There will also be a new website for citizens to learn about transparency in intelligence agencies
Whenver I visit one of the intelligence agency websites, my webcam light turns on and it won't turn off until I reboot my computer
Although he didn't come with a storage case, there was a helpful note included:
Warning: Be careful when cleaning this measuring tool with alcohol, as it may affect its accuracy.
I've been using LibreOffice for a number of years, and love it (having written two, and typeset three, books with it), but the name is a hindrence. When I speak to my wife and use the term LibreOffice her eyes glaze over, whereas Open Office has a natural name people understand.
Free Office would have been better than LibreOffice, or any of a dozen other names I can think of (Community Office, OpenSource Office, New Office, World Office, even abbbreviating it to L-Office
I personally think the name LibreOffice is pretty good. Yes, the abbreviations aren't great ("LO"? "LibO"? "LibOff"?
So basically you get the concept of "Free Software" + Office suite, wrapped up in a name that is much less ambiguous, at least in English. Unfortunately (fortunately?) it sets up all users/contributors to be in the position of explaining this to everyone they talk to. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs...
I wasn't involved in selecting the name, but I wonder if there was a strong preference for keeping the word "Office" in the title. I understand that the name might help people understand that the project is an Office suite in a similar fashion to Microsoft Office, Corel Office, etc..., but perhaps a distinct name like "Firefox" or "Inkscape" would make for a much more recognizable and powerful brand?
Personally, I say "OpenOffice" anyway when I mean LibreOffice.
*concerned stare*
It has more currency with less technical people and those who never update, and only occasionally does it prompt a concerned stare when someone actually knows the distinction.
Speaking as a LibreOffice user and contributor, I am impressed that the OpenOffice name is so well known these days. I remember a number of years ago when *nobody* knew the name "OpenOffice" ("Is that some kind of template pack plugin thing for Word?"). It's very interesting to hear that now the name is well known enough that technically-minded users use the OpenOffice name to refer to both LO and AOO. Brand recognition is really quite strong!
Questions for you:
Maybe we could just go back to calling it StarOffice?
Well the binary is still called "soffice"
Nokiastan...and where else?
(I feel like this is what a machine made by Dunderbeck's son might do...)
I'm surprised that there's not a page or at least a reference on Wikipedia for Dunderbeck/Dunderbeck's machine
"ubermix is based on Ubuntu Linux, the world's most popular Linux distribution."
First question in my head, anyhow... (the name did seem to hint in that direction, but I wanted to RTFA to confirm
.
You must have written them in Unicode, because Slashdot doesn't seem to be able to display them...
.
Also, your scientists are really small. Or are you just approximating your scientists as a point mass when they fall down the well?
It's 23:50 and I'm debating the finer points of time policy with a 20-year old car on Slashdot. Woooooooooot!
What time does the local office open over there in Paris?
If you have to talk to the Paris office, wouldn't have have to either plan a meeting or look up their hours, anyhow?
How would you schedule a lunch 2500 miles away without doing research?
Unless you want to experience some kind of IRL chatroulette, couldn't you just plan with the other party?
Is the dude you want to talk to even awake?
You could check his longitude/latitude. And anyhow, lots of people keep weird hours, so I'd just suggest pinging him via text, IM, or etc..
One way or another, you're still effectively dealing with time zones.
One way or another you're still dealing with the transit of the sun across the sky. Adjusting the "time" around to make 12:00pm match up with the sun being overhead is just a weird approach to the problem.
The idea of switching to UTC for normal day to day stuff is silly. It makes one narrowly-defined problem easier for computer geeks, and most everything else a bigger pain for the rest of the population.
If we can treat time as monotonic and the same in all places on the globe, then that really simplifies a lot of things. Just plan to get 8 hours of sleep when it's dark (yes, we can make an app for that, or we can just look outside), and plan the rest of your day around when other stuff is scheduled.
I don't think it would be that crazy of an idea, but then again we still can't grok metric units in the US, so...
Seriously -- let's just all use GMT, and get rid of Daylight savings, and all use 24 hour time.
Want to schedule a meeting with your coworker 1 cubicle over? How about with your coworker over in the Paris office? Awesome: Let's meet on Monday the 22nd, at 17:34 via (insert voice/video chat system of choice).
Time zones?
Daily savings time?
AM/PM?
Ain't nobody got time for that!
I shouldn't have to check a whole suitcase just so I can have my pocket knife or Leatherman with me when I travel. That's just silly.
The old rule was something like 3 inches, or "diagonally across the guard's badge" (convenient measuring tool, that
(and folding knives with locks are safer tools to use, resulting in fewer self-inflicted user injuries... *le sigh*)
I think you mean the Harlem Shake, not The Harlem Shuffle...
I can't speak for everyone else, but I was answering questions and testing bugs until 11am. Then I was very tired and got a couple of hours of sleep.
The Infrastructure team was trying to migrate several of the websites over to a new server about the same time as 4.0 was released. After some brief downtime, everything pulled through. Due to a perfect storm of problems during the previous two days, the server upgrades were delayed all the way until release day (oops!)
If you grabbed 3.6.5 this morning, you didn't miss a new release on that branch -- 3.6.5 came out on Jan 30th, and 3.6.6 won't come out until the 2nd week of April. The 4.0.0.3 release is working pretty well, running into a few bugs and issues, but we're working to iron those out as quickly as possible.
Feel free to Ask questions or Report a bug if and when the fancy strikes you.
First $699 to SCO back in 2003, now £140lbs to Microsoft for Windows Write..I mean MS-Office for GNU/Linux.
What did we say about impulse purchases with your allowance?
You're completely missing the idea of copyright as applied to a paper.
Please do enlighten us!
The work that is copyrighted is the paper itself, not the research described within. You can build your research on the results of others absolutely normally - and that's what Newton meant. Read, do research based on it, write a new paper.
Sure, writing new papers is one possibliity. But it's not the only way to collaborate.
Fair use makes it even possible to cite the parts you want to discuss, if necessary. I can't really think of anything more you could ask for, anything "more free".
Fair use is a defense, not a right. It's not perfect, and it can be messy to defend in court (or so the lawyers tell me). Why wouldn't some scientists want to make their research and their ideas *even more* accessible to those who wish to remix them and/or use short/long excerpts?
On the other hand, building your paper on someone else's paper by just modyfing the relevant parts is not in any way helpful for science - and that's the definition of derivative work here.
What are the "relevant parts"? And are you certain that no useful science can come from borrowing data/charts/text from an existing paper beyond what Fair use would allow?
Example: I write a 100 page paper about monkey butts. Let's say it's about hair color and distribution. I include a lot of really useful pictures of monkey butts and graphs of the statistics thereof.
Someone else wants to write a new paper about monkey butts and realizes that they could use all of my existing charts and pictures as their data and come to some new and very interesting conclusions. Their paper is about cancerous growths, and it's not a critique of my paper, so they can't just suck up my data, pictures, and prepared charts and claim Fair use.
If my paper were under CC-BY-ND, they would probably be SOL. Let's say that I had since died (bad monkey stew), so they couldn't ask me for permission.
If, however, my paper were under CC-BY-SA, then they would be able to re-use all of my lovely scientific shit.
In fact, if you do something like this, you're a lousy, lazy scientist - if you can fit your results into an existing paper like that, you probably haven't done anything new and worth reading.
Or maybe the original scientist missed something? Or maybe there's a new, novel way to use his reasearch and copyrighted materials? (see above)
ND-free licenses are extremely useful for code, potentially useful in art, but worthless in science. There's no value added here.
When someone talks about "value-added" in terms of science, it raises a red flag for me. Why does science have to be about "adding value"? Sure, there are a lot of people and a lot of companies that do a lot of hard science, and bully for them. But I don't have to argue that all of them should eschew the ND clause, I just have to show that some scientists have valid reasons for avoiding it.
Seriously? You consider only completely open or completely closed position as non-hypocritical? What you're saying is just pseudophilosophical mumbo-jumbo, based on a fundamentalist understanding of "information wants to be free".
Any half-open or half-closed position seems like a very hard position to argue. Bright lines, as any lawyer will tell you, are easy: Everything falls neatly to one side or the other. As I stated above in my answer, perhaps the "No Derivatives" clause actually legally accomplishes something quite different from its generic meaning in everyday English, and so some classes of "derivative works" of a paper marked ND are actually allowed. My point is that it is sad that the term is named "No Derivatives" when a scientist seems interested (if not intent) upon sharing their work with the world at large via an "Open Access" site.
What is sounds like everyone wants is a "No Defamation" clause, but that's just too darn hard to write in legal terms, so they just ratcheted down the rights and ended up with "No Derivs".
Is[sic] you believe that ["You consider only completely open or completely closed position as non-hypocritical"], peer reviewed papers should not exist - you should publish everything, whether or not competent peers think it's utter BS.
Whaaa? I'm not following your logic at all. Who is "publish[ing] everything" ? And (perhaps more importantly) who is listening to the quacks/frauds who republish "utter BS" ?
Are you thinking of a different type of peer-review process? Peer review, as I understand it, has absolutely nothing to do with licensing, copyright, patents, or any legal standing. Under a peer-review process, works such as papers, research, (possibly art/music, too?) are evaluated by one's peers and judged for their correctness or competency. Things such as language and originallity may also be judged.
Wikipedia describes peer review: "Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication."
Sorry, but this does not work for stuff as specialized as scientific papers.
I don't get it: What magical sauce is embedded in scientific papers? Why should authors of these works use the ND clause, while authors of software, art, novels, etc... allow derivatives? Is there something special about having a doctorate? Something about the way in which the scientific community can't think up any mechanism to vette or review each other's papers and provide structure and confirmation when they run across a paper written by someone they haven't met?
But we have that system already: Peer review (and, perhaps, a sprinkling of some trust algorithms)
Anyhow, I return to my central point: I am ready to be convinced that scienticsts need the ND clause to protect their work -- I just haven't seen or heard of any cases in which this kind of clause is necessary. Please show me an example of the harm that not having an ND clause has wrought, and I will certainly rethink my position!
"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry
