."Frankly, I would prefer that more limits were imposed on the rights of copyright owners and broadcasters, not more."
Me too! Although more limits on the rights of copyright owners is something unavoidable, the right measure would be to put more limits. The tough choice, after all, must be made by the Senate: more limits or more limits. I for one root for the latter, not for the latter.
So, Captain America dies. He, a hero burned in the popular imaginary as a *defender* the multiple freedoms people are naturally entitled (note the operative word there, defender, as in "a fighter who holds out against attack"). He that, even to the ones (like me) that didn't read the comics, is known to portrait the very image of America, the World Police, the Shield of the free world. He that used all his strengths to defend the world against the Nazi and the commies, armed with nothing more than a shield and his will to do the right thing. Dead.
Maybe it is just coincidence that he is dead now, right when the vision of an U.S.A holding the high standards of freedom and fighting the good fights is vanishing every intervention, every occupation, every bad move in the fragile international relationships. (And I say "the vision" because, even U.S.A. making some bad movies between the end of WWII and the fall of The Wall, the fear of the communism was enough to impair the sight of the so called Free World, forgiving every single American mistake on that time, from Indochina to Central America, from Africa to South America).
I doubt the artists behind the comics would be courageous enough to make such a statement, to kill a superhero only to make a point. But the could have done. Captain America doesn't represents U.S.A anymore, America a long time ago gave up of the "land of free and home of brave" motto, gave up the "land of opportunities" ideal to embrace a no holds barred savage capitalism, where companies have the same rights but none of the duties of the natural people and can leverage their immortality to get rich at the expenses of the less favored. If Captain America was a real person in the real world, it would probably be fighting with all his strengths to restore to America everything that was lost in the past 60 years. But he isn't, so he is better off dead.
Jack Bauer is a better hero for U.S. now, anyway. Rest in peace if you can, Captain America, knowing that everything you fought for is about to be thrown away for 30 pieces of silver.
But there is no denying, that it is a weapon (bomb), and that businesses may want to give the idea another thought -- or opt for BSD-licensed software instead.
It is not "da bomb". It is "da shield". It is not like companies were being forced to use GPL licensed software, or if they were unaware of the terms of the license. GPL v3. will *not* work like those "submarine patents", that are granted and kept low profile, and them when someone makes a profit of it are used to sue the company for a lot of money. In fact, it is exactly the opposite, it is a way to ensure that the company distributing derivative software using that GPL (and I say derivative because, if they own the copyright, they can still (re)license in whatever license they want) doesn't not hijack the code and deny to the public the benefits they were granted when accepting the terms of GPL.
A license is just that. Without GPL, they have no right to distribute derivative works. With GPL, they get the rights, but must to abide to the terms. The terms are there to ensure that they will pass along the rights they got, and that they will not pull a card from the sleeve and deny people the very freedom that the GPL license is born to grant.
In short: you have the right to not distribute GPL'd software. If you do, you must abide to the terms and preserve the intended freedoms. Play by the rules or go away, it is simple as that.
My question is a serious question. Even though you may hate Microsoft, it created jobs.
And so did wars, look at the amount of jobs in the Military Industrial Complex. You may want to take a look at the parable of the Broken Window. It explains how eventual positive consequences of negative acts shouldn't be used to justify them.
That is something i seriously question and find it terribly ironic you chose not to answer and throw around you illogical praise for free software as if its the magical dust that will save your future.
Small Business USA will adapt to the new reality. Many companies will die, others will spring. Possibly, the ones that mimic Google business model (Free (as in beer or as in speech, it depends) Software, Paid Services) will have more chance that the ones what follow Microsoft strategy (Software lock-in, extend, embrace, extinguish). Time will tell.
At least with Microsoft Products i can still sell my services, support, licensing, hardware and services.
Boo-fucking-hoo. That proves that not everything that is good for the customer is good for you. Let the old business model die, long live new business model.
In the meantime, Free Software and co. will continue as if nothing had changed, their product continues free, revenue (for whoever is aiming for it) continues coming from the same sources.
Yesterday: Microsoft watches with disdain while $company break through unknown waters
Today: Microsoft attacks $company initiative as being illegal, immoral and bad for business in general
Tomorrow: Microsoft try to embrace the very same business model of $company, only with a layer of DRM on top of it, and try to leverage it using the profits of the OS and Office division.
Nothing different from all other endeavors from our good old Microsoft. Who didn't have it coming?
Ouch. How could I miss that TFA? I think I skipped that entire sentence when I noticed the words "Ebay" and "reputation" together. My brain just couldn't parse it adequately. Head asplodes!
"Anyone who believes he knows of information relating to these proposed patents will be able to post this online and solicit comments from others. But this will suddenly make available reams of information, which could be from suspect sources, and so the program includes a "reputation system" for ranking the material and evaluating the expertise of those submitting it. (...)
Patent examiners, for instance, will award "gold stars" to people who previously submitted the most useful information for judging earlier applications (...) Ultimately, those registered to participate in this online forum will vote on all the nominated information, and the top 10 items will be passed on to the examiner, who will serve as the final arbiter on whether to award a patent. (...)
To assure that the outcome can be trusted, some of those involved in designing the program say some kind of weighted voting system may eventually be required. "If voting is necessary, you'll have to have some rules about who gets to vote,"
How is this not Slash, from our truly and good Slashdot? Everything is there, from Score to karma to Mod points. This is far from being wiki, and much more like being slash.
Anyway, what I would like to see is truly peer reviewed patent examination, the kind of review that is done in the scientific community, where the process is publicly disclosed (let's say, in a specialized magazine) and people in the field either submit proof that it is either obvious or has prior art or accepts the patent as valid. Similar to what happens when one claims to have found a proof to some mathematical theorem. Not that I believe that it will happens someday, but a man can dream, can't he?
Competition from Joost? There is no such thing, nobody knew (or knows) what Joost it, while YouTube already hit the mainstream media.
The deal between Viacom and Joost is like when that beautiful cheerleader, after breaking up with the handsome quarterback, chases him and says "I'd rather to sleep with the first idiot that passes by me that going back to you". And picks up the first idiot that passes by her. And gives him a big sloppy kiss.
That "first idiot" is Joost. Everybody knows that Viacom end up ironing a deal with Google, and that they will be back in bed soon, so, no need to give him false hope.
I know this is Slashdot, but you guys are overreacting on this whole matter. Imagine it was not Wikipedia, but any other company, let's say, Canonical. Imagine there is this guy whose online curriculum says is a M.S. in Computer Science, Java Certified and whatnot. He finds and files a lot of bugs on Ubuntu, helps to create packages, contribute with code, and do such a great job that Canonical decides to hire him, just to discover that he is really only an undergraduated in C.S. Canonical hires him anyway.
Three questions: 1) Would it be the wrong decision? 2) Would your confidence on their product (Ubuntu) be diminished? 3) Would it make front page on Slashdot?
I really must be new here (I'm not), because this sounds more like British sensationalist tabloid-like journalism, that likes to blow things out of proportion. That, or there is some "vast conspiracy" involving other players that aims to take the place now occupied by Wikipedia. (Citizendium, maybe, who knows. Every article mentioning some wikipedia flaw is automatically followed by comments praising the virtues of Citizendium.)
It is relevant. The government is trying to sell this ID idea using the good old and worn out excuse of "curbing terrorism", but indeed, all the "allegedly" 9/11 terrorists had valid IDs. Despite of the fact of National IDs working in a lot of places (Europe and Brasil, from the top of my head), it doesn't really fits in the U.S. concepts of freedom.
Yeah, right. As if good old Red Book CDs weren't selling like cupcakes. Except for the most tech savvy share of the population, Joe Sixpack and Mary Housewife (the gross of the population) will not know/bother to "pirate" music (or movies, for all that matters). As one exec said in a previous article, "would daddy give his daughter The Little Mermaid on a DVD written with a Sharpie"?
Sell it for an affordable price and people will buy. Don't, and people won't buy (or "pirate"). Whoever is getting it for free will continue, regardless of DRM, as time has been proving repeatedly.
Because 1) It is not intelligent, brute force was never needed to bypass Windows Activation before 2) It is not subtle enough, and an operation this size would put a big bullseye on whoever did it 3) It is not profitable, people that run those botnets do it for profit, not to "stick it to the man", or to piss off Microsoft.
Free Software has nothing to do with communities, except for a certain correlation between success, popularity and Free (as in speech) development philosophy. Don't get the concepts mixed.
They don't own the expression more than you or I, but as they are its original coiner, I will bring the GNU definition of Free Software, as seen in their The Free Software Definition page:
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Nothing there mentions that the software *must* (or either should) be "developed in open source communities" (being the operative word there "developed").
I'm not disputing the benefits of a community-laden development, but only pointing that the concepts of Free Software, Open Source and community-based development are three different sets that share an intersection that, although very good for the whole "cause", cannot summarize adequately the entire concept.
And I can say is that Feisty is a big improvement over Edgy, both in hardware support and software "smoothness". It is a pity that Xorg 7.2 will not be ready for Feisty launch, but this is certainly a candidate to bring an alternative to Windows on the Desktop.
"But under the Advertising for Motor Vehicles Voluntary Code of Practice, fantasy cannot be used when it contradicts, circumvents or undermines the code."
So, this is what censorship is called down there nowadays? Voluntary code of practice? Everytime they bring this subject on Brasil, "media self-restraint", "voluntary code of practice", "independent content review" a cold chill travels through my spine, remembering the (NOT) good old times of censorship there.
Reverse engineering the eventual patch would be even easier than finding the key as they did, as all they would need to do is to look for the new key in the patch on in the relevant changed parts of the updated binaries.
I don't know what is the idea behind this
on
AACS Device Key Found
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If the idea is to "stick to the man", they are doing the right thing disclosing what is the player in question. But if the idea is to actually use they key, they should keep them in the dark and not to specify what player got corrupted, so the keymakers cannot revoke the key.
From TFA:
"Novell Inc. sponsors Mono, which is an open-source development platform that aims to be compatible with Microsoft's.NET framework. "
I'm not a fan of bringing Microsoft technology to the Free Software realm, not for purist reasons (although they are at least pertinent) but because, with this Novell-MS agreement in practice, it would not take a lot of effort for Microsoft to find a way to either forbid any non-Novell distros to use the technology or to wait and sue distros that include it (in case there is some patented technology included, mistakenly or purposely, and people know that, at least on U.S., everything is patentable, even the double click).
Furthermore, with Java becoming free as in free will, I don't see how free software benefits by having VB,.Net or any other Microsoft born encumbrance.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nothing. pram is a type of ship too. Won't someone think of the pirates??!
which was aborted in 2003 due to privacy concerns
If by aborted you mean "renamed, swept under the rug and kept secret this time", yes, it has been "aborted".
."Frankly, I would prefer that more limits were imposed on the rights of copyright owners and broadcasters, not more."
Me too! Although more limits on the rights of copyright owners is something unavoidable, the right measure would be to put more limits. The tough choice, after all, must be made by the Senate: more limits or more limits. I for one root for the latter, not for the latter.
So, Captain America dies. He, a hero burned in the popular imaginary as a *defender* the multiple freedoms people are naturally entitled (note the operative word there, defender, as in "a fighter who holds out against attack"). He that, even to the ones (like me) that didn't read the comics, is known to portrait the very image of America, the World Police, the Shield of the free world. He that used all his strengths to defend the world against the Nazi and the commies, armed with nothing more than a shield and his will to do the right thing. Dead.
Maybe it is just coincidence that he is dead now, right when the vision of an U.S.A holding the high standards of freedom and fighting the good fights is vanishing every intervention, every occupation, every bad move in the fragile international relationships. (And I say "the vision" because, even U.S.A. making some bad movies between the end of WWII and the fall of The Wall, the fear of the communism was enough to impair the sight of the so called Free World, forgiving every single American mistake on that time, from Indochina to Central America, from Africa to South America).
I doubt the artists behind the comics would be courageous enough to make such a statement, to kill a superhero only to make a point. But the could have done. Captain America doesn't represents U.S.A anymore, America a long time ago gave up of the "land of free and home of brave" motto, gave up the "land of opportunities" ideal to embrace a no holds barred savage capitalism, where companies have the same rights but none of the duties of the natural people and can leverage their immortality to get rich at the expenses of the less favored. If Captain America was a real person in the real world, it would probably be fighting with all his strengths to restore to America everything that was lost in the past 60 years. But he isn't, so he is better off dead.
Jack Bauer is a better hero for U.S. now, anyway. Rest in peace if you can, Captain America, knowing that everything you fought for is about to be thrown away for 30 pieces of silver.
But there is no denying, that it is a weapon (bomb), and that businesses may want to give the idea another thought -- or opt for BSD-licensed software instead.
It is not "da bomb". It is "da shield". It is not like companies were being forced to use GPL licensed software, or if they were unaware of the terms of the license. GPL v3. will *not* work like those "submarine patents", that are granted and kept low profile, and them when someone makes a profit of it are used to sue the company for a lot of money. In fact, it is exactly the opposite, it is a way to ensure that the company distributing derivative software using that GPL (and I say derivative because, if they own the copyright, they can still (re)license in whatever license they want) doesn't not hijack the code and deny to the public the benefits they were granted when accepting the terms of GPL.
A license is just that. Without GPL, they have no right to distribute derivative works. With GPL, they get the rights, but must to abide to the terms. The terms are there to ensure that they will pass along the rights they got, and that they will not pull a card from the sleeve and deny people the very freedom that the GPL license is born to grant.
In short: you have the right to not distribute GPL'd software. If you do, you must abide to the terms and preserve the intended freedoms. Play by the rules or go away, it is simple as that.
What does google have to do with free software?
...
Summer of Code, contributions to Wine, Firefox money
My question is a serious question. Even though you may hate Microsoft, it created jobs.
And so did wars, look at the amount of jobs in the Military Industrial Complex. You may want to take a look at the parable of the Broken Window. It explains how eventual positive consequences of negative acts shouldn't be used to justify them.
That is something i seriously question and find it terribly ironic you chose not to answer and throw around you illogical praise for free software as if its the magical dust that will save your future.
Small Business USA will adapt to the new reality. Many companies will die, others will spring. Possibly, the ones that mimic Google business model (Free (as in beer or as in speech, it depends) Software, Paid Services) will have more chance that the ones what follow Microsoft strategy (Software lock-in, extend, embrace, extinguish). Time will tell.
At least with Microsoft Products i can still sell my services, support, licensing, hardware and services.
Boo-fucking-hoo. That proves that not everything that is good for the customer is good for you. Let the old business model die, long live new business model.
In the meantime, Free Software and co. will continue as if nothing had changed, their product continues free, revenue (for whoever is aiming for it) continues coming from the same sources.
Does it run Linux?
Yesterday: Microsoft watches with disdain while $company break through unknown waters
Today: Microsoft attacks $company initiative as being illegal, immoral and bad for business in general
Tomorrow: Microsoft try to embrace the very same business model of $company, only with a layer of DRM on top of it, and try to leverage it using the profits of the OS and Office division.
Nothing different from all other endeavors from our good old Microsoft. Who didn't have it coming?
Hey man, $150! Now I know why Steve was using that new turtleneck back them. All bought with MS money :D
Ouch. How could I miss that TFA? I think I skipped that entire sentence when I noticed the words "Ebay" and "reputation" together. My brain just couldn't parse it adequately. Head asplodes!
From TFA
"Anyone who believes he knows of information relating to these proposed patents will be able to post this online and solicit comments from others. But this will suddenly make available reams of information, which could be from suspect sources, and so the program includes a "reputation system" for ranking the material and evaluating the expertise of those submitting it. (...)
Patent examiners, for instance, will award "gold stars" to people who previously submitted the most useful information for judging earlier applications (...) Ultimately, those registered to participate in this online forum will vote on all the nominated information, and the top 10 items will be passed on to the examiner, who will serve as the final arbiter on whether to award a patent. (...)
To assure that the outcome can be trusted, some of those involved in designing the program say some kind of weighted voting system may eventually be required. "If voting is necessary, you'll have to have some rules about who gets to vote,"
How is this not Slash, from our truly and good Slashdot? Everything is there, from Score to karma to Mod points. This is far from being wiki, and much more like being slash.
Anyway, what I would like to see is truly peer reviewed patent examination, the kind of review that is done in the scientific community, where the process is publicly disclosed (let's say, in a specialized magazine) and people in the field either submit proof that it is either obvious or has prior art or accepts the patent as valid. Similar to what happens when one claims to have found a proof to some mathematical theorem. Not that I believe that it will happens someday, but a man can dream, can't he?
Competition from Joost? There is no such thing, nobody knew (or knows) what Joost it, while YouTube already hit the mainstream media.
The deal between Viacom and Joost is like when that beautiful cheerleader, after breaking up with the handsome quarterback, chases him and says "I'd rather to sleep with the first idiot that passes by me that going back to you". And picks up the first idiot that passes by her. And gives him a big sloppy kiss.
That "first idiot" is Joost. Everybody knows that Viacom end up ironing a deal with Google, and that they will be back in bed soon, so, no need to give him false hope.
I know this is Slashdot, but you guys are overreacting on this whole matter. Imagine it was not Wikipedia, but any other company, let's say, Canonical. Imagine there is this guy whose online curriculum says is a M.S. in Computer Science, Java Certified and whatnot. He finds and files a lot of bugs on Ubuntu, helps to create packages, contribute with code, and do such a great job that Canonical decides to hire him, just to discover that he is really only an undergraduated in C.S. Canonical hires him anyway.
Three questions: 1) Would it be the wrong decision? 2) Would your confidence on their product (Ubuntu) be diminished? 3) Would it make front page on Slashdot?
I really must be new here (I'm not), because this sounds more like British sensationalist tabloid-like journalism, that likes to blow things out of proportion. That, or there is some "vast conspiracy" involving other players that aims to take the place now occupied by Wikipedia. (Citizendium, maybe, who knows. Every article mentioning some wikipedia flaw is automatically followed by comments praising the virtues of Citizendium.)
It is relevant. The government is trying to sell this ID idea using the good old and worn out excuse of "curbing terrorism", but indeed, all the "allegedly" 9/11 terrorists had valid IDs. Despite of the fact of National IDs working in a lot of places (Europe and Brasil, from the top of my head), it doesn't really fits in the U.S. concepts of freedom.
Yeah, right. As if good old Red Book CDs weren't selling like cupcakes. Except for the most tech savvy share of the population, Joe Sixpack and Mary Housewife (the gross of the population) will not know/bother to "pirate" music (or movies, for all that matters). As one exec said in a previous article, "would daddy give his daughter The Little Mermaid on a DVD written with a Sharpie"?
Sell it for an affordable price and people will buy. Don't, and people won't buy (or "pirate"). Whoever is getting it for free will continue, regardless of DRM, as time has been proving repeatedly.
Because 1) It is not intelligent, brute force was never needed to bypass Windows Activation before 2) It is not subtle enough, and an operation this size would put a big bullseye on whoever did it 3) It is not profitable, people that run those botnets do it for profit, not to "stick it to the man", or to piss off Microsoft.
Free Software has nothing to do with communities, except for a certain correlation between success, popularity and Free (as in speech) development philosophy. Don't get the concepts mixed.
They don't own the expression more than you or I, but as they are its original coiner, I will bring the GNU definition of Free Software, as seen in their The Free Software Definition page:
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Nothing there mentions that the software *must* (or either should) be "developed in open source communities" (being the operative word there "developed").
I'm not disputing the benefits of a community-laden development, but only pointing that the concepts of Free Software, Open Source and community-based development are three different sets that share an intersection that, although very good for the whole "cause", cannot summarize adequately the entire concept.
And I can say is that Feisty is a big improvement over Edgy, both in hardware support and software "smoothness". It is a pity that Xorg 7.2 will not be ready for Feisty launch, but this is certainly a candidate to bring an alternative to Windows on the Desktop.
I think it means something like this
From TFA:
"But under the Advertising for Motor Vehicles Voluntary Code of Practice, fantasy cannot be used when it contradicts, circumvents or undermines the code."
So, this is what censorship is called down there nowadays? Voluntary code of practice? Everytime they bring this subject on Brasil, "media self-restraint", "voluntary code of practice", "independent content review" a cold chill travels through my spine, remembering the (NOT) good old times of censorship there.
Reverse engineering the eventual patch would be even easier than finding the key as they did, as all they would need to do is to look for the new key in the patch on in the relevant changed parts of the updated binaries.
If the idea is to "stick to the man", they are doing the right thing disclosing what is the player in question. But if the idea is to actually use they key, they should keep them in the dark and not to specify what player got corrupted, so the keymakers cannot revoke the key.
"The internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it"
From TFA: .NET framework. "
.Net or any other Microsoft born encumbrance.
"Novell Inc. sponsors Mono, which is an open-source development platform that aims to be compatible with Microsoft's
I'm not a fan of bringing Microsoft technology to the Free Software realm, not for purist reasons (although they are at least pertinent) but because, with this Novell-MS agreement in practice, it would not take a lot of effort for Microsoft to find a way to either forbid any non-Novell distros to use the technology or to wait and sue distros that include it (in case there is some patented technology included, mistakenly or purposely, and people know that, at least on U.S., everything is patentable, even the double click).
Furthermore, with Java becoming free as in free will, I don't see how free software benefits by having VB,