Who does AOL think they are? Well, they built and are supporting a successful IM network. It's theirs, and they let you use it for free. So I think they can dictate a *few* things. Like what software to use on it.
You don't like it, use Jabber. Set up a server, promote it, spend your money on it, and get my grandma to use it.
Nope, you are the one who doesn't understand the nature of capitalism. Since you've agreed that the capitalists own the means of production, they are not obliged to bow to you, me, the market, or Darth Fucking Maul.
I never said they're obliged to anyone. But in a real capitalist market, the producers stop making money when they go against their market. So, all things being equal, the producers must bow to the market if they want to make money. No obligations, just economic principles.
They own the music; they can do what the hell they like with it and the only sanction you have is not to buy it.
Exactly. Thus, the market. But instead, they get to take money from me in taxes on equipment, media, legislation, relicensing, arbitrary content controls, etc...
Just mentioning "racketeering" shows that you are not a capitalist; you're in favor of some sort of half-assed "managed competition",
What are you talking about? "Half-assed managed competition" is exactly what I'm calling racketeering. Only in this racket, the corporations have tipped the half-assed management in their favor.
I don't want anyone tipping the scales in ANY direction.
...whereby technocrats in ivory towers decide what is or isn't "fair" for people to do with their property.
When did I say that? I said, let the market decide. Not government. Not coalitions of corporations. Not geeks with code. The market.
The companies own the music, so it is right that the government protects their property rights with guns and police.
Yes, but only insofar as they are not stifling innovation or conspiring to extinguish competition. This damages the market.
By copying files on Napster, you are initiating force. That puts you squarely in the wrong. Deal with it.
I can't argue with you there. Napster, in its current context, facilitates theft. It can be used for something other than theft, which is where I have issues... but Napster is more often than not used to initiate force.
I'll point out that patents and copyrights are in the US Constitution; the idea that they are the result of "lobbying" is literally ridiculous.
The concepts of patents and copyrights are in the Constitution. But not as they are being interpreted and reworked today. In fact, in a lot of ways, I think you'd find that the original intentions of patents and copyrights were much more balanced, seeking to reward the producer while still benefiting the larger society, or at least keeping the scales even between producer and market.
Instead there is lobbying adding coin after coin to the producer side of the scale.
Whatever your views on the First Amendment implications of UCITA and DMCA, the fact is that the basic principle is one of the right of the owners of music to be secure in their property.
This is true, but once they've sold me something, I should have the right to use it in whatever way I see fit. As far as my nose, that is.
I should be able to watch my movies, listen to my music, whatever, whereever, whenever. Note that this doesn't include exploiting what I've bought, reselling, publically exhibiting, etc, etal.. that's past my nose. But I should have control over what I have purchased.
No reform of copyright law would ever make it OK to copy valuable music without paying its creator (or his agent, the record company).
Agreed. And though I have a huge MP3 collection, they all come from my own CD's. I bought them, and now I want them in a different form.
Bottom line: the companies "control technology, channel demand, and delay trends until they have time to address them" not through any special legislation, but because they own the music. And you don't, so you don't get to tell them what to do. The libertarians are squarely on the side of Lars on this one, if they are being consistent.
I'm mostly talking about Fair Use here, that being in spirit that, if you sell me something, I get to use it. However I want. As long as I don't try to get the same rewards from it that you deserve. I can listen, I can phase shift, I can time shift, I can do whatever I need to do to enjoy what I've purchased from you... but I can't try to enter the market with your goods.
That is what I have a problem with. Forcing me to arbitrary content controls so that I need to buy a separate copy of your goods to enjoy it in two different places (see: Divx players). Insert other examples here. Basically, you sell me something, I don't have to buy it from you again. But I don't get to sell it again, unless I'm transferring it from me to someone else.
Yes they are, and you are the prickwad. The fact is that the "legislature and judiciary" have already decided that the "means of production" of music and movies are to be "privately owned" by the RIAA and MPAA, and the people who are attempting to "manipulate" (ie, break the law) for "financial gain" are the Linux bores and Napster. You're the worst libertarian I've seen this week.
Umm, what the hell are you talking about? You really make no sense, and are being a twit to boot.
This is not capitalism, this is racketeering on the part of the entertainment industries, assisted by the central government's system of judges and legislators. Yes, the means of production are privately owned by corporations. But, in a real capitalist system, the corporations must yield to the market, not bend the market to its rules via bribes, lobbied laws, and prohibitive litigation.
These companies are gradually insulating themselves from the forces of a capitalist market by placing control points in place which let them control technology, channel demand, and delay trends until they have time to address them. And they are assisted in this by the central government who wields the ultimate say in the market, in the form of police and guns.
It's a very nice langauge for developing little scripts in...
Yes it is, and I can throw off tons of 1 to 10 liners to acomplish the task of would-be complex C or Java programs for common tasks as 'glue' between other programs.
...but any big project i've attempted just becomes a mess. Perhaps it doesn't lend itself to my rather random and unplanned programming style.
As the author of a 'big project' in Perl, I have to adamantly disagree. It's not Perl's fault. There are some languages that cuff you about the head and shoulders with a club and force you out of your 'random and unplanned' style, but not Perl. If you're an undisciplined programmer from the get go, Perl won't help you.
As Larry said: "You can program Perl in the subset you find easy, using the amount of theory you are (or aren't) comfortable with." So, if you are comfortable with disciplined application design, Perl won't stop you. If you aren't comfortable with it, Perl won't chide you. Either way, the ball's in your court.
As for trying to interpret a script you wrote 3 weeks ago, thats hard. But someone elses.... you must be joking:)
I revisit my scripts and modules all of the time, even (gasp) up to four years in age. I use something called comments and a little documentation system called POD. I would have never gotten my CS degree had I not developed these habits-- the small Indian professor I had for my favorite class used to turn into The Incredible Hulk if my source didn't have at least as many lines of comment as machine readable code. Granted, in a pinch, you can skimp a bit, but you still need to document your work. The time you save now will be paid with interest later.
As for visiting someone else's code, it depends on the someone else. There are plenty of people in the Perl community who write stunningly beautiful and painfully obvious code. It depends on the programmer and the discipline.
But either way, don't blame Perl for the habits you don't have.
I think what you're missing are such very stark things as:
RMS: Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently forfeits the right to distribute the code at all...Also, where code was copied from other GPL-covered programs, their copyright holders need to be asked for forgiveness.
MISUSING a program PERMANENTLY FORFEITS the RIGHT... ASK FOR FORGIVENESS!
As others are saying in these comments, other projects seem to have gotten off easy with their violations. A license change and all was well. Now, Troll Tech and KDE have bent over BACKWARD through compromise with a commercial product to finally give in and reach GPL licensing, AND ITS STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Unlike other projects and entities violating the GPL, this group has PERMANENTLY FORFEITED their RIGHTS until they ask for FORGIVENESS from EACH and EVERY copyright holder whose rights they have trod upon.
I'm sorry... but this really seems to be singling out the KDE people, and I think that, in this case, whether FORGIVE is being used in a legal sense or no, there are definite moralistic/political intentions behind it. Remember, FSF is not just about Open Source. It's a moral/political movement, and thus all pronouncements from it will echo that nature.
You better not install any more software off of the web - I mean, who knows what could be lurking in that tarball from ftp.gnu.org? Anyone could have hacked the server and put a backdoor into the GCC code! And those ISO images on the RedHat site
Granted the TCP wrappers thing was quickly caught, but IIRC, Mr. Thompson's hack wasn't caught so quickly. Either way, the point is, if someone weren't raising the flags, worrying about the unlikely, working to secure the system, you'd be just another node in the DoS machine.
Or, umm, you could put some handy books on it. For instance, I have the entire Perl CD Bookshelf on mine under iSilo, so I see the HTML version, pictures & all.
Screw movies & mp3's. I want something useful in my pocket. Movies, I'll rent or buy for my DVD player. Music, I'll buy a dedicated mp3 player. That's not what my PDA is for.
What you have to realize is that while Word documents might be a big deal today, in the fast paced world of computing, they really won't be significant in the future. A new medium - a method - of transferring and communication between hosts, indeed - systems, business, communications and other systems - is emerging. XML.
I really hope we live in such a utopia someday.
But, how long has there been a Microsoft Word? How much human information, knowledge, and communication is bound up in Microsoft Word documents, and how long will much of that legacy be relevant?
And, considering how long there has been one, and the size and relevance of the legacy-- how long do you think we'll be dealing with binary formats like Word?
The future usually maps better to William Gibson and Ridley Scott: There's the new, but those old layers of decades dirty old grunge and tech still persist refusing to die. I predict that we'll still need to open MS Word documents in 2010. Hell, I just had to open a WP v4 document the other day..
It seems that MSFT employees simply choose the best tool for the job, and if it isn't their product, tough shit. Frankly I respect them for this a lot more than most rabid slashdotters who can't admit that Linux/Unix is not the end-all and be-all of computing and sometimes Windows or a Windows application would be a better choice.
But don't you understand? These are companies Microsoft bought. No way in hell, were they Microsoft employees at the time, would they have been allowed to make any sort of respectable decision to use an OS or platform solution that was not Microsoft. Why do you think they're going through the process of trying to oust Unix OS'es from their purchased companies?
Sure, internally, they can avoid using Visual Source Safe. But you can be damn sure that they will have to use MS products on something so visible as a website, bugs and stability be damned.
So I don't know who you're talking about when you say MSFT employees chose the best tool for the job-- all the ones I see who did were not MSFT at the time, and were later bought out.
What would moving it from FreeBSD to Windows 2000 do for them?
You really don't understand Microsoft, do you? See, you're thinking like a rational, clearheaded engineer. (And not a marketer):)
Right now, they can't say anything like "All of our sites are 100% Powered by Windows [tm]", they have to admit that a good portion of their holdings are run on That Other Family of OS'es-- or not say anything at all.
Will an end user know a difference? Hell yes, it'll be crowed about daily, and little wavy-windows stickers will be all over every site. The fact that you are currently viewing a banner ad for cheese that is "Brought to You by Windows [tm]" will be drummed into your head. Every email on Hotmail you read will say, "Courtesy of Microsoft Windows [tm]".
...and when they've bought every company, and finally get around to buying some plumbing companies, the toilet will cheer for Windows every time you flush.
This, my friend, is what Marketers dream of. I'm glad that they only make it about halfway.
Secondly, you must take into account of all the QA work involved in having usable ALT tags.
Not to mention the classification and captioning work that needs to go into writing the copy for the ALT tags to begin with, which must consequently be reviewed line-by-line by a writer. That is, assuming this site was developed like most of those I've worked on.
If it wasn't in the contract to support wide ranges of accessibility to begin with, shame on the client. Basically, IBM could look really good doing it for free. Otherwise....
Did you read what bob was asking? Let me snip the bit so it's easy for you: "...we had been investigating doing something with Kerberos and OpenLDAP before this came up -- but the point is that the direction here is likely to be totally beyond our control.."
So, um, OpenLDAP is great and all, but he's talking about SOMEONE ELSE deploying AD and he has to adapt to it.
I agree. nice comment, if only HEckler was to ever read it. i'm sure it would piss him off. thats what i like. good job. D
Maybe I'm too "secret plots & conspiracy" minded, but do you really think They don't have anyone reading Slashdot, reading comments, paying attention to the attitudes and plots and plans of the evil, evil content thieving community?
So, it might not get straight to him, but I'm sure some blob of weakly firing neurons connected to eyes staring at a monitor somewhere in the lawyer infested Borg cube of The Industry has registered this comment, indexed and attributed it for attitudinal and demographic sigificance, and entered it into The Database.
Maybe I'm attributing too much insight to Them, but just because I'm paranoid don't mean They ain't after me.
HARDWARE IS CHEAP. PEOPLE ARE NOT.
HARDWARE IS CHEAP. PEOPLE ARE NOT.
HARDWARE IS CHEAP. PEOPLE ARE NOT.
So, Java's a little slower on the runtime versus native code. Quantify that difference (call it X).
On the other hand, I've heard (and experienced) that writing with Java and its APIs is much faster and easier than learning and writing code to various OSes and their bare-metal system resources. Quantify THAT difference (call it Y).
So, what's the per-unit cost to compensate for X across multiple forms of hardware. What's the per-unit cost to compensate for Y across OSes, people, and systems.
I'd be willing to bet, were this all actually well formulated as an equation, that you'd find we really don't give a shit anymore about how blindingly fast a given programming language can be if you're hacking close to the hardware. Hardware is cheap, just throw another faster CPU at it. People, however, are much harder to upgrade.
hen a programmer just has to know one pretty simple language and API, rather than many OS quirks and tricks and system-resource details that distract from the main task at hand, programmer cost goes down. Make it easy for the people, and it becomes so much cheaper that we accept a margin of performance cost on our easily improved hardware.
I'm envisioning a unified interface for connecting these various devices...There would also be a need for a standardized, extensible, secure set of protocols for these devices to interact.
As for using something other than ethernet for connectivity for consumer electronics, isn't that what Firewire / IEEE1394 was supposed to deliver on? Or, if you're talking about using the existing phone wiring in the home, how about something like this thingee from D-Link?
Now... There are a few examples of tech we have right now, basically. So why aren't we using them more? Various reasons I don't feel like going into, but basically they're being slow to adopt.
Meanwhile, more and more homes are being outfitted with Cable Modem and DSL broadband equipment, which for the most part means ethernet. Which is making it a growing defacto standard for home networking. Many of the things that the hardcore geeks are tinkering with now (home hubs and routers) will be common commodity in a few short years.
So, while there might be something more appropriate for the home than ethernet... I'd rather see internet appliances now with an ethernet module, and maybe the option for a pluggable NewHomeAutomationBusFastNetThing in the future. As for TCP/IP, again there might be something better, but that's what's showing up as the transport of choice in broadband homes across the world.
So again, great blue sky vision. But we have cable modems, DSL, ethernet, and TCP/IP in the home now. Give us more appliances ready for this growing market. (I mean, I don't have to shut off the fridge when I want to use the microwave, why should I have to shut off the IPad when I want to use my Dreamcast online?!)
There are very few things that Springboard modules can do that software can't. And if you want removable storage, nothing can beat a TRGpro, which is like a Palm IIIxe with a CF slot. A camera is also available for Palm devices
I kind of agree here, having a Handspring now and planning to switch back to a Palm product if the next generation of Handspring doesn't come out soon and demonstrate marked improvement.
The Springboard modules, for the most part with maybe the exception of memory expansion and a modem, have been novelty. I mean, a camera? On this screen? And an MP3 player? Which costs more, all thing considered, than a standalone Rio or MPTrip player?
The speedup of the HotSync time by using USB instead of serial is negligible. My serial sync takes about 1.5 minutes, downloading of four fairly large AvantGo channels over dialup included. On the other hand, USB synchronizing is not supported under Windows 2000, and may be flakey elsewhere. The serial cradles are extra.
Here I have to argue in the Handspring's favor. The speed on my USB syncs are amazing now (15 seconds). I can't stand using my serial cradle anymore (1.5-3 min syncs), and I have many AvantGo channels downloaded over a T1 connected LAN. As for Windows 2000, I haven't had a problem yet. I just synched up my Visor a minute ago, right here on this Win2k Professional machine.
The case is pretty, but also a bit thicker and bulkier. The cover isn't attached to the unit, which isn't very convenient at all.
IMHO, the case is ass-ugly, though more so in terms of daily use and ergonomics than visually. I didn't think so when I was first thinking of getting one, and thought it was kinda neat looking.
But now that I've had one for most of a year, I miss the hand-fitting curves and thumb-flippable cover of my Palm III. The snap on cover is a fiasco, making me hate to take it out of my pocket to capture a quick thought. The case design reminds me of a rounded fallback to the original boxy Pilots, more like a smaller graphing calculator than a personal device.
I just fail to see any advantage to buying a Visor for the same price as a similar Palm
8 months or so ago, I might have disagreed. But at this point, I'm thinking of going back over the fence to Palm. I mean, the whole reason I'm a PalmOS fanatic is because of their sticking to principles of simplicity.
In that vein, I probably will never order any Springboard modules beyond additional storage. Otherwise, why not just go get a WinCE device so I can play with MP3s and movies for a month or two until I get bored, realize that my laptop and desktop do a much better job, and then try figuring out how to get the thing to actually manage my personal data.
So, I might just go get one of the new Palm Vx colors, since I don't know that I give a crap about color, but man do I like the feel of one of those in my hand:) (Can't say the same for my Visor anymore.)
See subject. If you don't like 'fiddly gadgets', don't use programs with fiddly gadgets.
My stock install of Mandrake Linux has a WM switcher on login. For kicks, I swap between the choices on occasion. All of my programs tend to continue working. Generally, I go back to KDE, because Gnome ends up having too many nagging little things that rub me wrong (no Holy War... rub ME wrong. I don't care about YOU:) )
As for Kylix... Either don't use it, or make enough of a stink (see: Harmony project versus QT) for them to provide a mechanism for alternate CLX visual component sets wrapped around other GUI toolkits. I mean for God's sake, they're API compatible under Windows' GUI and QT on Linux, it can't be THAT hard. Hell, start a project to create an alternate set yourself.
dI don't see Linux being fertile ground for limitations of choice. Generally, if a number of people don't like something, eventually one of them will fix it or start a new project. (again, see: Mandrake Linux)
Not sure of the details of the story, but maybe the women were so masculine (miniscule breasts, enormous muscle development, facial hair) because of training and possibly hormone treatment, that they didn't resemble women anymore. Or... maybe they thought they had some transsexuals entering competition.:)
This article in the new Fortune issue is kinda illuminating. Asking for what possibly legitimate uses there could be for Gnutella? Here they are. Fortune seems to have published an article whose author gets it.
And as for the signal-to-noise problem... Dr. Lincoln Stein, of Perl CGI.pm fame and also a genetic researcher, is quoted in the above mentioned article about how Gnutella-style distributed sharing and searching could help him in his genetic research, and he suggests tagging the files with various criteria... such as, in his example, tagging the information as from and for genetic scientists to limit search range.
Seems like first generation Napster started the noise, second generation Gnutella gave it immortality (in theory)... and the third generation will probably bring metadata tagging facilities, more powerful searching and search path optimization. A lot of good stuff in that Fortune article.
So, how about we start working on Son of Gnutella with an XML-based protocol, meta-data rich, with optional anonymized distributed UDP-based transfers (anyone remember FSP?), and monster searching.
:)
Re:I'm not saying Mozilla is taking forever...
on
Mozilla M16 Released
·
· Score: 1
Ah, the true beauty of open source development. You aren't paying for it, so you have no right to complain when projects are never completed... you should just do it yourself. What? You already have a job? You would gladly pay for a browser if only they would finish it? Too bad...
Precisely. Now, I think you're getting it.
Of course, many of those people contributing DO have jobs. And many of them are working their asses off. That's another thing about contributing to the Mozilla project... you get to see just what it *is* that they're taking so long to get right.
But mankind will not be able to survive if it happens! there is no way our weak infrastructure could withstand this possibility!
Sheesh. We've prospered (somewhat) for thousands of years, I don't think capacity of a power grid will hurt much:-P
Thousands of years ago, we didn't have refridgerators. Thousands of years ago we cooked food differently (no microwaves, no toasters, no electric ranges). Thousands of years ago we didn't have automated computer systems handling many mundane tasks that most of us have long since forgotten quite how to do. Thousands of years ago, we didn't have automobiles and traffic control systems. Thousands of years ago, we didn't have telephones. Thousands of years ago, we didn't have hospitals so dependent on electronics.
Believe it or not, but a thousand years of technological progress makes a huge difference on the way in which humans can and must live.
As for the 70's, you might want to see what's different between now and then. You might be surprised.
This is so very scary. Seems like this lawyer just doesn't quite get it. But, he's a professional, assumedly, and intelligent, assumedly, and dangerous in that he's probably not the only one...
I assume this excerpt is about the printing of Linux DVD development mailing list logs: (emphasis mine) A. I downloaded a -- I didn't download. There is a large amount of Linux DVD development, I guess, history that you looked through. Q. You chose not to put that into your affidavit? A. It is three inches of paper. MR. GARBUS: I ask that that be produced. MR. GOLD: I will take it under advisement.
And this is about, I guess, proving that Schumann downloaded and used DeCSS. And how...? Q. Isn't DeCSS designed to send the material to a permanent computer file or a computer's hard drive? A. That is the function that it performs, yes. Q. So wouldn't you have that hard drive? A. Certainly. Q. Where would that hard drive be? A. It would be in a computer in my office. MR. GARBUS: Will you produce
that? MR. GOLD: The entire computer in his office? MR. GARBUS: The hard drive. MR. GOLD: You want the whole hard drive? MR. GARBUS: Yes.
Slashdot Mirror
Uuh, what are you talking about, Beavis?
Who does AOL think they are? Well, they built and are supporting a successful IM network. It's theirs, and they let you use it for free. So I think they can dictate a *few* things. Like what software to use on it.
You don't like it, use Jabber. Set up a server, promote it, spend your money on it, and get my grandma to use it.
Nope, you are the one who doesn't understand the nature of capitalism. Since you've agreed that the capitalists own the means of production, they are not obliged to bow to you, me, the market, or Darth Fucking Maul.
...whereby technocrats in ivory towers decide what is or isn't "fair" for people to do with their property.
I never said they're obliged to anyone. But in a real capitalist market, the producers stop making money when they go against their market. So, all things being equal, the producers must bow to the market if they want to make money. No obligations, just economic principles.
They own the music; they can do what the hell they like with it and the only sanction you have is not to buy it.
Exactly. Thus, the market. But instead, they get to take money from me in taxes on equipment, media, legislation, relicensing, arbitrary content controls, etc...
Just mentioning "racketeering" shows that you are not a capitalist; you're in favor of some sort of half-assed "managed competition",
What are you talking about? "Half-assed managed competition" is exactly what I'm calling racketeering. Only in this racket, the corporations have tipped the half-assed management in their favor.
I don't want anyone tipping the scales in ANY direction.
When did I say that? I said, let the market decide. Not government. Not coalitions of corporations. Not geeks with code. The market.
The companies own the music, so it is right that the government protects their property rights with guns and police.
Yes, but only insofar as they are not stifling innovation or conspiring to extinguish competition. This damages the market.
By copying files on Napster, you are initiating force. That puts you squarely in the wrong. Deal with it.
I can't argue with you there. Napster, in its current context, facilitates theft. It can be used for something other than theft, which is where I have issues... but Napster is more often than not used to initiate force.
I'll point out that patents and copyrights are in the US Constitution; the idea that they are the result of "lobbying" is literally ridiculous.
The concepts of patents and copyrights are in the Constitution. But not as they are being interpreted and reworked today. In fact, in a lot of ways, I think you'd find that the original intentions of patents and copyrights were much more balanced, seeking to reward the producer while still benefiting the larger society, or at least keeping the scales even between producer and market.
Instead there is lobbying adding coin after coin to the producer side of the scale.
Whatever your views on the First Amendment implications of UCITA and DMCA, the fact is that the basic principle is one of the right of the owners of music to be secure in their property.
This is true, but once they've sold me something, I should have the right to use it in whatever way I see fit. As far as my nose, that is.
I should be able to watch my movies, listen to my music, whatever, whereever, whenever. Note that this doesn't include exploiting what I've bought, reselling, publically exhibiting, etc, etal.. that's past my nose. But I should have control over what I have purchased.
No reform of copyright law would ever make it OK to copy valuable music without paying its creator (or his agent, the record company).
Agreed. And though I have a huge MP3 collection, they all come from my own CD's. I bought them, and now I want them in a different form.
Bottom line: the companies "control technology, channel demand, and delay trends until they have time to address them" not through any special legislation, but because they own the music. And you don't, so you don't get to tell them what to do. The libertarians are squarely on the side of Lars on this one, if they are being consistent.
I'm mostly talking about Fair Use here, that being in spirit that, if you sell me something, I get to use it. However I want. As long as I don't try to get the same rewards from it that you deserve. I can listen, I can phase shift, I can time shift, I can do whatever I need to do to enjoy what I've purchased from you... but I can't try to enter the market with your goods.
That is what I have a problem with. Forcing me to arbitrary content controls so that I need to buy a separate copy of your goods to enjoy it in two different places (see: Divx players). Insert other examples here. Basically, you sell me something, I don't have to buy it from you again. But I don't get to sell it again, unless I'm transferring it from me to someone else.
Blah.
Yes they are, and you are the prickwad. The fact is that the "legislature and judiciary" have already decided that the "means of production" of music and movies are to be "privately owned" by the RIAA and MPAA, and the people who are attempting to "manipulate" (ie, break the law) for "financial gain" are the Linux bores and Napster. You're the worst libertarian I've seen this week.
Umm, what the hell are you talking about? You really make no sense, and are being a twit to boot.
This is not capitalism, this is racketeering on the part of the entertainment industries, assisted by the central government's system of judges and legislators. Yes, the means of production are privately owned by corporations. But, in a real capitalist system, the corporations must yield to the market, not bend the market to its rules via bribes, lobbied laws, and prohibitive litigation.
These companies are gradually insulating themselves from the forces of a capitalist market by placing control points in place which let them control technology, channel demand, and delay trends until they have time to address them. And they are assisted in this by the central government who wields the ultimate say in the market, in the form of police and guns.
Yeah i'd second that.
...but any big project i've attempted just becomes a mess. Perhaps it doesn't lend itself to my rather random and unplanned programming style.
:)
I wouldn't.
It's a very nice langauge for developing little scripts in...
Yes it is, and I can throw off tons of 1 to 10 liners to acomplish the task of would-be complex C or Java programs for common tasks as 'glue' between other programs.
As the author of a 'big project' in Perl, I have to adamantly disagree. It's not Perl's fault. There are some languages that cuff you about the head and shoulders with a club and force you out of your 'random and unplanned' style, but not Perl. If you're an undisciplined programmer from the get go, Perl won't help you.
As Larry said: "You can program Perl in the subset you find easy, using the amount of theory you are (or aren't) comfortable with." So, if you are comfortable with disciplined application design, Perl won't stop you. If you aren't comfortable with it, Perl won't chide you. Either way, the ball's in your court.
As for trying to interpret a script you wrote 3 weeks ago, thats hard. But someone elses.... you must be joking
I revisit my scripts and modules all of the time, even (gasp) up to four years in age. I use something called comments and a little documentation system called POD. I would have never gotten my CS degree had I not developed these habits-- the small Indian professor I had for my favorite class used to turn into The Incredible Hulk if my source didn't have at least as many lines of comment as machine readable code. Granted, in a pinch, you can skimp a bit, but you still need to document your work. The time you save now will be paid with interest later.
As for visiting someone else's code, it depends on the someone else. There are plenty of people in the Perl community who write stunningly beautiful and painfully obvious code. It depends on the programmer and the discipline.
But either way, don't blame Perl for the habits you don't have.
I think what you're missing are such very stark things as:
RMS: Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently forfeits the right to distribute the code at all...Also, where code was copied from other GPL-covered programs, their copyright holders need to be asked for forgiveness.
MISUSING a program PERMANENTLY FORFEITS the RIGHT... ASK FOR FORGIVENESS!
As others are saying in these comments, other projects seem to have gotten off easy with their violations. A license change and all was well. Now, Troll Tech and KDE have bent over BACKWARD through compromise with a commercial product to finally give in and reach GPL licensing, AND ITS STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Unlike other projects and entities violating the GPL, this group has PERMANENTLY FORFEITED their RIGHTS until they ask for FORGIVENESS from EACH and EVERY copyright holder whose rights they have trod upon.
I'm sorry... but this really seems to be singling out the KDE people, and I think that, in this case, whether FORGIVE is being used in a legal sense or no, there are definite moralistic/political intentions behind it. Remember, FSF is not just about Open Source. It's a moral/political movement, and thus all pronouncements from it will echo that nature.
You better not install any more software off of the web - I mean, who knows what could be lurking in that tarball from ftp.gnu.org? Anyone could have hacked the server and put a backdoor into the GCC code! And those ISO images on the RedHat site
Oh, you mean like when someone hacked a server and replaced the sources to TCP Wrappers?
Or, speaking of GCC, how about when Ken Thompson, Granddaddy to things Unix, stashed a self-reproducing hack of the 'login' program in the operating system's own compiler?
Granted the TCP wrappers thing was quickly caught, but IIRC, Mr. Thompson's hack wasn't caught so quickly. Either way, the point is, if someone weren't raising the flags, worrying about the unlikely, working to secure the system, you'd be just another node in the DoS machine.
Maybe you are already.
*shrug*
Or, umm, you could put some handy books on it. For instance, I have the entire Perl CD Bookshelf on mine under iSilo, so I see the HTML version, pictures & all.
Screw movies & mp3's. I want something useful in my pocket. Movies, I'll rent or buy for my DVD player. Music, I'll buy a dedicated mp3 player. That's not what my PDA is for.
What you have to realize is that while Word documents might be a big deal today, in the fast paced world of computing, they really won't be significant in the future. A new medium - a method - of transferring and communication between hosts, indeed - systems, business, communications and other systems - is emerging. XML.
I really hope we live in such a utopia someday.
But, how long has there been a Microsoft Word? How much human information, knowledge, and communication is bound up in Microsoft Word documents, and how long will much of that legacy be relevant?
And, considering how long there has been one, and the size and relevance of the legacy-- how long do you think we'll be dealing with binary formats like Word?
The future usually maps better to William Gibson and Ridley Scott: There's the new, but those old layers of decades dirty old grunge and tech still persist refusing to die. I predict that we'll still need to open MS Word documents in 2010. Hell, I just had to open a WP v4 document the other day..
It seems that MSFT employees simply choose the best tool for the job, and if it isn't their product, tough shit. Frankly I respect them for this a lot more than most rabid slashdotters who can't admit that Linux/Unix is not the end-all and be-all of computing and sometimes Windows or a Windows application would be a better choice.
But don't you understand? These are companies Microsoft bought. No way in hell, were they Microsoft employees at the time, would they have been allowed to make any sort of respectable decision to use an OS or platform solution that was not Microsoft. Why do you think they're going through the process of trying to oust Unix OS'es from their purchased companies?
Sure, internally, they can avoid using Visual Source Safe. But you can be damn sure that they will have to use MS products on something so visible as a website, bugs and stability be damned.
So I don't know who you're talking about when you say MSFT employees chose the best tool for the job-- all the ones I see who did were not MSFT at the time, and were later bought out.
What would moving it from FreeBSD to Windows 2000 do for them?
:)
You really don't understand Microsoft, do you? See, you're thinking like a rational, clearheaded engineer. (And not a marketer)
Right now, they can't say anything like "All of our sites are 100% Powered by Windows [tm]", they have to admit that a good portion of their holdings are run on That Other Family of OS'es-- or not say anything at all.
Will an end user know a difference? Hell yes, it'll be crowed about daily, and little wavy-windows stickers will be all over every site. The fact that you are currently viewing a banner ad for cheese that is "Brought to You by Windows [tm]" will be drummed into your head. Every email on Hotmail you read will say, "Courtesy of Microsoft Windows [tm]".
...and when they've bought every company, and finally get around to buying some plumbing companies, the toilet will cheer for Windows every time you flush.
This, my friend, is what Marketers dream of. I'm glad that they only make it about halfway.
Secondly, you must take into account of all the QA work involved in having usable ALT tags.
Not to mention the classification and captioning work that needs to go into writing the copy for the ALT tags to begin with, which must consequently be reviewed line-by-line by a writer. That is, assuming this site was developed like most of those I've worked on.
If it wasn't in the contract to support wide ranges of accessibility to begin with, shame on the client. Basically, IBM could look really good doing it for free. Otherwise....
cough*OpenLDAP*cough*
Insightful?!
Did you read what bob was asking? Let me snip the bit so it's easy for you: "...we had been investigating doing something with Kerberos and OpenLDAP before this came up -- but the point is that the direction here is likely to be totally beyond our control.."
So, um, OpenLDAP is great and all, but he's talking about SOMEONE ELSE deploying AD and he has to adapt to it.
I agree. nice comment, if only HEckler was to ever read it. i'm sure it would piss him off. thats what i like. good job. D
Maybe I'm too "secret plots & conspiracy" minded, but do you really think They don't have anyone reading Slashdot, reading comments, paying attention to the attitudes and plots and plans of the evil, evil content thieving community?
So, it might not get straight to him, but I'm sure some blob of weakly firing neurons connected to eyes staring at a monitor somewhere in the lawyer infested Borg cube of The Industry has registered this comment, indexed and attributed it for attitudinal and demographic sigificance, and entered it into The Database.
Maybe I'm attributing too much insight to Them, but just because I'm paranoid don't mean They ain't after me.
Okay, repeat after me:
HARDWARE IS CHEAP. PEOPLE ARE NOT.
HARDWARE IS CHEAP. PEOPLE ARE NOT.
HARDWARE IS CHEAP. PEOPLE ARE NOT.
So, Java's a little slower on the runtime versus native code. Quantify that difference (call it X).
On the other hand, I've heard (and experienced) that writing with Java and its APIs is much faster and easier than learning and writing code to various OSes and their bare-metal system resources. Quantify THAT difference (call it Y).
So, what's the per-unit cost to compensate for X across multiple forms of hardware. What's the per-unit cost to compensate for Y across OSes, people, and systems.
I'd be willing to bet, were this all actually well formulated as an equation, that you'd find we really don't give a shit anymore about how blindingly fast a given programming language can be if you're hacking close to the hardware. Hardware is cheap, just throw another faster CPU at it. People, however, are much harder to upgrade.
hen a programmer just has to know one pretty simple language and API, rather than many OS quirks and tricks and system-resource details that distract from the main task at hand, programmer cost goes down. Make it easy for the people, and it becomes so much cheaper that we accept a margin of performance cost on our easily improved hardware.
I'm envisioning a unified interface for connecting these various devices...There would also be a need for a standardized, extensible, secure set of protocols for these devices to interact.
Oh, you mean Sun Microsystem's Jini(tm), or how about Microsoft's Universal Plug and Play (tm)?
As for using something other than ethernet for connectivity for consumer electronics, isn't that what Firewire / IEEE1394 was supposed to deliver on? Or, if you're talking about using the existing phone wiring in the home, how about something like this thingee from D-Link?
Now... There are a few examples of tech we have right now , basically. So why aren't we using them more? Various reasons I don't feel like going into, but basically they're being slow to adopt.
Meanwhile, more and more homes are being outfitted with Cable Modem and DSL broadband equipment, which for the most part means ethernet. Which is making it a growing defacto standard for home networking. Many of the things that the hardcore geeks are tinkering with now (home hubs and routers) will be common commodity in a few short years.
So, while there might be something more appropriate for the home than ethernet... I'd rather see internet appliances now with an ethernet module, and maybe the option for a pluggable NewHomeAutomationBusFastNetThing in the future. As for TCP/IP, again there might be something better, but that's what's showing up as the transport of choice in broadband homes across the world.
So again, great blue sky vision. But we have cable modems, DSL, ethernet, and TCP/IP in the home now. Give us more appliances ready for this growing market. (I mean, I don't have to shut off the fridge when I want to use the microwave, why should I have to shut off the IPad when I want to use my Dreamcast online?!)
There are very few things that Springboard modules can do that software can't. And if you want removable storage, nothing can beat a TRGpro, which is like a Palm IIIxe with a CF slot. A camera is also available for Palm devices
:) (Can't say the same for my Visor anymore.)
I kind of agree here, having a Handspring now and planning to switch back to a Palm product if the next generation of Handspring doesn't come out soon and demonstrate marked improvement.
The Springboard modules, for the most part with maybe the exception of memory expansion and a modem, have been novelty. I mean, a camera? On this screen? And an MP3 player? Which costs more, all thing considered, than a standalone Rio or MPTrip player?
The speedup of the HotSync time by using USB instead of serial is negligible. My serial sync takes about 1.5 minutes, downloading of four fairly large AvantGo channels over dialup included. On the other hand, USB synchronizing is not supported under Windows 2000, and may be flakey elsewhere. The serial cradles are extra.
Here I have to argue in the Handspring's favor. The speed on my USB syncs are amazing now (15 seconds). I can't stand using my serial cradle anymore (1.5-3 min syncs), and I have many AvantGo channels downloaded over a T1 connected LAN. As for Windows 2000, I haven't had a problem yet. I just synched up my Visor a minute ago, right here on this Win2k Professional machine.
The case is pretty, but also a bit thicker and bulkier. The cover isn't attached to the unit, which isn't very convenient at all.
IMHO, the case is ass-ugly, though more so in terms of daily use and ergonomics than visually. I didn't think so when I was first thinking of getting one, and thought it was kinda neat looking.
But now that I've had one for most of a year, I miss the hand-fitting curves and thumb-flippable cover of my Palm III. The snap on cover is a fiasco, making me hate to take it out of my pocket to capture a quick thought. The case design reminds me of a rounded fallback to the original boxy Pilots, more like a smaller graphing calculator than a personal device.
I just fail to see any advantage to buying a Visor for the same price as a similar Palm
8 months or so ago, I might have disagreed. But at this point, I'm thinking of going back over the fence to Palm. I mean, the whole reason I'm a PalmOS fanatic is because of their sticking to principles of simplicity.
In that vein, I probably will never order any Springboard modules beyond additional storage. Otherwise, why not just go get a WinCE device so I can play with MP3s and movies for a month or two until I get bored, realize that my laptop and desktop do a much better job, and then try figuring out how to get the thing to actually manage my personal data.
So, I might just go get one of the new Palm Vx colors, since I don't know that I give a crap about color, but man do I like the feel of one of those in my hand
Umm, ever heard of a rescue disk? That disk Windows asks you to make upon installation?
Yeah. Try that.
See subject. If you don't like 'fiddly gadgets', don't use programs with fiddly gadgets.
:) )
My stock install of Mandrake Linux has a WM switcher on login. For kicks, I swap between the choices on occasion. All of my programs tend to continue working. Generally, I go back to KDE, because Gnome ends up having too many nagging little things that rub me wrong (no Holy War... rub ME wrong. I don't care about YOU
As for Kylix... Either don't use it, or make enough of a stink (see: Harmony project versus QT) for them to provide a mechanism for alternate CLX visual component sets wrapped around other GUI toolkits. I mean for God's sake, they're API compatible under Windows' GUI and QT on Linux, it can't be THAT hard. Hell, start a project to create an alternate set yourself.
dI don't see Linux being fertile ground for limitations of choice. Generally, if a number of people don't like something, eventually one of them will fix it or start a new project. (again, see: Mandrake Linux)
Anyway...
Not sure of the details of the story, but maybe the women were so masculine (miniscule breasts, enormous muscle development, facial hair) because of training and possibly hormone treatment, that they didn't resemble women anymore. Or... maybe they thought they had some transsexuals entering competition. :)
This article in the new Fortune issue is kinda illuminating. Asking for what possibly legitimate uses there could be for Gnutella? Here they are. Fortune seems to have published an article whose author gets it.
And as for the signal-to-noise problem... Dr. Lincoln Stein, of Perl CGI.pm fame and also a genetic researcher, is quoted in the above mentioned article about how Gnutella-style distributed sharing and searching could help him in his genetic research, and he suggests tagging the files with various criteria... such as, in his example, tagging the information as from and for genetic scientists to limit search range.
Seems like first generation Napster started the noise, second generation Gnutella gave it immortality (in theory)... and the third generation will probably bring metadata tagging facilities, more powerful searching and search path optimization. A lot of good stuff in that Fortune article.
So, how about we start working on Son of Gnutella with an XML-based protocol, meta-data rich, with optional anonymized distributed UDP-based transfers (anyone remember FSP?), and monster searching.
:)
Ah, the true beauty of open source development. You aren't paying for it, so you have no right to complain when projects are never completed... you should just do it yourself. What? You already have a job? You would gladly pay for a browser if only they would finish it? Too bad...
Precisely. Now, I think you're getting it.
Of course, many of those people contributing DO have jobs. And many of them are working their asses off. That's another thing about contributing to the Mozilla project... you get to see just what it *is* that they're taking so long to get right.
But mankind will not be able to survive if it happens! there is no way our weak infrastructure could withstand this possibility!
Sheesh. We've prospered (somewhat) for thousands of years, I don't think capacity of a power grid will hurt much
Thousands of years ago, we didn't have refridgerators.
Thousands of years ago we cooked food differently (no microwaves, no toasters, no electric ranges).
Thousands of years ago we didn't have automated computer systems handling many mundane tasks that most of us have long since forgotten quite how to do.
Thousands of years ago, we didn't have automobiles and traffic control systems.
Thousands of years ago, we didn't have telephones.
Thousands of years ago, we didn't have hospitals so dependent on electronics.
Believe it or not, but a thousand years of technological progress makes a huge difference on the way in which humans can and must live.
As for the 70's, you might want to see what's different between now and then. You might be surprised.
This is so very scary. Seems like this lawyer just doesn't quite get it. But, he's a professional, assumedly, and intelligent, assumedly, and dangerous in that he's probably not the only one...
I assume this excerpt is about the printing of Linux DVD development mailing list logs: (emphasis mine)
A. I downloaded a -- I didn't download.
There is a large amount of Linux DVD development, I
guess, history that you looked through.
Q. You chose not to put that into your
affidavit?
A. It is three inches of paper.
MR. GARBUS: I ask that that be
produced.
MR. GOLD: I will take it under
advisement.
And this is about, I guess, proving that Schumann downloaded and used DeCSS. And how...?
Q. Isn't DeCSS designed to send the
material to a permanent computer file or a
computer's hard drive?
A. That is the function that it
performs, yes.
Q. So wouldn't you have that hard
drive?
A. Certainly.
Q. Where would that hard drive be?
A. It would be in a computer in my
office.
MR. GARBUS: Will you produce
that?
MR. GOLD: The entire computer in
his office?
MR. GARBUS: The hard drive.
MR. GOLD: You want the whole hard
drive?
MR. GARBUS: Yes.
Again, I say... umm, what's the difference?
He was still a developer. Not of software, but of the content. That makes him a game developer.