and move on to other projects.
Arguably, Apple has already found the next big thing. Its the networked, touch-based PDA, also known as the iPhone/iPod Touch. While the iPhone is encumbered by its contract with AT&T, the iPod Touch has no such encumbrances and still manages to include all the PDA features.
Well, at least now they're being more explicit about their lack of full compliance. Now, when Microsoft says that they "support" a standard, web developers have no idea how much support they're getting. With this, there'll be finer granularity, so Microsoft can say, "We only support subspecifications X, Y, and Z; everything else may not work." This'll make it easier for web developers to see what features they can use while maintaining compatibility with both Internet Explorer and Firefox.
This is pretty standard for Microsoft. I mean they've always only supported part of the specification. Now, I guess they're making this lack of full support explicit.
In one way though, this is a good thing. If Microsoft says we'll only support sub-specifications A, B, and C, then web developers will have a better idea as to what restrictions they're working under to create cross platform sites. It'd be an improvement over the current system, which seems to consist of coding for one browser, and then going through and testing/experimenting with the other browser to see what's broken.
But from a different point of view, by stealing the first mathematician's work and publicizing it (as his own) he may be doing society a favor by enabling a possibly significant result to gain more recognition (i.e., that might be worth more to society than the damage caused to society by the second mathematician getting more grant money, etc., than he actually deserves).
I agree that there might be societal benefits from the second mathematician publicizing the work. However, this does not absolve him of the responsibility to acknowledge that the work is not his own, and to cite the first mathematician where appropriate. To do otherwise deprives the first mathematician of the recognition he deserves, and gives society an incorrect picture of the second mathematician's abilities.
Hey, if you're so confident that you can work around these inane restrictions, why don't you go ahead and do it?
There's a reason that the power of the ISPs hasn't been broken yet. Its because designing a fast, efficient network in the face of an adversary that is altering the topology of the links specifically to defeat you is hard.
You imply that there was wholly private investment in 'Net infrastructure to begin with. In practice, companies like Comcast and Qwest have always wheedled the government for subsidies to pay for their network upgrades.
The entire debate over network neutrality stems from the fact that we (as a society) can't decide if communications lines should be treated as a common good (like roads or sewers) or as private property. My opinion on this is quite clear. Communications lines ought to be considered as public goods because they were paid for with public money. I'll happily concede the network neutrality issue when Qwest and Comcast start rolling out network upgrades without suckling from the government teat.
That's exactly the sort of thing this new openness initiative is trying to prevent. Currently, while your paper is waiting in the publication queue, your data is at risk for being used without credit. If you confront the other person, it turns into a he-said, she-said dispute, as neither side has the evidence needed to prove plagiarism, rather than independent discovery. With an initiative like this, you can get your data and experimental procedure out there earlier in the process, making it much clearer that you were the first to discover or research in the area that you're working on.
I guess the best analogy I can make is the distinction between patents and trade secrets. With patents you publish early and notify the world that you're investigating a certain area. In return, the world recognizes that any other discoveries made in this area can be conceivably based of your original research and that you should be compensated. This is similar to putting up your experiments on the OpenWetWare site. You're announcing to everyone what you're working on, and potentially giving away your ideas, but, if you're the first, you can establish your primacy much more easily later on.
The traditional model of keeping research secret until publication is like the trade-secret model of intellectual property protection. You get a lot more control over who sees your data and experimental method, but, if someone unsavory makes off with said data, you have far fewer options for censuring them.
What excellent points? The grandparent conveniently ignores the fact that, for many people, Comcast is their only option for high-speed internet access. All the encryption and routing tricks in the world won't help these people if Comcast simply refuses to transfer packets going to certain destinations.
I agree that it is entirely possible for a Net Neutrality law to go too far. However, under the status quo, Comcast can kill your packets without rhyme or reason, and, because of their monopoly status in many areas, leave you with no other connectivity options. Surely you're not advocating giving Comcast complete control over our data?
Sounds like hyperbole, but I'll tell you this much: there'll be rioting in the streets long before that happens -- and I'll be one of the ones with the hand grenades.
Hah! Isn't that the very thing that was said about DRM? DRM didn't see massive consumer protests, but instead was killed off as the costs of keeping up with those cracking DRM became untenable. With Internet, though, the situation is different. Unlike the entertainment industry, the ISPs are usually in a monopoly or duopoly market, and aren't subject to the same market forces as the music and movie industries. Without competition, the ISPs' will always be able to hang a sword of Damocles over the content providers by simply threatening to slow or block content.
Also, Muslim terrorism can be supported by the Koran, Can you quote specific verses to support this theory? The vast majority of religious scholars will tell you that the Koran supports violence no more strongly than the Bible.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is that Pidgin, like a web browser, is a likely target for attacks. If these new developers can integrate the security patches from the mainline version of Pidgin, then fine. However, if they cannot, and this fork dies on the fine, then users could be left with vulnerable machines.
No. Simply allowing people to propose and vote on legislation won't work because people will then push through all sorts of unfunded mandates. We've seen this in California, where the initiative system was gamed by special interests who pushed through mandates forcing the government to provide all kinds of services. At the same time, though, none of the voters acted to support the tax increases needed to fund the initiatives. The state was then faced with the double bind of being legally required to provide services, but being unable to raise taxes in order to pay for them.
That won't help if the password has been randomly generated, or is the result of abbreviating or modifying a nonsensical mnemonic.
Well, the standard thing to do is to file a will with the state. That way, if you die, you have a formal legal document spelling out your wishes as well as providing information that you wish your family to have. That information can include e-mail and online service passwords, computer passwords, etc.
Personally, I like IDEs if its easy to get them up and running. If I can sit down at the IDE and have it working with my project in 5 minutes or less, then I'll use the IDE. Otherwise, I find that I'm sometimes taking longer to get my workspace set up than I'm spending on the actual task.
The reason the defense couldn't call Sean Sturgeon was because his testimony was ruled to be inadmissible.
The issue with Microsoft's licensing is that, while it might be free now, what is to stop Microsoft from using its market power to change the licensing scheme in the future? At that point, people will be locked in to Microsoft, and there'll be no choice but to accept the new and potentially restrictive licenses.
If you recall, that's exactly what Rockefeller did with Standard Oil; he sold kerosene below cost, and, once all of his competitors were out of business, he raised prices to extract maximum profit. In this case, Microsoft's competitors are other operating systems and document formats. If Microsoft is allowed to gain a monopoly, support for other document formats is eroded, and expertise with other operating systems disappears. Then, when Microsoft announces new, restrictive license schemes, the people have no choice but to accept the lot they're given.
With Linux, on the other hand, every part of the computer's operating system is open to inspection and reproduction. Therefore, no company can forcibly restrict people's access by changing the license scheme in the future, since the system is designed to be freely reproduced and modified.
Unless the license reads, "Free of cost, valid forever," then there's still risk that Microsoft one day might revoke the licenses.
Even then, I highly doubt that Microsoft would also give away free developer tools, or allow modification of the operating system itself. The main argument against Windows, as I've seen it, has been that Windows doesn't allow for modification - the kids don't have access to the source code, and can't experiment with systems programming.
Since when is installing applications as a user normal? In Linux you do sudo apt-get, sudo yum, or sudo emerge, depending on your distro's package scheme.
Your point would be valid if people actually spent time actually redesigning the books. To illustrate my point, let me point you to Discrete Mathematics and its Applications. Knowing that I'd have to take a discrete mathematics course in the upcoming semester, I went ahead and purchased a used copy of the fifth edition (the latest edition at the time) from a friend who had already taken the course. However, when the new semester rolled around, I found that the professor was using the newly released sixth edition. Not only was my book unusable, but it was unsellable too, since no one else was going to buy the old version.
When I compared the books, though, I found that the text inside was largely identical. Sure, some chapters had been renumbered, but the actual text of the chapters remained unchanged. Even the exercises in the back were largely the same. A few had been added of course, but it seemed that the publisher had simply renumbered most of the existing problems. Of course, the professor assigned the problems my number, so people using old books would be out of luck, since they'd be doing the wrong problems for the homework.
When publishers make inane changes like renumbering chapters and exercise problems to force students to buy new books, can you really blame the students for feeling cheated and doing whatever they can to save on these expensive texts?
No. This means that when the members of the RIAA/MPAA/BSA want to use someone else's work, they only have to show that they "couldn't identify" the copyright holder, and so can use work while paying only a token penalty. Basically, now a small copyright holder has to undertake the same sort of monitoring as a large record studio. Otherwise they risk having their work appropriated by larger corporation.
Whether building a new Buran is possible or not isn't the question. The question is, should we even go for a spacecraft of that design? I'm not intimately familiar with the Buran system, but it seems that the craft was based off (in large part) the US Space Shuttle. As NASA's mishaps with the Shuttle have shown, such a design is hardly ideal.
Well, the community may not be a failure yet, but if Sun continues being recalcitrant in providing dev tools (like a proper code repository) the community may very well decide that OpenSolaris isn't worth the potential benefits and move on to other projects.
Arguably, Apple has already found the next big thing. Its the networked, touch-based PDA, also known as the iPhone/iPod Touch. While the iPhone is encumbered by its contract with AT&T, the iPod Touch has no such encumbrances and still manages to include all the PDA features.
How do you know that your test boxes are configured precisely identically to the production boxes?
Well, at least now they're being more explicit about their lack of full compliance. Now, when Microsoft says that they "support" a standard, web developers have no idea how much support they're getting. With this, there'll be finer granularity, so Microsoft can say, "We only support subspecifications X, Y, and Z; everything else may not work." This'll make it easier for web developers to see what features they can use while maintaining compatibility with both Internet Explorer and Firefox.
This is pretty standard for Microsoft. I mean they've always only supported part of the specification. Now, I guess they're making this lack of full support explicit.
In one way though, this is a good thing. If Microsoft says we'll only support sub-specifications A, B, and C, then web developers will have a better idea as to what restrictions they're working under to create cross platform sites. It'd be an improvement over the current system, which seems to consist of coding for one browser, and then going through and testing/experimenting with the other browser to see what's broken.
I agree that there might be societal benefits from the second mathematician publicizing the work. However, this does not absolve him of the responsibility to acknowledge that the work is not his own, and to cite the first mathematician where appropriate. To do otherwise deprives the first mathematician of the recognition he deserves, and gives society an incorrect picture of the second mathematician's abilities.
Hey, if you're so confident that you can work around these inane restrictions, why don't you go ahead and do it?
There's a reason that the power of the ISPs hasn't been broken yet. Its because designing a fast, efficient network in the face of an adversary that is altering the topology of the links specifically to defeat you is hard.
You imply that there was wholly private investment in 'Net infrastructure to begin with. In practice, companies like Comcast and Qwest have always wheedled the government for subsidies to pay for their network upgrades.
The entire debate over network neutrality stems from the fact that we (as a society) can't decide if communications lines should be treated as a common good (like roads or sewers) or as private property. My opinion on this is quite clear. Communications lines ought to be considered as public goods because they were paid for with public money. I'll happily concede the network neutrality issue when Qwest and Comcast start rolling out network upgrades without suckling from the government teat.
That's exactly the sort of thing this new openness initiative is trying to prevent. Currently, while your paper is waiting in the publication queue, your data is at risk for being used without credit. If you confront the other person, it turns into a he-said, she-said dispute, as neither side has the evidence needed to prove plagiarism, rather than independent discovery. With an initiative like this, you can get your data and experimental procedure out there earlier in the process, making it much clearer that you were the first to discover or research in the area that you're working on.
I guess the best analogy I can make is the distinction between patents and trade secrets. With patents you publish early and notify the world that you're investigating a certain area. In return, the world recognizes that any other discoveries made in this area can be conceivably based of your original research and that you should be compensated. This is similar to putting up your experiments on the OpenWetWare site. You're announcing to everyone what you're working on, and potentially giving away your ideas, but, if you're the first, you can establish your primacy much more easily later on.
The traditional model of keeping research secret until publication is like the trade-secret model of intellectual property protection. You get a lot more control over who sees your data and experimental method, but, if someone unsavory makes off with said data, you have far fewer options for censuring them.
What excellent points? The grandparent conveniently ignores the fact that, for many people, Comcast is their only option for high-speed internet access. All the encryption and routing tricks in the world won't help these people if Comcast simply refuses to transfer packets going to certain destinations.
I agree that it is entirely possible for a Net Neutrality law to go too far. However, under the status quo, Comcast can kill your packets without rhyme or reason, and, because of their monopoly status in many areas, leave you with no other connectivity options. Surely you're not advocating giving Comcast complete control over our data?
Hah! Isn't that the very thing that was said about DRM? DRM didn't see massive consumer protests, but instead was killed off as the costs of keeping up with those cracking DRM became untenable. With Internet, though, the situation is different. Unlike the entertainment industry, the ISPs are usually in a monopoly or duopoly market, and aren't subject to the same market forces as the music and movie industries. Without competition, the ISPs' will always be able to hang a sword of Damocles over the content providers by simply threatening to slow or block content.