You know.. the one thing that pretty consistently gets left out when we start talking about genetics is what you can't get from genetics.
Ethical, moral, conscientious behaviour. If your kid is brilliant but an immoral person he/she may be successful but do people, in the long run, see this person (and their parents) in a positive or negative light? (I'm aware that studies indicate that some characteristics that result in criminal behaviour can be tracked to certain gene combinations)
Reminds me of how people can't stand the BSD license because *someone else* might benefit. Or chess parents frothing at the thought of their kids being beat. The 'first in line' syndrome. Parents have it and in excess quantities and often abuse it.
I'm all for making sure kids don't start out one step behind other kids in terms of success(genetics), but especially todays parents must realize that the single most important thing is to teach their kids to be good people. I'm sure this is a 'duh' for most people but looking around would tell you that a lot of people don't get it.
Anyways, it's just a point that gets lost in genetics discussions.
Depends entirely on your viewpoint and the circumstances. If you can be hurt by others commercializing your software then the choice is obvious. If you want any developer for any reason then the choice is equally easy. If you have a deep personal belief that all code should be and remain free then the choice is again easy.
GPLed software is not free in the anyone can do what he/she pleases view. It is free in the sense that no one can subvert it for his/her own public uses.
With (almost)truly free licenses like the BSD license the thing people seem to object to is the purpose of the license. You are allowed to make your project closed and commercial. This is not a drawback nor a feature. It is entirely dependant on your position and point of view. If you think all code should always be available then you of course dislike this license.
Software ultimately fulfills the needs of a customer. Sometimes that customer is the developer, other times it is end users, and sometimes it is both develoepr and users. I fail to see how the GPL is more free to the end user. The end user is not even involved with the code (maybe to compile it). It is however, sometimes, more *beneficial* to the end user. This is entirely dependant on having competent developers.
It seems to me that the vast majority of "Open" licenses are targeted almost entirely at developers. As others have said, the end user (unless a developer) doesn't care what the license is. They want a working product so they can get work done or have fun.
That's ridiculous. The GPL is restrictive. The restriction is to keep source access to anyone who purchases the product and to keep GPLed code GPLed. If that's not a restriction then you need to go check the dictionary.
Whether it is a good license or not depends on the software and use but please don't go around telling people that the GPL is not restrictive.
Sadly most people don't / can't think like that. IT seems that at least the vocal users *must* have 'their' OS be the best. Linux users in particular insist that Linux be not only the equivalent of a decathalete but a decathalete that also wins the gold medal in every individual event.
Last time I checked just about everything user oriented for Linux was 'playing catchup' to MS. Now, the server side may be pretty much 'there' but the Desktop space is certainly playing catchup. So my point is that whether the intention is there or not Desktop Linux is in the de facto state of playing catchup.
The word I would use is practical. Sure, RC5 seems to be relatively secure. But in 5 to 10 more years it probably won't be. Plus you have a known chance (remote though it may be) of 'wining'. With SETI it's a shot in the dark not only factoring in location, but also time with completely unknown odds.
Especially after I heard from the project director that SETI@Home essentially had a 2-3 year life and that they've already scanned through everything they need to, any interest whatsoever dropped off. It's interesting and the payoff could be huge, but it's just not my cup of tea.
They're whole approach and assumption is that any intelligence out there is *actively* seeking and trying to contact other people. This means a repeated signal that is not natural. This is the only reasonable approach to take on the matter. When you look at the classic equations to determine the existence of life it makes sense. The probability of accidental discovery is ludicrously low. Thus they'll recrunch data packets until they can't see any patterns for each section of the sky then give up for a while. Haphazard perhads, but the only resonable way. Also they don't have all that much money if I heard right. Most of the equipment and such was made via donations (and the thousands of helpful SETI users).
Also, I was under the impression that they are going to be stopping the collection of data soon. The way it was explained to me is that the Arecibo observatory has, in the time that the data has been collected, scanned every piece of the sky at least three times which is the number they were seeking. Also, they are crunching the data in real-time. The next big step for the team is to get access to data from the southern hemisphere (from Australia probably).
First of all I'm not a big fan of SETI@Home. I can see it's value and use but the ET angle on the project didn't motivate me as it did other. No biggie, personal preference.
The point I'm interested in is that essentially the 'search' is over. Unless things have changed since I last heard, they are just re-analyzing all of their data from as many different angles as possible. This is a good thing from the standpoint of science and verification but it would seem that a good deal of the excitement and newness of the project is gone. What they need after they exhaust the data that they have collected is to get access to the southern hemisphere. More of the milkway can be seen from the southern hemisphere (and thus a higher liklihood of 'interesting' signals) compared to the nothern hemisphere.
And that PCI card is a piece of junk unless either the SETI@Home cpu power has dropped off (they were crunching stuff in real-time) or you insist on improving your stats. It didn't seem from the Ars article that the new client was slower than the current client.
I've wondered if we have enough bandwidth now to have a near earth orbit object search program developed. Something much more immediately useful than SETI, and frankly, more important. As anyone who's seen those numerous asteroid collision disaster specials knows there are precious few people and little money to look for these objects.
Not to mention that Seti@Home is essentially 'over' unless they can get time and data from the southern hemisphere. The project goals have been reached, they're wrapping it up, they're analyzing data and doing followups, running out of storage and perhaps money, and so forth.
(Unless there's some news that's come out in the last 3 months to the contrary.) This info is from a talk by Dr. Anderson that I attended in the spring. If anyone has info to the contrary I'm listening.
That's about the most ridiculous argument I can see anyone throwing at someone. "Go write it". If I want to patch in a minor modification to say, my icq program, or my text editor, fine, most intermediate programmers can do that. But go take an engine and write a game with it? With all due respect, maybe YOU can do that but 99% or programmers have no interest, no time, no resources, and more common sense to take that argument seriously. Have you seen how CRAPPY most 3d games are??? These people got PAID to do this with a budget, experience, and time, and motivation, and you still get stuff like Daikatana.
If you just don't want to hear the whining fine. Neither do I. I don't want to hear whining about how closed source/MS/RIAA/MPAA/cheese/KDE/Gnome sucks then. (not directed specifically to the author, just all those who make this argument in general). And yes, I know I'm a hypocrite, just letting you see another POV.
It's part of the SETI@Home plan to re-analyze the data packets. I was fortunate to hear a talk from the chief computer architect of SETI@Home and essentially the project is over. They're done mapping what they can from the telescope and the only real possibility seems to be to gain access to some in Australia (to get a view of the Southern Hemisphere). Now they are concentrating on validating the original results. The project has mapped radio data from all patches of the sky (that it can) at least 3 times or more and so they are finished. Also they are running out of tapes to store the data on. And they take up more bandwidth than any other source on the Berkeley campus...
The stupidity of the device is that the SEETI@Home project has enough computer power to process packets in faster than real-time. Should have done a 'is this a product we need' study first.
Is it already a port or is it GOING TO BE PORTED. It would seem to be the later. Bleh, Slashdot posters have mastered the art of misleading headlines. Also, even Linus's quote in the press release is in the wrong tense.
Not that I personally can usually tell the difference (I'm not too good in the ears) but have you tried mp3s at 160 or higher? Most of my MP3 collecting friends refuse anything lower than 160.
You've also hit the nail on the head. While the stealing is a valid concern it's the lack of control that RIAA has over who the consumer sees and hears that they are probably most worried about. Being able to basically get away with collusion for decades is finally going to end and they're going to fight it to the bitter end.
The most annoying thing about this entire ordeal is that neither side is innocent of wrongdoing so it's hard to take a moral high road. A literal den of thieves.
Probably the single most important application for non-MS/Mac users and it's still not done or even really very acceptable. This despite anyone being able to contribute to the project (does the phrase: 'here's the code, go fix/add it yourself' sound familiar?) and having a support base (talent pool) of thousands (millions?) of users. I imagine that the urge to 'scratch that itch' has hit many a programmer.
Maybe I'm a complete cluebie, but the Mozilla.org page sure seems like anyone can help out in almost anywhichway. Sounds like OSS at its worst (project leader bails, MS - the *enemy* marches onward, etc). Mozilla is going to be a wonderful case study for people in software engineering and OSS/commercial software. I'm thinking mostly from the view of a lagging project from which some good things come.
When done Mozilla *should* rule. It *should* be capable of things that are crucially beneficial to *ix users (not just in the web sense). But as far as the Windows platform it will take a remarkable marketing and FUD campaign for it to recover its market share. That or AOL's 20+ million users, a thought makes all of us 'free' OS users so very very happy.
Fight fire with fire... strangest of bed fellows... yada yada yada.
I find it ironic that Mozilla will have to rely on a largley despised corporation to achieve any market penetration. While Apache seems to be the glowing posterboy for OSS Mozilla seems to be giving it a big black eye. It further crystallizes my view that OSS is generally good only once you have a working project in place. Then it can apply the wonders of porting, quick fixes, many eyes, etc... but for core development I don't see many projects on par with commercial endeavors.
I'm sure there are good counterexamples. I'd like to hear about them since I obviously haven't used them.
Sadly marketspeak will win over accuracy. I listened to Mac OS X be referred to as a Linux-based OS. Whether the person knew the truth or not was irrelevent, he was in marketing.
Faster processors by and large mean less battery life. This is why most WinCE decives need to be recharged daily but Palm devices last for weeks before they need new batteries. Also, heat dissipation becomes a factor. I was holding a Cassiopeia(WinCE) and the thing was warm enough to make my palms sweat. Not a good way to avoid dropping the thing.
And what exactly would the extra processing power be used for? Games? Running rc5? So far as I can tell everyone that I work with uses these for simple organization/info tasks which require zilch in terms of CPU power.
Ahh, but one place that it would useful is voice recognition. That would suck up a lot of proccessing cycles. Yes, that would be justify an increase in processor power.
A paperback book would be too big. It would be an ideal size for use but not for portability. Think about how most people carry around a palm. It's either in their bags or in their pockets. How many people (especially men) are going to carry around something that they can't put in their pocket or clip onto your belt? You'll lose it, drop it, forget it, etc.
Aren't these things supposed to be small, portable, light, long lasting, etc? What good is it to have those goals then turn out a bigger screen? Friggin sub-notebooks or webpads are what you larger screen guys want. Leave the screens size alone, or even shrink it. Ideally the thing would be one screen the size of a wallet and unbreakable.
I like my Visor, but sometimes, for the sake of portability, I want it to be a bit smaller, either that or I need to buy pants with bigger pockets.
Let me say this again: PORTABILITY is what these things are about. Anything that's a hassle to get carried around doesn't. The grey area between 'carry in/on my pocket/belt'(Palms, pagers) and 'big enough that it requires a bag'(notebooks) is NOT where you want a product to be. Not when it's supposed to be portable.
Sure he doesn't quite seem to 'get' OSS but I'd venture that a huge portion of people trying to get real work done dont't have the time, money, or expertiese(sp?) to go fix stuff on their own. When you're up to your eyes in your own project do you think you have time to go muck around and become familiar enough in another to be comfortable enough to send a patch? Would you have the first clue what to fix in a compiler if it was acting buggy? While I code a fair bit I sure as hell wouldn't.
IEEE and ACM have documented codes of ethics. Go lok em upat their respective web-sites. Engineers have had codes of ethics for many years (you generally need these when you make things that involve safety).
Slashdot Mirror
You know.. the one thing that pretty consistently gets left out when we start talking about genetics is what you can't get from genetics.
Ethical, moral, conscientious behaviour. If your kid is brilliant but an immoral person he/she may be successful but do people, in the long run, see this person (and their parents) in a positive or negative light? (I'm aware that studies indicate that some characteristics that result in criminal behaviour can be tracked to certain gene combinations)
Reminds me of how people can't stand the BSD license because *someone else* might benefit. Or chess parents frothing at the thought of their kids being beat. The 'first in line' syndrome. Parents have it and in excess quantities and often abuse it.
I'm all for making sure kids don't start out one step behind other kids in terms of success(genetics), but especially todays parents must realize that the single most important thing is to teach their kids to be good people. I'm sure this is a 'duh' for most people but looking around would tell you that a lot of people don't get it.
Anyways, it's just a point that gets lost in genetics discussions.
Depends entirely on your viewpoint and the circumstances. If you can be hurt by others commercializing your software then the choice is obvious. If you want any developer for any reason then the choice is equally easy. If you have a deep personal belief that all code should be and remain free then the choice is again easy.
GPLed software is not free in the anyone can do what he/she pleases view. It is free in the sense that no one can subvert it for his/her own public uses.
With (almost)truly free licenses like the BSD license the thing people seem to object to is the purpose of the license. You are allowed to make your project closed and commercial. This is not a drawback nor a feature. It is entirely dependant on your position and point of view. If you think all code should always be available then you of course dislike this license.
Software ultimately fulfills the needs of a customer. Sometimes that customer is the developer, other times it is end users, and sometimes it is both develoepr and users. I fail to see how the GPL is more free to the end user. The end user is not even involved with the code (maybe to compile it). It is however, sometimes, more *beneficial* to the end user. This is entirely dependant on having competent developers.
It seems to me that the vast majority of "Open" licenses are targeted almost entirely at developers. As others have said, the end user (unless a developer) doesn't care what the license is. They want a working product so they can get work done or have fun.
That's ridiculous. The GPL is restrictive. The restriction is to keep source access to anyone who purchases the product and to keep GPLed code GPLed. If that's not a restriction then you need to go check the dictionary.
Whether it is a good license or not depends on the software and use but please don't go around telling people that the GPL is not restrictive.
Sadly most people don't / can't think like that. IT seems that at least the vocal users *must* have 'their' OS be the best. Linux users in particular insist that Linux be not only the equivalent of a decathalete but a decathalete that also wins the gold medal in every individual event.
Last time I checked just about everything user oriented for Linux was 'playing catchup' to MS. Now, the server side may be pretty much 'there' but the Desktop space is certainly playing catchup. So my point is that whether the intention is there or not Desktop Linux is in the de facto state of playing catchup.
The word I would use is practical. Sure, RC5 seems to be relatively secure. But in 5 to 10 more years it probably won't be. Plus you have a known chance (remote though it may be) of 'wining'. With SETI it's a shot in the dark not only factoring in location, but also time with completely unknown odds.
Especially after I heard from the project director that SETI@Home essentially had a 2-3 year life and that they've already scanned through everything they need to, any interest whatsoever dropped off. It's interesting and the payoff could be huge, but it's just not my cup of tea.
They're whole approach and assumption is that any intelligence out there is *actively* seeking and trying to contact other people. This means a repeated signal that is not natural. This is the only reasonable approach to take on the matter. When you look at the classic equations to determine the existence of life it makes sense. The probability of accidental discovery is ludicrously low. Thus they'll recrunch data packets until they can't see any patterns for each section of the sky then give up for a while. Haphazard perhads, but the only resonable way. Also they don't have all that much money if I heard right. Most of the equipment and such was made via donations (and the thousands of helpful SETI users).
Also, I was under the impression that they are going to be stopping the collection of data soon. The way it was explained to me is that the Arecibo observatory has, in the time that the data has been collected, scanned every piece of the sky at least three times which is the number they were seeking. Also, they are crunching the data in real-time. The next big step for the team is to get access to data from the southern hemisphere (from Australia probably).
First of all I'm not a big fan of SETI@Home. I can see it's value and use but the ET angle on the project didn't motivate me as it did other. No biggie, personal preference.
The point I'm interested in is that essentially the 'search' is over. Unless things have changed since I last heard, they are just re-analyzing all of their data from as many different angles as possible. This is a good thing from the standpoint of science and verification but it would seem that a good deal of the excitement and newness of the project is gone. What they need after they exhaust the data that they have collected is to get access to the southern hemisphere. More of the milkway can be seen from the southern hemisphere (and thus a higher liklihood of 'interesting' signals) compared to the nothern hemisphere.
And that PCI card is a piece of junk unless either the SETI@Home cpu power has dropped off (they were crunching stuff in real-time) or you insist on improving your stats. It didn't seem from the Ars article that the new client was slower than the current client.
I've wondered if we have enough bandwidth now to have a near earth orbit object search program developed. Something much more immediately useful than SETI, and frankly, more important. As anyone who's seen those numerous asteroid collision disaster specials knows there are precious few people and little money to look for these objects.
Not to mention that Seti@Home is essentially 'over' unless they can get time and data from the southern hemisphere. The project goals have been reached, they're wrapping it up, they're analyzing data and doing followups, running out of storage and perhaps money, and so forth.
(Unless there's some news that's come out in the last 3 months to the contrary.) This info is from a talk by Dr. Anderson that I attended in the spring. If anyone has info to the contrary I'm listening.
That's about the most ridiculous argument I can see anyone throwing at someone. "Go write it". If I want to patch in a minor modification to say, my icq program, or my text editor, fine, most intermediate programmers can do that. But go take an engine and write a game with it? With all due respect, maybe YOU can do that but 99% or programmers have no interest, no time, no resources, and more common sense to take that argument seriously. Have you seen how CRAPPY most 3d games are??? These people got PAID to do this with a budget, experience, and time, and motivation, and you still get stuff like Daikatana.
If you just don't want to hear the whining fine. Neither do I. I don't want to hear whining about how closed source/MS/RIAA/MPAA/cheese/KDE/Gnome sucks then. (not directed specifically to the author, just all those who make this argument in general). And yes, I know I'm a hypocrite, just letting you see another POV.
It's part of the SETI@Home plan to re-analyze the data packets. I was fortunate to hear a talk from the chief computer architect of SETI@Home and essentially the project is over. They're done mapping what they can from the telescope and the only real possibility seems to be to gain access to some in Australia (to get a view of the Southern Hemisphere). Now they are concentrating on validating the original results. The project has mapped radio data from all patches of the sky (that it can) at least 3 times or more and so they are finished. Also they are running out of tapes to store the data on. And they take up more bandwidth than any other source on the Berkeley campus...
The stupidity of the device is that the SEETI@Home project has enough computer power to process packets in faster than real-time. Should have done a 'is this a product we need' study first.
Is it already a port or is it GOING TO BE PORTED. It would seem to be the later. Bleh, Slashdot posters have mastered the art of misleading headlines. Also, even Linus's quote in the press release is in the wrong tense.
Not that I personally can usually tell the difference (I'm not too good in the ears) but have you tried mp3s at 160 or higher? Most of my MP3 collecting friends refuse anything lower than 160.
You've also hit the nail on the head. While the stealing is a valid concern it's the lack of control that RIAA has over who the consumer sees and hears that they are probably most worried about. Being able to basically get away with collusion for decades is finally going to end and they're going to fight it to the bitter end.
The most annoying thing about this entire ordeal is that neither side is innocent of wrongdoing so it's hard to take a moral high road. A literal den of thieves.
I'd laugh about Mozilla but it's quite sad.
Probably the single most important application for non-MS/Mac users and it's still not done or even really very acceptable. This despite anyone being able to contribute to the project (does the phrase: 'here's the code, go fix/add it yourself' sound familiar?) and having a support base (talent pool) of thousands (millions?) of users. I imagine that the urge to 'scratch that itch' has hit many a programmer.
Maybe I'm a complete cluebie, but the Mozilla.org page sure seems like anyone can help out in almost anywhichway. Sounds like OSS at its worst (project leader bails, MS - the *enemy* marches onward, etc). Mozilla is going to be a wonderful case study for people in software engineering and OSS/commercial software. I'm thinking mostly from the view of a lagging project from which some good things come.
When done Mozilla *should* rule. It *should* be capable of things that are crucially beneficial to *ix users (not just in the web sense). But as far as the Windows platform it will take a remarkable marketing and FUD campaign for it to recover its market share. That or AOL's 20+ million users, a thought makes all of us 'free' OS users so very very happy.
Fight fire with fire... strangest of bed fellows... yada yada yada.
I find it ironic that Mozilla will have to rely on a largley despised corporation to achieve any market penetration. While Apache seems to be the glowing posterboy for OSS Mozilla seems to be giving it a big black eye. It further crystallizes my view that OSS is generally good only once you have a working project in place. Then it can apply the wonders of porting, quick fixes, many eyes, etc... but for core development I don't see many projects on par with commercial endeavors.
I'm sure there are good counterexamples. I'd like to hear about them since I obviously haven't used them.
I don't know if accuracy is important at all with Lucas, but in the Star Wars books series Boba Fett is a man.
Sadly marketspeak will win over accuracy. I listened to Mac OS X be referred to as a Linux-based OS. Whether the person knew the truth or not was irrelevent, he was in marketing.
Faster processors by and large mean less battery life. This is why most WinCE decives need to be recharged daily but Palm devices last for weeks before they need new batteries. Also, heat dissipation becomes a factor. I was holding a Cassiopeia(WinCE) and the thing was warm enough to make my palms sweat. Not a good way to avoid dropping the thing.
And what exactly would the extra processing power be used for? Games? Running rc5? So far as I can tell everyone that I work with uses these for simple organization/info tasks which require zilch in terms of CPU power.
Ahh, but one place that it would useful is voice recognition. That would suck up a lot of proccessing cycles. Yes, that would be justify an increase in processor power.
A paperback book would be too big. It would be an ideal size for use but not for portability. Think about how most people carry around a palm. It's either in their bags or in their pockets. How many people (especially men) are going to carry around something that they can't put in their pocket or clip onto your belt? You'll lose it, drop it, forget it, etc.
Aren't these things supposed to be small, portable, light, long lasting, etc? What good is it to have those goals then turn out a bigger screen? Friggin sub-notebooks or webpads are what you larger screen guys want. Leave the screens size alone, or even shrink it. Ideally the thing would be one screen the size of a wallet and unbreakable.
I like my Visor, but sometimes, for the sake of portability, I want it to be a bit smaller, either that or I need to buy pants with bigger pockets.
Let me say this again: PORTABILITY is what these things are about. Anything that's a hassle to get carried around doesn't. The grey area between 'carry in/on my pocket/belt'(Palms, pagers) and 'big enough that it requires a bag'(notebooks) is NOT where you want a product to be. Not when it's supposed to be portable.
Sure he doesn't quite seem to 'get' OSS but I'd venture that a huge portion of people trying to get real work done dont't have the time, money, or expertiese(sp?) to go fix stuff on their own. When you're up to your eyes in your own project do you think you have time to go muck around and become familiar enough in another to be comfortable enough to send a patch? Would you have the first clue what to fix in a compiler if it was acting buggy? While I code a fair bit I sure as hell wouldn't.
I tend to agree but it is nice to have a chance in hell of guessing a domain name.
IEEE and ACM have documented codes of ethics. Go lok em upat their respective web-sites. Engineers have had codes of ethics for many years (you generally need these when you make things that involve safety).
Yet you openly invite a flamewar in your wording.
That would be because they need money, no? Might want to remember that when everyone wants handouts... Someone pays for 'free' stuff at some point.