Slashdot Mirror

"The propaganda that capitalism is the most powerful medium for innovation, falls on its face here.

Capitalism with sensible government regulation is indeed the best path to rapid innovation."

Capitalism often goes hand in hand with free markets in people's minds. You will notice that we are talking of industries where the markets are not free but are, in fact, already government regulated.

That being the case, the regulation most definately should be sensible. I find that it often isn't.

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drelectri cmoments&PHPSESSID=104e24143412435edf81a3308df6b85 b

Can you say how you think things should be? Please be specific if you will.

"The FSF doesn't make the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated businesses. All they care about is that it's a business. Not all businesses are corporations."

OK, so I may have erred in bringing the personhood of corporations into the discussion. Still, it is the busines's (correct usage? - checked harbrace but still not sure) program and not the employee's. Isn't this the essence of their position?

Let me set up a borderline case in line with what I think you may be getting at...

I take a gpl program. I modify it for my use. I make a private .deb of it and install it on my machine. I am going away for vacation so I arrange for a friend to stay at the house to look after things and feed the dogs. (A Rotti and two shepherds.) I don't give him my password but do set up an account on my machine for him to use to check his email etc while I am away.

OK, so the scene is set. Now, while I am away, he is using the machine and poking around the menus to see what programs I have installed and runs my modified program.

When I get back, can he demand my source code under the provisions of the GPL?

If not, please spell out the difference between this made up but very real example and the case if he had not been a friend but an employee and I had instructed him to use the program to do some of my work while I was away.

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drbesidem yself

"Why does the FSF want the GPL to be more free for businesses than to its customers?"

Are you sure this is the FSF's doing? Isn't this the doing of the courts or the lawmakers who have held that a corporation is a legal person? So what are employees? Arms, legs, eyes, and ears of the corporation?

Even if I may not be in agreement with corporations being deemed people, How exactly would your viewpoint play out?

Can you say how you think things should be? Please be specific if you will.

Seperately, if a company buys MS office and installs it on an employee's computer (actually the company's computer) is this a violation of copyright laws as the company is giving a copy to the employee?

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drbeauty

"So, violating GPL by copying stuff without complying with the license is bad and wrong.

but

Buying songs from iTunes without complying with the ToS is big and clever because music must be free?"

Now, I am not going to discuss my views as to the legality of this "crack" but I do want to comment on your thinking.

Perhaps people think violating the GPL is bad because the result is that the code is no longer FREE and perhaps they think getting music from itunes without the DRM is ok becasue they believe music must be Free (libre.) They obviously don't believe it must be free (gratis) as they are PAYING FOR IT.

Right?

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=druncerta inty

"What's the point of an obfuscated Perl contest?"

I don't know, when you obfuscate perl, does it come out readable?

all the best,

drew

I kind of like perl though.

http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drtheline s

http://www.archive.org/download/drthelines/drtheli nes_64kb.m3u

"What's the point of an obfuscated Perl contest?"

I don't know, when you obfuscate perl, does it come out readable?

all the best,

drew

I kind of like perl though.

http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drtheline s

http://www.archive.org/download/drthelines/drtheli nes_64kb.m3u

Nothing...

Which means the DRM was pretty much worthless in the first place and if the players did not know that, what does that say about them?

At least nothing of a technical nature.

Anyone care to comment on the legal issues of doing this? If the law is preventing them, wouldn't a simple license have done just as good? Oh wait, can you put licenses on things like books and songs that you sell?

I am not directly affected by this as I am in a country they will not do business with in the first place. Not even give us the free songs that supposedly come with the ipods we buy while visiting the US.

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drgoingno where

"Juries werent a great idea anyway: If you put twelve people in a room, a lot of them will just agree out of groupthink. It would be better to separate the 12 into smaller groups (say, 3 of 4) and declare a mistrial if they don't come up with the same verdict."

This is an interesting thought. You want a mistrial, or would it be better that any or all innocent means innocent and it takes all guilty to bring in guilty?

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=dragirl

I remember nightly builds would recommend you upgrading once they got to be a month or so old, and I also remember pre 1.0 releases doing that, but it's been years since I've seen Mozilla recommend me upgrade.

Looking at the Wayback Machine, here's the Mozilla.org Releases page from June 2003. Even then, the page clearly said in bold print that the releases were for testing purposes only. The page also has other warnings about not using it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030627112551/mozilla. org/releases/

"No, that is not profit.. that's EFFICIENCY (less loss). Or cooperation. If working with animals takes less energy than it does working with pants, or vice versa, then how is the trade fair? If nobody makes a profit!" etc.

If you want to define profit in some special way to suit your argument, go ahead. I am quite happy with a penny saved is a penny earned. I like to increase my profits by doing the same or more with less or by doing more with the same.

In my example, perhaps I would have had to tend my animals and hire someone to help me tend my plants and it would have taken all of my time and some of my store of wealth to get this done. By thinking a bit and working something out, I can spend all of my time or perhaps a little less and none of my store of wealth and still get the same results. In my book, that savings equals a profit for me. You can keep your books however you want.

"Haven't you had physics in class? Money, goods, food, consumption, can all be expressed in energy. Within an enclosed system, you can't make something out of nothing."

Well, then, all we have to do is calculate the amount of energy that sunlight supplies each year, and according to your definition, that is the amount of profit possible on earth each year. Anything in excess of this amount is a draw down on previous years profits that have been banked.

However, since e=mcc (can't do the squared) we can release a whole lot of energy that is stored here as mass. Not that I think that is necessarily a good idea.

Please note, I am not having an argument about the wrongheadedness of claiming plunder and the use of non-renewable resources (or just non-renewed resources) as profit. That is bad accounting in my view.

Please note, I am not from the U.S.A. and I do see problems with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and the middle being squeezed out of existence.

I also see that a lot of what we do is a double edged sword and we put things into place in ill advised ways. A simple example is that, in my country, we have invited a lot of right foreigners in to buy land, build homes, and take up at least part time residence. This has a least some of the promised benefits, but it has some drawbacks that not only were not discussed or considered beforehand, but that we resist discussing even while suffering with them.

I would like to find people to discuss the idea that free markets may be necessary but that they are not sufficient.

Free markets may be good (but so far as I can see, there are none anywhere to be found) but greed is not good even though free markets can work to direct the greedy to at least do something of possible benefit to society.

I don't know that other plans have better records in this reguard as no matter what system you try, you still have humans as the players in the game of life.

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

"I heard a woman talking at one of RMS' presentations who said the best she had ever got out of a publisher was that they agreed to license her rights back to her if she handed over her rights. That's it. Otherwise they're not interested in publishing it."

This is interesting, what kind of books are you talking about?

I just pulled several novels down from the shelf and checked the copyright page.

The only one that seemed to have some sort of corporate copyright notice was Foucalt's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. For all of the others, thbe copyright page claimed copyright in the author's name.

For good measure, I pulled down some of my programming/computer books and checked their copyright pages.

They all showed corporate copyright notices, even going back to Rodney Zaks' From Chips To Systems which has a 1981 copyright date.

Any authors of each type of book care to comment and enlighten us?

Practically, what is the difference in the copyright page showing the author versus the publisher anyway? I mean, the author would normally give some exclusive, regional publishing rights to the publisher for a particular format right?

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

This is interesting info as I had heard that book authors did not face nearly the same problems as music creators in relation to not owning their copyrights.

Any other authors of books run into this? Any book authors have their book published while still retaining ownership of their copyrights?

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

"I take pictures. I release them under a the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 license. If people want to use them to create art, they're welcome to do so (and many have.)"

I am doing something similar... They will be released here:

http://zotz.openphoto.net/

Only one up so far.

My thinking is I will put up 1024x768 as CC BY-SA and sell rights to higher resolutions. If I ever reach predetermined (variable) income on a particular shot, a higher resolution copy will go up CC BY-SA. And so on.

If non-commercial only prevented selling, I would not be so leery of it, there are just too many things that could be considered commercial and get you sued that have no commercial intentions and no profit potential that I intend to stay clear of NC works as ones to build on.

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

"Yes, and it was done to illustrate a point."

Can you spell out the point for those of us who are not too swift at this time of day?

"Free for non-commercial use means that it's free for non-commercial use. It doesn't stop being free for non-commercial use just because you want to sell it."

You are mistaken if you think that the only thing non-commercial would prevent is someone selling your work.

Except that fair use might allow it and override your non-commercial wishes, it would prevent a class being taught on your work in a college that had tuition. Right?

Also, I think we are in one of those free vs free (libre vs gratis) threads.

IIRC you were CC BY-NC-ND. I only just thought this as I mostly use CC BY-SA and don't think too much about the other options, but isn't this more like Freeware than Free Software. (If you know the usual uses of those terms.) I could easily be wrong about this. I can't remember off the top if freeware has NC leanings. Still I think we are in a libre vs gratis discussion here.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

all the best,

drew

I like CC BY-SA myself. I would like it if we could drop the BY rather than simply waive it in the 2.x series though.

If the BY-SA creates a more vibrant pool of work, perhaps the CC system will self correct. We can hope.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

all the best,

drew

Links? It's really strange, all of the official web sites that I had that showed this stuff seem to have up and vanished.

Here are some second-source things:
Apple's letters to VfW devopers:
http://www.pa.msu.edu/~hamlin/facts/1stltr.html
http://www.pa.msu.edu/~hamlin/facts/2ndltr.html

A tiny snippet that tells how the case actually came out, courtesy of the wayback machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/19970206203623/http://w ww.macworld.com/pages/may.95/News.705.html (Scroll down some)

The only reference I can find to the rumor about this issue forcing the investment in Apple and the patent swap and the agreement to keep developing Mac software is from here:
http://www.mackido.com/History/History_VfW.html
However, I saw quite a few references to that rumor in the circles I was traveling in at time, and I know for a fact that there was still a lawsuit that was settled and disappeared without a trace right around that time, so...

Another one where Apple won one:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,16141, 00.html

As for why QuickTime works so badly now, I can only surmise that one of the following is true:
- Apple has stopped really trying.
- Microsoft succeeded in making it impossible to do within QT's budget.
- Microsoft has gotten a lot better at what they do, and thus make the QT group look worse.

Given how often MS has been convicted of sabotaging rivals, I'd have to say that the second sounds like the most likely. Real has mentioned in a lot of interviews that if they didn't rely on undocumented Windows calls that they reverse-engineered, they wouldn't be able to get their product working acceptably.

Ah, Microsoft... to know you is to know just how much I'm being known by you.

In the biblical sense, of course.

-fred

Well, I have to warn you my ideas are not yet fully baked, but there are several ideas that hint at a creator theory, things I am intrigued with right now.

Fictional
Semi-scientific

Think of it as applying transhumanism to creationism. If the universe comes to an end, and none of these things happen, then it is an absolute proof that the theory is false. If "we" manage to create a new universe, then the chance that it has happened before is very good.

Yes, this does just push it back yet another level, "What started this loop of us creating universes?"... but it does address creation of the current universe, going further back than the Big Bang.

Apparently the suit was filed some time ago.
Back then the site was different, though it's not the same color, but not that far away from the milka.de color.

The site seems to have been Slashdotted. Mined a link from Archive.org to it --> Here.

Here is an interesting look from a 3rd party perspective on the inside of SOE taken from Mobhunter.com and was written by a (now) SOE EQ2 employee known as "Moorgard".

Snippet from the article, "Editor's Note: Please check out part one of this story if you want to read the background of why I was at the SOE offices and to see what I learned about EQOA. Also feel free to check out the non-VAK version to save yourself the time of composing your own anti-SOE rant."

The non-VAK version is pretty funny (even if you LOVE to be a "Verant Ass Kisser".

Here is an interesting look from a 3rd party perspective on the inside of SOE taken from Mobhunter.com and was written by a (now) SOE EQ2 employee known as "Moorgard".

Snippet from the article, "Editor's Note: Please check out part one of this story if you want to read the background of why I was at the SOE offices and to see what I learned about EQOA. Also feel free to check out the non-VAK version to save yourself the time of composing your own anti-SOE rant."

The non-VAK version is pretty funny (even if you LOVE to be a "Verant Ass Kisser".

Here is an interesting look from a 3rd party perspective on the inside of SOE taken from Mobhunter.com and was written by a (now) SOE EQ2 employee known as "Moorgard".

Snippet from the article, "Editor's Note: Please check out part one of this story if you want to read the background of why I was at the SOE offices and to see what I learned about EQOA. Also feel free to check out the non-VAK version to save yourself the time of composing your own anti-SOE rant."

The non-VAK version is pretty funny (even if you LOVE to be a "Verant Ass Kisser".

Sorry, Tassach. IAAL, and the sad fact is that in America (and most of the "civilized world"), it is virtually impossible to get Allodial Title over your land, which is what makes it yours in full. The current situation is more that the government owns your land (which is why their laws still govern your use of your property) and you are buying exclusive rights to it for an indetermined amount of time and with certain restrictions. You are not buying "land", you are buying "real estate". There is a difference. You do not own the ground beneath or the sky above. Your land can legally be nationalized or taken from you at any time under the right circumstances.

A good introduction for laymen is actually by the Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, who is also a teacher. Here is the link. If you manage to complete Badnarik's extensive and excellent course, you will know 85% of what you need to become a constitutional law lawyer!

If you're going to make a 3D animation using lego men, you shouldn't forget to add the giant killer robots that shoot lasers from their eyes.

Check out Brick Films at Archive.org and their official site. Haven't watched any of these yet, but they look interesting.

Possible, but just as likely homage to that British fellow William Heath Robinson who did the same sort of cartoons as well as many other types including fantasy art etc. Examples of his mad machines used to be found here but most of the images had to be taken down because of a breach of current copyright. A rather odd idea considering that these mostly date back to the 1910's-1930's.

There are still a few perhaps more recent examples viewable via the wayback machine eg. here and here and here.

Possible, but just as likely homage to that British fellow William Heath Robinson who did the same sort of cartoons as well as many other types including fantasy art etc. Examples of his mad machines used to be found here but most of the images had to be taken down because of a breach of current copyright. A rather odd idea considering that these mostly date back to the 1910's-1930's.

There are still a few perhaps more recent examples viewable via the wayback machine eg. here and here and here.

Possible, but just as likely homage to that British fellow William Heath Robinson who did the same sort of cartoons as well as many other types including fantasy art etc. Examples of his mad machines used to be found here but most of the images had to be taken down because of a breach of current copyright. A rather odd idea considering that these mostly date back to the 1910's-1930's.

There are still a few perhaps more recent examples viewable via the wayback machine eg. here and here and here.

The clue was in the tagline "The FTC has shut down...". Seemingly, they've gone back to the same site they had in Feb 04.

You mean like This mess of legos and cables that was Google

I couldn't get this from work, but---"Admit how shallow you are and make a link to HotWired; or better yet to your mother." Such tales as "Wheaties, Semen and Blood", "It's High Time I Threw a Brick at You"> and the truly brilliant "Skinhead Hamlet".

Oh, yeah. That's the stuff. *snrrt*

--grendel drago

I couldn't get this from work, but---"Admit how shallow you are and make a link to HotWired; or better yet to your mother." Such tales as "Wheaties, Semen and Blood", "It's High Time I Threw a Brick at You"> and the truly brilliant "Skinhead Hamlet".

Oh, yeah. That's the stuff. *snrrt*

--grendel drago

They started more formal

Or perhaps this one?

Or perhaps this one?

"Next is that you cannot keep online archives of things you reported on in the past if they could qualify for the above."

Under these premises archive.org would be in a whole heap of trouble.

I've never really downloaded that much music using p2p networks, because I prefer to buy music I actually care about.

However, there's an increasing number of "netlabels" releasing high quality music for free. If you're interested, start by checking out archive.org.

When I find something I like, I also write about it here.

Netlabels have definitely changed my interest in music, since they dare to release stuff that's often too progressive or unique to really sell, and in my opinion that's the beauty of them.

I remember when Trespasser first came out. They posted the first review. Even made it to the developer page.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010420123331/www.tres passer.com/reviews-frame.html

10/19/98: First out the gate. Don't know how they got it.. but hey. Here it is..Game Over.net

Please, repeat with me:

C#
is not a Microsoft product

The Internet Archive (archive.org) has large collections of video, audio, and text. I've always wondered why they do not have an image archive.

Merriam-Webster online appears to disagree; "journalist":

1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

News about Apple is still News, and while a blog is not a traditional medium, it nonetheless is a medium. Perhaps a judge will also disagree with you. From the circuit court CDA decision (eventually upheld by SCOTUS):

"As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion."

Of course, the California journalist's shield is not absolute, even for ink-and-paper journalists, and it may be on that basis that the judge plans to compell response... but that wasn't what you were saying. It would be sad if "All the News That's Print to Fit" outfits like the Weekly World News were more protected than pro-am's like these guys were.

And Archive.org's Moving picture archive has it as well.
A couple of different formats too:
256Kb MPEG4 - Stream or 177.9MB
MPEG2 - 2.6 GB
MPEG1 - 371.3 MB
64Kb MPEG4 - Stream or 78.9MB.

They don't mention how it got converted though.

Ever since the demise of Anyday, my first start-up, I've been pretty happy with Yahoo's calendar -- but I've also come to realize that there's not much money in online calendaring.

The Slashdot page you referenced deserves a story itself!

I am speaking about the Netscape story

Look at the comments for gods sake:

http://web.archive.org/web/19971221013423/slashdot .org/index.cgi?mode=article&artnum=305

For people in hurry:

"Netscape Behind?

Contributed by CmdrTaco on Sat Dec 20 at 12:16PM EST
From the battle-for-the-net Dept
This Story talks about how the new HTML 4.0 specs are bad for NS because while they are lagging in complaince, IE4 is already almost fully ready to go with the new standard."

When you're a barnyard masturbator. ;-)

Well, sorry for replying to myself... this may be moded down offtopic into oblivion, but... "To remember is to live, and everyone wants to live more" so, do you remember any of these pages? or have you ever wondered how was Slashdot back in 1997?? what about ebay or oooh... the good now defunct Hotmail in 1996...

I am thinking in other good sites to look at (oh yeah, look at Google and Apple in 1996.

Any other recommendation??

Well, sorry for replying to myself... this may be moded down offtopic into oblivion, but... "To remember is to live, and everyone wants to live more" so, do you remember any of these pages? or have you ever wondered how was Slashdot back in 1997?? what about ebay or oooh... the good now defunct Hotmail in 1996...

I am thinking in other good sites to look at (oh yeah, look at Google and Apple in 1996.

Any other recommendation??

Well, sorry for replying to myself... this may be moded down offtopic into oblivion, but... "To remember is to live, and everyone wants to live more" so, do you remember any of these pages? or have you ever wondered how was Slashdot back in 1997?? what about ebay or oooh... the good now defunct Hotmail in 1996...

I am thinking in other good sites to look at (oh yeah, look at Google and Apple in 1996.

Any other recommendation??

Well, sorry for replying to myself... this may be moded down offtopic into oblivion, but... "To remember is to live, and everyone wants to live more" so, do you remember any of these pages? or have you ever wondered how was Slashdot back in 1997?? what about ebay or oooh... the good now defunct Hotmail in 1996...

I am thinking in other good sites to look at (oh yeah, look at Google and Apple in 1996.

Any other recommendation??

Well, sorry for replying to myself... this may be moded down offtopic into oblivion, but... "To remember is to live, and everyone wants to live more" so, do you remember any of these pages? or have you ever wondered how was Slashdot back in 1997?? what about ebay or oooh... the good now defunct Hotmail in 1996...

I am thinking in other good sites to look at (oh yeah, look at Google and Apple in 1996.

Any other recommendation??