The author doesn't seem to know about http://pump.io/ which is the successor to StatusNet (now GNU Social).
Evan's doing good work, and it's already used by several interesting personalities (joeyh from Debian/git-annex fame, Bradley Kuhn who's fighting the good GPL fight, and many others).
It's easy to try... there's already many many hosts and you can try one at: http://pump.io/tryit
f-droid.org is an alternative to Google Play that's full of open source Android software, pre-built from the source. It's like the debian of the Android world.
I use it on all of my devices, both those with Google Play and those without.
It took years to get well-validated HTML & CSS... though I hope things have improved, I wouldn't expect improvements until it's beyond embarrassingly late.
Missed the sub-100's by a bit, myself. It took me a while to realize that logins were possible (or useful). At the time, the comments weren't even close to the most interesting part of the site.
Your conditions are not complete: you must also allow for browsers that do not provide a REFERER. The browser 'links' for instance (which DOES provide image downloading by simply pressing 'ENTER' on an image link) does not provide REFERER for privacy reasons. Junkbuster can also be set up in a similar manner.
Preventing linking from REFERERs that are not yours, and not empty, will have the same discouraging effect on the linkers, without blocking valid users of your site.
You can do this without mod_rewrite, as shown on the apache web site: Environment Variables (at the bottom).
Now, my intellectual property is protected in the event that a company comes along, takes
my source code and makes minor modifications and then sells it for $250 a piece.
A company is perfectly allowed to do that under the GPL. They just have to share their modification. Money isn't the problem, it's the freedom.
Also, if you GPL a word processor you will almost definitely be able to sell thousands of copies, as Emacs has currently sold probably millions of copies despite the fact that many people can (and do) distribute it for free.
Your last paragraph supports these facts, but your preceding ones ignore it.
Unlike almost everyone else who responded with the same obvious info (you'll lose quality), I'll actually provide you with something to help:
Files to batch convert mp3 to ogg using vorbize (originally written by Kenneth C. Arnold). These require minor modifications to use oggenc instead of Kenneth's Vorbize, but the basics are there.
If your needs run mainly to general office apps, such as word processing and spreadsheets, however, the 531DX should do a good job for you. You might even consider slaving one to your main hard drive and dedicating it to holding your MP3 music files.
Yeah, sure. If I had to pick one of a) my root filesystem, b) my/home drive, or c) my MP3 collection to save when the shit hit the fan, it sure as heck wouldn't be c).
First, your home is definitely not the most private place possible. That much should be obvious.
Second, I don't expect everyone to read the source code, but it is too easy to hide things if there isn't at least the option of doing so. Allowing others to see the source that they're using is more analogous to walking around with hands in sight vs stuffing them into pockets. It's not guaranteed that the person with their hands in their pockets is holding a gun (nor is it guaranteed that person with hands exposed isn't), but the likelihood is much greater.
The only way that I would know the Linux kernel doesn't violate my privacy is by examining it and compiling it myself. Something that is easily done. I don't have to trust anyone on that score. I choose to trust the developers for the most part (though I have poked around). The point is that I can make an informed choice about trust. In the case of non-free software, if I don't trust the author (and in this case, I don't), my only option is to not use the software. They have no way of building a trust relationship with me.
I don't understand why the need to say "which I assume you're running, you must be 1337". I do run the Linux kernel, and the Hurd kernel, and occasionally the FreeBSD kernel. I don't consider myself "1337". Must you bring up script-kiddie speak in order to avoid the issue?
Your antics in attempting to change this from a logical discussion to an emotional response are discouraging. You don't quite prove the rule, but you do come close...
The "giving up of privacy" is in the running of a browser where you can't see what it's doing behind the scenes. Does the Realplayer fiasco mean anything to you? Granted: Ads themselves don't mean an invasion of privacy... however tracking what a person does online or worse, potentially sending keystrokes and passwords to uninteded recipients (an easy task with a browser where you can't see and compile the source yourself) is definitely giving up your privacy.
It's all a matter of how much you trust this company and the software they're giving you. Personally, I'm a bit paranoid so I don't trust any of them to do the right thing, and hence I'll be sticking with Mozilla or Dillo or Konquerer for now.
What I'd like to see is a really modular printer. That is, one that I would never have to turf completely. If I could buy replacement mechanisms to increase speed, dpi, interface (move to USB or Firewire or whatever-else-may-com) or deal with different styles of ink cartridges (as technology improves there), and not have to do a complete replacement, I'd be supremely happy. Also, there would be less of an environmental impact which would be much nicer in the long run.
Yeah, and the kicker was that with the ICON2's doing DOS emulation, a Ctrl-Z at the right time would kick you out to a QNX command prompt with fairly high priveledges. Resulted in my first attempts at cracking (or at least it exercised my exploratory nature).
Re:heh. Silly rabbit, don't you know HURD is for..
on
HURD For 'Big Iron'?
·
· Score: 2
Alright. Normally I don't respond to posts like this that simply don't understand what GNU is really about, but the fact that this gets a (4, Funny) shows that those doing moderation don't understand it either.
RMS (and the FSF) do not forbid making a profit. They encourage it. Check out this philosophy page for more information.
Two other issues here: "pirate" is really the wrong word to use in almost every instance. Try "unauthorized sharing". And having source but only being allowed to write a patch for it severely stunts software development. That's why Minix didn't fly, but Linux (as a kernel) did.
One of the few things here that was almost correct: nobody has a right to make a profit by restricting others. In any way.
There's "funny 'cause it's true" but this post is only funny if you believe a (rather common) misconception.
I am well aware that words (in the English language at least) can have multiple meanings. However, when constructing an argument the use of ambiguous terms is very poor, especially when there are better options are immediately available. I still say that using the term "Unauthorized sharing" is better as it has only one meaning, and less emotional content, than the term "piracy".
You may want to review the GNU Philosophy pages. Important to note here is that you are confusing (whether or not it's intentional, I cannot say), the concept of illegally copying a work with kidnap and murder. If you must call it something, try "unauthorized sharing".
That's more accurate and is less likely to be the basis of an emotional, rather than logical, argument.
The folks at the RIAA do know what they're doing, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right. They have not proven that Napster harms the artist. They say:
All copies are made by anonymous Napster users whose identities are protected by Napster, of innumerable works that Napster cannot (by design) identify. Copyright owners can never get back what they will have lost.
What the RIAA fail to note, however, is what the Copyright owners have gained. They have gained mindshare. They have gained fans. They have gained ticket sales and t-shirt sales, and yes, even CD sales through this added publicity. What they have lost is a presumed notion (maximum long term value? What the heck do they mean by that?), what they have gained can be easily quantified. Just count the number of downloads... each of those is a new listener.
Copyright is important, but most important is that the purpose to which copyright is put should be agreed upon. The GPL makes a perfect use of Copyright in order to force a particular work to remain free and allow sharing. This is a good use of a currently half-broken system. Using copyright as a reason to prevent people from sharing anything without paying a sum (any sum) to a large organization is not a good use of the system.
From my understanding (by no means complete), Copyright was created as a method to allow a creator to benefit from their work without being abused by various unscrupulous publishers. If that is the case, then it is not achieving that goal. In this case, it's being used by the (often unscrupulous) publishers to abuse the recipients of the work (that's us, the fans), forcing them at the same time to pay homage. If you really think this is right, then by all means stand up for the RIAA. If you think that creation, creativity, and sharing are more important than corporate profit, then seek action to correct the current copyright system. Become as informed as possible. Put in your voice and let those who make these decisions know what is right, and what you want them to do about it. You have the power to change things for better or for worse.
I hope you decide to change it for the better, or get the heck out of the way because a minor revolution is coming and if you stand for the wrong side you may just get trampled on.
Not completely true, you allowed to charge money for as much as it takes for the media (last time I checked)
This is false. The original poster is correct. You can refuse to give the software to anyone until they pay whatever sum you demand. Your second portion is correct, though:
but if you distribute you must make the source code available.
Whoever you decide to distribute to has full rights to distribute to whomever they want (potentially without charging) without giving a royalty to you and you must make the source code available to them for no charge. If they distribute, then they must (independantly!) make the source code available for no charge as well (a link to the original's web page is not sufficient).
but when you're used to professional concerts (think violent femmes, rusted root, etc) you get in a "don't risk it" attitude
Surely you don't anticipate getting professional concert quality out of an MP3? For most ears (not all, I know), an unbalanced, unshielded line running less than 30 meters will sound the same as "a pair of line balancers or passive direct boxes connected with XLR".
You make the common assumption (with debatable validity) that innovation will not occur without the ability to "benefit from that money without fear of it being stolen". On the other hand, I believe that innovation can and does occur (sometimes at great expense, and sometimes not) without fear nor worry that the fruits of that labour will not furnish the creator with vast amounts of monetary return.
Perhaps CmdrTaco should shut down all other similar Weblogs due to their infringement on his novel combination of News distribution, comment tracking, Moderation, and the hundred other ideas that have snuck in to Slashdot. That would not be very prudent, though, since the sharing of the concept brings about a wider range of ideas in the individual implementation that will thus spur more ideas and more, some good, some bad, but with more change than would be possible should there only ever be one allowed. Somehow he (and others who work on Slashdot) still make enough money to survive and maintain a good degree of influence. Without fighting.
I think that you are right in asserting that your society is thus based around the ultra-capitalist ideal of bettering yourself by gaining money and influence at the expense of others. Remember, though, that a society is what its members make it. As you appear to feel that it is right for Apple (or any other company which values its "IP" more than it values the betterment of themselves and others) to restrict the freedom of others to take a good idea and share it with others, it seems that you fit well within your described society.
Your society, however, is not mine and as such (from my third-party viewpoint) I find that your "anti-bodies" in the form of patents are not necessary for a healthy organism, but are instead a hinderence to it. That really hinges on the differences between our views of healthy, I suppose. If by healthy you mean "companies with lots of power, money, and influence get to keep others from directly benefitting from their ideas in ways that do not make them even more rich and powerful", then yes, I suppose you are living in a "healthy" society. To me, though, healthy is a society where people contribute and share their ideas and work in a fashion agreeable to the most possible involved.
A good example is the Free Software movement. Very few people are unhappy in the Free Software realm. Many people are unhappy in the Proprietary software (and now, apparantly, the proprietary computer case design) realm. I just want for myself and those around me to be as happy as possible.
The Linux community has earned a reputation of not being willing to pay for anything.
The Linux community has earned a reputation for paying for distribution CD's, or games from Loki, or things that follow the moral imperitive behind the Free Software movement (that is, software that isn't treated as chairs) depending on the person.
The Linux market for things like this is sufficiently small that the companies figure that it's not worth spending the money to make sure that it works under Linux.
The market for things like this is several million of the geekiest people on the earth. People nearly guaranteed to buy this stuff up (as long as it meets their requirements ethically as well as practically). In terms of hardware, it is always in the best interests of those "companies" you speak of to make sure that it works under a range of Operating Systems.
They don't sit around and say, "Yeah! Let's shut out all those Linux/Amiga/Etc. users, we don't want them watching our movies," they just don't yet see a business advantage in doing so.
They most likely don't actively attempt to hurt us. But they also don't actively help us (even with a lot of pleading). Which can be almost as frustrating.
1. Start an Install of RedHat 6.0 2. Select "Custom Install" 3. Deselect EVERY package 4. Try to install to a 130 MB hard drive.
Good luck. I installed Debian instead. RedHat just doesn't have the ability to fine-tune the installation enough. What they consider "minimum" is *no where close* to what I consider minimum.
'h','j','k,'l' would be very, very unhandy on a Dvorak.
Actually, they're not that bad. j is c on qwerty, k is v, h is j, and l is p. So down/up is c/v (right close together, pretty handy), j is for left, and p is for right (index finger left, pinky finger (albeit up a row) to the right).
I still use vi all the time. And EMACS. (Ctrl-X Ctrl-C isn't quite as convenient, as it's now a two hander). But do what's best for you.
``Size isn't everything; but if you can have both size and relevancy, then you are able to please all types of users''
It's fast, but I found that it's relevance (and coverage) leaves a lot to be desired. It really pales in comparison to something like www.google.com or www.altavista.com. The similarities in setup to the latter are interesting as well (is it going to be a theme that hardware companies showcase their talents using search engines?).
As soon as they get much closer to their "all the web" idea, I'll take another look. But for now my default engines will stay.
Nor has one ever occurred in Canada, even though Canadian kids watch almost the same media as American kids, and use the Net in even greater numbers.
A schoolyard massacre did happen in Canada: the "Montreal Massacre" took the lives of 14 students, all women (though there was no references at the time to the Internet). Here's a link.
Slashdot Mirror
The author doesn't seem to know about http://pump.io/ which is the successor to StatusNet (now GNU Social).
Evan's doing good work, and it's already used by several interesting personalities (joeyh from Debian/git-annex fame, Bradley Kuhn who's fighting the good GPL fight, and many others).
It's easy to try... there's already many many hosts and you can try one at: http://pump.io/tryit
f-droid.org is an alternative to Google Play that's full of open source Android software, pre-built from the source. It's like the debian of the Android world.
I use it on all of my devices, both those with Google Play and those without.
It took years to get well-validated HTML & CSS... though I hope things have improved, I wouldn't expect improvements until it's beyond embarrassingly late.
Missed the sub-100's by a bit, myself. It took me a while to realize that logins were possible (or useful). At the time, the comments weren't even close to the most interesting part of the site.
Haskell.
Your conditions are not complete: you must also allow for browsers that do not provide a REFERER. The browser 'links' for instance (which DOES provide image downloading by simply pressing 'ENTER' on an image link) does not provide REFERER for privacy reasons. Junkbuster can also be set up in a similar manner.
Preventing linking from REFERERs that are not yours, and not empty, will have the same discouraging effect on the linkers, without blocking valid users of your site.
You can do this without mod_rewrite, as shown on the apache web site: Environment Variables (at the bottom).
A company is perfectly allowed to do that under the GPL. They just have to share their modification. Money isn't the problem, it's the freedom.
Also, if you GPL a word processor you will almost definitely be able to sell thousands of copies, as Emacs has currently sold probably millions of copies despite the fact that many people can (and do) distribute it for free.
Your last paragraph supports these facts, but your preceding ones ignore it.
Unlike almost everyone else who responded with the same obvious info (you'll lose quality), I'll actually provide you with something to help: Files to batch convert mp3 to ogg using vorbize (originally written by Kenneth C. Arnold). These require minor modifications to use oggenc instead of Kenneth's Vorbize, but the basics are there.
----------Yeah, sure. If I had to pick one of a) my root filesystem, b) my /home drive, or c) my MP3 collection to save when the shit hit the fan, it sure as heck wouldn't be c).
----------
Second, I don't expect everyone to read the source code, but it is too easy to hide things if there isn't at least the option of doing so. Allowing others to see the source that they're using is more analogous to walking around with hands in sight vs stuffing them into pockets. It's not guaranteed that the person with their hands in their pockets is holding a gun (nor is it guaranteed that person with hands exposed isn't), but the likelihood is much greater.
The only way that I would know the Linux kernel doesn't violate my privacy is by examining it and compiling it myself. Something that is easily done. I don't have to trust anyone on that score. I choose to trust the developers for the most part (though I have poked around). The point is that I can make an informed choice about trust. In the case of non-free software, if I don't trust the author (and in this case, I don't), my only option is to not use the software. They have no way of building a trust relationship with me.
I don't understand why the need to say "which I assume you're running, you must be 1337". I do run the Linux kernel, and the Hurd kernel, and occasionally the FreeBSD kernel. I don't consider myself "1337". Must you bring up script-kiddie speak in order to avoid the issue? Your antics in attempting to change this from a logical discussion to an emotional response are discouraging. You don't quite prove the rule, but you do come close...
It's all a matter of how much you trust this company and the software they're giving you. Personally, I'm a bit paranoid so I don't trust any of them to do the right thing, and hence I'll be sticking with Mozilla or Dillo or Konquerer for now.
What I'd like to see is a really modular printer. That is, one that I would never have to turf completely. If I could buy replacement mechanisms to increase speed, dpi, interface (move to USB or Firewire or whatever-else-may-com) or deal with different styles of ink cartridges (as technology improves there), and not have to do a complete replacement, I'd be supremely happy. Also, there would be less of an environmental impact which would be much nicer in the long run.
Yeah, and the kicker was that with the ICON2's doing DOS emulation, a Ctrl-Z at the right time would kick you out to a QNX command prompt with fairly high priveledges. Resulted in my first attempts at cracking (or at least it exercised my exploratory nature).
RMS (and the FSF) do not forbid making a profit. They encourage it. Check out this philosophy page for more information.
Two other issues here: "pirate" is really the wrong word to use in almost every instance. Try "unauthorized sharing". And having source but only being allowed to write a patch for it severely stunts software development. That's why Minix didn't fly, but Linux (as a kernel) did.
One of the few things here that was almost correct: nobody has a right to make a profit by restricting others. In any way.
There's "funny 'cause it's true" but this post is only funny if you believe a (rather common) misconception.
That's more accurate and is less likely to be the basis of an emotional, rather than logical, argument.
Copyright is important, but most important is that the purpose to which copyright is put should be agreed upon. The GPL makes a perfect use of Copyright in order to force a particular work to remain free and allow sharing. This is a good use of a currently half-broken system. Using copyright as a reason to prevent people from sharing anything without paying a sum (any sum) to a large organization is not a good use of the system.
From my understanding (by no means complete), Copyright was created as a method to allow a creator to benefit from their work without being abused by various unscrupulous publishers. If that is the case, then it is not achieving that goal. In this case, it's being used by the (often unscrupulous) publishers to abuse the recipients of the work (that's us, the fans), forcing them at the same time to pay homage. If you really think this is right, then by all means stand up for the RIAA. If you think that creation, creativity, and sharing are more important than corporate profit, then seek action to correct the current copyright system. Become as informed as possible. Put in your voice and let those who make these decisions know what is right, and what you want them to do about it. You have the power to change things for better or for worse.
I hope you decide to change it for the better, or get the heck out of the way because a minor revolution is coming and if you stand for the wrong side you may just get trampled on.
This is false. The original poster is correct. You can refuse to give the software to anyone until they pay whatever sum you demand. Your second portion is correct, though:
but if you distribute you must make the source code available.
Whoever you decide to distribute to has full rights to distribute to whomever they want (potentially without charging) without giving a royalty to you and you must make the source code available to them for no charge. If they distribute, then they must (independantly!) make the source code available for no charge as well (a link to the original's web page is not sufficient).
Surely you don't anticipate getting professional concert quality out of an MP3? For most ears (not all, I know), an unbalanced, unshielded line running less than 30 meters will sound the same as "a pair of line balancers or passive direct boxes connected with XLR".
Perhaps CmdrTaco should shut down all other similar Weblogs due to their infringement on his novel combination of News distribution, comment tracking, Moderation, and the hundred other ideas that have snuck in to Slashdot. That would not be very prudent, though, since the sharing of the concept brings about a wider range of ideas in the individual implementation that will thus spur more ideas and more, some good, some bad, but with more change than would be possible should there only ever be one allowed. Somehow he (and others who work on Slashdot) still make enough money to survive and maintain a good degree of influence. Without fighting.
I think that you are right in asserting that your society is thus based around the ultra-capitalist ideal of bettering yourself by gaining money and influence at the expense of others. Remember, though, that a society is what its members make it. As you appear to feel that it is right for Apple (or any other company which values its "IP" more than it values the betterment of themselves and others) to restrict the freedom of others to take a good idea and share it with others, it seems that you fit well within your described society.
Your society, however, is not mine and as such (from my third-party viewpoint) I find that your "anti-bodies" in the form of patents are not necessary for a healthy organism, but are instead a hinderence to it. That really hinges on the differences between our views of healthy, I suppose. If by healthy you mean "companies with lots of power, money, and influence get to keep others from directly benefitting from their ideas in ways that do not make them even more rich and powerful", then yes, I suppose you are living in a "healthy" society. To me, though, healthy is a society where people contribute and share their ideas and work in a fashion agreeable to the most possible involved.
A good example is the Free Software movement. Very few people are unhappy in the Free Software realm. Many people are unhappy in the Proprietary software (and now, apparantly, the proprietary computer case design) realm. I just want for myself and those around me to be as happy as possible.
The Linux community has earned a reputation for paying for distribution CD's, or games from Loki, or things that follow the moral imperitive behind the Free Software movement (that is, software that isn't treated as chairs) depending on the person.
The Linux market for things like this is sufficiently small that the companies figure that it's not worth spending the money to make sure that it works under Linux.
The market for things like this is several million of the geekiest people on the earth. People nearly guaranteed to buy this stuff up (as long as it meets their requirements ethically as well as practically). In terms of hardware, it is always in the best interests of those "companies" you speak of to make sure that it works under a range of Operating Systems.
They don't sit around and say, "Yeah! Let's shut out all those Linux/Amiga/Etc. users, we don't want them watching our movies," they just don't yet see a business advantage in doing so.
They most likely don't actively attempt to hurt us. But they also don't actively help us (even with a lot of pleading). Which can be almost as frustrating.
1. Start an Install of RedHat 6.0
2. Select "Custom Install"
3. Deselect EVERY package
4. Try to install to a 130 MB hard drive.
Good luck. I installed Debian instead. RedHat just doesn't have the ability to fine-tune the installation enough. What they consider "minimum" is *no where close* to what I consider minimum.
I still use vi all the time. And EMACS. (Ctrl-X Ctrl-C isn't quite as convenient, as it's now a two hander). But do what's best for you.
As soon as they get much closer to their "all the web" idea, I'll take another look. But for now my default engines will stay.