I don't think anyone is saying it's ready to be adopted, except the mis-informed and the FUDers. If you read the email, they propose to make it the starting point for HTML 5, not the finishing point.
If you use their software, then the software will choke when it encounters a disc produced in the future. That disc will contain a revocation list, and when your player finds itself on the revocation list, it will refuse to play all AACS-content (including stuff that previously worked), until you update. If you write your own software without a license, you violate the DMCA.
C2D is based off the P3/M architecture. It's not a dramatic, risky step like Itanium. The issue with Itanium was porting, but C2D follows pre-existing ISAs and ISA extensions like x86-64 and SSE1/2/3. There's nothing unproven about C2D at all.
There was a summer price cut around the time of the C2D launch. These are timed to deal with the launch of the ultra-low-end C2Ds, and the price-cuts expected as the new Core 2 Quadros push C2D prices down. AMD's got nothing new until Q3's Barcelona, so they're fighting better chips with cheaper chips.
Getting video to drop DRM is going to be very hard. The reason is that while there's already a flood of non-DRM'd music out there (CDs) and will be for the foreseeable future, all DVD/BRD/HDDVD releases have some form of encryption, which (even when broken) allow those industries to tightly control legal digital versions on computers. With TV, the industry has plans to implement the broadcast flag, cutting off digital copying (and fair use) at the knees. In short, the music industry has no hope of creating an environment where all content is DRMed, while the video industry is clinging to that belief desparately.
The issue with video quality that they have is that Apple only sells videos in 640x480. There's no mod needed to fix this, all you need to do is get your videos from elsewhere. If you get your 720p videos from the interwebs or from your cable/satellite/OTA or wherever, it'll look just fine on the AppleTV (as long as it's not DRM'd). The issue isn't with the hardware or the software, it's with the videos Apple sells.
To be fair, there's not much to upgrade too. Apple uses Intel's server and laptop chips. It uses the current dual and quad-core server chips, and laptop chips haven't been updated since August, and won't be until a few weeks from now.
You are, however, 100% correct that Leopard and new processors or new models for most computers will be available in 2-3 months. Buying a Mac now instead of in June/July is simply a bad decision.
There are scenarios under which Novell could get an arrangement in the GPLv3 prohibiting new deals but not blocking existing deals. This would make Novell the only company able to have such an MS deal.
Code licensed "version 2 or later" can be moved effortlessly into a GPLv3 kernel. It would still allow for people to use it in a v2 kernel, but it would at least be includable in a GPLv3 kernel, which is what I mean by "can roll over automatically" into a GPLv3-based kernel.
The kernel is currently distributed under GPL v2. Some terms allow for it to be "v2 or later", meaning someone can use the code in a GPLv3 kernel. Software companies could also go to dual-licensing and offer it under v2 or v3. Then you could use that code in either a GPLv2 kernel or a GPLv3 kernel. You can't have a part-v3, part-v2 kernel because of license incompatibilities. Thus a kernel would be offered as either pure v2 or pure v3.
But since you can't just look at a Citizendium article and know that it's reliable (you have to either do the legwork of checking out the "authorities", or trust an institution of unknown integrity to have done it well for you), the only significant difference it has from Wikipedia is a more restrictive contribution policy.
Well, the idea is that ultimately you can eventually trust trust approved articles as you would trust a journal or a teacher or whoever. I mean, at some level, you have to start trusting, and our goal is to give people the option to trust our skill in picking quality editors when they're doing the sort of work they now use WP for. I mean, the goal here isn't to be the source for the graduate thesis or whatever, it is to be the resource people look to when they're curious about something, or when they need extra help understanding a concept, or just as a quick informer. When you stop and think about it, adding a trustable source at that level of knowledge use is good.
Parts of the kernel are licensed "GPL version 2 or later" (which can roll over automatically), and a lot of the lines of code are owned by a few large companies. So you can get a large percentage of the code just by getting Red Hat, IBM, Intel, Novell, etc. on board. That's not all the code, but it would represent a substantial amount of the code without having to go "door to door" with the contributors.
We discuss approvals on talk pages (or in archives). Therefore, you can see every comment an editor made about the article. Each editor links to their user page on every comment. That way, you can also check their credentials.
It's a bit of a trade-off. The advantage of online sources is that they're easier to verify (just click a link) and a lot easier to find. The disadvantage is that they're sometimes less than stellar. Luckily, our experts have experience in their fields (and sometimes in teaching their fields) and so can help recommend relevant books, and are better at finding "traditional" citations from mainstream sources. Most of the sources in approved articles are pretty good. We've compiled information that we think provides a good overview of the subject, and backed it up with what we think are good sources that are both accurate and accessible.
You're free to question our approvers' credentials yourself. That's why their names are available. If you look up Nancy Sculerati (approved Biology and endorsed several other approvals), you'll find that she really is a New York pediatrician with all those published papers and articles she lists on her user page. If you don't want to trust her (for some strange reason) and don't trust the half a dozen other doctors who endorsed that version, then don't use the approved article.
I had the same concern when the project got started, but I've since learned they were unfounded worries. I don't have a PhD, and I'm not a second-class citizen. Heck, I'm not even old enough to drink yet (I'm 20). There's still plenty of ways to help for non-experts, and I haven't seen anyone mistreated because they weren't an editor. -- Zach Pruckowski (Citizendium Executive Committee)
That sticker isn't reliable unless you check up on that expert, find out who they are, and how reliable their other assertions have been. Sort of the way that a set of fully referenced facts aren't reliable unless you check up on the sources cited.
That is precisely what we do. We don't just use email addresses, and I wish the article hadn't given that opinion. We check into our editors and make sure they're really good in their fields. Look up our editors, and you'll find that they really are experts, not just random people with edu addresses.
People forget those sorts of things when they hide behind a pseudonym and feel like whatever they say can't be traced back to them. On the other hand, when people sign up with their real names and verifiable IDs, they get the distinct impression that it's as real as offline stuff, and act accordingly. I'd say anything I write on slashdot, or citizendium, or any forum to you in person. As far as I'm concerned, I already am.
We work hard to create an atmosphere where responsibility and etiquette are valued. Atmosphere plays a major role in behavior. I act differently at the pizza place with my friends from my high school days compared to at a nice restaurant with a girl (or with colleagues). We aim to cultivate a better atmosphere.
While it's possible someone who has faked their way as a doctor into multiple respectable publications or got hired as a professor by the US Navy could get by us (and we'd certainly ban him/her and investigate every edit when we found out), a.edu address is neither a necessary nor sufficient criteria for being an editor (expert) on Citizendium.
So go ahead and sign up, and list your experiences, and how we can verify them. We'd be happy to have an automotive engineer. In fact, someone who doesn't have a degree in the field just started working on a few automobile articles a few days ago. Why don't you join and give him a hand?
"Appeal to authority" is listed among "logical fallacies" for a reason. If your point is good, if you're correct and you have the background to argue your point well, then a know-nothing shouldn't be able to stand against you in a debate. If you can't debate your point, and you need to fall back on, "I'm a professor at [such-and-such] College!" then you probably don't really know what you're talking about anyway.
Correct. Being an expert does not preclude you from having to prove yourself. And no one expert has the ability to run roughshod over everyone, simply because the other experts wouldn't allow it. We still fully support and require "demonstratably good information", and people who sign up and apply to be editors (experts) generally know how to provide it in a reasonable manner. What people often forget is that a lot of academics (and experts are not all academics by any means) are forced in their daily lives to provide good sources and back up their points. They don't forget how to do that when they turn on their computers.
1) You're correct that no one is infallible, but we have two or more experts on every approved article. That certainly helps reduce the odds of mistakes. That keeps one expert from running roughshod over a whole field too.
2) Having credentials does not excuse people from citing sources. Fortunately, most people with credentials understand "reliable sources" better than most others. In the last three months, I haven't run into the issue of an expert saying "I've got a PhD, I don't need a source"
3) We have articles which are approved, and others which are not. This allows for articles on Happy Days or articles that aren't up to snuff yet to exist, while preventing negative drift of good articles by locking those articles from unreviewed changes.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone is saying it's ready to be adopted, except the mis-informed and the FUDers. If you read the email, they propose to make it the starting point for HTML 5, not the finishing point.
If you use their software, then the software will choke when it encounters a disc produced in the future. That disc will contain a revocation list, and when your player finds itself on the revocation list, it will refuse to play all AACS-content (including stuff that previously worked), until you update. If you write your own software without a license, you violate the DMCA.
C2D is based off the P3/M architecture. It's not a dramatic, risky step like Itanium. The issue with Itanium was porting, but C2D follows pre-existing ISAs and ISA extensions like x86-64 and SSE1/2/3. There's nothing unproven about C2D at all.
There was a summer price cut around the time of the C2D launch. These are timed to deal with the launch of the ultra-low-end C2Ds, and the price-cuts expected as the new Core 2 Quadros push C2D prices down. AMD's got nothing new until Q3's Barcelona, so they're fighting better chips with cheaper chips.
Getting video to drop DRM is going to be very hard. The reason is that while there's already a flood of non-DRM'd music out there (CDs) and will be for the foreseeable future, all DVD/BRD/HDDVD releases have some form of encryption, which (even when broken) allow those industries to tightly control legal digital versions on computers. With TV, the industry has plans to implement the broadcast flag, cutting off digital copying (and fair use) at the knees. In short, the music industry has no hope of creating an environment where all content is DRMed, while the video industry is clinging to that belief desparately.
The issue with video quality that they have is that Apple only sells videos in 640x480. There's no mod needed to fix this, all you need to do is get your videos from elsewhere. If you get your 720p videos from the interwebs or from your cable/satellite/OTA or wherever, it'll look just fine on the AppleTV (as long as it's not DRM'd). The issue isn't with the hardware or the software, it's with the videos Apple sells.
To be fair, there's not much to upgrade too. Apple uses Intel's server and laptop chips. It uses the current dual and quad-core server chips, and laptop chips haven't been updated since August, and won't be until a few weeks from now.
You are, however, 100% correct that Leopard and new processors or new models for most computers will be available in 2-3 months. Buying a Mac now instead of in June/July is simply a bad decision.
BECAUSE I SAID SO
That's what she said...
There are scenarios under which Novell could get an arrangement in the GPLv3 prohibiting new deals but not blocking existing deals. This would make Novell the only company able to have such an MS deal.
Code licensed "version 2 or later" can be moved effortlessly into a GPLv3 kernel. It would still allow for people to use it in a v2 kernel, but it would at least be includable in a GPLv3 kernel, which is what I mean by "can roll over automatically" into a GPLv3-based kernel.
The kernel is currently distributed under GPL v2. Some terms allow for it to be "v2 or later", meaning someone can use the code in a GPLv3 kernel. Software companies could also go to dual-licensing and offer it under v2 or v3. Then you could use that code in either a GPLv2 kernel or a GPLv3 kernel. You can't have a part-v3, part-v2 kernel because of license incompatibilities. Thus a kernel would be offered as either pure v2 or pure v3.
But since you can't just look at a Citizendium article and know that it's reliable (you have to either do the legwork of checking out the "authorities", or trust an institution of unknown integrity to have done it well for you), the only significant difference it has from Wikipedia is a more restrictive contribution policy.
Well, the idea is that ultimately you can eventually trust trust approved articles as you would trust a journal or a teacher or whoever. I mean, at some level, you have to start trusting, and our goal is to give people the option to trust our skill in picking quality editors when they're doing the sort of work they now use WP for. I mean, the goal here isn't to be the source for the graduate thesis or whatever, it is to be the resource people look to when they're curious about something, or when they need extra help understanding a concept, or just as a quick informer. When you stop and think about it, adding a trustable source at that level of knowledge use is good.
Parts of the kernel are licensed "GPL version 2 or later" (which can roll over automatically), and a lot of the lines of code are owned by a few large companies. So you can get a large percentage of the code just by getting Red Hat, IBM, Intel, Novell, etc. on board. That's not all the code, but it would represent a substantial amount of the code without having to go "door to door" with the contributors.
We discuss approvals on talk pages (or in archives). Therefore, you can see every comment an editor made about the article. Each editor links to their user page on every comment. That way, you can also check their credentials.
It's a bit of a trade-off. The advantage of online sources is that they're easier to verify (just click a link) and a lot easier to find. The disadvantage is that they're sometimes less than stellar. Luckily, our experts have experience in their fields (and sometimes in teaching their fields) and so can help recommend relevant books, and are better at finding "traditional" citations from mainstream sources. Most of the sources in approved articles are pretty good. We've compiled information that we think provides a good overview of the subject, and backed it up with what we think are good sources that are both accurate and accessible.
Zach Pruckowski - Citizendium Executive Committee
You're free to question our approvers' credentials yourself. That's why their names are available. If you look up Nancy Sculerati (approved Biology and endorsed several other approvals), you'll find that she really is a New York pediatrician with all those published papers and articles she lists on her user page. If you don't want to trust her (for some strange reason) and don't trust the half a dozen other doctors who endorsed that version, then don't use the approved article.
I had the same concern when the project got started, but I've since learned they were unfounded worries. I don't have a PhD, and I'm not a second-class citizen. Heck, I'm not even old enough to drink yet (I'm 20). There's still plenty of ways to help for non-experts, and I haven't seen anyone mistreated because they weren't an editor. -- Zach Pruckowski (Citizendium Executive Committee)
That sticker isn't reliable unless you check up on that expert, find out who they are, and how reliable their other assertions have been. Sort of the way that a set of fully referenced facts aren't reliable unless you check up on the sources cited.
That is precisely what we do. We don't just use email addresses, and I wish the article hadn't given that opinion. We check into our editors and make sure they're really good in their fields. Look up our editors, and you'll find that they really are experts, not just random people with edu addresses.
People forget those sorts of things when they hide behind a pseudonym and feel like whatever they say can't be traced back to them. On the other hand, when people sign up with their real names and verifiable IDs, they get the distinct impression that it's as real as offline stuff, and act accordingly. I'd say anything I write on slashdot, or citizendium, or any forum to you in person. As far as I'm concerned, I already am.
We work hard to create an atmosphere where responsibility and etiquette are valued. Atmosphere plays a major role in behavior. I act differently at the pizza place with my friends from my high school days compared to at a nice restaurant with a girl (or with colleagues). We aim to cultivate a better atmosphere.
While it's possible someone who has faked their way as a doctor into multiple respectable publications or got hired as a professor by the US Navy could get by us (and we'd certainly ban him/her and investigate every edit when we found out), a .edu address is neither a necessary nor sufficient criteria for being an editor (expert) on Citizendium.
Zach Pruckowski - Citizendium Executive Committee
A .edu address is neither a necessary nor sufficient criteria for being an editor (expert) on Citizendium.
Zach Pruckowski - Citizendium Executive Committee
Having a .edu address is neither necessary nor sufficient criteria to become a Citizendium editor.
Zach Pruckowski - Citizendium Executive Committee
So go ahead and sign up, and list your experiences, and how we can verify them. We'd be happy to have an automotive engineer. In fact, someone who doesn't have a degree in the field just started working on a few automobile articles a few days ago. Why don't you join and give him a hand?
Zach Pruckowski - Citizendium Executive Committee
"Appeal to authority" is listed among "logical fallacies" for a reason. If your point is good, if you're correct and you have the background to argue your point well, then a know-nothing shouldn't be able to stand against you in a debate. If you can't debate your point, and you need to fall back on, "I'm a professor at [such-and-such] College!" then you probably don't really know what you're talking about anyway.
Correct. Being an expert does not preclude you from having to prove yourself. And no one expert has the ability to run roughshod over everyone, simply because the other experts wouldn't allow it. We still fully support and require "demonstratably good information", and people who sign up and apply to be editors (experts) generally know how to provide it in a reasonable manner. What people often forget is that a lot of academics (and experts are not all academics by any means) are forced in their daily lives to provide good sources and back up their points. They don't forget how to do that when they turn on their computers.
Zach Pruckowski - Citizendium Executive Committee
Three quick comments:
1) You're correct that no one is infallible, but we have two or more experts on every approved article. That certainly helps reduce the odds of mistakes. That keeps one expert from running roughshod over a whole field too.
2) Having credentials does not excuse people from citing sources. Fortunately, most people with credentials understand "reliable sources" better than most others. In the last three months, I haven't run into the issue of an expert saying "I've got a PhD, I don't need a source"
3) We have articles which are approved, and others which are not. This allows for articles on Happy Days or articles that aren't up to snuff yet to exist, while preventing negative drift of good articles by locking those articles from unreviewed changes.
Zach Pruckowski - Citizendium Executive Committee