Kick them out for cheating, and go very easy on the ones you can't detect any cheating from.
The problem here is that there is no reward for honest behaviour. Yea, yea, a degree is the reward. But if you're good at cheating, you get that *plus* you have a chance to get top marks in your class and graduate with "honours" *plus* you get to concentrate on the stuff you're actually interested in learning. Once you learn that many people don't actually want to be in the class you're teaching, you'll realize that cheating is often a way for them to make time for what they consider to be more important classes or activities.
In every University I've been to (quite a few) and every College and University I've heard about, the honest ones are effectively punished for being honest. If you can cheat and get away with it, you'll often get far better grades than if you had been honest, done the 45+ hours of readings, completed the 30 hours of time in front of your computer, performed the 30+hours of library research, and had no time left-over to do your laundry, cook your own meals, or basically attend to your own personal hygiene.
It's bullshit. Often the only way to get through a particularly difficult course is to collaborate with friends, which itself is considered cheating. I mean, when you get out of University, do you really think your average employer is going to fire you for talking to your programmer friends about a particular problem? Your colleagues? The people sitting next to your cubicle?
Besides all that, most Universities have strict anti-cheating policies and kick out students who cheat. Why doesn't yours?
Actually, a recent form of Dyrt in my case. I happen to have the old world data files that have camelot, mjolnir, the icy dagger, and so on that were classic in the old AberMUDs.
Yay me!
So I play my own freshly compiled Dyrt on my NetBSD server, and that's my favourite so far. A bit obtuse at times... but fun!
Of course, linking with the LGPL still requires that you allow reverse-engineering for interoperability and for the end-user's own private uses (whatever those uses might be.)
You're not reading the article. There are static modifications to the Linux kernel that aren't being released. It's not a question of "if modules" or "then they're ok". It's clear in the linked article! Sheesh!
You're wrong. Us ranting about it here increases awareness. A lawsuit does nothing but make the lawyers handling the case(s) richer. The first step in any fight (if this is in fact a fight) is to make sure that the company knows you are going to be taking the entire affair and splaying all out in front of the whole world for everyone to see and judge.
You don't think that masses of people who know what LinkSys is doing won't cost them money when there's a LinkSys product and someone else's similar product sitting side-by-side on the same shelf?
You're not too bright about the whole "inform the public" thing are you?
You've got it wrong: It's not just that they can't compile it, and you've obviously neglected to read any further than the first few paragraphs. There is actual, statically-linked code which is built directly into the Linux kernel they use on the device. They are specifically neglecting to include modifications to the kernel they made, in contravention of the GPL.
1...where Dante sits there and fervently prays before engaging the agent. 2...where Medusa busily fiddles around with nmap. For a long time. Tickety tick. 3...where the operator says, "Come on man, don't do this to me, pick up the phone," while Dante is off on an Agent-killing ego trip.
What a great job!:-) Love the not over-used wire work. Not so much flying through the air as in the real Matrix movies. Seems very tasteful the way they've arranged it here.
Clickety key action that gives you the tactile feedback you need to be sure that you actually pressed that key (it's pumped up my typing rate another 10wpm,) it's incredibly durable (to the point where it can be used as a blunt weapon in case of home invasion) and the kind of heavy-duty keyboard we've all wished we had.
It's not Microsoft "ergonomic" so you can cross your hands over each other easily if you need to hit a weird control sequence, the backslash is in the right place (and is full size)--right beneath the Backspace key, both shift keys are full-size, the arrow cluster, the home/insert/etc cluster, the numpad--everything is exactly where you've learned it to be, and are most comfortable with.
The shift keys are full-size too.
I love my Fujitsu. If you're not into ball-keyboards with gel wrist mounts and want something that can take the angriest pounding you can dish out and come back laughing at you, you should get one too.
(My one gripe is that is has three extra, completely unnecessary keys--two Windows keys and a menu key, but they're unobtrusive enough that I've never hit one while playing Unreal Tournament, and that's saying something because my keyboard hand hovers around the Shift-X-A-Z area.)
You don't have a fucking clue what a dictatorship is, you don't have a clue about simple human rights, you don't understand what the term "standard of living" means, and you don't have a clue what the word "analogy" means.
You also have no clue what a logical fallacy is, freely use them, freely tout them as argument for your position, and are thus a complete and utter nincompoop.
You're wrong, everyone knows you're wrong, you *should* know you're wrong, and you need to get a life outside of generalizing about things of which you obviously know very little.
Go back to school, and learn what socialism is, and then learn what communism is (both Marxist and the poor implementations thereof,) and then come back here and make those same claims, and I'll show you someone who failed every class he took in the subject.
That has to do with importing the books. Now that we have print-on-demand printshops, customs can no longer stop the import of the book (how do they filter the ftp transfer of a PDF?) and has NO jurisdiction whatsoever over printshops running their presses within our borders.
Fuck you customs! Your days of unchecked censorship are OVER!
What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what fascism is?! Jesus man.. Way to liken a horrible dictatorship marked by ruthless murder and the brutal slayings that Mussolini indulged in with a government stepping in and protecting its citizens from corporate greed.
Fucking tard.
Re:Extortion [Re:Stealing by the RIAA]
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
To steal is to run away with the complete object. "I stole the bag." You rob someone if you take something from them: "I robbed the bank," or "I robbed the mailman," or "I robbed the safety deposit box."
You usually don't steal the mailman, or rob the money.
So the RIAA could legitimately be stealing money, because it's very simple to "steal the bag" right in front of its owner, even though you're "robbing" that owner of his bag.
Suggest you version everything you do--everything. Every page, every object, every database schema, every java class, every graphic.. all of it.
CVS is good and free.. Perforce is a pro tool for a reasonable price.. etc.
You'll thank me later, even though you'll curse me for putting you through the initial learning curve. You'll be able to track who did what, where, when, and (hopefully) why. You'll be able to roll-back changes you made simply by clicking a button and typing in a date. You'll be able to make incremental changes to a live website without bringing everything online all at once (and watching everything break.)
Plus you'll be able to prove you did the work, when you did the work, and how much work you did in all its gory detail.
Trust me, if you ignore all the other crappy advice in this thread, don't ignore your versioning.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
Seems like there's been a progression through the first three: We ignored SCO when they were first bringing this up. We laughed at them when they started asking for crazy licensing fees. Now we're fighting them with lawsuits.
It'll be fun to sit back and see whether #4 happens or not.
You know what would really suck though? IBM doing this deliberately in a titanic effort to destroy Linux as a competitor. Imagine the kind of evil that ploy would require; after all--since when did IBM suddenly become our friend? They used to be the big brother-like enemy, remember?
This is just too funny. I'm glad the BSDs have been SCM'd in CVS and Perforce right from the beginning--any foul play is completely recorded and there's no question about who stuffed in a piece of code where. Unfortunately with Linux, it was all patches up until Linux started using BitKeeper--easy to track down, but still a bit of a pain to grok it all.
So do you, after all, use the inline string.h macros? Which ones? If you don't, the compiler is perfectly capable of generating processor-specific code without the 486 bits/*. If you do, most of those macros are more than 10 lines, including memcpy.
Ha ah ah ha.. all you're doing is making yourself look stupid with comments.
Got any more amusing (and revealing) remarks like that one?
Now I know why you haven't been forthcoming about technical details.. *snicker* So come on then, bitch--let's see an objdump.
Tell you what--let's find a datestamping, signing server. I'll write my objdump analysis, have it datestamped and signed, and you write yours and post it here. I'll prove that I wrote mine before you posted yours, and we'll go from there?
So, chicken shit? Put your money where your mouth is or shut the fuck up.
1. You imply that no one uses the inlined string functions of glibc for optimization in a project such as Maya (otherwise I'm right about Maya's LGPL'd-ness and your argument falls apart--as though it hasn't already.)
2. You have the 486-optimized glibc development headers on your system, which include an inlined memcpy version which aggregates to more than 10 lines in length based on the arguments passed to the memcpy macro. (So you don't know shit regardless.)
3. There is no point in having the 486-optimized versions of the inlined functions unless you actually use them.
4. Ergo, you don't have a clue and never did.
You haven't given even a single statement that indicates you know what you're talking about except to mention something irrelevant about Jarfiles, and parrot back to me what I already taught you. In fact, what you've stated (about the initialization routines) is so patently ridiculous I'm not surprised you haven't pursued that line of stupidity further.
You're not a coder; the very idea is laughable.. You're just a Java-dabbling punk weenie who thinks his l33t JBuilder skillz translate directly to his l33t Mandrake dual-booter. ('Cause we all know RedHat sux0rs, right Wavicle?)
I've already grokked an objdump. You haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing about this. So come on--show us all your l33t objdump m4d skillz and show me how your own example doesn't fall under the LGPL redistribution clauses.
Admit it--*your own* example's executable, back in this very same thread, must be distributed under the LGPL if it's distributed at all.
For the record, on x86 systems there are two possible bits/string.h, and both contain enough inline code in a memcpy to push a compiled program that uses them to fall under the >10 line inline function size limit mentioned in the LGPL.
The two files (from the glibc source itself):./sysdeps/i386/i486/bits/string.h./sysdeps/i386/bits/string.h
The i386 is the generic one that is installed by default in, for example, RedHat-based systems.
What are you talking about? Did you have to download the entire glibc archive just so you could check into our little argument? What bits/string.h is installed on your system?
Or.. are you not even running a Linux system?
Ah, so that's why you won't do an objdump. You don't even have the tool available. It makes sense now: you can't convincingly argue about glibc because you don't even have it installed and thus can't reference it.
And you were able to loophole around my claim of your initialization code because you truly weren't linking with the LGPL, but were on another system entirely. What, do you think that means you won? No, it just means you were being an immature ass.
Why did you even bother? You could have saved yourself so much more time by just admitting from the start: "I don't have a Linux system, so I'm talking out my arse."
The alternative is worse, of course... that you are on a Linux system and just don't have the faculties to research using your own system...
So? Now what? Do we just admit you were wrong about the main point of this whole argument--that almost all Linux-compiled, dynamically-linked executables contain enough LGPL'd code to make them fall under the LGPL's scope--and leave it at that?
Or are you going to continue trolling until this discussion is archived?
I've already pointed out inline string functions larger than 10 lines that exist within the glibc-supplied bits/string.h Are you having trouble finding them? Look again.
And you're doing it again--you're deliberately misinterpreting. How can you be so obtuse? The answer is obvious: It's deliberate.
You're clueless also with regards to the glibc, and are simply parroting back information I've already stated earlier in the thread. I'm glad to have enlightened your poor, ignorant self, and I'm glad I've managed to teach you something you apparently didn't already know.
The fact that you can't find the inlined string.h functions that are longer than ten lines is also amusing.
So? Let's see that objdump analysis! That, or admit your demonstration program listed above falls under the LGPL's reverse engineering clause the moment you distribute the final executable. I'll then stop bugging you to provide better examples.
Until you can get your head out of your arse, I see no point in continuing. It's easy to do--just pop it out and let the blood flow.
Slashdot Mirror
... your brain needs to work. Might as well open up the job market for the rest of us.
The suburbs?! You're right on the beach man! Pop on a wetsuit and jump in!
Kick them out for cheating, and go very easy on the ones you can't detect any cheating from.
The problem here is that there is no reward for honest behaviour. Yea, yea, a degree is the reward. But if you're good at cheating, you get that *plus* you have a chance to get top marks in your class and graduate with "honours" *plus* you get to concentrate on the stuff you're actually interested in learning. Once you learn that many people don't actually want to be in the class you're teaching, you'll realize that cheating is often a way for them to make time for what they consider to be more important classes or activities.
In every University I've been to (quite a few) and every College and University I've heard about, the honest ones are effectively punished for being honest. If you can cheat and get away with it, you'll often get far better grades than if you had been honest, done the 45+ hours of readings, completed the 30 hours of time in front of your computer, performed the 30+hours of library research, and had no time left-over to do your laundry, cook your own meals, or basically attend to your own personal hygiene.
It's bullshit. Often the only way to get through a particularly difficult course is to collaborate with friends, which itself is considered cheating. I mean, when you get out of University, do you really think your average employer is going to fire you for talking to your programmer friends about a particular problem? Your colleagues? The people sitting next to your cubicle?
Besides all that, most Universities have strict anti-cheating policies and kick out students who cheat. Why doesn't yours?
Actually, a recent form of Dyrt in my case. I happen to have the old world data files that have camelot, mjolnir, the icy dagger, and so on that were classic in the old AberMUDs.
Yay me!
So I play my own freshly compiled Dyrt on my NetBSD server, and that's my favourite so far. A bit obtuse at times... but fun!
Of course, linking with the LGPL still requires that you allow reverse-engineering for interoperability and for the end-user's own private uses (whatever those uses might be.)
You're not reading the article. There are static modifications to the Linux kernel that aren't being released. It's not a question of "if modules" or "then they're ok". It's clear in the linked article! Sheesh!
Cripes, people. RTFA!
You're wrong. Us ranting about it here increases awareness. A lawsuit does nothing but make the lawyers handling the case(s) richer. The first step in any fight (if this is in fact a fight) is to make sure that the company knows you are going to be taking the entire affair and splaying all out in front of the whole world for everyone to see and judge.
You don't think that masses of people who know what LinkSys is doing won't cost them money when there's a LinkSys product and someone else's similar product sitting side-by-side on the same shelf?
You're not too bright about the whole "inform the public" thing are you?
You've got it wrong: It's not just that they can't compile it, and you've obviously neglected to read any further than the first few paragraphs. There is actual, statically-linked code which is built directly into the Linux kernel they use on the device. They are specifically neglecting to include modifications to the kernel they made, in contravention of the GPL.
Top three moments in the movie:
..where Dante sits there and fervently prays before engaging the agent. ..where Medusa busily fiddles around with nmap. For a long time. Tickety tick. ..where the operator says, "Come on man, don't do this to me, pick up the phone," while Dante is off on an Agent-killing ego trip.
:-) Love the not over-used wire work. Not so much flying through the air as in the real Matrix movies. Seems very tasteful the way they've arranged it here.
1.
2.
3.
What a great job!
Clickety key action that gives you the tactile feedback you need to be sure that you actually pressed that key (it's pumped up my typing rate another 10wpm,) it's incredibly durable (to the point where it can be used as a blunt weapon in case of home invasion) and the kind of heavy-duty keyboard we've all wished we had.
It's not Microsoft "ergonomic" so you can cross your hands over each other easily if you need to hit a weird control sequence, the backslash is in the right place (and is full size)--right beneath the Backspace key, both shift keys are full-size, the arrow cluster, the home/insert/etc cluster, the numpad--everything is exactly where you've learned it to be, and are most comfortable with.
The shift keys are full-size too.
I love my Fujitsu. If you're not into ball-keyboards with gel wrist mounts and want something that can take the angriest pounding you can dish out and come back laughing at you, you should get one too.
(My one gripe is that is has three extra, completely unnecessary keys--two Windows keys and a menu key, but they're unobtrusive enough that I've never hit one while playing Unreal Tournament, and that's saying something because my keyboard hand hovers around the Shift-X-A-Z area.)
The Fujistu 4725. Done right. Really.
You don't have a fucking clue what a dictatorship is, you don't have a clue about simple human rights, you don't understand what the term "standard of living" means, and you don't have a clue what the word "analogy" means.
You also have no clue what a logical fallacy is, freely use them, freely tout them as argument for your position, and are thus a complete and utter nincompoop.
You're wrong, everyone knows you're wrong, you *should* know you're wrong, and you need to get a life outside of generalizing about things of which you obviously know very little.
Go back to school, and learn what socialism is, and then learn what communism is (both Marxist and the poor implementations thereof,) and then come back here and make those same claims, and I'll show you someone who failed every class he took in the subject.
That has to do with importing the books. Now that we have print-on-demand printshops, customs can no longer stop the import of the book (how do they filter the ftp transfer of a PDF?) and has NO jurisdiction whatsoever over printshops running their presses within our borders.
Fuck you customs! Your days of unchecked censorship are OVER!
Canada is NOT socialist. Nowhere close. Go back to school.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what fascism is?! Jesus man.. Way to liken a horrible dictatorship marked by ruthless murder and the brutal slayings that Mussolini indulged in with a government stepping in and protecting its citizens from corporate greed.
Fucking tard.
To steal is to run away with the complete object. "I stole the bag." You rob someone if you take something from them: "I robbed the bank," or "I robbed the mailman," or "I robbed the safety deposit box."
You usually don't steal the mailman, or rob the money.
So the RIAA could legitimately be stealing money, because it's very simple to "steal the bag" right in front of its owner, even though you're "robbing" that owner of his bag.
Suggest you version everything you do--everything. Every page, every object, every database schema, every java class, every graphic.. all of it.
CVS is good and free.. Perforce is a pro tool for a reasonable price.. etc.
You'll thank me later, even though you'll curse me for putting you through the initial learning curve. You'll be able to track who did what, where, when, and (hopefully) why. You'll be able to roll-back changes you made simply by clicking a button and typing in a date. You'll be able to make incremental changes to a live website without bringing everything online all at once (and watching everything break.)
Plus you'll be able to prove you did the work, when you did the work, and how much work you did in all its gory detail.
Trust me, if you ignore all the other crappy advice in this thread, don't ignore your versioning.
It is what I meant. I don't mean fun in a spiteful sense either--purely in a "wow this is damn interesting" sense.
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
Seems like there's been a progression through the first three: We ignored SCO when they were first bringing this up. We laughed at them when they started asking for crazy licensing fees. Now we're fighting them with lawsuits.
It'll be fun to sit back and see whether #4 happens or not.
You know what would really suck though? IBM doing this deliberately in a titanic effort to destroy Linux as a competitor. Imagine the kind of evil that ploy would require; after all--since when did IBM suddenly become our friend? They used to be the big brother-like enemy, remember?
This is just too funny. I'm glad the BSDs have been SCM'd in CVS and Perforce right from the beginning--any foul play is completely recorded and there's no question about who stuffed in a piece of code where. Unfortunately with Linux, it was all patches up until Linux started using BitKeeper--easy to track down, but still a bit of a pain to grok it all.
Alright, you DOPES. Do ANY of you know how to spell sovereign? How the hell hard is it to just visit dictionary.com and look it up?!
Cripes! Reading Slashdot's like being stuck in a special-ed classroom sometimes...
You're so funny. :-) And stupid. But funny also.
So do you, after all, use the inline string.h macros? Which ones? If you don't, the compiler is perfectly capable of generating processor-specific code without the 486 bits/*. If you do, most of those macros are more than 10 lines, including memcpy.
Ha ah ah ha.. all you're doing is making yourself look stupid with comments.
Got any more amusing (and revealing) remarks like that one?
Now I know why you haven't been forthcoming about technical details.. *snicker* So come on then, bitch--let's see an objdump.
Tell you what--let's find a datestamping, signing server. I'll write my objdump analysis, have it datestamped and signed, and you write yours and post it here. I'll prove that I wrote mine before you posted yours, and we'll go from there?
So, chicken shit? Put your money where your mouth is or shut the fuck up.
Thanks for making my argument for me;
1. You imply that no one uses the inlined string functions of glibc for optimization in a project such as Maya (otherwise I'm right about Maya's LGPL'd-ness and your argument falls apart--as though it hasn't already.)
2. You have the 486-optimized glibc development headers on your system, which include an inlined memcpy version which aggregates to more than 10 lines in length based on the arguments passed to the memcpy macro. (So you don't know shit regardless.)
3. There is no point in having the 486-optimized versions of the inlined functions unless you actually use them.
4. Ergo, you don't have a clue and never did.
You haven't given even a single statement that indicates you know what you're talking about except to mention something irrelevant about Jarfiles, and parrot back to me what I already taught you. In fact, what you've stated (about the initialization routines) is so patently ridiculous I'm not surprised you haven't pursued that line of stupidity further.
You're not a coder; the very idea is laughable.. You're just a Java-dabbling punk weenie who thinks his l33t JBuilder skillz translate directly to his l33t Mandrake dual-booter. ('Cause we all know RedHat sux0rs, right Wavicle?)
I've already grokked an objdump. You haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing about this. So come on--show us all your l33t objdump m4d skillz and show me how your own example doesn't fall under the LGPL redistribution clauses.
Admit it--*your own* example's executable, back in this very same thread, must be distributed under the LGPL if it's distributed at all.
For the record, on x86 systems there are two possible bits/string.h, and both contain enough inline code in a memcpy to push a compiled program that uses them to fall under the >10 line inline function size limit mentioned in the LGPL.
./sysdeps/i386/i486/bits/string.h ./sysdeps/i386/bits/string.h
The two files (from the glibc source itself):
The i386 is the generic one that is installed by default in, for example, RedHat-based systems.
What are you talking about? Did you have to download the entire glibc archive just so you could check into our little argument? What bits/string.h is installed on your system?
Or.. are you not even running a Linux system?
Ah, so that's why you won't do an objdump. You don't even have the tool available. It makes sense now: you can't convincingly argue about glibc because you don't even have it installed and thus can't reference it.
And you were able to loophole around my claim of your initialization code because you truly weren't linking with the LGPL, but were on another system entirely. What, do you think that means you won? No, it just means you were being an immature ass.
Why did you even bother? You could have saved yourself so much more time by just admitting from the start: "I don't have a Linux system, so I'm talking out my arse."
The alternative is worse, of course... that you are on a Linux system and just don't have the faculties to research using your own system...
So? Now what? Do we just admit you were wrong about the main point of this whole argument--that almost all Linux-compiled, dynamically-linked executables contain enough LGPL'd code to make them fall under the LGPL's scope--and leave it at that?
Or are you going to continue trolling until this discussion is archived?
I've already pointed out inline string functions larger than 10 lines that exist within the glibc-supplied bits/string.h Are you having trouble finding them? Look again.
And you're doing it again--you're deliberately misinterpreting. How can you be so obtuse? The answer is obvious: It's deliberate.
You're clueless also with regards to the glibc, and are simply parroting back information I've already stated earlier in the thread. I'm glad to have enlightened your poor, ignorant self, and I'm glad I've managed to teach you something you apparently didn't already know.
The fact that you can't find the inlined string.h functions that are longer than ten lines is also amusing.
So? Let's see that objdump analysis! That, or admit your demonstration program listed above falls under the LGPL's reverse engineering clause the moment you distribute the final executable. I'll then stop bugging you to provide better examples.
Until you can get your head out of your arse, I see no point in continuing. It's easy to do--just pop it out and let the blood flow.