Not quite... while you are correct about the download issue, source must be available to anyone for whom binaries are available, in the same medium. I.E., if [GPL] binaries are *publicly* available on CDs, [GPL] source must also be *publicly* available on CDs- not just to those who pay for binaries, but also to others in the general public. If binaries are only available to your co-workers or people within your corporation, then you need only make source available within your corporation.
The GPL says no such thing. To summarize section 3, you can distribute binaries, provided you either: * include source in the distribution * include a written offer to send any third party the source in machine readable format for no more than the costs incurred in supplying the source * pass on the above written offer from the person whom you got the GPL code from It says later in the section that if you get the source by copying it from somewhere, you can "distribute" the source by giving them the same information and access to copy it that you have.
You do not need to make GPL source publically available, you can limit your distribution to just the people you do business with by shipping the source on the same CD as the binaries. If you do offer to ship source, you have to accept requests from anyone, but you don't need to tell everyone about it, merely the people you ship binaries to. Clearly the easiest way to comply is to make it publically available from a Web or FTP site, but it is by no means a requirement of the GPL.
SimonK wrote many things I agree with, but he also wrote:
Give it a few years and you'll be joining the libertarian party, reading Ayn Rand and being beseiged by the FBI in some compound in Montana.
Hey, painting the stroke of Libertarianism a little broad are we. While many Libertarians admire and agree with Ayn Rand, she does not speak for all Libertarians. Many do not follow her Objectivist philosophy.
Secondly, those people who form anti-government anti-conspiracy militias have nothing to do with Libertarians. Libertarians generally feel that there is a place for government, it just should be a much smaller place than the one we have now occupies.
You don't have to read the source to care about it. I happen to read some of the source, and I edit some of the source, but I'd say I look at less than 1% of the source I use everyday (for example, it takes a special kind of person to wade through the X11 source). However, the fact that the source is available to the community at large is very important to me, regardless of whether or not I'm reading the source. It is clear to me that having the source available under a Free software license makes a huge difference in the quality of the software. I consider it very important to me. I am quite aware that there is well written software where the source is closed and secret, but over the twenty-someodd years I've been dealing with the computer industry, it is clear that they are the exception, not the rule.
I'd say 98% of the Slashdot crowd doesn't care about the source...
I'd disagree with that number, but I'd be guessing just as badly as you are. I think it's a good topic for a/. poll:
Having Source available under a Free/Open Source license is: * Essential or I won't use the program * A good thing, but I run a few programs without it * A nice idea, but I really don't care * Unimportant * Bad * Cabbage * Huh?
PBS is an anachronism these days, since you can get the same types of programming over a number of widely available channels (Discovery, A&E, etc..) PBS was created to broadcast these types of programs and other things that "commercial" networks wouldn't touch. With the advent of cable and satellite we have seen that there is very little that commercial interests won't broadcast. This seems like a last desparate gasp of a dying system to try to draw attention to itself.
First off, PBS uses almost none of your tax dollars. Their federal and state funding has been cut so many times it's not funny. The total line in their financial report for grants is about $41 million of a $448 million budget. That's less than 10% of their expenses, and less than a single tank costs these days.
For that money, they not only support great programming (such as Sesame Street and Nova), but they also spearhead development projects that you never see directly, such as this digital television program, the TeacherSource program, which offers video content for our schools. They also have an impressive Adult Literacy and GED program called LiteracyLink. They have a neat program to support distance learning colleges. They also offer, in conjunction with the MIT Business College The Business Channel, which many prominent companies subscribe to.
This digital television system is not a waste of tax dollars, nor is it a last desperate gasp of a dying network. It is another step forward for an organization that has long been at the core of our country's education infrastructure.
Well, despite the hysterical raving of many "open source" advocates, remember that Microsoft is just a company like any other. Would it be newsworthy if ESR was invited to speak at Sun Microsystems or SGI?
As a previous poster indicated, yes, just not as newsworthy. Both Sun and SGI have already dealt with Free software and the Free software movement. Microsoft really has not, hence it is a new situation, hence it's news.
Considering ESR's public writing is often little short of slander
I think you're thinking about libel here (slander is for speech, not writing). I also think you are approaching libel here. In what way is ESR's writing criminally defamitory?
Microsoft are being extremely magnanimous by inviting him
No, they are hoping to gain something from this. Whether it's PR points, or they actually want to understand what ESR is talking about, I don't know.
I only hope that he endeavours to make it a productive meeting and doesn't engage in his customary circus act - if for no other reason than it would simply be rude to insult his hosts.
I think you're confusing ESR and RMS here. ESR's talks with companies are polite to a fault (in fact, polite to the point where I often disagree with him). RMS is the one who publically insults his hosts (generally when they deserve it).
And if I want to tweak kernels, I can still use Linux. BeOS doesn't have to be the *only* OS; however, without meaning to offend, I think that many Linux advocates _do_ want Linux to be the only OS. This is a Bad Thing IMO.
No Linux advocate that I have dealt with (me included) want Linux to be the only OS. What many of us want is for Linux to be able to do everything. There is a big difference, but because this would put it in competition with every OS, some people think we want them all to go away.
Competition in Linux is friendly. We implement features, you imlement features. We get users, you get users. If we get lots of users, that's great. If some platform only has five Linux users, that's fine too, particularly since I'm sure those five REALLY REALLY want Linux.
NVRAM harddrives have been available for a while. The CRAY T932 has 800GB/s memory bandwidth, I'd say it's safe to say that that bus is running at at least a GHz. I haven't heard of a 10GHz CPU, unless you are talking in the aggregate (eg. 10 processors running at 1GHz each), in which case the CRAY T932 almost certainly qualifies. You should go out and get one, and install an NVRAM harddrive in it.
what is it that they do? put together a linux installation? i can do this too, you can do this;
Yes, but neither of us can do it as well as Red Hat did. Hell, I'd have trouble doing it as well as Slackware did.
why did rasterman leave them? he obviously thought there's smth wrong with them. (i can't see using anything but e)
I do not know why he decided to leave, I would think that he felt the working environment was wrong for him. Rasterman has always seemed to have more of an Artist's temperament than a Programmer's, and they put him in RHAD Labs with a bunch of hardcore programmers.
All I know is what I've observed, and I've observed a couple of design arguments on public mailing lists between him and other RHAD developers. It seemed like they had good ideas, and he had good ideas, but they just weren't speaking the same language. If he can get the backing (and I think he could) Raster would do well to start his own company.
Red Hat convinced TrollTech? When and in with regard to what?
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said Red Hat actively tried to convince Troll Tech to Free their source, not that they convinced them.
I have no knowledge of whether or not there were direct meetings between Red Hat employees and Troll Tech employees, but there were a few public announcements from Red Hat saying in effect "We think Troll Tech should consider changing their licensing". At the same time, many other individuals and organizations were also trying to convince Troll Tech to do the same.
Since then, Troll Tech has produced the QPL, and released some beta software under it. Nobody can legitimately say "Red Hat convinced them", since that implies they deserve all the credit, which they don't. On the other hand, Troll Tech was convinced, and Red Hat was part of the group convincing them.
How does the recent announcement(s) of software that is supported under "RH only" work into this? Is there something added/mangled by RH to enforce this or are the companies only going to offer support if you say that you have an RH release. (Purchased or dl'ed? Will there be a difference?)
There is nothing added by Red Hat to Linux to enforce "Red Hat Only" software. When you see proprietary Linux software labeled "For Red Hat Linux", all it means is that they only bothered to test it on Red Hat (and probably only a specific version of Red Hat). If you try to use it on anything else, they won't support you. This is not Red Hat's doing, it is lazy commercial developers.
And who decides these things? The software companies?
Yes.
Or RH? "We'll give you $X if you only support RH..."
To my knowledge Red Hat has never done this; not even with developers they have had special agreements with (such as TriTeal and Applix). In fact, Red Hat has actively tried to convince several companies to Free their source code (eg. Intel, TrollTech).
Don't forget the UltraSparc, that's a good solid 64 bit chip. Also, if I'm not mistaken, most of the MIPS chips, including the R4400 and R8000 are 64 bit. There's lots of good quality, high performance 64 bit architectures out there that aren't vapour like Merced.
As for the original poster, I can think of a lot of better places for Microsoft to get people with experience on 64 bit architectures. They're nibbling at Inprise because they want to level the alternative compilers market for Windows. It's an attempt to destroy competition even further, plain and simple.
The desktop isn't the only missing piece. Some others are: * Broader hardware support (eg. USB, MPEG-2, bleeding edge video and sound support) * Better support for highly SMP systems (16 processors and up) * Better support for huge files and memory * Journaling FS * Better ACL support * Better Palmtop/small graphics support
All of these are being worked on. Most of these can even be managed now, but with a lot of convolutions. The desktop is all that's needed to get the Press in line (and maybe a bribe or two;-), since most of them don't even know what a Journaling FS is.
First off, I agree with you, WB's actions were not censorship. Censorship is when an organization or person with power compels someone with less power not to say or show something. Warner Brothers was not compelled to pull the show, so, whether you think the move was right or wrong, it wasn't censorship.
Secondly, you calling the bootlegger's actions "Grand Theft" is irresponsible and wrong. Theft would be if someone stole Warner Brothers' copy, so they no longer had it. This is copyright infringement, plain and simple. A crime, but nowhere near as dire a crime as Grand Theft. Nor should it be, since WB was not significantly injured by the infringement. WB wasn't showing the episode anyway, and most of the people watching the bootlegs will still tune in if/when they get around to airing it, so WB still will get the same ad revenue as before.
The bulk of your argument boils down to "Warner Brothers owns Buffy, so they can do whatever they want with it." This argument hides two fallacies in it. It equates ownership of information (eg. the episode) to ownership of real goods (eg. the master copy of the episode). It also equates the rights of a corporation to the rights of an individual.
First, on the rights of corporations. The US has gone through great efforts to pretend that corporations and individuals are equal under the law. This despite the fact that corporations are not subject to the same criminal penalties we are (I'd like to see someone put some major polluting company away for 15-25 years for negligent manslaughter). Corporations should be treated differently, morally and legally.
Secondly, information is not property, you can't own it (or steal it). Legally speaking, you can own the copy rights to information, but this is a substatially broken system. By airing the episode in Canada, Canadian viewers gained access to the information. Why shouldn't they be allowed to share it with their less fortunate neighbors?
According to the article, the filtering software favored by the Ausie censors bans things with "names such as Pamela". Are they completely out of their head?!?
I guess they don't want to hear about the international space station project (one of the Astronauts is Lt. Col. Pamela Ann Melroy).
There goes Australian Women's Lib history, where Pamela Denoon was apparently a major player.
I wonder if it will also filter out info on the PAMELA Magnetic Spectrometer, scheduled for launch two years from now.
Do these censors have any idea how stupid they look when they suggest things like this.
The problem is that you cannot easily measure the amount of current flowing into the experiment with an anmeter. There will be slight losses associated with this measurement.
They are saying that they get more energy out than they put into it. It seems to me that all the sources of error on measuring how much energy goes into the system are losses on the way to the electrode. Wouldn't this mean that they are getting at least as much energy as they are claiming?
Regardless of whether it's fusion or some obscure electrochemical process, I think we should be investigating potential energy sources. If the scientific community is detecting energy there, and trying to hide it, that's unforgivable.
Also, your reply didn't address the fundamental question of where are the nuclear by products. If it is a nuclear reaction, like Pons and Fleischmann originally claimed, then there should be by-products. Nobody to date has measured them.
According to the article, they have detected excess helium (they didn't say whether it's helium-3 or helium-4). I'd say that's a likely fusion byproduct. I'd say that's somebody. It's not conclusive unless it can be reproduced, so why aren't people trying to reproduce the results?
I wasn't aware that it was the base Perl, I just assumed there were some Win32 specific patches that were needed (i.e. the patch file would be their codebase). I stand corrected, but that wasn't my point.
My point is that the agreement itself makes little difference, but it shows that a small company (ActiveState) has gotten Microsoft's attention. Historically speaking, such attention generally means a short term benefit for the small company, and a medium-to-long term disaster. If ActiveState goes byebye, it would be IMHO a loss for the Perl community, particularly any Perl for Windows users out there.
I currently use ActiveState Perl when I'm stuck with the Windows platform. They seem to be a pretty together company. Their commercial license is annoying, but all of the stuff they do that I care about is under the normal Perl license.
As long as ActiveState keeps control over their version of the codebase, and stays autonomous, I don't see any problem here. On the other hand, this is Microsoft we're talking about here. With an agreement in hand between ActiveState and Microsoft, I fear ActiveState is not much longer for this world. Microsoft's past behavior with similar agreements is pretty scary.
This looks like a job position for someone who watches a specific product, and advises various departments on how to market against it. I'm sure they have an OS/2 Product Manager, a WordPerfect Product Manager and so on. Here's the full text of the job description:
PRODUCT MANAGER [Job Code: N05rc-e3] Division: Windows Marketing & Developer Relations Primary responsibilities include competitive analysis of Linux, both for providing product planning for the development team and for technical assistance to Microsoft's sales force. This is a key position within Microsoft, and very high visibility, both within and outside the company. Qualifications include very strong technical skills in both Unix and Windows NT and excellent writing skills. Some PR and sales or marketing experience would be helpful. A Master's or Bachelors in business administration is desirable.
With bits like "Competetive Analysis" and "Technical Assistance to Microsoft Sales Force", it sounds a lot more like they want someone to figure out the dirt on Linux in detail, and brief their sales staff on how to sell against it.
Not how it doesn't say that this is a development posistion. The bit is "Product Planning for the Development Team", that could easily be along the lines of "if IIS had this feature, it would help us gain market share from Apache", and "if NT shipped with this utility, we'd have a better standing against Linux in the server room".
If Microsoft were truly looking to start Linux development, there would be more than two job openings with Linux as a keyword (the other is making sure the MSDN website works from various OS's, including Linux).
LinuxHQ is having DNS problems (the owner of the name took it back). The maintainer (Jim Pick) had just enough warning to preemptively get another DNS name (kernelnotes.org). Therefore, the LinuxHQ site is currently up and happily running at http://kernelnotes.org. If you want more info, check out the announcement.
Here's the principal difference, the Austrailian government is an "outside", "foreign" force trying to impose on how much of the internet their citizens can see and use. The German admins are "inside", "domestic" forces making use of the standard internet self-regulatory features that have evolved over the decades (an eternety in internet time).
Think of it this way: Australia is trying to impose a trade embargo on the Internet (and trying to get local businesses to pay for and manage the blockade). The German admins are police trying to get a drunk tourist to stop disturbing the peace.
To put it another way, Austrailia is insisting one group of people (ISP's) censor another group of people (normal citizen's). The Germans are determining what takes up the space they paid for, and announcing it to the world in case others feel like following suit.
That's why most of us support the German admin's actions instead of the Australian government's.
...use one of these guys to put an olympic sized swimming pool in my closet. The author seems to indicate that the warp bubble is larger on the inside than on the outside.
Sure, it would just take many years of research to engineer the closet, and millions of dollars to build the closet. Oh, and if you try to enter the closet to use the pool, your body will be destroyed by tidal forces.
...implement that inertial damping drive system I've been kicking around.
You don't need inertial damping with a warp drive. The warp bubble moves, the vehicle stands still.
...avoid speeding tickets on I75 by travelling in a microscopically small bubble of space.
I don't think the highway would be all that happy with a Warp Bubble travelling down it, but I don't think the state troopers have warp detectors yet.
Slashdot Mirror
luge wrote:
Not quite... while you are correct about the download issue, source must be available to anyone for whom binaries are available, in the same medium. I.E., if [GPL] binaries are *publicly* available on CDs, [GPL] source must also be *publicly* available on CDs- not just to those who pay for binaries, but also to others in the general public. If binaries are only available to your co-workers or people within your corporation, then you need only make source available within your corporation.
The GPL says no such thing. To summarize section 3, you can distribute binaries, provided you either:
* include source in the distribution
* include a written offer to send any third party the source in machine readable format for no more than the costs incurred in supplying the source
* pass on the above written offer from the person whom you got the GPL code from
It says later in the section that if you get the source by copying it from somewhere, you can "distribute" the source by giving them the same information and access to copy it that you have.
You do not need to make GPL source publically available, you can limit your distribution to just the people you do business with by shipping the source on the same CD as the binaries. If you do offer to ship source, you have to accept requests from anyone, but you don't need to tell everyone about it, merely the people you ship binaries to. Clearly the easiest way to comply is to make it publically available from a Web or FTP site, but it is by no means a requirement of the GPL.
SimonK wrote many things I agree with, but he also wrote:
Give it a few years and you'll be joining the libertarian party, reading Ayn Rand and being beseiged by the FBI in some compound in Montana.
Hey, painting the stroke of Libertarianism a little broad are we. While many Libertarians admire and agree with Ayn Rand, she does not speak for all Libertarians. Many do not follow her Objectivist philosophy.
Secondly, those people who form anti-government anti-conspiracy militias have nothing to do with Libertarians. Libertarians generally feel that there is a place for government, it just should be a much smaller place than the one we have now occupies.
You don't have to read the source to care about it. I happen to read some of the source, and I edit some of the source, but I'd say I look at less than 1% of the source I use everyday (for example, it takes a special kind of person to wade through the X11 source). However, the fact that the source is available to the community at large is very important to me, regardless of whether or not I'm reading the source. It is clear to me that having the source available under a Free software license makes a huge difference in the quality of the software. I consider it very important to me. I am quite aware that there is well written software where the source is closed and secret, but over the twenty-someodd years I've been dealing with the computer industry, it is clear that they are the exception, not the rule.
jtn wrote:
/. poll:
I'd say 98% of the Slashdot crowd doesn't care about the source...
I'd disagree with that number, but I'd be guessing just as badly as you are. I think it's a good topic for a
Having Source available under a Free/Open Source license is:
* Essential or I won't use the program
* A good thing, but I run a few programs without it
* A nice idea, but I really don't care
* Unimportant
* Bad
* Cabbage
* Huh?
Rombu wrote:
PBS is an anachronism these days, since you can get the same types of programming over a number of widely available channels (Discovery, A&E, etc..) PBS was created to broadcast these types of programs and other things that "commercial" networks wouldn't touch. With the advent of cable and satellite we have seen that there is very little that commercial interests won't broadcast. This seems like a last desparate gasp of a dying system to try to draw attention to itself.
First off, PBS uses almost none of your tax dollars. Their federal and state funding has been cut so many times it's not funny. The total line in their financial report for grants is about $41 million of a $448 million budget. That's less than 10% of their expenses, and less than a single tank costs these days.
For that money, they not only support great programming (such as Sesame Street and Nova), but they also spearhead development projects that you never see directly, such as this digital television program, the TeacherSource program, which offers video content for our schools. They also have an impressive Adult Literacy and GED program called LiteracyLink. They have a neat program to support distance learning colleges. They also offer, in conjunction with the MIT Business College The Business Channel, which many prominent companies subscribe to.
This digital television system is not a waste of tax dollars, nor is it a last desperate gasp of a dying network. It is another step forward for an organization that has long been at the core of our country's education infrastructure.
sql*kitten wrote:
Well, despite the hysterical raving of many "open source" advocates, remember that Microsoft is just a company like any other. Would it be newsworthy if ESR was invited to speak at Sun Microsystems or SGI?
As a previous poster indicated, yes, just not as newsworthy. Both Sun and SGI have already dealt with Free software and the Free software movement. Microsoft really has not, hence it is a new situation, hence it's news.
Considering ESR's public writing is often little short of slander
I think you're thinking about libel here (slander is for speech, not writing). I also think you are approaching libel here. In what way is ESR's writing criminally defamitory?
Microsoft are being extremely magnanimous by inviting him
No, they are hoping to gain something from this. Whether it's PR points, or they actually want to understand what ESR is talking about, I don't know.
I only hope that he endeavours to make it a productive meeting and doesn't engage in his customary circus act - if for no other reason than it would simply be rude to insult his hosts.
I think you're confusing ESR and RMS here. ESR's talks with companies are polite to a fault (in fact, polite to the point where I often disagree with him). RMS is the one who publically insults his hosts (generally when they deserve it).
Kurt Gray laments:
Even still we have no single big source of Linux performance help.
Have you checked out TuneLinux.com. It's making a good start at being a single big source of such help.
Christopher Thomas wrote:
And if I want to tweak kernels, I can still use Linux. BeOS doesn't have to be the *only* OS; however, without meaning to offend, I think that many Linux advocates _do_ want Linux to be the only OS. This is a Bad Thing IMO.
No Linux advocate that I have dealt with (me included) want Linux to be the only OS. What many of us want is for Linux to be able to do everything. There is a big difference, but because this would put it in competition with every OS, some people think we want them all to go away.
Competition in Linux is friendly. We implement features, you imlement features. We get users, you get users. If we get lots of users, that's great. If some platform only has five Linux users, that's fine too, particularly since I'm sure those five REALLY REALLY want Linux.
NVRAM harddrives have been available for a while. The CRAY T932 has 800GB/s memory bandwidth, I'd say it's safe to say that that bus is running at at least a GHz. I haven't heard of a 10GHz CPU, unless you are talking in the aggregate (eg. 10 processors running at 1GHz each), in which case the CRAY T932 almost certainly qualifies. You should go out and get one, and install an NVRAM harddrive in it.
Anonymous Coward asks:
what is it that they do? put together a linux installation? i can do this too, you can do this;
Yes, but neither of us can do it as well as Red Hat did. Hell, I'd have trouble doing it as well as Slackware did.
why did rasterman leave them? he obviously thought there's smth wrong with them. (i can't see using anything but e)
I do not know why he decided to leave, I would think that he felt the working environment was wrong for him. Rasterman has always seemed to have more of an Artist's temperament than a Programmer's, and they put him in RHAD Labs with a bunch of hardcore programmers.
All I know is what I've observed, and I've observed a couple of design arguments on public mailing lists between him and other RHAD developers. It seemed like they had good ideas, and he had good ideas, but they just weren't speaking the same language. If he can get the backing (and I think he could) Raster would do well to start his own company.
vgesgis wrote:
Red Hat convinced TrollTech? When and in with regard to what?
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said Red Hat actively tried to convince Troll Tech to Free their source, not that they convinced them.
I have no knowledge of whether or not there were direct meetings between Red Hat employees and Troll Tech employees, but there were a few public announcements from Red Hat saying in effect "We think Troll Tech should consider changing their licensing". At the same time, many other individuals and organizations were also trying to convince Troll Tech to do the same.
Since then, Troll Tech has produced the QPL, and released some beta software under it. Nobody can legitimately say "Red Hat convinced them", since that implies they deserve all the credit, which they don't. On the other hand, Troll Tech was convinced, and Red Hat was part of the group convincing them.
RinkRat asks:
How does the recent announcement(s) of software that is supported under "RH only" work into this? Is there something added/mangled by RH to enforce this or are the companies only going to offer support if you say that you have an RH release. (Purchased or dl'ed? Will there be a difference?)
There is nothing added by Red Hat to Linux to enforce "Red Hat Only" software. When you see proprietary Linux software labeled "For Red Hat Linux", all it means is that they only bothered to test it on Red Hat (and probably only a specific version of Red Hat). If you try to use it on anything else, they won't support you. This is not Red Hat's doing, it is lazy commercial developers.
And who decides these things? The software companies?
Yes.
Or RH? "We'll give you $X if you only support RH..."
To my knowledge Red Hat has never done this; not even with developers they have had special agreements with (such as TriTeal and Applix). In fact, Red Hat has actively tried to convince several companies to Free their source code (eg. Intel, TrollTech).
One can only hope. I'd like to see Philips open up their hardware more, they make some good stuff.
Sell. Soon.
Don't forget the UltraSparc, that's a good solid 64 bit chip. Also, if I'm not mistaken, most of the MIPS chips, including the R4400 and R8000 are 64 bit. There's lots of good quality, high performance 64 bit architectures out there that aren't vapour like Merced.
As for the original poster, I can think of a lot of better places for Microsoft to get people with experience on 64 bit architectures. They're nibbling at Inprise because they want to level the alternative compilers market for Windows. It's an attempt to destroy competition even further, plain and simple.
The desktop isn't the only missing piece. Some others are:
;-), since most of them don't even know what a Journaling FS is.
* Broader hardware support (eg. USB, MPEG-2, bleeding edge video and sound support)
* Better support for highly SMP systems (16 processors and up)
* Better support for huge files and memory
* Journaling FS
* Better ACL support
* Better Palmtop/small graphics support
All of these are being worked on. Most of these can even be managed now, but with a lot of convolutions. The desktop is all that's needed to get the Press in line (and maybe a bribe or two
First off, I agree with you, WB's actions were not censorship. Censorship is when an organization or person with power compels someone with less power not to say or show something. Warner Brothers was not compelled to pull the show, so, whether you think the move was right or wrong, it wasn't censorship.
Secondly, you calling the bootlegger's actions "Grand Theft" is irresponsible and wrong. Theft would be if someone stole Warner Brothers' copy, so they no longer had it. This is copyright infringement, plain and simple. A crime, but nowhere near as dire a crime as Grand Theft. Nor should it be, since WB was not significantly injured by the infringement. WB wasn't showing the episode anyway, and most of the people watching the bootlegs will still tune in if/when they get around to airing it, so WB still will get the same ad revenue as before.
The bulk of your argument boils down to "Warner Brothers owns Buffy, so they can do whatever they want with it." This argument hides two fallacies in it. It equates ownership of information (eg. the episode) to ownership of real goods (eg. the master copy of the episode). It also equates the rights of a corporation to the rights of an individual.
First, on the rights of corporations. The US has gone through great efforts to pretend that corporations and individuals are equal under the law. This despite the fact that corporations are not subject to the same criminal penalties we are (I'd like to see someone put some major polluting company away for 15-25 years for negligent manslaughter). Corporations should be treated differently, morally and legally.
Secondly, information is not property, you can't own it (or steal it). Legally speaking, you can own the copy rights to information, but this is a substatially broken system. By airing the episode in Canada, Canadian viewers gained access to the information. Why shouldn't they be allowed to share it with their less fortunate neighbors?
According to the article, the filtering software favored by the Ausie censors bans things with "names such as Pamela". Are they completely out of their head?!?
I guess they don't want to hear about the international space station project (one of the Astronauts is Lt. Col. Pamela Ann Melroy).
There goes Australian Women's Lib history, where Pamela Denoon was apparently a major player.
I wonder if it will also filter out info on the PAMELA Magnetic Spectrometer, scheduled for launch two years from now.
Do these censors have any idea how stupid they look when they suggest things like this.
imp wrote:
The problem is that you cannot easily measure the amount of current flowing into the experiment with an anmeter. There will be slight losses associated with this measurement.
They are saying that they get more energy out than they put into it. It seems to me that all the sources of error on measuring how much energy goes into the system are losses on the way to the electrode. Wouldn't this mean that they are getting at least as much energy as they are claiming?
Regardless of whether it's fusion or some obscure electrochemical process, I think we should be investigating potential energy sources. If the scientific community is detecting energy there, and trying to hide it, that's unforgivable.
Also, your reply didn't address the fundamental question of where are the nuclear by products. If it is a nuclear reaction, like Pons and Fleischmann originally claimed, then there should be by-products. Nobody to date has measured them.
According to the article, they have detected excess helium (they didn't say whether it's helium-3 or helium-4). I'd say that's a likely fusion byproduct. I'd say that's somebody. It's not conclusive unless it can be reproduced, so why aren't people trying to reproduce the results?
I wasn't aware that it was the base Perl, I just assumed there were some Win32 specific patches that were needed (i.e. the patch file would be their codebase). I stand corrected, but that wasn't my point.
My point is that the agreement itself makes little difference, but it shows that a small company (ActiveState) has gotten Microsoft's attention. Historically speaking, such attention generally means a short term benefit for the small company, and a medium-to-long term disaster. If ActiveState goes byebye, it would be IMHO a loss for the Perl community, particularly any Perl for Windows users out there.
I currently use ActiveState Perl when I'm stuck with the Windows platform. They seem to be a pretty together company. Their commercial license is annoying, but all of the stuff they do that I care about is under the normal Perl license.
As long as ActiveState keeps control over their version of the codebase, and stays autonomous, I don't see any problem here. On the other hand, this is Microsoft we're talking about here. With an agreement in hand between ActiveState and Microsoft, I fear ActiveState is not much longer for this world. Microsoft's past behavior with similar agreements is pretty scary.
This looks like a job position for someone who watches a specific product, and advises various departments on how to market against it. I'm sure they have an OS/2 Product Manager, a WordPerfect Product Manager and so on. Here's the full text of the job description:
PRODUCT MANAGER [Job Code: N05rc-e3]
Division: Windows Marketing & Developer Relations
Primary responsibilities include competitive analysis of Linux, both for providing product planning for the development team and for technical assistance to Microsoft's sales force. This is a key position within Microsoft, and very high visibility, both within and outside the company. Qualifications include very strong technical skills in both Unix and Windows NT and excellent writing skills. Some PR and sales or marketing experience would be helpful. A Master's or Bachelors in business administration is desirable.
With bits like "Competetive Analysis" and "Technical Assistance to Microsoft Sales Force", it sounds a lot more like they want someone to figure out the dirt on Linux in detail, and brief their sales staff on how to sell against it.
Not how it doesn't say that this is a development posistion. The bit is "Product Planning for the Development Team", that could easily be along the lines of "if IIS had this feature, it would help us gain market share from Apache", and "if NT shipped with this utility, we'd have a better standing against Linux in the server room".
If Microsoft were truly looking to start Linux development, there would be more than two job openings with Linux as a keyword (the other is making sure the MSDN website works from various OS's, including Linux).
LinuxHQ is having DNS problems (the owner of the name took it back). The maintainer (Jim Pick) had just enough warning to preemptively get another DNS name (kernelnotes.org). Therefore, the LinuxHQ site is currently up and happily running at http://kernelnotes.org. If you want more info, check out the announcement.
Here's the principal difference, the Austrailian government is an "outside", "foreign" force trying to impose on how much of the internet their citizens can see and use. The German admins are "inside", "domestic" forces making use of the standard internet self-regulatory features that have evolved over the decades (an eternety in internet time).
Think of it this way: Australia is trying to impose a trade embargo on the Internet (and trying to get local businesses to pay for and manage the blockade). The German admins are police trying to get a drunk tourist to stop disturbing the peace.
To put it another way, Austrailia is insisting one group of people (ISP's) censor another group of people (normal citizen's). The Germans are determining what takes up the space they paid for, and announcing it to the world in case others feel like following suit.
That's why most of us support the German admin's actions instead of the Australian government's.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
...use one of these guys to put an olympic sized swimming pool in my closet. The author seems to indicate that the warp bubble is larger on the inside than on the outside.
...implement that inertial damping drive system I've been kicking around.
...avoid speeding tickets on I75 by travelling in a microscopically small bubble of space.
Sure, it would just take many years of research to engineer the closet, and millions of dollars to build the closet. Oh, and if you try to enter the closet to use the pool, your body will be destroyed by tidal forces.
You don't need inertial damping with a warp drive. The warp bubble moves, the vehicle stands still.
I don't think the highway would be all that happy with a Warp Bubble travelling down it, but I don't think the state troopers have warp detectors yet.