I found this section of TFA thought-provoking: "In the military, leaving tasks unfinished until some indeterminate time in the future is simply not acceptable, especially in cases where life--and accountability--is at stake."
This is in response to Behlendorf's description of FOSS development as organic, relatively unplanned. It frequently doesn't include deadlines, guaranteed results, even release dates.
This takes the focus away from results and puts it back on method. If you use the most efficient development method ever devised, the product will be very good at time X -- but it won't necessarily have features Y at time Z, etc.
What happens if overall foreign-policy strategy, and even discrete military tactics begin revolving around a similar notion: that you use the correct means and you know the ends will be Good Things even if you can't list those Things in advance.
Namely, that the intrinsic value-in-use of a counterfeit bill (if counterfeited "perfectly", atom-by-atom, so to speak) is exactly equal to that of a "genuine" bill. Use-value depends only on a thing's properties.
But the use-value of a dollar bill is not much. It makes mediocre note-taking paper and below-average art. Very good for rolling up and snorting cocaine, but that's about it.
The exchange value of currency depends 100% on the conventions that surround it. Consider: a $10 bill can be exchanged for two fives. You say "I'll give you these two fives if the ten is genuine". But you mean "if it comes from the U.S. Mint" not "if it contains x% paper, y% ink, etc." If you want the bill in order to snort cocaine, you don't care if it comes from the U.S. Mint.
Hence the difference between the movie example and the counterfeiting example. Someone who sneaks in sees a genuine movie because it has the same material affect on them as the person who bought the ticket. This affect does not require a set of conventions.
Seems like the law definitely comes into it at some point e.g. when "they later find out you cheated" and you say "no I didn't". Whatever evidence led them to this conclusion has to be shown to someone -- a jury/judge -- since whether this is true defines whether you committed fraud.
This was hilarious. The other day I was in a team meeting for a client and we quoted our prices and the designer's hourly was twice what mine is for my scripting/dB stuff. I was all "geez, I should do design..."
Then I saw some of his designs; I was all "nvm. gg me".
A guess, basically: it says "85% of the time" it withstands the explosion. Prolly they simulated it by having a comparable burst of air detonated near it, sending it flying across the room, at which point it bashed into something but was okay 85% of the time
If you somehow fix the iPod so it can't move, and explode an RPG near it, I think it will melt. Every time.
...for banks, I mean. Because whatever version of windows it was had a phoning-home function, so that using the system to store customer data was actually a felony. I can't find the story, 'cause I don't remember enough details. Is WGA in this territory, or did that law get changed? Whatever happened to that; it was funny.
If I understood the basics of Napster and Grokster right, the companies that were enjoined had to demonstrate that they made efforts to determine whether infringing uses were occurring, to notify users that this activity was illegal, and to implement technological filtering etc. in order to escape from contributory liability.
Welcome to the Zune[TM] Genuine Advandtage[R] Music Experience [TM]! Please be advised that you may not put any songs or other pieces of art on this device that permit sharing. This device is not meant to be used for real sharing, just temporary DRM-crippled glimpses of things. Basically ads. Click "start" to begin, or "No Thanks" to get the price of this machine refunded so you can go get some moderately-useful gadgets"
"Warning: the file you are attempting to play grants you way too much freedom. I want to make it legal for policemen to beat 'em"
I think you could get damages if Microsoft alters files on one of your devices without permission and without proper notification. Like with the rootkit, where you don't actually need to prove that Sony somehow made you lose your job, or made your business go belly up
"comes down to using the right tool for the job, and configuring said tool correctly."
Which is exactly what Rasmus says below in this thread, when things began to get useful. He also explains why reading TFA isn't a good way to get informed on what he said.
You might note that Rasmus never says "zomg Postgres is teh suxorz"
PS: Ruby is not a script, and Rails is not a "paradigm"
Well, I assume that's a joke and if so, it's funny
If not: F with the kernel and you can run it on a smaller processor. Or you can have it drive more efficient microcontrollers, sit on a whole new motherboard, etc.
As a matter of fact, for robots above a certain level of complexity I don't see how a closed-source kernel could possibly work.
Amnesty's belief is based on the evidence encountered during their inspection, and is therefore more properly called a "conclusion".
As it turns out, lots of religious belief is of the same type. It's a conclusion based on evidence. "Faith" -- called "the evidence of things not seen" -- is understood to underly belief despite being non-confirmable
So both "beliefs" might be called "conclusions" but only the first is a scientific conclusion. Still confused?
Namely: it can be dismantled, optimized and modified to your heart's content. Which is a lot, when every millimeter of length and every gram of mass has to be accounted for.
Thanks for coming by to clear things up. On behalf of at least myself, I'd like to apologize for all the badly-informed sneering in this thread. It's usually bad, but not this bad. And thanks for PHP.
"Why would we listen to the creator of a badly performing broken scripting language about a reliable performance oriented DB?"
Because he does his research on the facts under discussion before spouting off about them. "Insightful" indeed. This article has the worst comments thread ever.
"It seems the Slashdot editors and contributors get their kicks by watching the comment count shoot through the roof. The only way to do that is to misconstrue the truth to get people infuriated about nothing. Unfortunately articles like these distract from those that warrant relevent discussions."
And in this regard/. comes to resemble ordinary media outlets more and more. It's sad.
I didn't say they worked for free. Your sputterings are almost totally incoherent, but surely you can see the faulty reasoning: 1) People can't eat without money. 2) Treating information as something that can be owned is one way that people can make money. Therefore 3) Information must be treated as something that can be owned.
Hint: "one" way.
Other hint: it's actually not the govts. job to make sure everyone gets paid. As it turns out, I agree with you that government support of the arts is a great thing.
You've slowly backed of from "there won't be ANY more movies or pieces of software EVER AGAIN!!!! WAAAHH!!" Thanks; that was a really dumb point to try to make. Can you go all the way to "There will ONLY be teh quantity and quality of art & culture that we had in the Renaissance!!!! WAAAHHH!!"
There's probably a Diet Godwin law I can invoke when we're talking about CDs and the digression is all about Guantanamo. But anyway...
Fair use etc. is the current law; it's not a sweeping change I'd like to bring about in the copyright system. It is Sony et al. who would like to introduce a sweeping change, namely the notion that a little c with a circle around it constitutes a legally binding contract never to access "their" content except under the circumstances of their choosing.
As TFA points out, the settlement -- huh?!! -- isn't about copyright anyway. It's the enforcement of a consumer protection law. This is also currently on the books; I have the right to control my computer and not have intruders rootkit it, etc. I don't need to convince anyone that I have it
This is what is implied by the word "inalienable". Certain rights can't be voted out of existence by governments, representative or otherwise. When they ostensibly do so, all they are really doing is voting their own mandate to govern out of existence.
It wouldn't surprise me to find that no browser is in the "majority" here. If IE has 25, I might figure Safari for 20 and Opera for 15. leaving 35 for the fox and 5 for Konq & friends.
As per my original post it's the standard that these other browsers have in common. Yes, there are some still-evolving pieces of the standard and only 2 of the browsers pass Acid2, etc.
But all are far better than IE and still trying to improve. And all the strawmen and mudslinging in this thread doesn't change that.
"Anyone know how their site looks for equivalents?"
I don't know, but however they do it, it's not a great algorithm. Glad your experience was great, but when I try, say, "Medeski" all I got were other medeski albums on independent labels...
Final thoughts: pitiful attempt at irony.;) People have been arguing for years that the net impact of filesharing on sales is likely positive because so many sales are generated by downloads.
Slashdot Mirror
I found this section of TFA thought-provoking: "In the military, leaving tasks unfinished until some indeterminate time in the future is simply not acceptable, especially in cases where life--and accountability--is at stake."
This is in response to Behlendorf's description of FOSS development as organic, relatively unplanned. It frequently doesn't include deadlines, guaranteed results, even release dates.
This takes the focus away from results and puts it back on method. If you use the most efficient development method ever devised, the product will be very good at time X -- but it won't necessarily have features Y at time Z, etc.
What happens if overall foreign-policy strategy, and even discrete military tactics begin revolving around a similar notion: that you use the correct means and you know the ends will be Good Things even if you can't list those Things in advance.
Namely, that the intrinsic value-in-use of a counterfeit bill (if counterfeited "perfectly", atom-by-atom, so to speak) is exactly equal to that of a "genuine" bill. Use-value depends only on a thing's properties.
But the use-value of a dollar bill is not much. It makes mediocre note-taking paper and below-average art. Very good for rolling up and snorting cocaine, but that's about it.
The exchange value of currency depends 100% on the conventions that surround it. Consider: a $10 bill can be exchanged for two fives. You say "I'll give you these two fives if the ten is genuine". But you mean "if it comes from the U.S. Mint" not "if it contains x% paper, y% ink, etc." If you want the bill in order to snort cocaine, you don't care if it comes from the U.S. Mint.
Hence the difference between the movie example and the counterfeiting example. Someone who sneaks in sees a genuine movie because it has the same material affect on them as the person who bought the ticket. This affect does not require a set of conventions.
My password is: "admin". Thanks for looking into this. (Username is also "admin")
Parent is the best post in a really good thread.
Seems like the law definitely comes into it at some point e.g. when "they later find out you cheated" and you say "no I didn't". Whatever evidence led them to this conclusion has to be shown to someone -- a jury/judge -- since whether this is true defines whether you committed fraud.
This was hilarious. The other day I was in a team meeting for a client and we quoted our prices and the designer's hourly was twice what mine is for my scripting/dB stuff. I was all "geez, I should do design..."
Then I saw some of his designs; I was all "nvm. gg me".
A guess, basically: it says "85% of the time" it withstands the explosion. Prolly they simulated it by having a comparable burst of air detonated near it, sending it flying across the room, at which point it bashed into something but was okay 85% of the time
If you somehow fix the iPod so it can't move, and explode an RPG near it, I think it will melt. Every time.
...for banks, I mean. Because whatever version of windows it was had a phoning-home function, so that using the system to store customer data was actually a felony. I can't find the story, 'cause I don't remember enough details. Is WGA in this territory, or did that law get changed? Whatever happened to that; it was funny.
I think every last shred of the parent's post should be destroyed.
If I understood the basics of Napster and Grokster right, the companies that were enjoined had to demonstrate that they made efforts to determine whether infringing uses were occurring, to notify users that this activity was illegal, and to implement technological filtering etc. in order to escape from contributory liability.
Welcome to the Zune[TM] Genuine Advandtage[R] Music Experience [TM]! Please be advised that you may not put any songs or other pieces of art on this device that permit sharing. This device is not meant to be used for real sharing, just temporary DRM-crippled glimpses of things. Basically ads. Click "start" to begin, or "No Thanks" to get the price of this machine refunded so you can go get some moderately-useful gadgets"
"Warning: the file you are attempting to play grants you way too much freedom. I want to make it legal for policemen to beat 'em"
I think you could get damages if Microsoft alters files on one of your devices without permission and without proper notification. Like with the rootkit, where you don't actually need to prove that Sony somehow made you lose your job, or made your business go belly up
"comes down to using the right tool for the job, and configuring said tool correctly." Which is exactly what Rasmus says below in this thread, when things began to get useful. He also explains why reading TFA isn't a good way to get informed on what he said. You might note that Rasmus never says "zomg Postgres is teh suxorz" PS: Ruby is not a script, and Rails is not a "paradigm"
Well, I assume that's a joke and if so, it's funny
If not: F with the kernel and you can run it on a smaller processor. Or you can have it drive more efficient microcontrollers, sit on a whole new motherboard, etc.
As a matter of fact, for robots above a certain level of complexity I don't see how a closed-source kernel could possibly work.
Amnesty's belief is based on the evidence encountered during their inspection, and is therefore more properly called a "conclusion".
As it turns out, lots of religious belief is of the same type. It's a conclusion based on evidence. "Faith" -- called "the evidence of things not seen" -- is understood to underly belief despite being non-confirmable
So both "beliefs" might be called "conclusions" but only the first is a scientific conclusion. Still confused?
Namely: it can be dismantled, optimized and modified to your heart's content. Which is a lot, when every millimeter of length and every gram of mass has to be accounted for.
NASA is so pitifully underbudgeted that none of these machines were Vista-ready anyway.
Thanks for coming by to clear things up. On behalf of at least myself, I'd like to apologize for all the badly-informed sneering in this thread. It's usually bad, but not this bad. And thanks for PHP.
"Why would we listen to the creator of a badly performing broken scripting language about a reliable performance oriented DB?" Because he does his research on the facts under discussion before spouting off about them. "Insightful" indeed. This article has the worst comments thread ever.
"It seems the Slashdot editors and contributors get their kicks by watching the comment count shoot through the roof. The only way to do that is to misconstrue the truth to get people infuriated about nothing. Unfortunately articles like these distract from those that warrant relevent discussions." And in this regard /. comes to resemble ordinary media outlets more and more. It's sad.
I didn't say they worked for free. Your sputterings are almost totally incoherent, but surely you can see the faulty reasoning: 1) People can't eat without money. 2) Treating information as something that can be owned is one way that people can make money. Therefore 3) Information must be treated as something that can be owned.
Hint: "one" way.
Other hint: it's actually not the govts. job to make sure everyone gets paid. As it turns out, I agree with you that government support of the arts is a great thing.
You've slowly backed of from "there won't be ANY more movies or pieces of software EVER AGAIN!!!! WAAAHH!!" Thanks; that was a really dumb point to try to make. Can you go all the way to "There will ONLY be teh quantity and quality of art & culture that we had in the Renaissance!!!! WAAAHHH!!"
There's probably a Diet Godwin law I can invoke when we're talking about CDs and the digression is all about Guantanamo. But anyway...
Fair use etc. is the current law; it's not a sweeping change I'd like to bring about in the copyright system. It is Sony et al. who would like to introduce a sweeping change, namely the notion that a little c with a circle around it constitutes a legally binding contract never to access "their" content except under the circumstances of their choosing.
As TFA points out, the settlement -- huh?!! -- isn't about copyright anyway. It's the enforcement of a consumer protection law. This is also currently on the books; I have the right to control my computer and not have intruders rootkit it, etc. I don't need to convince anyone that I have it
This is what is implied by the word "inalienable". Certain rights can't be voted out of existence by governments, representative or otherwise. When they ostensibly do so, all they are really doing is voting their own mandate to govern out of existence.
Thanks, I'll keep beating my chest. Just 'cause the average person doesn't bother to protect rights X,Y, and Z doesn't require that I surrender them.
"Out Louder" new (non RIAA!) album w/Scofield coming out Sep 26
It wouldn't surprise me to find that no browser is in the "majority" here. If IE has 25, I might figure Safari for 20 and Opera for 15. leaving 35 for the fox and 5 for Konq & friends.
As per my original post it's the standard that these other browsers have in common. Yes, there are some still-evolving pieces of the standard and only 2 of the browsers pass Acid2, etc.
But all are far better than IE and still trying to improve. And all the strawmen and mudslinging in this thread doesn't change that.
"Anyone know how their site looks for equivalents?"
I don't know, but however they do it, it's not a great algorithm. Glad your experience was great, but when I try, say, "Medeski" all I got were other medeski albums on independent labels...
Final thoughts: pitiful attempt at irony. ;) People have been arguing for years that the net impact of filesharing on sales is likely positive because so many sales are generated by downloads.