A lot of sites do manage their own advertising, and I would think it's especially likely if they're charging those sorts of prices for advertising. We have advertising on our site, but it's entirely managed by us, the images are hosted on our server where all of our other images are hosted, etc. That doesn't mean we don't get paid for the ads (although I suspect we charge considerably less than this!). If you're only running a few ads, you don't need "really long URLs". You probably don't even need to have them automatically rotate, so they can just be coded into static HTML pages.
I'd actually be more suspicious if they were using a generic ad hosting company like doubleclick, but were claiming that advertising costs 15k US.
Could've been packet loss from some short-lived connection fault, maybe or maybe not related. I've noticed that problems with HTTPS are often the first thing I notice with bad connections, presumably because it has to transfer more data in order to set up the connection than a non-encrypted session does.
I'd prefer to think he was just trying to balance out all the people who have started using "site" when they mean "sight" since this whole intarweb thing came about.
Are you serious? Defences are put in locations where the enemy is likely to attack: near high-value targets, or highly vulnerable targets. In a worse case scenario (such as vs insurgents), defences can be established in a reactionary manner in order to discourage attacks against popular targets. If the attackers know of the defences, they may very well choose to attack somewhere else; but that's half the point of having defences. It gives you a certain amount of strategic control over the battlefield, by denying your enemy the ability to strike at key locations of your own choosing.
emule downloads while it uploads, too. Pretty much any "modern" P2P application is able to upload parts of the file it already has without having to wait for the full thing to be downloaded.
I don't know how much of the file you have to send before you can be accused of uploading it; I would imagine not very much is required. It probably depends how well the prosecution understands the technology, and how well they can explain it to those who are rendering judgement.
I think you misinterpreted that. I read it as, "insert your favourite GNU project here", rather than as "are there any popular GNU projects? anyone?".:)
I've listened to sky.fm's Alternative Diagnosis quite a bit, and haven't heard any advertising or crossfading. Actually, a while ago I did hear some adverts urging people to visit the savenetradio.org site, but that was the first time I'd heard any kind of advertising.
This is, I presume, the premium feed -- my ISP (Internode) carries their streams at 192kbit as a value-add to their customers, while the free streams on the sky.fm site are lower bitrate.
It might just be that this stream doesn't have enough listeners so they don't bother poisoning it with ads, of course. They also seem to have a pretty short playlist with a lot of repeats -- which would be appealing to anyone who wanted to rip those particular songs, I guess.
The BBC is far more than a news corporation. They produce an awful lot of content, much of it quite good, and this is paid for by British taxpayers (primarily from TV and radio licenses, IIRC).
Thus, for the BBC to want to make their content available to British citizens is perfectly understandable; while at the same time they may be less than happy for people in other countries to be able to access this material. In particular, they sell their content to other networks (Australia's ABC shows a lot of stuff from the BBC, for example) and the value of that content would likely be greatly diminished if people in other countries can download it from the BBC before their local networks can get access to show it.
I do agree with your point about the use of the term "security" though.
Not too slow, especially for compressed music; Bluetooth 2.0 can reach 2Mbit/sec, though most current devices probably wouldn't be able to manage that. You wouldn't want to transfer a movie over it, but even a whole album wouldn't be too bad. Then again, people have been downloading whole movies and multi-CD games via much slower internet links for a long time, so I guess it's fast enough for many people.
What is it that you want, personally and exactly, from Tivo?
I personally don't want anything from TiVo; I've never used any of their products, and don't expect I ever will. They could magically reflash every TiVo on the planet, rendering it incapable of doing anything except playing a rather bad game of Pong, and I wouldn't care. I mentioned them purely as an example (and because everyone else was doing it).
How did Tivo not keep up its end of the bargain?
That's exactly the point: TiVo did keep up its end of the bargain. They did not violate the license in any way, shape or form. Yet, people who bought TiVo's were unable to make full use of the freedoms that the GPL (as a Free software license) was supposed to guarantee them. Some people have no problem with how this transpired: it's TiVo's hardware and they have every right to dictate what software you can run on it. Others felt it was violating the spirit (not the letter) of the license that the code was provided to TiVo under.
That's why they've created a new license, with specific provisions to ensure that if, as an author, you don't want this to be able to happen to your software, you can specify that in the license. The new license is intended to correct flaws in the previous license, as perceived by certain people with specific goals in mind.
I don't think anyone is stopping you from taking out your soldering iron and having at it.
As mentioned above, I don't actually care; but from what I've read about the DMCA and related laws, wouldn't it be illegal to modify (or remove) hardware that was designed as a DRM/copyright enforcement mechanism? The TiVo hardware might not fall into this particular category, but it's not inconceivable that the protection mechanisms of future devices would. (In fact, it seems inconceivable that such mechanisms wouldn't fall under the protection granted by the DMCA.)
Further, this raises an interesting point: if it's perfectly okay to be able to hack their hardware, why is it not okay to hack their software? Where do you draw the line between the two? If the device has the ability to receive software updates, but has hardware designed to prevent you from installing software that isn't signed by the manufacturer, do you have the right to remove that hardware? Do you have the right to run whatever software you want on it after removing the hardware that's designed to prevent you from doing just that? If so, why are they allowed to put hardware in there to stop you from using your right to run your own software?
The FSF believes you can do anything you want with software except make it non-free This is what the FSF would like people to believe. However, it is inconsistent with what the FSF is actually doing in advocating GPLv3. GPLv2 ensured that all software remained free. The old license fully satisified that software remained "free," not just in price but in the availability of people to choose how to use it.
I think it would be fairer to say the FSF believes you can do anything you want with software except remove the freedom of the users of that software. That is, it's not about the software license per se, but about what recipients of the software can do with it.
The anti-TiVo clause seems to be intended to make sure that if TiVo goes out of business (or drops support for a particular model of hardware and never releases software updates for it again), that end-users will be able to fix bugs, or add functionality that's perfectly viable on the hardware they've already bought. The Free Software Foundation cares exclusively about the users freedom, and completely disregards companies trying to make money out of Free software.
I think the underlying assumption is that if there's money to be made, people will find a way to make it -- regardless of the restrictions placed on them. Further, there's a belief (and a lot of evidence to support this belief, IMHO) that companies will place as many restrictions on their customers as they feel is needed to maximise profits. Therefore, it makes sense to safeguard the users freedom as much as possible.
Enforcing freedom is an oxymoron. This however, is the logical extent of what RMS and people at the FSF are proposing with the adoption of GPLv3, forcing people to run their software on certain hardware.
Nobody forced TiVo to use GPLv2'd software, and nobody will be forcing them to use GPLv3'd software, either. The body of Free software provides many benefits to companies such as TiVo, but it's not a free lunch -- and it's not intended to be a free lunch! Authors can choose what license to release their software under, and companies can choose not to use it if they don't feel they can profit from doing so. You can't benefit from the pool of Free software while simultaneously preventing your users from enjoying the freedoms Free software is supposed to give them. GPLv3 has clauses intended to close a loophole that allowed companies to do exactly that, in specific situations.
I think the parent's point was that Microsoft is under no obligation to release the source to Windows, even after it falls into the public domain. Microsoft might not even exist when that time comes, or they may no longer have any copies of it at all... or they simply may not want to.
Not really. If you sell apples, you're not even remotely in the same business and don't have anything to worry about from Apple Computers or from Apple Records.
Event Viewer - Optional, If you click the 'get more information' it sends a query for, (get this) more information.
I don't think I've ever actually received more information from following that link. I'm fairly sure it's some kind of devious behavioural learning experiment. Kind of a "how many times does the mouse have to get shocked before it realises it can't eat the cheese on the left?" sort of thing. Will I ever learn that there is, in fact, no more information to be found at the "Get more information" link? Probably not.
Oh yes, because wanting the regime which runs the country to be "eliminated from the pages of history" is so very different from wanting the country "wiped off the map". Here's a hint: the US and friends never had any desire to wipe Iraq off the map either, all they wanted was a little regime change.
Western leaders aren't the only ones who carefully choose the words they use so as to ensure they can argue for alternate interpretations if it suits their immediate purpose. It's called politics. In that very article you're citing as evidence that Ahmadinejad never stated Israel must be wiped off the map, it's also mentioned that the translation likely came from a state-owned broadcaster.
Iran's state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting translated Ahmadinejad's comments as "Israel must be wiped off the map.", which may have been the origin for this translation controversy.
Even translators in the President's own office agree with this interpretation:
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site, refer to wiping Israel away.
The people closest to Ahmadinejad took his words to mean he wants Israel wiped off the map. Just because their official position after the fact (when the international community took offence at it) is to say things like "Nobody can remove a country from the map. [...] How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime". How is that meaningfully different? How the fuck can you interpret this to mean they don't want to see the current state of Israel destroyed? How does this give you any comfort that they would never consider an armed conflict with Israel? You really think they'd have any qualms going to war with them if they thought they might win, and not suffer excessive repercussions as a result of doing so? They don't legally recognise the Israeli government.
Hell, the literal translations seem to go along the lines of "the regime occupying Israel must be eliminated from the pages of history". So not only do they want it to end, they want to make it as if it never existed!
Now, personally, I don't have much - if any - stake in this argument. But it really seems to me they're just weaseling out of taking responsibility for saying some pretty charged things, and people like you are going for it. It annoys me when our own governments do it, and it annoys me when foreign governments do it. So, I'm calling you on it.
When every other person you pass on the street has iPhone, you hillbillys with your half screen half keypad dumb phones will be the laughingstock.
It's an interesting move making the touch screen the only interface. We have an O2 Atom floating about at work which is similar - you basically do everything through the touch screen. This is fine indoors, but outdoors you can't see shit on it. Which makes it pretty much impossible to use anywhere there's too much glare.
Not a problem that can't be solved with a decent anti-glare screen and bright backlighting though, so the iPhone might be fine with it.
Even so, there's some functions that are begging for tactile controls so you don't have to look at the damned thing to use it. Especially true if they're touting its music-playing capabilities - I'd fine it annoying to have to take my mp3 player out of my pocket just to skip a track, which you would need to do with the iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
Accursed lack of mod points! Yours was the clearest explanation of the issue I've seen in this thread, so hopefully someone will mod your post up.
(Someone already has, it seems. But more oughta.)
A lot of sites do manage their own advertising, and I would think it's especially likely if they're charging those sorts of prices for advertising. We have advertising on our site, but it's entirely managed by us, the images are hosted on our server where all of our other images are hosted, etc. That doesn't mean we don't get paid for the ads (although I suspect we charge considerably less than this!). If you're only running a few ads, you don't need "really long URLs". You probably don't even need to have them automatically rotate, so they can just be coded into static HTML pages.
I'd actually be more suspicious if they were using a generic ad hosting company like doubleclick, but were claiming that advertising costs 15k US.
Nonsense, they are leaches and should be slapped down.
I was with you until that one. Lottery winners are leaches? Care to share your reasoning?
Could've been packet loss from some short-lived connection fault, maybe or maybe not related. I've noticed that problems with HTTPS are often the first thing I notice with bad connections, presumably because it has to transfer more data in order to set up the connection than a non-encrypted session does.
I'd prefer to think he was just trying to balance out all the people who have started using "site" when they mean "sight" since this whole intarweb thing came about.
Are you serious? Defences are put in locations where the enemy is likely to attack: near high-value targets, or highly vulnerable targets. In a worse case scenario (such as vs insurgents), defences can be established in a reactionary manner in order to discourage attacks against popular targets. If the attackers know of the defences, they may very well choose to attack somewhere else; but that's half the point of having defences. It gives you a certain amount of strategic control over the battlefield, by denying your enemy the ability to strike at key locations of your own choosing.
emule downloads while it uploads, too. Pretty much any "modern" P2P application is able to upload parts of the file it already has without having to wait for the full thing to be downloaded.
I don't know how much of the file you have to send before you can be accused of uploading it; I would imagine not very much is required. It probably depends how well the prosecution understands the technology, and how well they can explain it to those who are rendering judgement.
Exactly... that's why only idiots do it!
I think you misinterpreted that. I read it as, "insert your favourite GNU project here", rather than as "are there any popular GNU projects? anyone?". :)
I've listened to sky.fm's Alternative Diagnosis quite a bit, and haven't heard any advertising or crossfading. Actually, a while ago I did hear some adverts urging people to visit the savenetradio.org site, but that was the first time I'd heard any kind of advertising.
This is, I presume, the premium feed -- my ISP (Internode) carries their streams at 192kbit as a value-add to their customers, while the free streams on the sky.fm site are lower bitrate.
It might just be that this stream doesn't have enough listeners so they don't bother poisoning it with ads, of course. They also seem to have a pretty short playlist with a lot of repeats -- which would be appealing to anyone who wanted to rip those particular songs, I guess.
The BBC is far more than a news corporation. They produce an awful lot of content, much of it quite good, and this is paid for by British taxpayers (primarily from TV and radio licenses, IIRC).
Thus, for the BBC to want to make their content available to British citizens is perfectly understandable; while at the same time they may be less than happy for people in other countries to be able to access this material. In particular, they sell their content to other networks (Australia's ABC shows a lot of stuff from the BBC, for example) and the value of that content would likely be greatly diminished if people in other countries can download it from the BBC before their local networks can get access to show it.
I do agree with your point about the use of the term "security" though.
Not too slow, especially for compressed music; Bluetooth 2.0 can reach 2Mbit/sec, though most current devices probably wouldn't be able to manage that. You wouldn't want to transfer a movie over it, but even a whole album wouldn't be too bad. Then again, people have been downloading whole movies and multi-CD games via much slower internet links for a long time, so I guess it's fast enough for many people.
I personally don't want anything from TiVo; I've never used any of their products, and don't expect I ever will. They could magically reflash every TiVo on the planet, rendering it incapable of doing anything except playing a rather bad game of Pong, and I wouldn't care. I mentioned them purely as an example (and because everyone else was doing it).
How did Tivo not keep up its end of the bargain?That's exactly the point: TiVo did keep up its end of the bargain. They did not violate the license in any way, shape or form. Yet, people who bought TiVo's were unable to make full use of the freedoms that the GPL (as a Free software license) was supposed to guarantee them. Some people have no problem with how this transpired: it's TiVo's hardware and they have every right to dictate what software you can run on it. Others felt it was violating the spirit (not the letter) of the license that the code was provided to TiVo under.
That's why they've created a new license, with specific provisions to ensure that if, as an author, you don't want this to be able to happen to your software, you can specify that in the license. The new license is intended to correct flaws in the previous license, as perceived by certain people with specific goals in mind.
I don't think anyone is stopping you from taking out your soldering iron and having at it.As mentioned above, I don't actually care; but from what I've read about the DMCA and related laws, wouldn't it be illegal to modify (or remove) hardware that was designed as a DRM/copyright enforcement mechanism? The TiVo hardware might not fall into this particular category, but it's not inconceivable that the protection mechanisms of future devices would. (In fact, it seems inconceivable that such mechanisms wouldn't fall under the protection granted by the DMCA.)
Further, this raises an interesting point: if it's perfectly okay to be able to hack their hardware, why is it not okay to hack their software? Where do you draw the line between the two? If the device has the ability to receive software updates, but has hardware designed to prevent you from installing software that isn't signed by the manufacturer, do you have the right to remove that hardware? Do you have the right to run whatever software you want on it after removing the hardware that's designed to prevent you from doing just that? If so, why are they allowed to put hardware in there to stop you from using your right to run your own software?
Because it happens on a computer, duh!
I think it would be fairer to say the FSF believes you can do anything you want with software except remove the freedom of the users of that software. That is, it's not about the software license per se, but about what recipients of the software can do with it.
The anti-TiVo clause seems to be intended to make sure that if TiVo goes out of business (or drops support for a particular model of hardware and never releases software updates for it again), that end-users will be able to fix bugs, or add functionality that's perfectly viable on the hardware they've already bought. The Free Software Foundation cares exclusively about the users freedom, and completely disregards companies trying to make money out of Free software.
I think the underlying assumption is that if there's money to be made, people will find a way to make it -- regardless of the restrictions placed on them. Further, there's a belief (and a lot of evidence to support this belief, IMHO) that companies will place as many restrictions on their customers as they feel is needed to maximise profits. Therefore, it makes sense to safeguard the users freedom as much as possible.
Enforcing freedom is an oxymoron. This however, is the logical extent of what RMS and people at the FSF are proposing with the adoption of GPLv3, forcing people to run their software on certain hardware.Nobody forced TiVo to use GPLv2'd software, and nobody will be forcing them to use GPLv3'd software, either. The body of Free software provides many benefits to companies such as TiVo, but it's not a free lunch -- and it's not intended to be a free lunch! Authors can choose what license to release their software under, and companies can choose not to use it if they don't feel they can profit from doing so. You can't benefit from the pool of Free software while simultaneously preventing your users from enjoying the freedoms Free software is supposed to give them. GPLv3 has clauses intended to close a loophole that allowed companies to do exactly that, in specific situations.
Sigh... the one time someone on slashdot actually used "loose" correctly, and you go and do that!
I think the parent's point was that Microsoft is under no obligation to release the source to Windows, even after it falls into the public domain. Microsoft might not even exist when that time comes, or they may no longer have any copies of it at all... or they simply may not want to.
Nope, we have laws against "cruel and unusual punishment".
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the stuff that comes out of a vagina also ends up in a sewer.
Not really. If you sell apples, you're not even remotely in the same business and don't have anything to worry about from Apple Computers or from Apple Records.
I don't think I've ever actually received more information from following that link. I'm fairly sure it's some kind of devious behavioural learning experiment. Kind of a "how many times does the mouse have to get shocked before it realises it can't eat the cheese on the left?" sort of thing. Will I ever learn that there is, in fact, no more information to be found at the "Get more information" link? Probably not.
My patent's bigger than yours.
Oh yes, because wanting the regime which runs the country to be "eliminated from the pages of history" is so very different from wanting the country "wiped off the map". Here's a hint: the US and friends never had any desire to wipe Iraq off the map either, all they wanted was a little regime change.
Western leaders aren't the only ones who carefully choose the words they use so as to ensure they can argue for alternate interpretations if it suits their immediate purpose. It's called politics. In that very article you're citing as evidence that Ahmadinejad never stated Israel must be wiped off the map, it's also mentioned that the translation likely came from a state-owned broadcaster.
Even translators in the President's own office agree with this interpretation:
The people closest to Ahmadinejad took his words to mean he wants Israel wiped off the map. Just because their official position after the fact (when the international community took offence at it) is to say things like "Nobody can remove a country from the map. [...] How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime". How is that meaningfully different? How the fuck can you interpret this to mean they don't want to see the current state of Israel destroyed? How does this give you any comfort that they would never consider an armed conflict with Israel? You really think they'd have any qualms going to war with them if they thought they might win, and not suffer excessive repercussions as a result of doing so? They don't legally recognise the Israeli government.
Hell, the literal translations seem to go along the lines of "the regime occupying Israel must be eliminated from the pages of history". So not only do they want it to end, they want to make it as if it never existed!
Now, personally, I don't have much - if any - stake in this argument. But it really seems to me they're just weaseling out of taking responsibility for saying some pretty charged things, and people like you are going for it. It annoys me when our own governments do it, and it annoys me when foreign governments do it. So, I'm calling you on it.
Does wiping Israel off the map count as a "domestic" affair?
It's an interesting move making the touch screen the only interface. We have an O2 Atom floating about at work which is similar - you basically do everything through the touch screen. This is fine indoors, but outdoors you can't see shit on it. Which makes it pretty much impossible to use anywhere there's too much glare.
Not a problem that can't be solved with a decent anti-glare screen and bright backlighting though, so the iPhone might be fine with it.
Even so, there's some functions that are begging for tactile controls so you don't have to look at the damned thing to use it. Especially true if they're touting its music-playing capabilities - I'd fine it annoying to have to take my mp3 player out of my pocket just to skip a track, which you would need to do with the iPhone.