What I would like to see is if the patent holder then goes after someone for use of the patent and the defendnat challenges the patent in court, and if the defendant is correct and the patent is invalidated- the patent office itself should be liable for court costs, plus any lost revenue due to any possible injunction during the trial.
Enough of these cases and the patent office may begin to reforem itself in when and where it grants a patent.
The DjVu people claim to have a pretty document system that does all the nice display stuff like PS and PDF, and also includes a layer for plain text (for those of us who want to extract it).
The source of this project is all GPLed and it seems (from the outside) to be ready for prime-time.
While I can understand the want for being compatible with other formats, why aren't more people/groups using this format, which (by being GPL) is universally compatible? (And why doesn't Ghostview support it?).
The questions that were asked were usually no less than two or three paragraphs. They were carefully worded, open ended and often multifaceted.
Alton's answers were about two sentences each and only addressed a part of the question.
The answers would have been fine if:
1) This were not an interview (rather than a response to a personal email).
2) We didn't already know he could write (based on his books).
3) He hadn't taken more than three weeks to answer the questions presented to him.
The answers seemed hurried at best, and more than a little terse to the point of being curt. I feel like I'm taking more time to write this comment than he did to write his interview questions.:)
I hate to flame Alton, since he was nice enough to do the interview, but I think I'm actually more disapointed with these answers than I was before the interview.
The problem with this device as it's designed so far is that it only works when looking straight at the object.
In addition, I have serious questions about the resolution of the device (how many sensors and how many light emitters). Will the person look "pixelated" and or will there be some other problem.
Lastly, such a device is not useful in combat situations as many soldiers in such a ground war situation will be outfitted with infr-red detectors, which will probably be able to detect the human behind the suit.
Good idea but has a lot of practical problems (we haven't even discussed the power source).
Does anyone else remember the Internet Coke Machines, that you could finger and it would tell you how much of what kind of coke it had, and how cold it was (based on how long it had been in the machine).
Combine the two concepts (the Vendotron and the Net Accessible inventory) and you have a winner.
Sure, finger would need to be replaced with a web interface, but that can all be scripted...
It used to be the case that Red Hat would GPL all its work. The installer, the RPM system, the tools like Control Panel and whatnot.
When RH bought other companies (like Cygnus), it suddenly stopped saying that, and the source code to those programs was never released.
LSB compliance is a step forward, but at the same time, Red Hat spends a lot of effort working with companies to be "exclusive" in thier "Linux" support. That is, when a company supports one GNU/Linux distribution, they will only support Red Hat.
Although with LSB compliance, this issue will be less important, it also has a serious effect on the rest of the distributions, both commercial and not.
Although you and I are free to use what we prefer at home, I've found a lot of resistance to straying from Red Hat at work.
Red Hat skims the line between being a bad company and not.
One thing is for sure, they've changed a great deal since before they were incorporated.
Am I the only one, when reading the topic of the story, thought of the intro scene of Red Dwarf with the astronaught (Lister?) painting the outside of the ship?
If UCITA laws were enacted in his area, the doctor(s) in question would first have to have opened the book, then be bound to the license which they would then be obligated to either agree to (by becomming a customer) or try to opt-out of somehow by returning the book (unopened?).
I think that the most interesting part of your show to this audience is your emphasis on the science of cooking, from discussion of protein (such as in your angel foodcake episode and your recent souffle episode).
But the other difference in Good Eats is the great emphasis you place on the parts of cooking, that is the elements at a more abstract level, such as use of heat, individual ingredients (which is the topic of many of the shows) and methods of cooking (such as the right way to mix and fold).
This all makes Good Eats interesting for us geeks out there who want to understand the science, but also helps us non-cooking geeks become literate in the supermarket and kitchen.
What gave you the idea to present cooking in this way and do you have any suggestions for other resources that present food and food preparation in the same way?
The idea that only one tactic is appropriate is countrer-productive to the end goal of Freedom.
The idea that if one does not follow your methodologies (not even your philosophy but the methods!) is somehow against your movement is, I'll say again, counter-productive.
If you keep the noise/signal ratio such that no one can hear when you have something reasonable to say, then your message, valid as it may be, will never be heard. Those who hear many messages will tune you out.
The message is on the mark- but the way to deliver that message is with pointed skill rather than a blunt instrument.
I stand by what I've said. You may have the right message, but the presentation is what counts in front of that crowd.
I think there's value in re-examining the ideas of "Intellectual Property". I suggest that if you haven't- you read Richard Stallman's discussions of the history and purpose of copyright.
But let's ignore that issue for a moment and focus on the DRM issue. The question, even for the most fundamental believers in "Intellectual Property" (a term I have serious problems with), isn't what they will want and not want, but with what methods (technological but more importantly legal) they will use to achieve thier goals.
And we, the members of the concerned public (including those in the Free Software Movement) have intelligent, well spoken people who can represent our views. Even, dare I say, Richard Stallman, and Eben Moglen.
We musn't equate good speakers with being moderates. Otherwise we'd have to concede that the roundtable members (including our friend Jack) was a "moderate" on the side of big buisness interests.
I'm in the pics (left of) Vin (the rather large fellow who actually got the roundtable to respond to him directly and have our position heard.
By biggest complaint in the way the situation was handled was that by going SO overboard, the New Yorkers hurt the point. It was important for us to interupt them, to "correct" thier "mistakes" and catch them on thier lies, but often it became less of that and more heckling as well as just making a spectacle of oneself.
That *hurts* the cause. Why? It lets them give the idea that we're just a bunch of kooks.
I think that the way things happened did help- but I certainly would have felt better if some of the attendees on our side had been a bit more low key.
Diesel vehicles will work with biodiesel "out of the box". In fact, biodiesel is the original fuel that diesel engines were designed to use, oil-based fuels came after the engine and refining techniques were used to make it simulate the naturally occuring oils.
Also, biodiesel is less harsh than oil-based diesel, helping the car last longer.
As to the smell- while biodiesel does have an odor, so does petrol.
See a function you think could be better? Too bad.
Want to put this on a computer for a disabled person and then sell it at cost to them? Well you're out of luck.
Want to include this on a distribution for handheld computers running GNU/Linux? You may not be to.
Want to make your own version of the software that is Free? It doesn't even allow that: "Reverse Engineering. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software."
The software is nifty, but I don't see why publically funded software can't be made Free, for the use by the public (they paid for it didn't they!).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's right, the defendnat. It's a sort of protective insect with wings.
Yeah that's the ticket...
- Serge
What I would like to see is if the patent holder then goes after someone for use of the patent and the defendnat challenges the patent in court, and if the defendant is correct and the patent is invalidated- the patent office itself should be liable for court costs, plus any lost revenue due to any possible injunction during the trial.
Enough of these cases and the patent office may begin to reforem itself in when and where it grants a patent.
- Serge Wroclawski
If you saw the movie (Brazil) and bothered to read the RFC, you'll see that the messages passed and fdqns have many references to the film.
If you didn't see the film or read the RFC, I'm afraid I can't help you...
Unless you fill out the correct form and get it stamped.
- Serge Wroclawski
Wow did anyone else notice the Brazil references in RFC 3195?
It's good to know that geek culture still persists and can perimate into even the most serious subjects.
- Serge Wroclawski
How can this comment be redundant when it was the first Vorbis post?
The source of this project is all GPLed and it seems (from the outside) to be ready for prime-time.
While I can understand the want for being compatible with other formats, why aren't more people/groups using this format, which (by being GPL) is universally compatible? (And why doesn't Ghostview support it?).
- Serge Wroclswski
Does anyone really grok in fullness the implications of water on another planet?
Yes, there's also the time:word ratio...
:)
The questions that were asked were usually no less than two or three paragraphs. They were carefully worded, open ended and often multifaceted.
Alton's answers were about two sentences each and only addressed a part of the question.
The answers would have been fine if:
1) This were not an interview (rather than a response to a personal email).
2) We didn't already know he could write (based on his books).
3) He hadn't taken more than three weeks to answer the questions presented to him.
The answers seemed hurried at best, and more than a little terse to the point of being curt. I feel like I'm taking more time to write this comment than he did to write his interview questions.
I hate to flame Alton, since he was nice enough to do the interview, but I think I'm actually more disapointed with these answers than I was before the interview.
- Serge Wroclawski
Your stance on the recording industry and the public is right on, but how can we convince other artists of our viewpoint?
- Serge Wroclawski
Everything is solveable.
The idea in the patent is old. So we only care about the implemtnation, and the implementation looks full of problems.
When it's better and practical- then we should care.
The problem with this device as it's designed so far is that it only works when looking straight at the object.
In addition, I have serious questions about the resolution of the device (how many sensors and how many light emitters). Will the person look "pixelated" and or will there be some other problem.
Lastly, such a device is not useful in combat situations as many soldiers in such a ground war situation will be outfitted with infr-red detectors, which will probably be able to detect the human behind the suit.
Good idea but has a lot of practical problems (we haven't even discussed the power source).
Does anyone else remember the Internet Coke Machines, that you could finger and it would tell you how much of what kind of coke it had, and how cold it was (based on how long it had been in the machine).
Combine the two concepts (the Vendotron and the Net Accessible inventory) and you have a winner.
Sure, finger would need to be replaced with a web interface, but that can all be scripted...
- Serge Wroclawski
Unfortunately, this isn't completely true.
It used to be the case that Red Hat would GPL all its work. The installer, the RPM system, the tools like Control Panel and whatnot.
When RH bought other companies (like Cygnus), it suddenly stopped saying that, and the source code to those programs was never released.
LSB compliance is a step forward, but at the same time, Red Hat spends a lot of effort working with companies to be "exclusive" in thier "Linux" support. That is, when a company supports one GNU/Linux distribution, they will only support Red Hat.
Although with LSB compliance, this issue will be less important, it also has a serious effect on the rest of the distributions, both commercial and not.
Although you and I are free to use what we prefer at home, I've found a lot of resistance to straying from Red Hat at work.
Red Hat skims the line between being a bad company and not.
One thing is for sure, they've changed a great deal since before they were incorporated.
- Serge Wroclawski
Freenet has fproxy, which lets users use a web browser with it.
How much more familiar can thier inteface be?
Am I the only one, when reading the topic of the story, thought of the intro scene of Red Dwarf with the astronaught (Lister?) painting the outside of the ship?
If UCITA laws were enacted in his area, the doctor(s) in question would first have to have opened the book, then be bound to the license which they would then be obligated to either agree to (by becomming a customer) or try to opt-out of somehow by returning the book (unopened?).
- Serge Wroclawski
Mr Brown,
I think that the most interesting part of your show to this audience is your emphasis on the science of cooking, from discussion of protein (such as in your angel foodcake episode and your recent souffle episode).
But the other difference in Good Eats is the great emphasis you place on the parts of cooking, that is the elements at a more abstract level, such as use of heat, individual ingredients (which is the topic of many of the shows) and methods of cooking (such as the right way to mix and fold).
This all makes Good Eats interesting for us geeks out there who want to understand the science, but also helps us non-cooking geeks become literate in the supermarket and kitchen.
What gave you the idea to present cooking in this way and do you have any suggestions for other resources that present food and food preparation in the same way?
- Serge Wroclawski
I don't believe anything Microsoft says.
- Serge Wroclawski
I thought about going to the meetup, but I'm scared of the Slashdot effect...
All those people, all those hundreds, possibly thousands of hits.
So no, I won't be going to the Slashdot Beatup.
- Serge Wroclawski
The idea that only one tactic is appropriate is countrer-productive to the end goal of Freedom.
The idea that if one does not follow your methodologies (not even your philosophy but the methods!) is somehow against your movement is, I'll say again, counter-productive.
If you keep the noise/signal ratio such that no one can hear when you have something reasonable to say, then your message, valid as it may be, will never be heard. Those who hear many messages will tune you out.
The message is on the mark- but the way to deliver that message is with pointed skill rather than a blunt instrument.
I stand by what I've said. You may have the right message, but the presentation is what counts in front of that crowd.
- Serge Wroclawski
I think there's value in re-examining the ideas of "Intellectual Property". I suggest that if you haven't- you read Richard Stallman's discussions of the history and purpose of copyright.
But let's ignore that issue for a moment and focus on the DRM issue. The question, even for the most fundamental believers in "Intellectual Property" (a term I have serious problems with), isn't what they will want and not want, but with what methods (technological but more importantly legal) they will use to achieve thier goals.
And we, the members of the concerned public (including those in the Free Software Movement) have intelligent, well spoken people who can represent our views. Even, dare I say, Richard Stallman, and Eben Moglen.
We musn't equate good speakers with being moderates. Otherwise we'd have to concede that the roundtable members (including our friend Jack) was a "moderate" on the side of big buisness interests.
- Serge Wroclawski
I agree with you for the most part.
I'm in the pics (left of) Vin (the rather large fellow who actually got the roundtable to respond to him directly and have our position heard.
By biggest complaint in the way the situation was handled was that by going SO overboard, the New Yorkers hurt the point. It was important for us to interupt them, to "correct" thier "mistakes" and catch them on thier lies, but often it became less of that and more heckling as well as just making a spectacle of oneself.
That *hurts* the cause. Why? It lets them give the idea that we're just a bunch of kooks.
I think that the way things happened did help- but I certainly would have felt better if some of the attendees on our side had been a bit more low key.
- Serge Wroclawski
You clearly don't know what biodiesel is and how it's different than ethanol.
- Serge Wroclawski
This is unnecessary.
Diesel vehicles will work with biodiesel "out of the box". In fact, biodiesel is the original fuel that diesel engines were designed to use, oil-based fuels came after the engine and refining techniques were used to make it simulate the naturally occuring oils.
Also, biodiesel is less harsh than oil-based diesel, helping the car last longer.
As to the smell- while biodiesel does have an odor, so does petrol.
- Serge Wroclawski
Sadly, this isn't Free Software.
See a function you think could be better? Too bad.
Want to put this on a computer for a disabled person and then sell it at cost to them? Well you're out of luck.
Want to include this on a distribution for handheld computers running GNU/Linux? You may not be to.
Want to make your own version of the software that is Free? It doesn't even allow that:
"Reverse Engineering. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software."
The software is nifty, but I don't see why publically funded software can't be made Free, for the use by the public (they paid for it didn't they!).
Say no to nifty non-freeware.
- Serge Wroclawski