More likely is that there isn't a translation yet. There's bits and fragments of translated text, I'm sure, but they're not likely to release a translation until they've scanned and cleaned up as much of the text as they can.
This isn't malice, this is doing things more methodically than you'd like.
Except really, that's the look of now. The look of the future will be stranger still, and designed to conform to what the perception of even further in the future will look like.
See also: Darwine, which has been working on integrating Wine with QEMU, for running on PPC, for some time now. There doesn't seem to any word on it's future in light of OpenDarwin closing, but I suspect they'll continue their work.
Exactly. GPL is to promote open source, BSD is to promote good code. BSD doesn't need to be as big as Linux to do what it's trying to do, it punches well above it's weight because of the difference in goals. Personally, I think OpenBSD is one of the most important open source projects out there for this reason. Tiny market share, but massive influence, and that's the way they want it.
Or, to put it another way, GPL is for creating software. BSD is for creating standards.
Somehow I don't think the end of OpenDarwin is going to mean Apple will stop lifting code from the BSDs.
Why should it? BSD is not and never has been about creating a world seperate from commercial software. They're not "lifting" the code, they're using it according to it's liscence, which is something nearly every vendor, commerical or not, does, if only for OpenBSD's ssh implementation.
Absolutely. I've not cared for anything out of lucas since they stopped making adventure games.
But that's an era gone past, I fear. Adventure games have their niche, but I don't think we'll ever see more than sporadic indie releases anytime soon. Even Myst's closed up shop.
Re:EULA - Weapons of Mass Destruction??
on
Driving Plan 9
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
That EULA no longer applies, it's legitimately open source now. That was back when Lucent still controlled it very carefully.
This is a philosophical problem that's bothered me a lot, but I've since stopped worring about it. Here's a question for you: Which interpretation of quantum mechanics do you prefer? If the many worlds hypothesis is correct, which it very well may be, personal continuity is an illusion. You simply don't have it, not sitting there, not if you teleport, it doesn't happen.
Furthermore, I see the process as inevitable. Assume you're right, that lack of contituity creates seperate conciousnesses. For any given process which would create this, everyone who ever goes through it is going to believe themselves to be the original, and tell other people that it's fine. It's already here, actually. All the people in the world who have been revived from flat brainwave activity, they're out there, telling people they're the same person as before. People believe that.
You're fighting a losing battle. It's not worth it. I'll take my chances with discontinuity.
Pronounciation drifts over time. This means that when you read a text, you must not read it as you pronounce things NOW, but how the writer pronounced things THEN, even assuming the same regional accent.
Which is why, once you make the pheonetics of the language regular, it's acceptable for the pheonetic rules themselves to shift, which is what's going on with pronounciation shifts. They're really regular pheonetic shifts which will continue to map well to the othography, even if they map slightly differently.
You don't map spelling to pronunciation. You make spelling pheonetic, and teach people how their pronunciation maps to the spelling, their own particular pheonetic rules. If done well, you need no further re-alignments of the othography, and it's not at all loosened.
You're arguing against a straw man in your conception of what how a pheonetic language works, which is astonishing to me considering the number of vastly successful langauges with pheonetic spelling that are out there. English, among european languages at least, is the exception, not the rule.
We figured out Stradivarius too, although this is still disputed. I listened to an NPR story a while ago as well, about a violin maker who'd taken a large chunck of wood from the basement of a cellar during WWII, and made a violin from it. It sounded like a Stradivarius, apparently. It's definitely a quality of the wood, and there's people working on the problem.
The Braingate chips consist of a chip with fine filimants running to relevant portions of brain. They're implanted into a brain in a passive mode to begin with, in order to learn how to operate for that person before they're actually made useful. The user is instructed to think about doing something, and the pattern of brain activity associated with that is recorded by the chip so that when the chip is fully activated, it translates that brain pattern, whenever observed, into that action.
If you really need to fix something about the programming on the chip, it seems a lot more likely you'd want to reteach it how to operate rather than upgrade the firmware.
Exactly. We're human because of our physical bodies, but when we talk about being "human", we really mean being conscious entities. I'm not sure about whether I believe in the singularity like Kurzweil et. al. promote, but I have no problem with the possibility of becoming an intelligence within a artificial context at some point in my future.
As for now, I don't have a terrible interest in prosthetics, but I am very interested in human-machine interfacing of increasing sophistication, which is something this works towards a lot.
In my opinion, there needs to be a requirement for substnciality of improvement. I'm not convinced that this is going to go down the slippery slope that's made possible by this precedent. In New London, I think it was the right decision because of how badly the town needed something like this. In any already stable town, this shouldn't be allowed to happen. I haven't read the court opinions, but I'd suspect they say something about this, as court opinions of this nature are generally fairly comprehensive. If and when another town tries to act under this, it'll probably be brought to court again, and we'll see if some sort of standard like this emerges.
As for your second point, I agree with you. New London handled the removal of the people horribly, which was a large reason for the backlash, and I don't think they have adequately compensated the individuals involved, which needs to be done, but that's not the issue the supreme court ruled on.
I'm not from New London, but a neighboring town, and I feel obliged to point out that there's a lot of general support around here for what New London has done. It's still controversial, but the general feeling is that it's overall a good thing.
See, the thing is, New London is dirt poor. It's been in decline since it's peak in the 1800s, ever since whaling and fishing stopped being a reasonable basis for a small New England city's economy. For a long time now New London has been the poorest town in the area, with the most densely packed suburban sprawl, and a small downtown area which is mostly boarded up. Over the past twenty or thirty years, New London has been slowly building itself back up. They've cleaned up a lot of the bad crime that was going on, and businesses have been moving back in to areas that had lain dormant. They're developing themselves as a cultural center for the area, and doing a good job of it.
Now, with the whole eminent domain issue, here's the thing: It didn't particularly benefit the company much at all. Pfizer was going to build in the area, at comparable price, regardless, just not in New London. The government of New London saw the opportunity to bring that economic boon into their own town, and jumped on it. Now, there was no readily available area to give to Pfizer. New London is very small, with a high population for it's size. They had to move some people in order to make this go through, or they'd lose the tax base of having that industry to a neighboring, richer town.
The money generated for the town by having Pfizer there is going to allow them to increase the quality of their public services greatly. The school system is going to improve, the police effectiveness is going to improve, the quality of life for the entire town going up as a result of this. It's unfortunate that some people had to be removed for this to happen, and even more unfortunate is the level of malcontent some have felt over this act, but the town and it's inhabitants are going to benefit tangibly. The business received some benefit in order to entice them to the town, but that's a marginal amount. Big Business didn't trump the people here. The town made a heavily debated and difficult decision, and made it for the benefit of it's residents as a group.
Now, as a precedent, Kelo is undeniably dangerous. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that in the particular case of New London, it was the right choice to make.
The argument here is the same that the MPAA/RIAA uses against filesharing. The/. counter is that a large number of those were never going to be sales in the first place.
It's the same thing here. A given company might not contribute back, but they wouldn't have used it at all uner the GPL. It's therefore no loss to the community either way. Other companies might, and several do contribute back under BSD licenses, just like many file sharers do go out and buy the things they downloaded.
Granted, the issue is more complicated, on both versions of this issue, but it's the same basic argument here.
Well, if you provide as much as your system as possible under the BSD license, it'd be a lot simplier. If you're building a linux distro this way, you'd have the linux kernel, obviously, and probably the GCC and some other GNU tools like that under the GPL, but there's good BSD replacements for just about anything else.
You might have a bigger job of getting it all to fit together, but you could do it, and then you wouldn't have to be terribly concerned about licensing issues.
"The fun of collecting is gone," said Michael Crowley, who said he spent his childhood hunting for bootlegged copies of obscure acts in hidden-away record shops run by edgy people with nose rings. "They're not that fun if you can download them with a few mouse clicks," said Crowley, a Washington journalist who wrote about the rock snob's demise by digital music for the New Republic.
I don't find this to be true at all. There's plenty of obscure albums which I remain unable to find on bittorrent, despite continued effort. Every so often, I find one.
If I were paying, it might be another matter. But that's a different discussion altogether.
There's still a hunt, still an effort needed, it's just moved down the long tail as more and more music is made available online.
This is a terrible analogy, and probably a troll anyway, since it's AC. You dam a river, you cut off all water except for what you send through. You make a propritary fork of a BSD project, you just cut off whatever changes you make to it after that point. The original doesn't go away, and people can build on that earlier work however they like.
If you think BSD isn't committed to freedom and openness, you obviously don't know the enormous contributions that OpenBSD has made to the world of software, under any license. The work they do helps everyone, period, regardless of your ideology or whether you're going to help back.
Slashdot Mirror
He may have meant Moore's, but he gave an excellent example of Murphy's.
To be fair, it's dead in people years too.
More likely is that there isn't a translation yet. There's bits and fragments of translated text, I'm sure, but they're not likely to release a translation until they've scanned and cleaned up as much of the text as they can.
This isn't malice, this is doing things more methodically than you'd like.
Except really, that's the look of now. The look of the future will be stranger still, and designed to conform to what the perception of even further in the future will look like.
See also: Darwine, which has been working on integrating Wine with QEMU, for running on PPC, for some time now. There doesn't seem to any word on it's future in light of OpenDarwin closing, but I suspect they'll continue their work.
To quote Kim Stanely Robinson's Red Mars:
"Don't call it dust! That's like calling dust gravel! Call it fines!"
Slashdot: What was on Boingboing two days ago.
Exactly. GPL is to promote open source, BSD is to promote good code. BSD doesn't need to be as big as Linux to do what it's trying to do, it punches well above it's weight because of the difference in goals. Personally, I think OpenBSD is one of the most important open source projects out there for this reason. Tiny market share, but massive influence, and that's the way they want it. Or, to put it another way, GPL is for creating software. BSD is for creating standards.
Somehow I don't think the end of OpenDarwin is going to mean Apple will stop lifting code from the BSDs. Why should it? BSD is not and never has been about creating a world seperate from commercial software. They're not "lifting" the code, they're using it according to it's liscence, which is something nearly every vendor, commerical or not, does, if only for OpenBSD's ssh implementation.
Absolutely. I've not cared for anything out of lucas since they stopped making adventure games.
But that's an era gone past, I fear. Adventure games have their niche, but I don't think we'll ever see more than sporadic indie releases anytime soon. Even Myst's closed up shop.
That EULA no longer applies, it's legitimately open source now. That was back when Lucent still controlled it very carefully.
This is a philosophical problem that's bothered me a lot, but I've since stopped worring about it. Here's a question for you: Which interpretation of quantum mechanics do you prefer? If the many worlds hypothesis is correct, which it very well may be, personal continuity is an illusion. You simply don't have it, not sitting there, not if you teleport, it doesn't happen. Furthermore, I see the process as inevitable. Assume you're right, that lack of contituity creates seperate conciousnesses. For any given process which would create this, everyone who ever goes through it is going to believe themselves to be the original, and tell other people that it's fine. It's already here, actually. All the people in the world who have been revived from flat brainwave activity, they're out there, telling people they're the same person as before. People believe that. You're fighting a losing battle. It's not worth it. I'll take my chances with discontinuity.
Pronounciation drifts over time. This means that when you read a text, you must not read it as you pronounce things NOW, but how the writer pronounced things THEN, even assuming the same regional accent.
Which is why, once you make the pheonetics of the language regular, it's acceptable for the pheonetic rules themselves to shift, which is what's going on with pronounciation shifts. They're really regular pheonetic shifts which will continue to map well to the othography, even if they map slightly differently.
You don't map spelling to pronunciation. You make spelling pheonetic, and teach people how their pronunciation maps to the spelling, their own particular pheonetic rules. If done well, you need no further re-alignments of the othography, and it's not at all loosened.
You're arguing against a straw man in your conception of what how a pheonetic language works, which is astonishing to me considering the number of vastly successful langauges with pheonetic spelling that are out there. English, among european languages at least, is the exception, not the rule.
And more the point being that it's not likely a trade secret of Stradivarius, he just got lucky in terms of the wood that was available.
We figured out Stradivarius too, although this is still disputed. I listened to an NPR story a while ago as well, about a violin maker who'd taken a large chunck of wood from the basement of a cellar during WWII, and made a violin from it. It sounded like a Stradivarius, apparently. It's definitely a quality of the wood, and there's people working on the problem.
The Braingate chips consist of a chip with fine filimants running to relevant portions of brain. They're implanted into a brain in a passive mode to begin with, in order to learn how to operate for that person before they're actually made useful. The user is instructed to think about doing something, and the pattern of brain activity associated with that is recorded by the chip so that when the chip is fully activated, it translates that brain pattern, whenever observed, into that action.
If you really need to fix something about the programming on the chip, it seems a lot more likely you'd want to reteach it how to operate rather than upgrade the firmware.
Exactly. We're human because of our physical bodies, but when we talk about being "human", we really mean being conscious entities. I'm not sure about whether I believe in the singularity like Kurzweil et. al. promote, but I have no problem with the possibility of becoming an intelligence within a artificial context at some point in my future. As for now, I don't have a terrible interest in prosthetics, but I am very interested in human-machine interfacing of increasing sophistication, which is something this works towards a lot.
In my opinion, there needs to be a requirement for substnciality of improvement. I'm not convinced that this is going to go down the slippery slope that's made possible by this precedent. In New London, I think it was the right decision because of how badly the town needed something like this. In any already stable town, this shouldn't be allowed to happen. I haven't read the court opinions, but I'd suspect they say something about this, as court opinions of this nature are generally fairly comprehensive. If and when another town tries to act under this, it'll probably be brought to court again, and we'll see if some sort of standard like this emerges.
As for your second point, I agree with you. New London handled the removal of the people horribly, which was a large reason for the backlash, and I don't think they have adequately compensated the individuals involved, which needs to be done, but that's not the issue the supreme court ruled on.
I'm not from New London, but a neighboring town, and I feel obliged to point out that there's a lot of general support around here for what New London has done. It's still controversial, but the general feeling is that it's overall a good thing.
See, the thing is, New London is dirt poor. It's been in decline since it's peak in the 1800s, ever since whaling and fishing stopped being a reasonable basis for a small New England city's economy. For a long time now New London has been the poorest town in the area, with the most densely packed suburban sprawl, and a small downtown area which is mostly boarded up. Over the past twenty or thirty years, New London has been slowly building itself back up. They've cleaned up a lot of the bad crime that was going on, and businesses have been moving back in to areas that had lain dormant. They're developing themselves as a cultural center for the area, and doing a good job of it.
Now, with the whole eminent domain issue, here's the thing: It didn't particularly benefit the company much at all. Pfizer was going to build in the area, at comparable price, regardless, just not in New London. The government of New London saw the opportunity to bring that economic boon into their own town, and jumped on it. Now, there was no readily available area to give to Pfizer. New London is very small, with a high population for it's size. They had to move some people in order to make this go through, or they'd lose the tax base of having that industry to a neighboring, richer town.
The money generated for the town by having Pfizer there is going to allow them to increase the quality of their public services greatly. The school system is going to improve, the police effectiveness is going to improve, the quality of life for the entire town going up as a result of this. It's unfortunate that some people had to be removed for this to happen, and even more unfortunate is the level of malcontent some have felt over this act, but the town and it's inhabitants are going to benefit tangibly. The business received some benefit in order to entice them to the town, but that's a marginal amount. Big Business didn't trump the people here. The town made a heavily debated and difficult decision, and made it for the benefit of it's residents as a group.
Now, as a precedent, Kelo is undeniably dangerous. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that in the particular case of New London, it was the right choice to make.
The argument here is the same that the MPAA/RIAA uses against filesharing. The /. counter is that a large number of those were never going to be sales in the first place.
It's the same thing here. A given company might not contribute back, but they wouldn't have used it at all uner the GPL. It's therefore no loss to the community either way. Other companies might, and several do contribute back under BSD licenses, just like many file sharers do go out and buy the things they downloaded.
Granted, the issue is more complicated, on both versions of this issue, but it's the same basic argument here.
Well, if you provide as much as your system as possible under the BSD license, it'd be a lot simplier. If you're building a linux distro this way, you'd have the linux kernel, obviously, and probably the GCC and some other GNU tools like that under the GPL, but there's good BSD replacements for just about anything else.
You might have a bigger job of getting it all to fit together, but you could do it, and then you wouldn't have to be terribly concerned about licensing issues.
When they say no particular order, they apparently mean, alphabetical order.
"The fun of collecting is gone," said Michael Crowley, who said he spent his childhood hunting for bootlegged copies of obscure acts in hidden-away record shops run by edgy people with nose rings. "They're not that fun if you can download them with a few mouse clicks," said Crowley, a Washington journalist who wrote about the rock snob's demise by digital music for the New Republic.
I don't find this to be true at all. There's plenty of obscure albums which I remain unable to find on bittorrent, despite continued effort. Every so often, I find one.
If I were paying, it might be another matter. But that's a different discussion altogether.
There's still a hunt, still an effort needed, it's just moved down the long tail as more and more music is made available online.
This is a terrible analogy, and probably a troll anyway, since it's AC. You dam a river, you cut off all water except for what you send through. You make a propritary fork of a BSD project, you just cut off whatever changes you make to it after that point. The original doesn't go away, and people can build on that earlier work however they like.
If you think BSD isn't committed to freedom and openness, you obviously don't know the enormous contributions that OpenBSD has made to the world of software, under any license. The work they do helps everyone, period, regardless of your ideology or whether you're going to help back.
Should we not tolerate that?
Pluto, judging by your orbit, I'd say you've had a bit too much to drink tonight. C'mon, I'll call you a taxi home. No hard feelings.