This is assuming that the current system of peer review- i.e. publication in scientific journals, 1-3 months for a reply, 1-3 months for a reply to the reply, etc.- is the best way to do it. I do not believe this to be the case. Corporations, for instance, make advances in science and release their findings via press release, and let the market do the "peer reviewing." I am not saying the peer review system is invalid; it has carried us as far as it has. But for the same reasons that universities are not necessarily keeping up with the times, the scientific community's exclusion of "the rest of us" is both arrogant and stupid. The discourse that is going on here on/. is evidence of this; people are posting their opinions on the matter, people who most likely never would have seen this if it had been shoved into some obscure (or even "popular") journal.
Peer review can occur in many forms. My guess is that the USC scientists have already submitted their findings to a journal. I think the press release was cool; it gives us "laypeople" something to discuss. The clergy always gets upset when that happens...
If I download a bunch of GPL'd code, and change a single letter in it, am I immediately bound to redistribute it? What is the time frame for me having to re-release the code? If I make a change does the rest of the world have to know immediately? The traditional model of Free, OSS is for the public to know what changes are going on in a piece of GPL'd software all the time. If a bunch of friends and I download the Linux kernel, decide to devote a few months to making it Ultra-UNIX-Whoop-De-Doo, and we tell all of our friends (and let some of them have it and test it out) but don't release it to the general public until we feel it's ready, is this a violation of the GPL? I think not (it violates the benefits of OSS, but not necessarily the GPL). If I am a corporation and do the same, is that a violation? I also think not. By the same token, if some little rugrat gets his hands on our modified code, can we cry foul if he sends it back to the cource tree against our wishes? Yet again, I think not. If we include non-GPL'd code with our modified GPL'd code, what is the time frame required for our releasing the modified GPL'd code? Does adding proprietary code change this time frame? Does my corporate/individual status? I think this whole debacle requires a modification of the GPL to deal with situations such as this. How one would modify it I know do not know.
As far as I am aware, PICS is open. It allows for an infinite number of rating systems, and also for ratings to not exist at all, or at least for us not to see them. There will be individual bodies- Pat Robertson or Focus on the Family- who will develop rating systems they approve of, that blind followers will utilize. By the same token, Anton LaVey's Church of Stan may make a tongue-in-cheek Garfinkel-esque rating system that blocks out all things that are Christ-centered. That doesn't mean I have to use either. If I want a browser that doesn't even pay attention to PICS, I can have one (Mozilla! Yank the code out!). There will be ISPs that allow unfiltered content because there will be people who want it. Hell, AOL will offer unfiltered content, because it will make them money. Unfiltered ISP + unfiltered browser = I don't care about PICS.
Congress convenes again shortly, and I believe export regs are one of the first things on the agenda. How convenient that GPG was released just beforehand.:-)
Apple isn't even shipping the G4s yet. In fact, even though they say they will ship soon, something tells me it's going to be very hard to find a G4 for the next few months. This is especially true of the "advanced" Sawtooth-G4s, as the 400Mhz version is really just a Yosemite-G3 motherboard with a few tweaks (the G4 is pin-compatible with the G3, and no additional hardware is required for its operation- that "extra hardware for 4 streams of data" is just a recompile for AltiVec). Anyway, my guess is Apple disabled the G4 in the BWG3s so that they would be the only effective buyer of G4s until it was being produced in enough quantity to not matter. As an upgrade company, if the G4 won't work in the G3, why would I buy any G4s? It's a defensive maneuvre on Apple's part to make sure that they have enough of a supply of the chip to make the real deal.
Slashdot Mirror
This is assuming that the current system of peer review- i.e. publication in scientific journals, 1-3 months for a reply, 1-3 months for a reply to the reply, etc.- is the best way to do it. I do not believe this to be the case. Corporations, for instance, make advances in science and release their findings via press release, and let the market do the "peer reviewing." I am not saying the peer review system is invalid; it has carried us as far as it has. But for the same reasons that universities are not necessarily keeping up with the times, the scientific community's exclusion of "the rest of us" is both arrogant and stupid. The discourse that is going on here on /. is evidence of this; people are posting their opinions on the matter, people who most likely never would have seen this if it had been shoved into some obscure (or even "popular") journal.
Peer review can occur in many forms. My guess is that the USC scientists have already submitted their findings to a journal. I think the press release was cool; it gives us "laypeople" something to discuss. The clergy always gets upset when that happens...
If I download a bunch of GPL'd code, and change a single letter in it, am I immediately bound to redistribute it? What is the time frame for me having to re-release the code? If I make a change does the rest of the world have to know immediately? The traditional model of Free, OSS is for the public to know what changes are going on in a piece of GPL'd software all the time. If a bunch of friends and I download the Linux kernel, decide to devote a few months to making it Ultra-UNIX-Whoop-De-Doo, and we tell all of our friends (and let some of them have it and test it out) but don't release it to the general public until we feel it's ready, is this a violation of the GPL? I think not (it violates the benefits of OSS, but not necessarily the GPL). If I am a corporation and do the same, is that a violation? I also think not. By the same token, if some little rugrat gets his hands on our modified code, can we cry foul if he sends it back to the cource tree against our wishes? Yet again, I think not. If we include non-GPL'd code with our modified GPL'd code, what is the time frame required for our releasing the modified GPL'd code? Does adding proprietary code change this time frame? Does my corporate/individual status? I think this whole debacle requires a modification of the GPL to deal with situations such as this. How one would modify it I know do not know.
As far as I am aware, PICS is open. It allows for an infinite number of rating systems, and also for ratings to not exist at all, or at least for us not to see them. There will be individual bodies- Pat Robertson or Focus on the Family- who will develop rating systems they approve of, that blind followers will utilize. By the same token, Anton LaVey's Church of Stan may make a tongue-in-cheek Garfinkel-esque rating system that blocks out all things that are Christ-centered. That doesn't mean I have to use either. If I want a browser that doesn't even pay attention to PICS, I can have one (Mozilla! Yank the code out!). There will be ISPs that allow unfiltered content because there will be people who want it. Hell, AOL will offer unfiltered content, because it will make them money. Unfiltered ISP + unfiltered browser = I don't care about PICS.
Congress convenes again shortly, and I believe export regs are one of the first things on the agenda. How convenient that GPG was released just beforehand. :-)
Apple isn't even shipping the G4s yet. In fact, even though they say they will ship soon, something tells me it's going to be very hard to find a G4 for the next few months. This is especially true of the "advanced" Sawtooth-G4s, as the 400Mhz version is really just a Yosemite-G3 motherboard with a few tweaks (the G4 is pin-compatible with the G3, and no additional hardware is required for its operation- that "extra hardware for 4 streams of data" is just a recompile for AltiVec). Anyway, my guess is Apple disabled the G4 in the BWG3s so that they would be the only effective buyer of G4s until it was being produced in enough quantity to not matter. As an upgrade company, if the G4 won't work in the G3, why would I buy any G4s? It's a defensive maneuvre on Apple's part to make sure that they have enough of a supply of the chip to make the real deal.