Easy; the one from Celera. Why? Because the scientific effort didn't make any attempt to apply something like the GPL to their data. That means that Celera is ahead and always will be ahead because they can combine their privately generated data with the publically generated data to get a more complete picture. The result is the Celera will be able to make a big profit by selling data half of which was funded by government sources.
Actually, the US government is forcing Celera to make public any information they get on the human genome, within 24 hours of that information's discovery. The same applies to any other private firm that is working on the Human Genome Project. (I remember this because I was watching Celera stock back when it was $250 a share, and after this announcement was made, the stock dropped down to $80 a share.) This is one of the smarter moves the Clinton Administration ever pulled, if you ask me. The human genome is too important to keep secret or proprietary; and Celera still keeps its patents on genetic research techniques, which means the company can still profit. The information itself, however, is kept public.
The problem with any Microsoft marketing is that you're bound to create a really wicked parody right out of the gate. Microsoft COOL led almost immediately to Microsoft CRUD (Corrupt Redundant Useless Development) and Microsoft SUCKs (Simple Unified C++ Kits); the parodies for C# are a little harder to come but still suggestive.....
Cb (C-flat)
C-pound (for what you want to do to the idiots who developed this)
C-hash (for what MS made of this tool)
C-compiler-directive
C-not-equals (in some languages # is similar to !=)
'smart' is a property of 'lessig' (which is an author, a subclass of human being); you need to call a field accessor:
lessig.isSmart() == true;
Unless you want to go through the trouble of overloading operator== for all the different data types of the fields in the author class, which would create even more problems if you had more than one field of the same type...you see the problem? Too much work. The Second Amendment Sisters
This document makes a teensy error; it completely ignores the fact that the Linux swap space is not included in the Linux native file system; it has to be allocated on a separate partition with a different file system.
Heretical though it may be, some of us run Win95 for games and Linux for anything serious. Is it possible to do a multiboot BIOS that could boot Linux and Windows (and BSD and Solaris and BEOS) with equal efficiency?
First, a nitpick: it wasn't the DoJ that decided to break up Microsoft, it was the Court.:)
Quoting from Judge Jackson's opinion:
First, despite the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Microsoft does not yet concede that any of its business practices violated the Sherman Act. Microsoft officials have recently been quoted publicly to the effect that the company has "done nothing wrong" and that it will be vindicated on appeal. The Court is well aware that there is a substantial body of public opinion, some of it rational, that holds to a similar view. It is time to put that assertion to the test. If true, then an appellate tribunal should be given early opportunity to confirm it as promptly as possible, and to abort any remedial measures before they have become irreversible as a practical matter.
Second, there is credible evidence in the record to suggest that Microsoft, convinced of its innocence, continues to do business as it has in the past, and may yet do to other markets what it has already done in the PC operating system and browser markets. Microsoft has shown no disposition to voluntarily alter its business protocol in any significant respect. Indeed, it has announced its intention to appeal even the imposition of the modest conduct remedies it has itself proposed as an alternative to the non-structural remedies sought by the plaintiffs.
Third, Microsoft has proved untrustworthy in the past. In earlier proceedings in which a preliminary injunction was entered, Microsoft's purported compliance with that injunction while it was on appeal was illusory and its explanation disingenuous. If it responds in similar fashion to an injunctive remedy in this case, the earlier the need for enforcement measures becomes apparent the more effective they are likely to be.
Basically the Court is saying, "You guys are lying, cheating, and acting like nothing has changed, and saying that you can get away with it on appeal. You know what? Go ahead and appeal. I'm getting the knives out."
It gets better: Microsoft offered a bunch of witnesses to testify to the 'detrimental effects' of a possible breakup. To which the Court replied:
Finally, the Court believes that extended proceedings on the form a remedy should take are unlikely to give any significantly greater assurance that it will be able to identify what might be generally regarded as an optimum remedy. As has been the case with regard to Microsoft's culpability, opinion as to an appropriate remedy is sharply divided. There is little chance that those divergent opinions will be reconciled by anything short of actual experience. The declarations (and the "offers of proof") from numerous potential witnesses now before the Court provide some insight as to how its various provisions might operate, but for the most part they are merely the predictions of purportedly knowledgeable people as to effects which may or may not ensue if the proposed final judgment is entered. In its experience the Court has found testimonial predictions of future events generally less reliable even than testimony as to historical fact, and cross-examination to be of little use in enhancing or detracting from their accuracy.
Basically saying, "your witnesses are BS and you're just delaying the inevitable."
After yet again witnessing Microsoft's open and notorious giving of the finger to the DOJ, I've figured out Bill's strategy.
He wants out of the spotlight.
See, it's like this. Ever since Bill put Steve Ballmer in charge, he's been trying to loosen his ties to Microsoft more and more, so that he can pursue other ventures...biotech, aerospace, etc. But he's stuck running this damn Microsoft. He looks over to his friend and fellow billionaire Paul Allen, wishing that he too could own such cool things as the Portland Trailblazers. But alas, Gates is too conspicuous. Too famous. Too rich.
So the plan is, to REALLY piss off the Judge and make Microsoft stock drop like a bloody rock; and also to break Microsoft up into a bajillion little companies, each one stuck with one particular product (like Bob or Golf). And then Bill will own bits and pieces of all of these companies, but still be a minority shareholder in all of them. Most will die; some will live; and he'll be able to use the proceeds to start going into other ventures.
Gates Pharmacuticals? Gates competing with Boeing? The mind boggles and the Washington state government salivates at the thought of all those jobs, all that taxable money...
And Gates himself? He returns to a life of relative un-noticability. Much like his less affluent friend Paul.
Yowch. Lemme know who your lawyers are so I can hire them. Meanwhile, here's a list of questions which they may wish to include. They're not exactly relevant to this case but, damnit, I sure want answers to them...
How exactly are we supposed to get refunds on your software, pursuant to the shrink-wrap license on your software, if neither Microsoft, nor the OEM, nor the store that sold it, will give one a refund?
Did you really think we wouldn't get on your case about 'embracing-and-extending' Kerberos after reading the Halloween Documents?
Whose bright idea was ActiveX, anyways?
How much did you pay Jordy Weissman for FASA? Does this mean that future Shadowrun computer games are going to work solely on Windows and X-Box machines? Will we see the rules for Deckers changed to mention Microsoft[tm] VisualBasic[tm] as an 31337 programming language?
Some of the articles you wanted removed don't even have links to the material on Microsoft[tm] Kerberos. What in the world did you want these removed for?
With all the money you have and all the bleeding edge talent you bought, why couldn't you write a decent set of Java tools?
Why is it that Windows 95 can recognize my fairly standard hardware, but that y'all don't include the (maybe 5kB) drivers on the install disks? And while I'm at it, whose brain-damaged idea was it to make 'new computer' Win95 distributions only install properly if you've re-formatted the C: drive?
And finally: at a time when you're about to get busted by the Feds, does it make sense to further antagonize people? Are you *trying* to tick off your shareholders?
Whereas, Raph Levien (hereinafter "Inventor") has obtained patent protection for related technology (hereinafter "Patented Technology"), Inventor wishes to aid the the GNU free software project in achieving its goals, and Inventor also wishes to increase public awareness of Patented Technology, Inventor hereby grants a fully paid up, nonexclusive, royalty free license to practice the patents listed below ("the Patents") if and only if practiced in conjunction with software distributed under the terms of any version of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111. Inventor reserves all other rights, including without limitation, licensing for software not distributed under the GNU General Public License.
Here's my worry (and no, it's not because I don't trust Levien in particular, I'm just paranoid in general): it's very likely that the source can't be made hidden under the GPL; but under the above paragraph, could it still be possible for the Inventor to revoke the license on these patents and then demand royalties from anyone who uses them? Since I am not certain about patent law, and I don't see the word irrevocable included in the above patent license, I am left wondering.
Nuking the moon is a poor idea. To make much more than a single, bright flash, it would have to be "dirty", ie, a surface impact. The some of ejecta would head to earth as satellite killers.
I might point out that they didn't have that many sattelites in the 1950s....in fact I think they had a total of...what...zero or sometimes one?
Hmm, I wonder if the Million Mom March might have launched a distributed denial of service attack on the FBI computers? Seems simple enough...just get a million mothers to download the client....
I love this device. I do. But lest we forget, the people who own the T1 lines, and most of the backbone of the Internet, are the phone companies. It's cool in that you can avoid long distance rates and keep a consistent phone number (maybe). But we can count on LD companies raising their rates for backbone access as voice over IP becomes more popular.
This work out of Brandeis is an implementation of the thought-experiment done by Valentino Braitenberg in chapter 5 his book Vehicles, which outlines experiments in evolution of simple robots. The main differences between the Brandeis work and Braitenberg's experiment are that the robots are being constructed to particular practical ends and most of them are simulated before they are built. Damn. Wow. Well done!
Nitpicking: Lara Croft Model Gun Boo-boo
on
Hump Day Quickies
·
· Score: 2
The new Lara model is definitely hot, but I couldn't help notice the gun boo-boos here...image 1 and image 3 show Lara with her finger on the trigger. You always, always, always keep the finger off of a trigger unless it's pointed at something you want to shoot. (Fortunately the gun she's holding is a 1911 with the hammer down; 1911s are single-actions and can't possibly fire unless the hammer is in the cocked position. So we can presume we're ok here). Image 4 has Lara blowing smoke out of the barrel...also very dangerous, from the look of it she could blow her nose off. Never point a gun at something you're not willing to destroy and always assume it's loaded. And image 5 has her pointing the gun right at us....I sure hope the photographer wasn't standing in front of that barrel. I'm all for people experiencing new things, but being shot is not one of them!
OK, OK, I know, I'm being nitpicky. But fess up, how many of you nitpicked Hackerswhile you were watching it?:)
If advertising fails to generate revenue, companies will pay less for advertising. Less money will be available for generating media, and lower quality media will result. You're only stealing from yourself.
Can you back this up with anything but conjecture? Maybe the increased competition for people's attention will generate higher quality media, which will draw viewers who don't filter out banner ads as well as viewers who do. Have you considered this possibility?
They should get rid of it, instead of just removing it from the menu. While there could probably be legitimate uses, it is obviously intended to block advertising. This is not right. Some content on the internet is free, but some content you must pay for. Viewing advertisements it paying with your time. If you can block out advertisements, you are no longer paying. You are essentially stealing.
This is patent nonsense. There is nothing, NOTHING, illegal, immoral, or unjust, about blocking advertising. You may as well tell me that it is stealing when I mute the commercials on my television. If I wish to ignore the advertising and the browser allows me this capability, then I will gladly do so. If they wish to prosecute me for stealing, then let them do so. I will live well off of the resulting lawsuits.
As far as i know, the virus started out in Asia (somewhere) and made its way to Europe and now the US (Including many millitary installations as well).
Actually if you read the source code for this virus (which has been posted as a comment), you'll see that this started in the Phillipines.
Slashdot Mirror
I have C comment blocks longer (and more informative) then that press release.
Dude, I just about died laughing when I read that. Well said!!
The Second Amendment Sisters
Easy; the one from Celera. Why? Because the scientific effort didn't make any attempt to apply something like the GPL to their data. That means that Celera is ahead and always will be ahead because they can combine their privately generated data with the publically generated data to get a more complete picture. The result is the Celera will be able to make a big profit by selling data half of which was funded by government sources.
Actually, the US government is forcing Celera to make public any information they get on the human genome, within 24 hours of that information's discovery. The same applies to any other private firm that is working on the Human Genome Project. (I remember this because I was watching Celera stock back when it was $250 a share, and after this announcement was made, the stock dropped down to $80 a share.) This is one of the smarter moves the Clinton Administration ever pulled, if you ask me. The human genome is too important to keep secret or proprietary; and Celera still keeps its patents on genetic research techniques, which means the company can still profit. The information itself, however, is kept public.
The Second Amendment Sisters
I was under the impression that PACER is a pay-per-view system. How is it, then, that we are seeing this copy of the COPA opinion?
The Second Amendment Sisters
The problem with any Microsoft marketing is that you're bound to create a really wicked parody right out of the gate. Microsoft COOL led almost immediately to Microsoft CRUD (Corrupt Redundant Useless Development) and Microsoft SUCKs (Simple Unified C++ Kits); the parodies for C# are a little harder to come but still suggestive.....
Any others anyone can think of?
The Second Amendment Sisters
'smart' is a property of 'lessig' (which is an author, a subclass of human being); you need to call a field accessor:
lessig.isSmart() == true;
Unless you want to go through the trouble of overloading operator== for all the different data types of the fields in the author class, which would create even more problems if you had more than one field of the same type...you see the problem? Too much work.
The Second Amendment Sisters
This document makes a teensy error; it completely ignores the fact that the Linux swap space is not included in the Linux native file system; it has to be allocated on a separate partition with a different file system.
The Second Amendment Sisters
Heretical though it may be, some of us run Win95 for games and Linux for anything serious. Is it possible to do a multiboot BIOS that could boot Linux and Windows (and BSD and Solaris and BEOS) with equal efficiency?
The Second Amendment Sisters
The website mentiones 802.11b specifically as an example of their RF card. It's probably a safe assumption that they use 802.11 as their RF standard.
Now if we can only get confirmation that it runs Linux....
The Second Amendment Sisters
First, a nitpick: it wasn't the DoJ that decided to break up Microsoft, it was the Court. :)
Quoting from Judge Jackson's opinion:
Basically the Court is saying, "You guys are lying, cheating, and acting like nothing has changed, and saying that you can get away with it on appeal. You know what? Go ahead and appeal. I'm getting the knives out."
It gets better: Microsoft offered a bunch of witnesses to testify to the 'detrimental effects' of a possible breakup. To which the Court replied:
Basically saying, "your witnesses are BS and you're just delaying the inevitable."
I love this judge.
You can find the text of the ruling here, btw.
The Second Amendment Sisters
After yet again witnessing Microsoft's open and notorious giving of the finger to the DOJ, I've figured out Bill's strategy.
He wants out of the spotlight.
See, it's like this. Ever since Bill put Steve Ballmer in charge, he's been trying to loosen his ties to Microsoft more and more, so that he can pursue other ventures...biotech, aerospace, etc. But he's stuck running this damn Microsoft. He looks over to his friend and fellow billionaire Paul Allen, wishing that he too could own such cool things as the Portland Trailblazers. But alas, Gates is too conspicuous. Too famous. Too rich.
So the plan is, to REALLY piss off the Judge and make Microsoft stock drop like a bloody rock; and also to break Microsoft up into a bajillion little companies, each one stuck with one particular product (like Bob or Golf). And then Bill will own bits and pieces of all of these companies, but still be a minority shareholder in all of them. Most will die; some will live; and he'll be able to use the proceeds to start going into other ventures.
Gates Pharmacuticals? Gates competing with Boeing? The mind boggles and the Washington state government salivates at the thought of all those jobs, all that taxable money...
And Gates himself? He returns to a life of relative un-noticability. Much like his less affluent friend Paul.
The Second Amendment Sisters
We've already gotten a clear answer from Apogee in their liscence:
To Scott Miller: How many lawyers do I need to understand the words any negative context???
The Second Amendment Sisters
The Second Amendment Sisters
The Second Amendment Sisters
Great, you just slashdotted the server.
The Second Amendment Sisters
The license to these patents reads thusly:
Here's my worry (and no, it's not because I don't trust Levien in particular, I'm just paranoid in general): it's very likely that the source can't be made hidden under the GPL; but under the above paragraph, could it still be possible for the Inventor to revoke the license on these patents and then demand royalties from anyone who uses them? Since I am not certain about patent law, and I don't see the word irrevocable included in the above patent license, I am left wondering.
Could a patent lawyer shed light on this? Thanks.
The Second Amendment Sisters
I might point out that they didn't have that many sattelites in the 1950s....in fact I think they had a total of...what...zero or sometimes one?
The Second Amendment Sisters
Hmm, I wonder if the Million Mom March might have launched a distributed denial of service attack on the FBI computers? Seems simple enough...just get a million mothers to download the client....
(nb, tounge firmly in cheek here)
The Second Amendment Sisters
I love this device. I do. But lest we forget, the people who own the T1 lines, and most of the backbone of the Internet, are the phone companies. It's cool in that you can avoid long distance rates and keep a consistent phone number (maybe). But we can count on LD companies raising their rates for backbone access as voice over IP becomes more popular.
The Second Amendment Sisters
This work out of Brandeis is an implementation of the thought-experiment done by Valentino Braitenberg in chapter 5 his book Vehicles, which outlines experiments in evolution of simple robots. The main differences between the Brandeis work and Braitenberg's experiment are that the robots are being constructed to particular practical ends and most of them are simulated before they are built. Damn. Wow. Well done!
The Second Amendment Sisters
The new Lara model is definitely hot, but I couldn't help notice the gun boo-boos here...image 1 and image 3 show Lara with her finger on the trigger. You always, always, always keep the finger off of a trigger unless it's pointed at something you want to shoot. (Fortunately the gun she's holding is a 1911 with the hammer down; 1911s are single-actions and can't possibly fire unless the hammer is in the cocked position. So we can presume we're ok here). Image 4 has Lara blowing smoke out of the barrel...also very dangerous, from the look of it she could blow her nose off. Never point a gun at something you're not willing to destroy and always assume it's loaded. And image 5 has her pointing the gun right at us....I sure hope the photographer wasn't standing in front of that barrel. I'm all for people experiencing new things, but being shot is not one of them!
OK, OK, I know, I'm being nitpicky. But fess up, how many of you nitpicked Hackerswhile you were watching it? :)
The Second Amendment Sisters
You're the one who said it was stealing.
Can you back this up with anything but conjecture? Maybe the increased competition for people's attention will generate higher quality media, which will draw viewers who don't filter out banner ads as well as viewers who do. Have you considered this possibility?
The Second Amendment Sisters
This is patent nonsense. There is nothing, NOTHING, illegal, immoral, or unjust, about blocking advertising. You may as well tell me that it is stealing when I mute the commercials on my television. If I wish to ignore the advertising and the browser allows me this capability, then I will gladly do so. If they wish to prosecute me for stealing, then let them do so. I will live well off of the resulting lawsuits.
The Second Amendment Sisters
NASA could have saved a lot of time and trouble looking for intergalactic gasses if they had checked the septic system near the local A&W...
The Second Amendment Sisters
Actually if you read the source code for this virus (which has been posted as a comment), you'll see that this started in the Phillipines.
The Second Amendment Sisters
Metallica is the best metal band in existance, including the latest Load and Re-load albums which rock. I listen to them while coding.
So that explains the vanilla graphics on Quake III...
(Boy, I'm asking for it, ain't I? :))
The Second Amendment Sisters