Like it or not, people are downloading and sharing against copyright all over. And there's no reason to support that. Why not? Today's copyright laws are insane. I'll happily support anyone who violates them by downloading and sharing data.
Except that no one would want to use a JavaScript-powered spreadsheet for anything more advanced that a few simple arithmetic formulas.
But sure, as an interchange format it would probably work. Everyone can get their hands on a free standards-compliant browser.
The nice thing about embedding video this way (and I don't think it's likely to change) is that your player can be independently specified/styled to match the experience that is your web site, and people aren't bitching about how "my web browser's video player sucks!" YouTube's video player sucks!
This is both funny and scary at the same time. If it happened anywhere except in the most powerful nation in the world it would only be funny.
I don't see how anyone who thinks it's a good idea to treat christianity as "science" and make policy based on it could complain about states that make policy from other religions, such as sharia law.
Unless Linux and other UNIXes are seriously simplified for new computer users, their market share will never really rise. Even us nerds have headaches trying to get simple hardware working, and most people I know had never even heard of Linux or any other UNIX variant (apart from, occasionally, Mac OS X) until I brought up the subject in conversation. There needs to be a serious publicity campaign around this issue. Why? Does it matter what other people use?
Of course a fork would mean that the oh great lords and owners of the source (Linus, Theo, Miguel, etc...) would be put aside and they could end as simple coders... Linus Torvalds has said many times that he thinks that forks are a good thing, and he don't mind Linux forks at all (although he'd of course want to merge back any good ideas and good code from them). Theo de Raadt started OpenBSD himself as a fork of NetBSD (the entire *BSD family is a tree of forks originating from the original Berkeley software).
People in these positions in the free software world have usually thought enough about "free software" to understand that forking is very seldom bad, most of the time harmless, and sometimes very good.
Re:Do fancy locks attract thieves?
on
Spying On Tor
·
· Score: 1
Or maybe because it's easy. Setting up an exit node and snooping on the unencrypted data coming through requires a lot less work than listening in on normal internet traffic.
Say what you will, but this license is bad news. It's not news. The Affero GPL has existed since 2002, this is just an update to fit the language of the new version of the GPL.
I don't know much about Windows Vista - I have never used it, I have never seen anyone use it, I have barely read about it. And yet, because of Microsoft's patent trolling, ballot stuffing and general misbehaving I can't help enjoying this type of reports.
Hell, how many of you have used our resources such as financial aid? It would be nice to give back by defending your nations freedoms. If you receive financial aid, wouldn't it make more sense to give it back by paying taxes?
I STRONGLY believe in something the Germans currently do, where (and I may be wrong about the specifics) once you're like 18 you must do a couple years in either the military OR the civil service. Manditory. That would definitely build some national pride and respect. It doesn't, it just builds more resentment towards the state that forces you to sacrifice a year of your life that you could have spent working or in college. I know, I'm from one of those countries.
Printers, scanners, cameras, and other USB imaging devices are handled entirely in user space, apart from the kernel calls that libusb makes. Is this something new? I know I've seen a number of webcam kernel modules that create v4l device files.
Seconded. The Nobel Prize in Economics is NOT a real Nobel, and is awarded by the socialist Swedish central bank. Their awards are biased.
Honestly any economist who doesn't recognize the value of creating and protecting intellectual property rights in an information economy is a POORLY trained economist. Hernando de Soto has pegged a lack of real property rights as the primary issue that prevents wealth from being created in the third world (agricultural economies).
You do realise that property rights have absolutely nothing to do with "intellectual property"? One says that you are not allowed to steal other people's things, the other says that you are not allowed to create certain things if someone else created it first. Property rights is a rather obvious concept derived from the simple fact that if you take something from someone else, they lose it. "Intellectual property" is a government-sanctioned privately owned monopoly that prevents other people from creating something identical to what you have, or in some cases even just slightly similar.
As government-awarded private monopolies, "intellectual properties" are artificial barriers for the free market and thus you can certainly be opposed to them without being a "socialist".
That said, I doubt the Bank of Sweden knew about Maskin's patent critique, or if they did, that they cared about it. They gave him a prize for some neat theoretical work.
There is no such thing as a "Nobel Prize for Economics". There is the "Bank of Sweden Prize in the memory of Alfred Nobel". Nobel himself would never have testamented funds to something as uncool as an economics prize.
Really, they should just give the domain name back. It's not theirs.
What do you mean "it's not theirs"? If they've registered it and paid for it (or if someone else has and then transferred it to them), it is theirs. It may have belonged to the owners of ifpi.org at some point but if they have let it lapse it is up for grabs.
Is it the fact that the domain contains the text "IFPI", which among other things is an abbreviation for "International Federation of the Phonographic Industry", that bothers you? Are you aware of the fact that there are many, many organisations and persons that share names?
There is a company whose name is the same as my last name. They own that domain under virtually every TLD. I was a bit annoyed when I found out since I would have liked to register one of those domains myself. Do you think that they should give one of their domains to me, since it is mine? Or, if I had managed to register it first, should I have given it to them since it was not mine?
If I was trying to better a competitor/critic, I would want to do it the big way; not peity tactics. Censoring there views is not the way to go...
I don't even understand what you mean by this. Who is censoring anything?
Patent offices don't mind "administrative workload" at all. The more patents they grant, the more fees they get for their own financing. This is one of many things that are broken with today's patent systems - patent offices have an incentive to grant as many patents as possible instead of actually checking for things like obviousness and prior art.
Internet and mobile phone voting in the EU, where the data retention directive will soon be implemented in every member state allowing unprecedented charting and tracing of everyone's internet and phone communications? No thank you. I'll step behind the curtain in the ballot office, put my vote in the anonymous envelope and watch the people behind the desk drop it in the box, just like in all previous elections.
Any election method where the vote can't be guaranteed to be secret (because you are allowed to vote somewhere where someone can force you to let him watch you do it) or anonymous (because mobile phones and internet connections can not be trusted) is open to abuse.
Why? The defendant used the software without complying with the GPL. The only way they could have done that legally would have been to buy a non-GPL licence from the copyright owners. But they didn't, so the copyright owners didn't get any money. Wouldn't that consitute "damages"?
If the copyright owners are unwilling to sell non-GPL licences that would just drive the price (and the damages) higher.
The "or later" clause only makes sense if the "or later" version is _less_ restrictive, in which case a distributor can point to that clause and the newer, less restrictive version of the GPL as a defense if accused of copyright infringement. No, the "or later" is important regardless of whether later versions are more or less restrictive. If a piece of code is distributed under "GPL version 2 or, at your option, any later version", you can use parts of it in your own program that you distribute under GPL version 3 or later. You could not do this if the code you wanted to use was licensed under GPL version 2 only.
Oh dear! Another rift in the community, etc. Really, how many articles of this type have been posted to Slashdot in the last few weeks?
And the statement "Just 6 percent of developers working with open-source software have adopted the new GNU General Public License version 3" is obviously false, since the vast majority of GPL-licensed software have copyright notices that say that the software is available "under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" - which includes GPL version 3.
What is this "Evans Data Corporation"? It would be interesting to see any other press releases they have written.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that no one would want to use a JavaScript-powered spreadsheet for anything more advanced that a few simple arithmetic formulas. But sure, as an interchange format it would probably work. Everyone can get their hands on a free standards-compliant browser.
This is both funny and scary at the same time. If it happened anywhere except in the most powerful nation in the world it would only be funny.
I don't see how anyone who thinks it's a good idea to treat christianity as "science" and make policy based on it could complain about states that make policy from other religions, such as sharia law.
More like "nowhere good enough", unless you're OK with ending up one kilometer from where you wanted to go.
If NASA aren't planning to get there until 2031 I can almost guarantee that they wont get there first.
Why do people who are old enough to read Slashdot still play computer games?
Or maybe because it's easy. Setting up an exit node and snooping on the unencrypted data coming through requires a lot less work than listening in on normal internet traffic.
I don't know much about Windows Vista - I have never used it, I have never seen anyone use it, I have barely read about it. And yet, because of Microsoft's patent trolling, ballot stuffing and general misbehaving I can't help enjoying this type of reports.
The Daily Show is news satire. It's relevant for about one or two weeks. Why would anyone want to watch 8 year old episodes?
Seconded. The Nobel Prize in Economics is NOT a real Nobel, and is awarded by the socialist Swedish central bank. Their awards are biased.
Honestly any economist who doesn't recognize the value of creating and protecting intellectual property rights in an information economy is a POORLY trained economist. Hernando de Soto has pegged a lack of real property rights as the primary issue that prevents wealth from being created in the third world (agricultural economies).
You do realise that property rights have absolutely nothing to do with "intellectual property"? One says that you are not allowed to steal other people's things, the other says that you are not allowed to create certain things if someone else created it first. Property rights is a rather obvious concept derived from the simple fact that if you take something from someone else, they lose it. "Intellectual property" is a government-sanctioned privately owned monopoly that prevents other people from creating something identical to what you have, or in some cases even just slightly similar.
As government-awarded private monopolies, "intellectual properties" are artificial barriers for the free market and thus you can certainly be opposed to them without being a "socialist".
That said, I doubt the Bank of Sweden knew about Maskin's patent critique, or if they did, that they cared about it. They gave him a prize for some neat theoretical work.
There is no such thing as a "Nobel Prize for Economics". There is the "Bank of Sweden Prize in the memory of Alfred Nobel". Nobel himself would never have testamented funds to something as uncool as an economics prize.
What do you mean "it's not theirs"? If they've registered it and paid for it (or if someone else has and then transferred it to them), it is theirs. It may have belonged to the owners of ifpi.org at some point but if they have let it lapse it is up for grabs.
Is it the fact that the domain contains the text "IFPI", which among other things is an abbreviation for "International Federation of the Phonographic Industry", that bothers you? Are you aware of the fact that there are many, many organisations and persons that share names?
There is a company whose name is the same as my last name. They own that domain under virtually every TLD. I was a bit annoyed when I found out since I would have liked to register one of those domains myself. Do you think that they should give one of their domains to me, since it is mine? Or, if I had managed to register it first, should I have given it to them since it was not mine?
If I was trying to better a competitor/critic, I would want to do it the big way; not peity tactics. Censoring there views is not the way to go...I don't even understand what you mean by this. Who is censoring anything?
Patent offices don't mind "administrative workload" at all. The more patents they grant, the more fees they get for their own financing. This is one of many things that are broken with today's patent systems - patent offices have an incentive to grant as many patents as possible instead of actually checking for things like obviousness and prior art.
Isn't this the same thing as greylisting?
Internet and mobile phone voting in the EU, where the data retention directive will soon be implemented in every member state allowing unprecedented charting and tracing of everyone's internet and phone communications? No thank you. I'll step behind the curtain in the ballot office, put my vote in the anonymous envelope and watch the people behind the desk drop it in the box, just like in all previous elections.
Any election method where the vote can't be guaranteed to be secret (because you are allowed to vote somewhere where someone can force you to let him watch you do it) or anonymous (because mobile phones and internet connections can not be trusted) is open to abuse.
Why? The defendant used the software without complying with the GPL. The only way they could have done that legally would have been to buy a non-GPL licence from the copyright owners. But they didn't, so the copyright owners didn't get any money. Wouldn't that consitute "damages"?
If the copyright owners are unwilling to sell non-GPL licences that would just drive the price (and the damages) higher.
Oh dear! Another rift in the community, etc. Really, how many articles of this type have been posted to Slashdot in the last few weeks?
And the statement "Just 6 percent of developers working with open-source software have adopted the new GNU General Public License version 3" is obviously false, since the vast majority of GPL-licensed software have copyright notices that say that the software is available "under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" - which includes GPL version 3.
What is this "Evans Data Corporation"? It would be interesting to see any other press releases they have written.