Slashdot Mirror

Technocrat ran the hoax story yesterday.

What made it a good hoax is that it sounded like something people might want to do, even though it was ridiculous.

What's the point of processing blocks faster anyway, doesn't SETI@Home have more processing power than they can practically use anyway?

Good luck to you if you do start your own slashdot, but don't get too disoulutioned. There's already alternatives out there, Kuro5hin, Advogato, Technocrat and even Nanodot. The quality of Slashdot really does seem to be going downhill recently. The only thing that keeps me here is that there still are a few interesting things. Bahh humbug, it was all much better in my day....

Don't forget .int (international), the quintessential top-level domain.

Let's think about this for a second.
This cyclical rumor keeps showing up despite the fact there is no factual basis for it. The only reason for assuming it in the first place is the hideously tenuous logical link that Steve Jobs, who is the [technically unpaid-- he gets a salary of $1 a year, plus some other slight "perks". The "perks" though, have included such things as millions of dollars of stock, and an airplane.] CEO of Apple, is also CEO of Pixar. That's it. The same person is working at both companies in a management position, and one of those two companies uses a third company for distribution and promotion purposes, so somehow in the warped minds of macosrumors it would follow that the three would merge.

Let's extend this logic a bit. For the next three or four minutes, for the purpose of argument, we will say that I AM A MAC RUMORS SITE, and therefore EVERYTHING I SAY IS TRUE because i NEVER CHECK MY SOURCES FOR ANY DEGREE OF ACCURACY.
Bruce Perens is an employee of Pixar. Bruce Perens is also the lead person behind the Debian open source linux distribution and head of the FSF. Whether the last two sentances are true or not is irrelivant; all i know is, like, Bruce Perens name was listed in the credits when i saw Toy Story 2, and, um, like, this r337 IRC d00d in #ircle said once that Bruce Perens ran Debian, and i'm a mac rumors site PH33R M3!!! So it must be right.

Because the same person is working at both Debian and Pixar in a coding postion, clearly the two are about to merge. This would clearly be logical, because they both involve penguins in some way, and because Debian has a [as of yet prerelease] PPC distribution in the works. So when disney buys apple, which they obviously will, Bruce Perens will make sure they buy the FSF as well because he's so attatched to it! Right? ISN"T THAT COOL!!!)@#(*!)(*!!!!!FSADFA

Please, please explain to me why the above is a lesser degree of bullshit than the rumors of apple, disney and pixar merging?
You can't, can you? The apple/disney rumors ARE just as idiotic. SO WHY DO YOU KEEP POSTING THIS STUFF ON THE SLASHDOT MAIN PAGE???

Let's think about this for a second.
This cyclical rumor keeps showing up despite the fact there is no factual basis for it. The only reason for assuming it in the first place is the hideously tenuous logical link that Steve Jobs, who is the [technically unpaid-- he gets a salary of $1 a year, plus some other slight "perks". The "perks" though, have included such things as millions of dollars of stock, and an airplane.] CEO of Apple, is also CEO of Pixar. That's it. The same person is working at both companies in a management position, and one of those two companies uses a third company for distribution and promotion purposes, so somehow in the warped minds of macosrumors it would follow that the three would merge.

Let's extend this logic a bit. For the next three or four minutes, for the purpose of argument, we will say that I AM A MAC RUMORS SITE, and therefore EVERYTHING I SAY IS TRUE because i NEVER CHECK MY SOURCES FOR ANY DEGREE OF ACCURACY.
Bruce Perens is an employee of Pixar. Bruce Perens is also the lead person behind the Debian open source linux distribution and head of the FSF. Whether the last two sentances are true or not is irrelivant; all i know is, like, Bruce Perens name was listed in the credits when i saw Toy Story 2, and, um, like, this r337 IRC d00d in #ircle said once that Bruce Perens ran Debian, and i'm a mac rumors site PH33R M3!!! So it must be right.

Because the same person is working at both Debian and Pixar in a coding postion, clearly the two are about to merge. This would clearly be logical, because they both involve penguins in some way, and because Debian has a [as of yet prerelease] PPC distribution in the works. So when disney buys apple, which they obviously will, Bruce Perens will make sure they buy the FSF as well because he's so attatched to it! Right? ISN"T THAT COOL!!!)@#(*!)(*!!!!!FSADFA

Please, please explain to me why the above is a lesser degree of bullshit than the rumors of apple, disney and pixar merging?
You can't, can you? The apple/disney rumors ARE just as idiotic. SO WHY DO YOU KEEP POSTING THIS STUFF ON THE SLASHDOT MAIN PAGE???

Could we talk about Interbase as well? Even though its source is not yet available, it is expected soon under an MPL-like license (the IPL).

Unfortunately, if the Rambus patent portfolio is valid, they can do whatever they want with "immunity" to US antitrut laws.

About a year ago, the US Federal Circuit (the US court with jurisdiction over patent appeals, answerable only to the US Supreme Court) decided that enforcement of a valid patent can never be an antitrust violation.

The decision was Intergraph v. Intel.

This means the best way to resolve this is finding prior art; one bit of prior art has been found over at technocrat.net.

-doug

Actually, the really smart people don't bother with all of this weblog crap...
--
"HORSE."

"Do you have anything like this to recommend? If so, please let me know by email..."

Like technocrat.net ?

I think you can count Courtney Love in the pro-Napster camp. Though I can't find a reference online, I've read several articles that feature pro-Napster comments from her.

Of course John Perry Barlow, EFF cofounder & Grateful Dead lyricist, is foursquare for Napster too....

... in the same way that if I go down to the car dealership and want to buy a new Suburban, and I feel that paying $47,000 for a new Suburban is too expensive, that doesn't give me the right to steal it, right?

*sigh* I don't know whether to smack my head against the wall, or fall down flabbergasted from what I'm hearing!

Well, hell - if copying and creating one or a thousand Suburbans were as trivial as copying computer files, why hell boy I wouldn't wait for you to steal my work I'd run to make it available to the world! Put another way, recently I saw a televised Ulrich say ``how would you [we the public that is] feel if you were a car mechanic and you fixed my car and I did not pay you for it? You wouldn't like it!'' Sh*t! If I dug ditches, performed brain surgery, created software, built Subarus, fermented Dutch cheese (and its sons =), fixed cars or for Gads sake I made music (we all know how vital to national security that profession is ) I'd gladly let you do the work so I could get on to providing what a bunch of fancy arranged silica could not.

Perhaps feed the hungry, as ditch digging is now done simply as a mouse/keystroke. But, shit! That f*cks up your analogies! The users (i.e., the throngs which Ulrich so facilely told to get lost recently in so many TV interviews) those masses out there are not communists. What they are are a bunch of pissed off consumers. I am 35 years old, a few years younger than these old geezer sound alikes, and from NYC. I remember the young Metallica that gigged here in 1981/2 at L'amours. Without a doubt those raging guys would have felt about a rich band bemoaning $17 music CDs as ``not [their] problem right now'' as so much hogwash. I know that for a fact.

You could use a dose of reality from many other enlightned musicians, the Web is festooned with leads.

Thanks

I'm disappointed they didn't include a reference to Bruce Perens' excellent comments on the matter. His essay not only weighs what's happening morally, but brings out an important insight: the less responsibly people behave with creations like Napster, the more ammo the greedy have to hit us with. Music Bootlegging with Napster Hurts Free Software. It's a bit frightening....

I'm not sure how I'm the cynical one. I'm arguing for understanding what other peoples' concerns are, acknowledging them when they're valid, and working with them to come up with a best-case solution. To me, the attitude that anyone who disagrees with you* is clueless, out of date and beneath your notice is cynical. It's also counterproductive and doomed to failure once the courts get involved.

* By you, I don't mean you personally.

The important thing is to fight for what you believe, and believe what you fight for.

Absolutely! And think before you believe! I've badmouthed Bruce Perens here on a couple of occasions, but on this issue, he's the one prominent Open Source (tm) figure who is being consistent. I give him a lot of credit for that.

It's true that the points raised by the questions are points to be reckoned with. It seems to this non-lawyer that Andover has a strong legal position. I expect that's the message that they were trying to send.

However, the letter is extremely cocky, and I have to say I was put off by that. Yes, to those of us who agree with Slashdot's position, it seems like a stinging rebuke. But their legal position isn't perfect, and even if it seemed that way, we all know that legal decisions don't always turn out reasonably.

I would have been happier if the cockiness of the letter was matched with a more explicit strength of exposition (No, I'm not talking about legalese or weasel words). I would be even happier still if Slashdot would actually remove the one post that they probably can still lose on (the direct posting of the spec). Even if it's LEGAL to keep that post up (and that really is the one area of this whole brouhuaha that I doubt), is it really ethical? Microsoft asked that people take steps to protect it. Everyone here knew that. Go ahead. Use any method you want to circumvent agreeing to the license. But redistributing the info is still a questionable action. If nothing else, trying to keep above reasonable reproach is good PR (ethics aside), even when up against an unscrupulous enemy. Slashdot could gain a lot of points by taking it down, and even avoid their biggest headache.

I do understand that this is being used as a battlefield for principles, and I uphold those principles. I'm very worried about our freedoms. But we need to fight wisely and make our cases tight. In the legal world, losing a battle doesn't just mean you don't gain the field, you also lose ground. I've noticed that in the computer industry, we almost seem to share certain battle chutzpah with Microsoft. Look at MP3.com throwing themselves into battle with the RIAA. It wasn't all that hard to predict that they might get caught on redistributing recordings they didn't hold the copyright too, even if they did have a fairly reasonable argument. The RecordTV.com people are doomed. Napster users who are redistributing music that they don't hold copyright on and don't have permission to redistribute don't have a legal leg to stand on, regardless of whether or not it benefits the bands (and let me insert here that I'm a musician and have freely released some of my music to be indiscriminatly copied because I beleive in the benefit). They're hurting the cause of freedom because of their irresponsible actions. If it seems to people that we are irresponsible, then the bad guys have that much more of a case for regulation. Unethical, irresponsible, and just plain bad-PR behavior provide a (not altogether) phantom menace for our greedy opposition to play with.

Bruce Perens has some insightful comments about this on technocrat.net. I highly recommend them. Open Source/Free software isn't about freedom to do anything you like without consequence. It's not about disrespecting for others, even when they're wrong. Let's make sure we are the good guys as well as fighting the bad.

(That said, I hope Andover knocks Microsoft on their unethical behind).

I just noticed on one the Technocrat's Slashdot problems-related forums a response from Micheal Sims (michael@slashdot.org), in which he confirms that "Slashdot has been under DDOS attack for the last 24 hours or so."
Why isn't this information being posted on Slashdot itself?

I just noticed on one the Technocrat's Slashdot problems-related forums a response from Micheal Sims (michael@slashdot.org), in which he confirms that "Slashdot has been under DDOS attack for the last 24 hours or so."
Why isn't this information being posted on Slashdot itself?

I think Microsoft wants a legal confrontation... Just as much as Microsoft is a defender of "Inovation" Slashdot is a defender of Linking.

Of all the posts Microsoft asked that Slashdot remove ONE containned the supposid violation.

However Microsoft made thies specs public the liccens itself MUST be bypassed by anyone wishing to view the document with out using Windows (Using unzip for Linux, Mac or Amiga as running the executable isn't an option for non-windows users).

The bulk of the posts to be removed are links to other websites. Had Microsoft contacted the websites linked they would no doupt willingly remove the pages making the Slashdot links void in the first place.

Publishing the specs in whole or in part dose not devalue Microsofts property (sence it is mearly specs for a product and of no value apart from the product) and posting it is fine under normal copyright law.

The base problem with the issue is you will find it nearly imposable to critisise Microsoft if you can never refer to Microsofts copyrights or trademarks.

Windows oh wait umm that Microsoft ohh s** umm That well known operating system sold by a larg company....
How can anyone talk about the specs for a Micosoft product if they can never refer link to or in any way acnoladge the specs?
Thats pritty much what Microsoft is asking. All posts making any attempt to refer back to the specs...

That is using copyrights to silence opposition. Acceptable use prevents this... The DCMA dose not...

When this showed up on.. Technocrat I had to check it out. It also showed up on Kuro5hin.

I of course had to post it on MeowBBS.

This is a major issue...
Can someone liccens your freedoms away?
Microsoft is betting they can... Slashdot is betting they can't.....
I'm taking the paranoid route...

Look for the new MeowPawjects liccens. You may not even THINK about our software with out agreeing to open all your standards....
This will only be attached to future projects.
(It feels like a violation of trust to switch liccenses on people.... I don't want to do that)

The Napster association is bad enough. If Slashdot does not yank the copyrighted material, not only will Andover lose, but the mainstream press will have a heyday calling all proponents of free software a bunch of thieving zealots. Imagine the impact this will have on the DeCSS case, let alone the future of commercial free-software development.

Slashdot has long been a thorn in the side of Redmond; let's not give MS such a cheap chance to destroy this rival. Nothing would make MS so happy as an excuse to take Andover to court and bleed it dry of funds. Now, the comments explaining how to circumvent the NDA are another thing; in my book, they count as legitimate reverse engineering. Legally testing that legitimacy might be a good thing.

Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product

I know all you guys think its really cool to call yourselvers "hackers" and pretend that you are some sort of antisocial wizards.

I know you are all wrapped up in the misunderstood genius syndrome.

I know you all think the world would be better off if it would just blindly accept your intellectual superiority and form a huge technocracy.

Unfortunately, the rest of the pathetic, stupid world still clings to the silly notion that there is more in life than overclocked Celerons and k-rad Perl scripts.

"Hacker" is what 90% of the world uses to refer to a someone who gains improper access to a computer. Let it go. Get on with your lives.

Seriously. Right now -- close your web browser, get up, go outside, and go for a walk. If you are in Minnesota, take an umbrella.

1. Notepad.
2. WindowBlinds
3. Ask Bruce.
4. VBScript. What rock have you been hiding under?
5. SuSE. 6 CDs and GoOFY Ex-ApPLE ExEC CaPS.
6. Kernel or distro? (I don't know. AAAAhhhhgggghhhh!)
7. Whatever the CPU uses.
8. Buy, run until dead, repeat.
9. Clean. What if I was in an accident?
10. Real redheads first, otherwise it's a non-factor.
11. Paper. Did you get safety scissors, paste, and plastic in kindergarten? I think not.
12. Mary Ann. (Odd considering my response to 10. Guess I wasn't looking at her hair.:-))
13. n/a
14. 1, 2-hoo, 3, (crunch). Three.
15. Babylon 5. Farscape's cool, but Sheridan would have nuked Scorpius by now.
16. n/a.
17. British Racing Green over tan leather.
18. Frames. Otherwise, I have to tape everything up, and then the paint starts peeling....
19. Silence.
20. Twisty back road with no cops.
21. Dr. Seuss.
22. How many times do I have to tell you? The right tool for the right job!
23. Unreal Tournament Domination.
24. Some $0.33 stamps and an unplugged modem, until I get a new e-mail/PIM client. Damn Outlook!
25. Hex.
26. Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee shoots and scores! Oh, buy Sam a drink, and get his dog one, too!
27. Hemos.

Every day we're standing in a wind tunnel
Facing down the future coming fast - Rush

If you were offered the opportunity to sell your songs online, where listeners could pay $1 - $2 per song (and NOT have to but the entire album), and have the ability to preview them, and this was all done in a way that prevented unauthorized sharing, would you accept?

As a fan, I would not accept this. This is the line of reasoning that led to things like DIVX. I won't pay for intangible goods.[0] If I buy music, or software, I expect to get something I can hold in my hands (at least a CD that can be used as a backup in case my hard drive dies). I also won't accept "keyed media" (media that can only be played in one specific player, or on one specific computer). That's a recipe for disaster.

How about an online jukebox, where fans could pay, say, 25 cents to hear a song once?

That's even worse. (If you like reading my incoherent ravings, I just wrote about something much like this on technocrat.net. I won't repeat it here.)

[0]Services are another matter. As an information technology consultant, I'm actually in the service industry. I don't sell software -- I sell my skills. I sometimes write software for people, but in my own mind, I'm not selling those bytes -- I'm selling the time and effort I put into creating those bytes, and the service of helping them get it in place and running correctly.

If you were offered the opportunity to sell your songs online, where listeners could pay $1 - $2 per song (and NOT have to but the entire album), and have the ability to preview them, and this was all done in a way that prevented unauthorized sharing, would you accept?

As a fan, I would not accept this. This is the line of reasoning that led to things like DIVX. I won't pay for intangible goods.[0] If I buy music, or software, I expect to get something I can hold in my hands (at least a CD that can be used as a backup in case my hard drive dies). I also won't accept "keyed media" (media that can only be played in one specific player, or on one specific computer). That's a recipe for disaster.

How about an online jukebox, where fans could pay, say, 25 cents to hear a song once?

That's even worse. (If you like reading my incoherent ravings, I just wrote about something much like this on technocrat.net. I won't repeat it here.)

[0]Services are another matter. As an information technology consultant, I'm actually in the service industry. I don't sell software -- I sell my skills. I sometimes write software for people, but in my own mind, I'm not selling those bytes -- I'm selling the time and effort I put into creating those bytes, and the service of helping them get it in place and running correctly.

> I suggest someone take that code and undermine /. with it. Competition
There are allready a few websites compeating with Slashdot... and allready Slashdot like forum software.
Technocrat runs on SquishDot...
MeowBBS runs on ZenToe...

All are available for download...
You don't need to use SlashCode if you want to compeate with Slashdot...

It's an open source web application server and it would make the job you're referring to a snap.

Some sites which use Zope:
www.zope.org
www.technocrat.net
appwatch.com
www.codecatalog.com

A brief discussion occured on the bill after its Maryland passage at TECHNOCRAT.NET. People might also be interested on what Del. Kumar Barve, chair of the House subcommitee that examined the bill, had to say:

As I am sure you know, the House of Delegates approved a heavily amended UCITA bill. There seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding this amended version.

The House Subcommittee on Science and Technology held ten open public work session attended by both opponents and proponents of the bill. Many suggestions which came from these work sessions were incorporated into our final version.

Currently, there is no current federal or state statue that applies to computer software licensing. However, twelve court cases have upheld shrinkwrap licenses and there have been no court cases to the contrary since 1993. By passing UCITA, consumers will now be allowed to get their money back if the product does not work as advertised or was purchased in error even after having loaded on their computer. Our amended version of UCITA also makes it clear that Maryland consumer laws apply to consumer computer transactions. Specifically, the Maryland version of UCITA prohibits software licensors from modifying or disclaiming implied warranties of merchantability.

Current law allows a company to disable software in home or business computers. Under UCITA, this practice is outlawed on home computers by our consumer protection laws and is heavily restricted in the commercial market.

Many of those concerned about the bill believe it gives software vendors control over your files and data. Under our version of UCITA, your data is your property.

The provisions do not change the law with respect to copyrighting and reverse engineering. UCITA explicitly states that all aspects of federal copyright law govern computer information transactions. The legislation also makes it clear that state trade secret laws and unfair competition laws are in full force and not overridden by UCITA.

Kumar Barve
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Science and Technology

I'm not saying that the Maryland law is perfect, just that you ought to know what your talking about before you express an opinion.

Bob Kopp

Actually nowhere when you post do you say that you are giving Slashdot permission to publish your post.

The act of submitting my post to Slashdot, with the understanding that it will appear on Slashdot, is equivalent to my giving permission to Slashdot to publish my post in that particular forum. What I have not given is permission to resell my posts in a book.

There is a fundemental difference between an article written by someone and published by Slashdot, and a comment displayed by Slashdot. In the former Slashdot is buying rights to display the article (buying may not involve monetary exchange though.)

I don't see the distinction. Jon Katz's articles in particular can be seen as the starting point of the discussion, essentially, the first post in the forum.

They are in no way agreeing to any conditions other then you still own the content of it.

If I still own the content of it, then my permission is required before it can be republished.

And since it is a public discussion forum, and called a comment, someone can probably quote your entire comment from it without having to reimburse you.

You could quote my entire comment in the forum, since it is assumed that the poster understands the nature of a forum. You could quote parts of my comment and resell it in a book. That's fair use. But you could not reproduce the entire content of my comment and resell it in a book.

e.g. Consider a book of publicly given speeches or lectures. No sane publisher would try to publish this without first obtaining permission from the speakers. Even if it were legal (I doubt so; the speaker could probably sue and win), it would be highly immoral.

Another example Technocrat.net states clearly on its posting forms that "By submitting this message, you grant TECHNOCRAT.NET and its owners a separate and independent copyright to your posting, and you retain your own copyright. Thus, we can do whatever we want with your posting, and so can you." Slashdot does not have such a statement on its comment posting form; I do not give similar permission when I write a comment on Slashdot.

====

Squishdot is not a port of the slashcode, it's a clone of some of the basic Slashdot functionality that was produced long before the recent release of the slashcode. It currently lacks features such as self-registration, member pages, post ranking, member pages, etc.

Nevertheless, it is an astonishingly useful product, and can be set up on a working Zope installation within about 5 minutes.

Some sites running Squishdot include:
Technocrat.net
Gnotices, Gnome developer News
70South
eBiquity.org
91.266A - Numerical Methods

and my own FIAWOL site.

There is also a big project underway to build a 'Portal Toolkit' (PTK) for Zope. You can find it here. The features of the PTK include self-registration, member pages, wizards for member contributed content, a review mechanism for member contributed content, multiple integrated sources for user authentication, most portal content 'discussable', etc.
--

Rootprompt.org is all new code and written in PHP. However, slashdot has influenced a *lot* of websites, and several complete weblog packages. Recently I made the mistake of assuming that Technocrat.net was based on an early version of slash. I later learned that it was based on squishdot. Heck, lots of stuff looks like slash nowadays. (I have since corrected the error, as is suggested by the "updated" date ;).

I looked into the SIF when it was first announced months ago. We went over the license on Technocrat, and quickly realized that it wasn't open source at all.

When you look at how MS intends the ZIS to be used, the end-user software that anyone but the techies see isn't intended to write or read data natively in the SIF format. There are agents to translate from the proprietary data formats to/from SIF. After things get through the agents into SIF form they get processed by the ZIS.

So why bother with SIF at all? The agents are clearly where the important work is to be done. If we want to do something similar, why bother with porting some MS code and be limited by their license? We already have an XML spec called EduML that does pretty much the same thing. There are OSS educational programs being written to use EduML as their native data format. If we were to use something like the Casbah Project as the backend, all we'd need to do is write a little glue and agents for whatever non-EduML software we wanted to play with our efforts. And it would all be OSS.

If you're at all interested in this sort of thing, come take a look at SEUL/edu and help us get Linux and OSS more widely accepted and used in education!

Doug Loss

First, this is not a flame. Please don't take it as such.

Some people are going to dislike EVERYTHING that's posted on the front page. Your complaint is about this, another's complaint is about Gnome, another's complaint is about Microsoft, etc, etc...

There is NOT going to be a way to suit everyone. It's time people just realized this. Give it up. No matter what you like, somebody else has to dislike it. And the same thing goes for your dislikes. No matter how much you dislike something, somebody is going to be happy that it was posted, on the front page no less.

Anyway, I just think that it's time for people to realize that this is not their site, and that they really ought to just give this a rest. I hear Technocrat is much more discerning in its stories. Maybe you'll like it better over there.

Again, not a flame. Just one man's (slightly twisted) opinion. Realize that there are things you can't control, and learn to accept them instead of whining about them like a 5 year old who didn't get the latest Pikachu.

Later,
-issue9mm-

technocrat.net

• 1996: A Strong Advocate of the V-Chip Technology. Vice President Gore strongly supports the V-chip technology that will assist parents in controlling what their children watch on TV. Gore led the administration s efforts to pass the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which included a provision mandating the inclusion of the V-chip in new television sets.

Try the following thought experiment to reveal the true nature of V-chip supporters: Willingly embrace and implement the infernal thing, then immediately turn around and say hey, this is great! Now that we've got this protection for our kids, we can start putting adult content on cable! Bring on the naked sex violence! ... What? Oh, I see. You're not as confident about the effectiveness of the V-chip anymore...

So, at any rate -- Thumbs Down on the V-chip, Al. This was actually trumpeted in another bullet as well, but I'll limit it to a single count to be fair.

• 1997 & 1999: Working to Foster a Family Friendly Internet. Al Gore has been a leader in ensuring that the Internet is a safe place to visit for all families. At the White House "Internet Online Summit for Kids", Gore called upon the industry to make tools that block unwanted materials, words or pictures easier to use, more effective and more available to parents. The Vice President also announced a "CyberTip Line" for parents to report suspicious activity, and a public awareness campaign, "Think Then Link" to help educate parents on ways of ensuring children s safety online. In 1999, the Vice President announced the "Parents' Protection Page" initiative. The initiative is a commitment by 15 leading Internet companies to help parents and kids safely surf the net and provide access to tools and safety tips.

So, I'll have to stay neutral and go with Thumbs sideways on this one. Feel free to comment with details if you've got them.

• 1998: Vice President Gore Called for an Electronic Bill of Rights to Protect Personal Privacy On-line. In May 1998, Vice President Gore has called for initiatives that will protect the medical and financial information that can easily be intercepted and abused by others. Gore called for the creation of an Electronic Bill of Rights that would allow citizens to choose whether personal information is disclosed when they use the Internet. It would also grant citizens a right to know how and when that information is used and ensure that they would be able to have access to their own information so they can verify it's accuracy. After the Vice President raised this issue, Congress passed a bill to prevent identity theft and to protect children's privacy.

So I go with Thumbs Up to Al on this one, even though it got mangled in Congress. This one needs to be continually hammered home, and battles are being fought as we speak (Doubleclick, anyone?).

• 1998: Cracking Down on Software Piracy. Vice President Gore stated that the Administration had "declare(d) war on software piracy&intellectual property must be protected." It is estimated that in the U.S. more than 27 percent of all software is pirated and abroad estimated rates soar from 60 to 90 percent, translating into a loss of at least $11 billion to the industry. Gore announced in October of 1998 an Executive Order declaring war on piracy both in the federal government as well as directing trade officials to pursue agreements with foreign government protecting intellectual property rights of software developers.

A resounding Thumbs Down on this one Al, because the ramifications have not been clearly thought out, especially as they pertain to the protection Open Source developers.

• 1998: Re-Defining Encryption Policy. Vice President Gore announced in October that the Administration would relax export controls for encryption software. The initiative applied to insurance companies, health and medical organizations and online merchants. The new policy which was praised by the high-tech industry, will allow American companies to sell and use stronger encryption products to protect their product and customers from potential violations of personal and national security.

Since any relaxation of the export controls on crypto are a good thing, but Al seems a bit out of touch with the more fundamental issues, I say Thumbs Sideways on this one.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look too good on the privacy front for Al. My tally was:

• 2 Thumbs Down
• 2 Thumbs Sideways
• 1 Thumbs Up

• 1983: Gore Cosponsored the High Technology Trade Act.
• 1984: Investing in Educational Technology.
• 1986: Gore Sponsored the Supercomputer Network Act of 1986.
• 1989 & 1991: Gore Sponsored Bill Investing in Early Research Networks.
• 1992: Gore Authored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992.
• 1994: Called for the Creation of a New Global Information Infrastructure (GII).
• 1996: Fought for the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
• 1996: Launched the Administration s Initiative to Wire Every Classroom for the Internet.
• 1996: Increased High Technology Trade with Asian Pacific Nations.
• 1996: Fighting for Faster Internet Connections.
• 1996: A Strong Advocate of the V-Chip Technology.
• 1997: Promoted Growth of Electronic Commerce.
• 1997 & 1999: Working to Foster a Family Friendly Internet.
• 1998: Vice President Gore Called for an Electronic Bill of Rights to Protect Personal Privacy On-line.
• 1998: Cracking Down on Software Piracy.
• 1998: Gore Led Administration Efforts to Promote Development of the Next Generation Internet.
• 1998: Promoting Internet Tax Freedom for Global Economic Growth.
• 1998: Re-Defining Encryption Policy.
• 1999: Gore Called for Substantial Increase in Information Technology Funding.
• 1999: Gore Calling For Boosting Information Technology in the Next Millennium.
  • Establishing a Permanent Tax Credit for Research and Development.
  • Expand the Global Marketplace.
  • Increase Investment in Information Technology.

• Experts Give Credit to Gore for Leadership on the Internet. Vinton Cerf, nicknamed the "Father of the Internet," stated, "I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator." Cerf is currently a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom.
• Early Designers of the Defense Department Network Credit Gore. Robert E. Kahn, who helped design early Internet network for Defense Departments Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 1969, stated that by popularizing the term "Information Superhighway," Gore raised awareness about the Internet's potential.

Have fun, folks. Be vigilant, and if you want more policy, politics, and legalities surrounding technology and privacy, check out technocrat.net.

Mojotoad

oh yeah. Zope is what Cold Fusion tries hard to do. I've been using Zope for APP development and it is truely a pleasure. Check out technocrat.net, which is IMHO, a great example of a well-done ZOPE application.

Movie publishers gave me authority to descramble a movie on DVD for the sole purpose of viewing the movie at home. Some of them may explicitly state that I'm allowed to use authorized player only; others may not. It's enough to find ONE DVD that does not explicitly restricts my choice of player to argue that I have the authority to build and use (with this particular movie) my own player, and I can share its design with others. It will not be a "circumvention" as defined by DMCA.

OTOH suppose a game like Quake comes along with encrypted copyrighted non-distributable (hi NP guy) maps, and the license explicitly states that you can use these maps within context of this game only. Then decrypting a map would be an act of "circumvention" as defined, as there are no non-infringing uses for that.

No "moderate this down" this time.
--

He can claim that because as he has stated many times, he gets email from these people. He didn't say that the ONLY people who read him were involved with technology, nor did he said that ALL of these people read him. He simply said that these people made up his audience.

How do you claim that you are read by highly technical linux geeks, when you rarely write about anything technical, much less a topic that can be highly technical?

So linux geeks read ONLY technical articles. How boring. You better not tell that to the Linux games site, otherwise they'll have to shut down.

You shouldn't abuse your position.

So doing his job is abusing his position, huh? He's paid to write for this site. He was hired by Rob. How is it abuse if he does what he is paid to do?

You are not respected, your opinions are not well founded or much less explained in any fashion.

Let me answer this in your own words: "How can you claim that? You are more arrogant that I ever imagined!" You have even less credibility to pass this kind of judgement. You don't speak for me, or the thousands of others here (even the ones who might agree with you). You criticize Katz for doing something and then do it yourself. No hipocrasy there.

Contrary to what world you have created in your mind, you sir are not a technocrat.

Hmmm. He never said he was. Perhaps you got him confused with Bruce Perens?

Its your choice to not like Katz. But to criticize his articles based on points is foolish. Get a better argument.

C'mon, you remember what a pain it was to read/post on slashdot before threaded comments were implemented, and you remember how nice it was when nested comments were later implemented (and if you need to remind yourself how inconvenient it was before, just hop on over to technocrat.net, unless Bruce has upgraded to the latest slash version)

Actually technocrat.net does have nested comments now, and it isn't running slash anyways. It runs Squishdot which is... What the hell, let's just let technocrat tell you. This is found at The Technology of TECHNOCRAT

Our web content manager software is Zope. Zope is written in Python. The weblog software that displays our articles is a Zope component called Squishdot. It looks a lot like the Slashdot software, but the software is entirely different from Slashdot and it's expected to evolve its own unique look and feel over time.

Well, andover's been around since 1992 (albeit in software publishing rather than online ad-serving), so at least someone heard about them before.

As for whether slashdot has improved or depreciated since the Good Ol' Days (TM), I'd have to say it's done neither. C'mon, you remember what a pain it was to read/post on slashdot before threaded comments were implemented, and you remember how nice it was when nested comments were later implemented (and if you need to remind yourself how inconvenient it was before, just hop on over to technocrat.net, unless Bruce has upgraded to the latest slash version). Cachedot.slashdot.org was cute in its day, but isn't it nicer just to have the main site have more serving capacity? (Of course that could use another upgrade, and cachedot was long after the primordial age you're pining for.) The editorial content hasn't changed much -- slashdot was always quick to announce, quick to get it wrong, and quick to retract. There're certainly more trolls than before, but that's inevitable and the moderation takes care of them as it should.

I'd say it has to be you. ;)

By submitting this message, you grant TECHNOCRAT.NET and its owners a separate and independent copyright to your posting, and you retain your own copyright. Thus, we can do whatever we want with your posting, and so can you. In 1999, we used our copyright to release all postings under the Open Publication License.

Diego

To do this I used a rather unusual publication policy, as far as I know I've invented it:

By submitting this article you grant Technocrat.net a separate and independent copyright to your posting, and you keep your own copyright. That means that you can do anything you wish with your posting, and so can we.

That allows us to apply a license to the postings after the fact.

However, this doesn't address the complaint, which is that Usenet sites seem to have a more liberal copyright policy that allows them to be filtered and presented differently by various web sites, and weblogs like Slashdot and Technocrat do not. I'm not sure that stands, legally. The Usenet doesn't demand a particular copyright and the default if you don't copyright your posting would be All Rights Reserved.

Thanks

Bruce

Start your own. No one here will stop you. It's what Rob and Jeff did, it's what Scoop did, it's what Joe P. did, it's what the guys behind Themes.org did. Hey, even Bruce did it, and he had some money already.

Unless VA or Andover somehow make it so that people can't visit my site, I won't worry.

--

At the Public Patent Portfoloio Consortium (P3C) there are links to a Technocrat article about this, and to OpenPatents.org.

Disclaimer: I'm not impartial. I created P3C and wrote the Technocrat article. OpenPatents.org belongs to someone else.

Though IANAL et al, I am really saddened by all those tragical suits against smart programmers and reverse engineers. I mean, this ain't no magic, this ain't no piracy, this is work and brainpower.

So how could we make things clearer to the judges ? We, as tech-aware people, have to inform everyone that "the times they are a changin'" ! There is no doubt we'll always find a guy smart enough to reverse engineer any protection against wild copy. So isn't it time to think about new ways of supporting creation ?


I think we need another Bruce Perens, maybe more specialized, to act as the Voice of the Community about those music / video / DVD things. Judges and governments have to understand that software and digital information changes the rules. There is nothing closest to an MP3 than the 'cp' of it ... There is always an access to /dev/dsp too, so is there a chance to prevent us to 'su' as root on our own PC and catch /dev/dsp's input?

Well, maybe it is a little too late 4 me...

Make no mistake about it. Corporattions are drawing a line in the sand with this move. The outcome of this battle will determine weather or not open source can survive. Hey where are our so-called leaders? ESR? Perens? Young? Torwalds? Augistine? your silence is defening. Speak now or forever hold your piece.

And let's not forget RMS.

This is an excellent point. Where ARE all of the leaders?

In that IRC chat Bruce Perens was aksed about this and did speak briefly about it. His opinion can be found HERE.

And I wouldn't count on Linus to get TOO involved in such a controversial issue right now considering that he works for Transmeta and they probably don't want any negative press of any kind right now.

But that still doesn't explain the 2 guys with the initials. One in particular. They're usually around and usually speaking very loudly. I believe they are needed more than ever to support us in this, what might be the most important battle we ever fight.

I believe their support is needed even if this particular story turns out to be bogus.

Thanks

Bruce

Bruce

You don't get to read stuff like this on slashdot itself, except in little bursts that are quickly labeled "off-topic".

I recommend reading: A proposal to Slashdot

;-)

But we all have our flaws; I have mine, you have yours, and since we're both trying to achieve many of the same long-term goals, I have nothing against you and wish you well in every way. Why, I even read TECHNOCRAT.NET at least two or three times every week -- and enjoy it! (Free plug!)

And so, since I'm a "don't sweat the small stuff" person and know it's scary getting ready to be a father for the first time, I'll overlook your poor fact-checking on the taxi front. A tiny bit of research would have told you that Royal Cab in Baltimore, for which I both drove and dispatched, has red taxis, not yellow ones.

I hope I have time to drop in on your chat tonight. You're an interesting guy and decent person (with a few tiny flaws) and I think this is going to be a fine and worthy event.

Take care,

-- Robin "roblimo" Miller
Baltimore Cab License #6714
Maryland Limo Permit #1273

Cause that's where Bruce gets all his MP3s. When there aren't any questions pending, he'll be in #Cablemp3z sucking up Fserves and the like.

Also, I heard he's gonna have an onopen invite bot running to sucker you into #technocrat, which will be housing his devious plans for opening Slash code.

No doubt, he's an evil mastermind, and we should all bow down before him. (CmdrTaco, I am your father...)

PS. Just kidding.

Well, to learn more about Bruce, you can check out his "competition to /." page at Technocrat.net, or his personal site at Perens.com. His BIO can be found here.

All in all, Bruce is an okay guy. I haven't really interacted with him much, but he at least appears to make sense most of the time. (Really, all you can ask out of anyone, IMHO)

• Call this OS anything you want, but please include the name "linux" in whatever you call it.
• Please claim to your free subdomain (reputation) in our community-owned, mother-of-all-intranets at http://our.linux.org/dns (eg: va.linux.org = valinux.com etc)
• Let's chaorganize ourselves to free our idea exchange, while forging a commercial agreement to immunize ourselves from free-riders like Dr. Chiou.. This process might take us a year..