... wireless LAN is. as others have pointed out, an ad-hoc network between vehicles could easily provide information about traffic jams or be used to (video-/voip-)chat.
first, you cannot enumerate freedoms. you cannot simply add them or substract them. caption obvious calls bullshit for this one.
second, there are several positions - something that many ppl do not grasp: one position is: here is the code, do whatever you want. kill puppies with it, make it proprietary but DO NOT REMOVE TEH COPYRIGHT. like BSD, this says, that freedom extends even to the freedom to withhold the code from others. the second is: here is the code, do whatever you want, but DAMN YOU WONT'T REMOVE TEH FREEDOMS. like GPL, this says, that in order to ensure freedom, some sacrifices must be made - so the freedom to withold GPL source form those who got the binaries is outright killed, so that other freedoms can be preserved.
now compare this to the "weimar republic" (germany before WWII). there was a democracy, but even its enemies were allowed to form parties and get onto the ballot - hitler was democratically elected. so there were freedoms, but freedom-hating fascists could easily use them to abolish them.
[poster invokes godwin's law, covers and ducks.]
p.s.: nowadays, in germany, parties that are against democracy can be banned. sometimes history teaches lessons.
kinda reminds me of cory doctorow's "eastern standard tribe" [1], where ad-hoc mesh networks are formed between cars and they share music. there are many beneficial uses for ad-hoc networks. i own an linksys WRT45-GL wireless router (runs linux, of course) and participiate in the freifunk project [2] (although not very long) b/c city-wide mesh networks fascinated me the moment i heard of them. big freifunk-enabled areas are in berlin, weimar and leipzig (when you are visiting the latter, look out for BSSID "ca:ff:ee:ba:be").
i could easily imagine that some ad-hoc chatting protocol (zeroconf anyone ?) could be used to form an IRC-like chat when stuck in traffic. or someone starts to stream a movie (i am waiting for "matrix vista"). possibilities are endless.
I have severe problems with the GPLv3 as-is; I feel they're trying to stuff a brand of morality and a system of thought down the throats of programmers who licensed their creations in good faith under the GPLv2. "programmers in good faith" can still develop every bit with the "or-any-later"-clause. and free software is about a system of thoughts: users have a right to know how the software works, a right to tinker and a right to pass their changes on. nearly everyone who contributes to free / open source software has accepted this, be it b/c of morality (FSF ppl: RMS for example) or b/c they think its a far superiour development model (OSS ppl: Linus, ESR).
okay ? now the interesting stuff: the FSF is just trying to keep up with teh evil(tm). honestly, which responsible developer of GPLed software could like "tivoisation" ? if you program a software that is for everyone free to modify and some company uses it on their devices (that is like... video recorders !), effectly denying the users "the right to tinker", could you want that, if you chose the GPLv2 ? tivoisation is proprietarisation, therefore any BSD developer could be happy with it, but a GPL-software developer ?
or the novell-m$ contract: with GPLv3 that would be explicitly outlawed. and no one except novell, m$ and their customers could want such a contract - i am not even sure if their customers could want it.
after that, what is your problem with GPLv3 ? they are just changing the wording, not the intent.
Anyone who takes a step back and says "now wait a tick" to that kind of thing, I like. Maybe the GPLv3 won't be as bad as it seems, but that little "or any later version" clause is one that simply should not be included for projects of any magnitude. exactly that is the point: "maybe GPLv3 wont be as bad as it seems". by removing the "or-any-later"-clause, they hinder anyone to try it. that is the point. of course, mysql is written by a company, so its not so bad - they have the copyright, they could make it GPLv3 whenever they want. but OTOH meaningful "community" projects like the linux kernel can never make it to GPLv3, even if later on it is clearly that GPLv2 has a huge loophole. that is the danger that lies in removing the "or-any-later"-clause.
there is no such thing as a "natural right" an inventor has: patent law builds on the premise that a patent is a reward and that many people like to be rewarded.
you are confusing it with copyright law - which grants the author rights because it is his creation - no one else could habe written harry potter, for example. in contrast, sooner or later someone figures out how molecule XYZ can be synthesized - there usually is no "personal creativity" involved.
By that logic because religion has no scientific basis, anyone who is religious cannot also be a scientist. I'm sure this guy gets along real well with Richard Dawkins at parties. It's a standard fallacy: if you claim to be an 'X', you must do 'Y'--and if you don't do 'Y' (whatever I tell you 'Y' is), you cannot possibly be an 'X'. I can do without that sort of mind control, than you very much. I believ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H know there are people who would argue like that - including myself. One cannot be both scientifically-minded AND a religious person, when he/or she is equally serious about science and religion. It is just not coherent.
However, I would accept someone who sees science [or religion, respectively] as a subset of religion [science], because such an opinion could be consequent. And I know people who do see science as subset of religion.
when i started to participate in freifunk, a wireless mesh-net, i did not know how exactly to contact one subnet from another. my computer was in 192.168.0.X, the others were in 104.61.249.X .
one night i desperately needed some information form a website. i quickly figured out that my router advertised itself as 192.168.0.1 AND 104.61.249.1, so i connected to the router per ssh, connected to the next node per ssh, connected to the next node per ssh, connected to a server i had an acount on per ssh and started links2. funny, but it worked.
I am interested in politics - especially on the European level, because political decisions heavily influence the way we, citizens of the EU states, live. As have learnt through Slashdot, a news website [1], the Council of the EU has decided to offer a streaming media service.
In my opinion, this is a very interesting service with great potential to provide citizens with more information to actual issues.
Unfortunately, the stream is only avaiable in a proprietary format named Windows Media Video (WMV). In your frequently asked questions [2] you state that "[the] live streaming media service [...] supports [only] Internet Explorer 5 and higher, Netscape Navigator 6 and higher.", that "[the stream] can be viewed [only] on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh platforms." and "[you] cannot support Linux in a legal way.".
As a user of free and open source software, this cought my attention. As a politically interested citizen, I would like to know why a proprietary (secret, probably patent-encumbered) format was chosen over an open video standard like Ogg Theora or XviD.
Proprietary formats, like WMV, are vendor-specific: They prevent or make it difficult for others to implement the specification. In this specific case, one has to download Windows Media Player, which is not avaiable for GNU/Linux, the operating system I am using. In constrast, open standards enable everyone to implement them: They are a vendor-agnostic, royalty-free and allow for a wide range of implementations. This can be compared to the analogue radio program, which can be heard with any radio, not just radios from microsoft.
As you can see, the use of a proprietary format is unfair, discriminatory behaviour against those who can not or do not want to use Microsoft Windows Media Player. The fact that this is done by a government entity makes it worse. In my opinion, gouvernment should not discriminate people - not even based on their choice of software. This is somehow a policital issue, but I doubt any reasonable citizen would oppose my position.
Most likely it is technically possible to offer the streaming media service in an open format to enable everyone with a capable computer and a good internet connection to watch it. You could do this, for example, with the free and open source software VLC Media Player [3], which is avaiable for a wide range of operating systems free of charge. Another way to provide wide access to your media stream could be the use of a java applet like Cortado (also free and open source software) which eliminates the need for a media player.
XXXX XXXX, a concerned citizen of the European Union
Slashdot Mirror
sorry, i meant "you cannot calculate with freedoms" but used the wrong word.
forgive me.
the point is: X freedoms are not necessarily more worth than Y freedoms, when X > Y.
... wireless LAN is. as others have pointed out, an ad-hoc network between vehicles could easily provide information about traffic jams or be used to (video-/voip-)chat.
first, you cannot enumerate freedoms. you cannot simply add them or substract them.
caption obvious calls bullshit for this one.
second, there are several positions - something that many ppl do not grasp:
one position is: here is the code, do whatever you want. kill puppies with it, make it proprietary but DO NOT REMOVE TEH COPYRIGHT. like BSD, this says, that freedom extends even to the freedom to withhold the code from others.
the second is: here is the code, do whatever you want, but DAMN YOU WONT'T REMOVE TEH FREEDOMS. like GPL, this says, that in order to ensure freedom, some sacrifices must be made - so the freedom to withold GPL source form those who got the binaries is outright killed, so that other freedoms can be preserved.
now compare this to the "weimar republic" (germany before WWII). there was a democracy, but even its enemies were allowed to form parties and get onto the ballot - hitler was democratically elected. so there were freedoms, but freedom-hating fascists could easily use them to abolish them.
[poster invokes godwin's law, covers and ducks.]
p.s.: nowadays, in germany, parties that are against democracy can be banned. sometimes history teaches lessons.
kinda reminds me of cory doctorow's "eastern standard tribe" [1], where ad-hoc mesh networks are formed between cars and they share music. there are many beneficial uses for ad-hoc networks. i own an linksys WRT45-GL wireless router (runs linux, of course) and participiate in the freifunk project [2] (although not very long) b/c city-wide mesh networks fascinated me the moment i heard of them. big freifunk-enabled areas are in berlin, weimar and leipzig (when you are visiting the latter, look out for BSSID "ca:ff:ee:ba:be").
i could easily imagine that some ad-hoc chatting protocol (zeroconf anyone ?) could be used to form an IRC-like chat when stuck in traffic. or someone starts to stream a movie (i am waiting for "matrix vista"). possibilities are endless.
[1] http://www.craphound.com/est/
[2] http://freifunk.net/ (german)
okay ? now the interesting stuff: the FSF is just trying to keep up with teh evil(tm).
honestly, which responsible developer of GPLed software could like "tivoisation" ? if you program a software that is for everyone free to modify and some company uses it on their devices (that is like
or the novell-m$ contract: with GPLv3 that would be explicitly outlawed. and no one except novell, m$ and their customers could want such a contract - i am not even sure if their customers could want it.
after that, what is your problem with GPLv3 ?
they are just changing the wording, not the intent. Anyone who takes a step back and says "now wait a tick" to that kind of thing, I like. Maybe the GPLv3 won't be as bad as it seems, but that little "or any later version" clause is one that simply should not be included for projects of any magnitude. exactly that is the point: "maybe GPLv3 wont be as bad as it seems". by removing the "or-any-later"-clause, they hinder anyone to try it. that is the point. of course, mysql is written by a company, so its not so bad - they have the copyright, they could make it GPLv3 whenever they want. but OTOH meaningful "community" projects like the linux kernel can never make it to GPLv3, even if later on it is clearly that GPLv2 has a huge loophole. that is the danger that lies in removing the "or-any-later"-clause.
... just vehicles to ensure progress.
there is no such thing as a "natural right" an inventor has: patent law builds on the premise that a patent is a reward and that many people like to be rewarded.
you are confusing it with copyright law - which grants the author rights because it is his creation - no one else could habe written harry potter, for example. in contrast, sooner or later someone figures out how molecule XYZ can be synthesized - there usually is no "personal creativity" involved.
it makes matters even worse that patents were thought as a means to ensure progress. working aroung a patent yields no further progress.
... am waiting for stories on slashdot about genetically altered humans, who cannot get a common cold or something like that.
"I for one, welcome our human immune-to-common-cold overlords."
[x] Downright scary.
[ ] Funny.
However, I would accept someone who sees science [or religion, respectively] as a subset of religion [science], because such an opinion could be consequent. And I know people who do see science as subset of religion.
hmm.. i almost always mention GNU/Linux, *BSD, Solaris, but never thought of handy users. *very* nice idea.
when i started to participate in freifunk, a wireless mesh-net, i did not know how exactly to contact one subnet from another. my computer was in 192.168.0.X, the others were in 104.61.249.X .
one night i desperately needed some information form a website. i quickly figured out that my router advertised itself as 192.168.0.1 AND 104.61.249.1, so i connected to the router per ssh, connected to the next node per ssh, connected to the next node per ssh, connected to a server i had an acount on per ssh and started links2. funny, but it worked.
To whom it may concern:
& mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=214392
I am interested in politics - especially on the European level, because political decisions heavily influence the way we, citizens of the EU states, live. As have learnt through Slashdot, a news website [1], the Council of the EU has decided to offer a streaming media service.
In my opinion, this is a very interesting service with great potential to provide citizens with more information to actual issues.
Unfortunately, the stream is only avaiable in a proprietary format named Windows Media Video (WMV). In your frequently asked questions [2] you state that "[the] live streaming media service [...] supports [only] Internet Explorer 5 and higher, Netscape Navigator 6 and higher.", that "[the stream] can be viewed [only] on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh platforms." and "[you] cannot support Linux in a legal way.".
As a user of free and open source software, this cought my attention. As a politically interested citizen, I would like to know why a proprietary (secret, probably patent-encumbered) format was chosen over an open video standard like Ogg Theora or XviD.
Proprietary formats, like WMV, are vendor-specific: They prevent or make it difficult for others to implement the specification. In this specific case, one has to download Windows Media Player, which is not avaiable for GNU/Linux, the operating system I am using. In constrast, open standards enable everyone to implement them: They are a vendor-agnostic, royalty-free and allow for a wide range of implementations. This can be compared to the analogue radio program, which can be heard with any radio, not just radios from microsoft.
As you can see, the use of a proprietary format is unfair, discriminatory behaviour against those who can not or do not want to use Microsoft Windows Media Player. The fact that this is done by a government entity makes it worse. In my opinion, gouvernment should not discriminate people - not even based on their choice of software. This is somehow a policital issue, but I doubt any reasonable citizen would oppose my position.
Most likely it is technically possible to offer the streaming media service in an open format to enable everyone with a capable computer and a good internet connection to watch it. You could do this, for example, with the free and open source software VLC Media Player [3], which is avaiable for a wide range of operating systems free of charge. Another way to provide wide access to your media stream could be the use of a java applet like Cortado (also free and open source software) which eliminates the need for a media player.
XXXX XXXX, a concerned citizen of the European Union
[1] http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=0
[2] http://ceuweb.belbone.be/faq.php?lang=EN
[3] http://videolan.org/
[4] http://www.flumotion.net/cortado/