Did you just say the Iraq war effort should be compared to the continual (and probably neverending) efforts to reduce drug use and rehabilitate prisoners?
Are you really sure you want to compare the Iraq war to something that never ends?
So, all it takes to get you to reject something is to label it "political correctness". All it takes to get you to accept something is to call it "politically incorrect". Interesting. I'll stick to examining individual arguments on their own merits, thanks.
We're judging the behaviour of a (supposedly) religious organisation in the 21st century by comparing it to the behaviour of the Catholic Church in the 12th?
Um, why? Doesn't that just prove how backwards the Church of Scientology is?
It's probably worth mentioning that Australia has a federal election due sometime late this year. This is likely just the Australian government trying to prove that they're "tough on terror" without having to go to the trouble of actually doing something effective.
"Bull" is appropriate. Nice strawmen you've set up there, mate. Perhaps you'd like to actually address *real* criticisms of the MS/Novell deal this time?
Since Novell has negotiated a legal agreement with Microsoft, they can be presumed to know what patents apply
Um, why? MS has already indicated that they "agree to disagree" on the patent issue. I think it's worth pointing out that we only have Novell's assurances that their future code contributions will be MS-patent free. We do NOT have Microsoft's assurance of that. It's Microsoft who's making threatening noises towards Linux on the patent issue, not Novell.
Scenario: Novell generates code which it believes to be unencumbered by MS patents. Novell then contributes the code to, say Linux or Openoffice.org, at which point Microsoft publicly "agrees to disagree" with Novell again and claims that said code does violate their patents.
What would happen?
and Novell has to be extra careful about patent violations when distributing software, since they would be liable for willful commercial infringement.
Novell has bought freedom from liability for infringing on Microsoft's patents THROUGH THIS VERY AGREEMENT!
Well, that explains the advantage to Novell at any rate. Now they can profit from skittish customers who switch to Novell because they take Microsoft's "undisclosed balance liability" FUD seriously, since, as you say, Novell customers (and ONLY Novell customers) can't be sued.
Getting a leg-up over your Linux competitors via Microsoft's FUD? That's business I guess. It's just not any kind of business I'd want to associate with.
As stated, they got a promise from Microsoft not to sue them or their customers. Which clarifies to me what what Microsoft is trying to create with this deal: a legally-sanctioned protection racket.
"Gee, that's a nice stock price you've got there, Linux-using company, be a shame if a lawsuit happened to it. You'd better go to the Linux distributor that we say you should use if you don't want that to happen to YOU."
Yeah, well, fuck the world. They don't matter when it comes to who the US citizens pick as its leaders
Oh how I wish that were true.
Unfortunately, as long as the US is a "sole superpower" then the rest of world has to care about who runs the US whether we like it or not.
And maybe if the Republicans had cared a little more about what the rest of the world thought about, say, Iraq, then the Republican Party might not be getting the electoral drubbing from their own citizens that they're currently getting.
Yes and no. Mainstream acceptance at the cost of accepting the mainstream paradigm of, say, what constitutes an acceptable (for which many linux types will read "market-droid approved") naming scheme would raise hackles about "extinguishing the very thing that makes Linux so good" or similar.
I don't know, I'm getting accustomed to the names myself. So the Ubuntu designers like to name their releases after animals, in keeping with their overall Earth/Humanity theme. That's not "pointlessly wacky", just unfamiliar.
Shouldn't people be focusing on whether their software works rather than what it's called? Function over marketing-speak?
At many companies where I've worked, they do use open source and free software, but they are careful when it comes to the license as they don't want to inadvertantly make all of thier work go under the GPL if it's distributed.
Which would be a valid concern if that automatically happened in the case of an inadvertent violation. Accidentally distributing software in violation of a software license can be rectified simply by stopping distribution of the code, and perhaps paying compensation to the owner of the licensed software that did get distributed if they ask for it (which open source companies to my knowledge have never done).
This idea that accidentally including GPL code in your code instantly turns it all into GPL code against your will is a myth, a fraud, a boogie-man told by closed-source companies who don't get that the whole "copyleft" idea is just an unusual implementation of the usual laws concerning copyright.
Actually the www.xenu.net link was removed from Google's search engine temporarily, but that had more to do with the Church of Scientology's tendency to play fast and loose with the law: they deceptively implied in their legal threat that trademarks were covered by the DMCA, and that sites which contained them (eg Operation Clambake) had to be removed if a complaint was received. The site was returned to the search results once the deception was noticed.
Also, there was an outcry on Slashdot over the issue at the time as I recall, including an actual plan to protest Google (somewhat depreciatingly referred to as a "Xenu investigation team"). Google's current policy wrt DMCA came about from it in fact.
Aha! Thank you, I asked that question earlier (where is google.cn located) and got no response.
I may have spoken too soon. According to this it's currently in California, although according to this the censorship deal was struck with the goal of getting a presence on the mainland in mind.
This is really beginning to sound like the people who got all gaga about Microsoft releasing limited parts of their source code under NDA and went off wibbling about "open source Windows".
Actually I think I've come up with a reasonable sounding explanation for the different viewpoints. People are condemning Google's slide towards the evil of censorship and praising Microsoft's reduction in the evil of censorship. But that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's evilness on this issue is bigger than Google's. So Google.Evil++ is bad while Microsoft.Evil-- is good, but Microsoft.Evil > Google.Evil all the same.
A cynical person might think that Microsoft's press release is intentionally playing down the latter fact and playing up the former.
Yes, Google's actions are bad. Given that, I don't see why people are actually celebrating an international policy by Microsoft which is much worse than Google's policy in China
See, Google only censors the search results of google.cn, which is physically located in China. Microsoft has just said that a blog which, say, the Chinese government wants censored in China will get censored, regardless of where that blog is physically located.
Why is kowtowing to the Chinese government in China worthy of condemnation but kowtowing to the Chinese government around the entire world deserving of praise?
Notepad and the inbuilt calculator have no competitors that I know of. The lack of complaint isn't because they're "crummy" products (although they are pretty unimpressive in functionality), but because there's no perception that innovation that could've been provided by a competitor is being stifled.
My recollection is that the bundling of IE with Windows was viewed as a problem by many people from the very first moment it was announced. I don't know about WMP. I do know that people are very upset about the existence of MS' "open" XML format for Office 12 and its attempt to leverage the MS Office monopoly at the expense of ODF, regardless of any alleged superiority or inferiority of the MS XML format.
Bundling an app that's so inferior that there's no way that a person would prefer it over the competition, or so simple in functionality that there's no reason to seek a better replacement, isn't such a bad thing because it doesn't annihilate competitor products. Bundling one that's as good or almost as good is a bad thing because it does.
it cost each and every reader more time to "decode" the message.
The way things are going, the next generation won't have an issue decoding netspeak, but they might have to pause to translate words like "are" and "you" into "r" and "u" so they can understand it.
Maybe that's the source of "bush-isms": he's an introvert who isn't taking the time to think before he speaks because he feels the need to present himself as an extrovert in order to convince the extrovert-loving American public to vote for him.
When I've seen him speaking without benefit of a pre-written speech, he seems to find it hard to speak coherently. Sign of introversion rather than the stupidity so many people seem to take it for?
In a way, the idea that Sony didn't know what the software actually did makes things worse. I mean, if Sony and the RIAA genuinely can't tell when malware gets shipped on their own product, how can the consumer trust any of their products?
Here's an article mentioning the XCP technology written from a shamelessly pro-DRM point of view. Very little technical detail given (unsurprising given it's a puff piece), but still interesting to see what's currently being done (the XCP-1 watermarking technology) and what business would like to see done (RFID-tagged CDs and players which only play CDs that are correctly tagged).
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting.
Did you just say the Iraq war effort should be compared to the continual (and probably neverending) efforts to reduce drug use and rehabilitate prisoners?
Are you really sure you want to compare the Iraq war to something that never ends?
*cough* she, not he *cough*
Just out of curiosity, did you actually read the article?
So, all it takes to get you to reject something is to label it "political correctness". All it takes to get you to accept something is to call it "politically incorrect". Interesting. I'll stick to examining individual arguments on their own merits, thanks.
We're judging the behaviour of a (supposedly) religious organisation in the 21st century by comparing it to the behaviour of the Catholic Church in the 12th?
Um, why? Doesn't that just prove how backwards the Church of Scientology is?
It's probably worth mentioning that Australia has a federal election due sometime late this year. This is likely just the Australian government trying to prove that they're "tough on terror" without having to go to the trouble of actually doing something effective.
"Bull" is appropriate. Nice strawmen you've set up there, mate. Perhaps you'd like to actually address *real* criticisms of the MS/Novell deal this time?
Samba's moving over. They're not exactly small potatoes.
Since Novell has negotiated a legal agreement with Microsoft, they can be presumed to know what patents apply
Um, why? MS has already indicated that they "agree to disagree" on the patent issue. I think it's worth pointing out that we only have Novell's assurances that their future code contributions will be MS-patent free. We do NOT have Microsoft's assurance of that. It's Microsoft who's making threatening noises towards Linux on the patent issue, not Novell.
Scenario: Novell generates code which it believes to be unencumbered by MS patents. Novell then contributes the code to, say Linux or Openoffice.org, at which point Microsoft publicly "agrees to disagree" with Novell again and claims that said code does violate their patents.
What would happen?
and Novell has to be extra careful about patent violations when distributing software, since they would be liable for willful commercial infringement.
Novell has bought freedom from liability for infringing on Microsoft's patents THROUGH THIS VERY AGREEMENT!
Well, that explains the advantage to Novell at any rate. Now they can profit from skittish customers who switch to Novell because they take Microsoft's "undisclosed balance liability" FUD seriously, since, as you say, Novell customers (and ONLY Novell customers) can't be sued.
Getting a leg-up over your Linux competitors via Microsoft's FUD? That's business I guess. It's just not any kind of business I'd want to associate with.
As stated, they got a promise from Microsoft not to sue them or their customers. Which clarifies to me what what Microsoft is trying to create with this deal: a legally-sanctioned protection racket.
"Gee, that's a nice stock price you've got there, Linux-using company, be a shame if a lawsuit happened to it. You'd better go to the Linux distributor that we say you should use if you don't want that to happen to YOU."
Both of course.
Yeah, well, fuck the world. They don't matter when it comes to who the US citizens pick as its leaders
Oh how I wish that were true.
Unfortunately, as long as the US is a "sole superpower" then the rest of world has to care about who runs the US whether we like it or not.
And maybe if the Republicans had cared a little more about what the rest of the world thought about, say, Iraq, then the Republican Party might not be getting the electoral drubbing from their own citizens that they're currently getting.
They want to be mainstream, right?
Yes and no. Mainstream acceptance at the cost of accepting the mainstream paradigm of, say, what constitutes an acceptable (for which many linux types will read "market-droid approved") naming scheme would raise hackles about "extinguishing the very thing that makes Linux so good" or similar.
I don't know, I'm getting accustomed to the names myself. So the Ubuntu designers like to name their releases after animals, in keeping with their overall Earth/Humanity theme. That's not "pointlessly wacky", just unfamiliar.
Shouldn't people be focusing on whether their software works rather than what it's called? Function over marketing-speak?
At many companies where I've worked, they do use open source and free software, but they are careful when it comes to the license as they don't want to inadvertantly make all of thier work go under the GPL if it's distributed.
Which would be a valid concern if that automatically happened in the case of an inadvertent violation. Accidentally distributing software in violation of a software license can be rectified simply by stopping distribution of the code, and perhaps paying compensation to the owner of the licensed software that did get distributed if they ask for it (which open source companies to my knowledge have never done).
This idea that accidentally including GPL code in your code instantly turns it all into GPL code against your will is a myth, a fraud, a boogie-man told by closed-source companies who don't get that the whole "copyleft" idea is just an unusual implementation of the usual laws concerning copyright.
Actually the www.xenu.net link was removed from Google's search engine temporarily, but that had more to do with the Church of Scientology's tendency to play fast and loose with the law: they deceptively implied in their legal threat that trademarks were covered by the DMCA, and that sites which contained them (eg Operation Clambake) had to be removed if a complaint was received. The site was returned to the search results once the deception was noticed.
Also, there was an outcry on Slashdot over the issue at the time as I recall, including an actual plan to protest Google (somewhat depreciatingly referred to as a "Xenu investigation team"). Google's current policy wrt DMCA came about from it in fact.
Aha! Thank you, I asked that question earlier (where is google.cn located) and got no response.
I may have spoken too soon. According to this it's currently in California, although according to this the censorship deal was struck with the goal of getting a presence on the mainland in mind.
This is really beginning to sound like the people who got all gaga about Microsoft releasing limited parts of their source code under NDA and went off wibbling about "open source Windows".
Actually I think I've come up with a reasonable sounding explanation for the different viewpoints. People are condemning Google's slide towards the evil of censorship and praising Microsoft's reduction in the evil of censorship. But that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's evilness on this issue is bigger than Google's. So Google.Evil++ is bad while Microsoft.Evil-- is good, but Microsoft.Evil > Google.Evil all the same.
A cynical person might think that Microsoft's press release is intentionally playing down the latter fact and playing up the former.
I don't get it either.
Yes, Google's actions are bad. Given that, I don't see why people are actually celebrating an international policy by Microsoft which is much worse than Google's policy in China
See, Google only censors the search results of google.cn, which is physically located in China. Microsoft has just said that a blog which, say, the Chinese government wants censored in China will get censored, regardless of where that blog is physically located.
Why is kowtowing to the Chinese government in China worthy of condemnation but kowtowing to the Chinese government around the entire world deserving of praise?
Notepad and the inbuilt calculator have no competitors that I know of. The lack of complaint isn't because they're "crummy" products (although they are pretty unimpressive in functionality), but because there's no perception that innovation that could've been provided by a competitor is being stifled.
My recollection is that the bundling of IE with Windows was viewed as a problem by many people from the very first moment it was announced. I don't know about WMP. I do know that people are very upset about the existence of MS' "open" XML format for Office 12 and its attempt to leverage the MS Office monopoly at the expense of ODF, regardless of any alleged superiority or inferiority of the MS XML format.
Bundling an app that's so inferior that there's no way that a person would prefer it over the competition, or so simple in functionality that there's no reason to seek a better replacement, isn't such a bad thing because it doesn't annihilate competitor products. Bundling one that's as good or almost as good is a bad thing because it does.
The way things are going, the next generation won't have an issue decoding netspeak, but they might have to pause to translate words like "are" and "you" into "r" and "u" so they can understand it.
Maybe that's the source of "bush-isms": he's an introvert who isn't taking the time to think before he speaks because he feels the need to present himself as an extrovert in order to convince the extrovert-loving American public to vote for him.
When I've seen him speaking without benefit of a pre-written speech, he seems to find it hard to speak coherently. Sign of introversion rather than the stupidity so many people seem to take it for?
Sony's DRM software didn't "contain" a security vulnerability, it was the security vulnerability.
Caveat emptor, indeed.
Here's an article mentioning the XCP technology written from a shamelessly pro-DRM point of view. Very little technical detail given (unsurprising given it's a puff piece), but still interesting to see what's currently being done (the XCP-1 watermarking technology) and what business would like to see done (RFID-tagged CDs and players which only play CDs that are correctly tagged).